transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:14] From New York, this is Democracy Now!

Speaker 2:
[00:17] Well, it's certainly gratifying that so many Democrats have come out against Trump's war on Iran. In many respects, the party's leadership has helped make it possible. Through congressional resolutions, public statements and party platforms, Democratic leaders have repeatedly issued exaggerated and alarmist statements about Iran's supposed danger to the region, threaten the use of military force, and undermine diplomatic initiatives, sometimes even criticizing Republicans from the right.

Speaker 1:
[00:44] As the war on Iran enters its 55th day and the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz intensifies, we'll speak to University of San Francisco professor Steven Zunas. He says Democratic lawmakers helped pave the way for the war on Iran. Plus we'll look at how the war could cause a global food crisis.

Speaker 3:
[01:03] The disruption of the Strait of Hormuz can push 45 million more people into hunger and starvation. So clearly we need to do something.

Speaker 1:
[01:17] Then are officials and staffers in the Trump administration directly profiting from the war? We'll look at how anonymous traders have made millions of dollars by placing well-timed bets on prediction markets just before President Trump announces major developments in the war. All that and more coming up. Welcome to Democracy Now, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Nermeen Shaikh. Officials in Iran say they've collected the first revenue from tolls imposed on ships transiting the Strait of Hormuz. Analysts say the tolls could generate up to $20 million in daily revenue for Iran from oil tankers alone. Meanwhile, the US. Navy says it's forced 31 vessels to turn back since President Trump ordered a blockade of Iranian ports on April 13th. It remains unclear when the US and Iran will hold a second round of talks in Pakistan. Iran's president, Masoud Pazeshkian, said three main obstacles are holding up negotiations. A breach of commitments by the US., the US naval blockade and US threats to Iran. In Washington, DC., the White House said President Trump has not set a deadline for Iran to submit a peace proposal. Press secretary Caroline Levitt spoke to reporters on Wednesday.

Speaker 4:
[02:38] We are completely strangling their economy through this blockade. They're losing $500 million a day. The Karag Island is completely full. They can't move oil in and out. They can't even pay their own people as a result of this economic leverage that President Trump has inflicted over them. So he's satisfied with that as we await their response.

Speaker 1:
[02:58] The Senate has rejected another bid to rein in President Trump's ability to use further military force against Iran, marking Democrats' fifth effort to do so since the war began on February 28th. On Wednesday, the Senate voted 46 to 51 to defeat the War Powers Resolution, with Senator Rand Paul the only Republican voting to advance the measure, and Senator John Fetterman, the lone Democrat in opposition. Three senators, Republican Chuck Grassley of Nebraska, Republican Dave McCormick of Pennsylvania, and Democrat Mark Warner of Virginia, did not vote. The resolution was sponsored by Democratic Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin. Under the War Powers Act, President Trump has until May 1st, 60 days since formally notifying Congress of the U.S.-Israeli War on Iran, to halt all military operations unless lawmakers vote to declare war or authorize the use of force against Iran. The Pentagon has announced that it's removed Secretary of the Navy, John Phelan, from his post, with no explanation given for his sudden departure. According to the Wall Street Journal, Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth fired Phelan after months of tension, reportedly in part because Phelan wasn't moving fast enough to build Trump's so-called golden fleet of new warships. Phelan's removal comes as the US. Navy blockades Iranian ports and is targeting ships linked to Tehran around the world. Phelan's departure comes just weeks after Defense Secretary Pete Hexeth pushed out Army Chief of Staff Randy George. Phelan was a major donor to President Trump with no prior military service. Since Trump's return to office, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Coast Guard Commandment and the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency have all been fired from their posts. In southern Lebanon, Israeli forces killed at least five people on Wednesday, despite the 10-day U.S.-brokered ceasefire that's supposed to remain in effect until Sunday. Among those killed was Lebanese journalist Amal Khalil, a correspondent for the daily newspaper Al-Akhbar. Lebanon's national news agency reports she was killed after an initial Israeli strike hit a car in the village of Attiri, killing two people before a follow-up strike targeted a building where Khalil and her colleague, photographer Zainab Faraj, had taken shelter. Lebanese officials said they were pursued by Israeli drones and that Israeli troops blocked medics from reaching the injured reporters for hours. Al Jazeera reports Khalil had previously received direct threats from an Israeli phone number on WhatsApp warning her to stop reporting. The Committee to Protect Journalists regional director Sara Qudah said, quote, The repeated strikes on the same location, the targeting of an area where journalists were sheltering, and the obstruction of medical and humanitarian access constitute a grave breach of international humanitarian law. Khalil's death is the latest in a series of Israeli attacks on journalists in southern Lebanon. Last month, three media workers were killed in a single Israeli strike. Meanwhile, Haaretz reports Israeli soldiers are looting property from homes and businesses in southern Lebanon, stealing motorcycles, televisions, paintings, sofas and rugs on a wide scale. A second round of US broker talks between Israel and Lebanon is set to take place in Washington today, though Hezbollah remains excluded from the negotiations. The FBI launched an investigation last month into New York Times reporter Elizabeth Williamson after she published a story revealing that FBI Director Kash Patel had assigned federal agents to provide round-the-clock security and personal transportation to his girlfriend, country singer Alexis Wilkins. According to the New York Times, FBI agents interviewed the girlfriend, queried databases for information on Williamson and recommended moving forward to determine whether she'd broken federal stalking laws. Justice Department officials reportedly ended the investigation after establishing there was no legal basis for it and after concluding the probe was retaliation for an article Patel didn't like. This comes as Patel is suing the Atlantic magazine for two hundred and fifty million dollars claiming defamation over an article that alleged he's abused alcohol while on the job. Patel responded to the Atlantic's reporting at the Justice Department on Wednesday.

Speaker 5:
[07:36] Can you say definitively that you have not been intoxicated or absent during your tenure as FBI director?

Speaker 6:
[07:43] I can say unequivocally that I never listen to the fake news mafia. And as when they get louder, it just means I'm doing my job.

Speaker 1:
[07:51] On Tuesday, a federal judge in Houston dismissed a lawsuit by Patel against former FBI official Frank Leone. He joked during an appearance on MS Now that Patel spent more time in nightclubs than at the Bureau's headquarters. Georgia Democratic Congress member David Scott died Wednesday at the age of 80, one day after casting his final vote from the House floor. Scott was the first black man to serve as chair of the House Agriculture Committee. He'd been seeking his 13th term in office despite concerns about his ailing health. He's the fifth member of the current Congress to die in office. His death leaves Democrats with 212 seats compared to 218 members of the Republican caucus. In West Virginia, two workers were killed and more than 30 people injured on Wednesday after hydrogen sulfide gas leaked at a metal refining plant outside Charleston. First responders who rushed to the scene found employees dragging co-workers out of the plant. Seven ambulance workers were among those injured. The industrial incident follows five previous workplace safety citations against plant operator Ames Goldsmith Corporation since 2018. A new report warns nearly half of all children across the United States are regularly exposed to dangerously high levels of toxic air pollution. The annual State of the Air Report by the American Lung Association released on Earth Day found more than 33 million children live in counties that received a failing grade on at least one of the ALA's measures of air pollution. Meanwhile, nearly 130 million people across the US were exposed to dangerous levels of ozone with communities of color disproportionately affected. Houston City Council voted Wednesday to gut an ordinance that had limited local police cooperation with federal immigration authorities after Texas Governor Greg Abbott threatened to revoke more than $114 million in public safety grants unless Mayor John Whitmire reversed the measure. Earlier this month, the council had approved an ordinance prohibiting officers from detaining people or prolonging traffic stops solely on the basis of civil immigration warrants issued by ICE. The amendment, passed Wednesday, removes a rule directing the police to wait 30 minutes for ICE agents during encounters and gives officers more leeway to extend detentions during stops. Dozens of people spoke out in opposition to the amendment during a City Council meeting on Tuesday. This is Norma Gonzalez, a community navigator at Booty Juntos.

Speaker 7:
[10:39] A traffic stop should be just that, a traffic stop. Instead, now police are contacting ICE. Other police departments do not do this. Why should they here in Houston? Since 2025, our Houston police has played sidekick with ICE over 100 times. This is not normal and our community can feel it. We are afraid to live, to drive and to call for help.

Speaker 1:
[11:06] A panel of federal appeals court judges has upheld a Texas law requiring the 10 commandments to be displayed in all public school classrooms. On Tuesday, the US. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 9 to 8 that the law does not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause over ruling two lower court decisions. Plaintiffs are planning to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. Tuesday's ruling came as President Donald Trump joined a Bible reading marathon being live streamed from the Museum of the Bible in Washington, DC and other locations. In a pre-recorded video, Trump read from a portion of the Old Testament popular among Christian nationalists. This comes after Trump clashed with Pope Leo over the Iran War and shared an AI image to social media depicting himself as Jesus Christ. Pope Leo has wrapped up his four-nation visit to Africa with a visit to Equatorial Guinea, the first visit to the West African nation by a pontiff since John Paul II in 1982. During his visit, Leo met with prisoners who've been held for years without access to lawyers, called out corruption in African governments, denounced wealth inequality, and criticized foreign exploitation of Africa's mineral wealth.

Speaker 8:
[12:30] One of the main drivers of the spread of armed conflicts is the colonization of oil and mineral deposits without regard for international law or the right of peoples to self-determination.

Speaker 1:
[12:42] And here in New York City, City Councilmember Chi Ose was released from NYPD custody on Wednesday after his violent arrest at a protest in support of a homeowner facing eviction. Ose said after his release he'd sought hospital treatment after officers slammed him to the ground and pressed his face to the concrete. Three others were arrested, including two who were also hospitalized. They'd gathered outside a residence in Brooklyn's Bed-Stuy neighborhood where city marshals were executing an eviction. Ose said the property owners were victims of deed theft, a process where investors take ownership of homes through fraud in rapidly gentrifying neighborhoods where property values are skyrocketing. New York Attorney General Letitia James said she's deeply disturbed by video of Ose's arrest. Meanwhile, Mayor Zohran Mamdani called the footage concerning Ose and said he was investigating. And a correction to one of our headlines. Senator Chuck Grassley represents the state of Iowa. And those are some of the headlines. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, the War and Peace Report. I'm Nermeen Shaikh. Amy Goodman will be broadcasting from Seattle tomorrow. We begin today's show on Iran as the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz intensifies. The US. Navy is continuing to blockade Iranian ports while Iran is preventing most ships from passing through the strait. On Wednesday, Iran seized two cargo ships. Iran has reportedly also begun collecting tolls from ships seeking to pass through the strait. It remains unclear when the US and Iran will hold another round of talks. Iran's president, Masoud Peseshkian, said three main obstacles are holding up negotiations — a breach of commitments by the US., the US naval blockade and US threats to Iran. Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the Republican-controlled Senate has rejected another effort by Democrats to pass a war power's resolution to rein in President Trump's ability to wage war on Iran. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, quote, Democrats will continue to force votes on war power's resolutions every week until Republicans decide to put the American people over Donald Trump and end this war. Our next guest has closely followed US policy on Iran for years. Steven Zunas is a professor of politics and director of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. His new piece for Truthout is titled, This Isn't Just Trump's War on Iran. Both Parties Paved the Way for Disaster. So welcome back to Democracy Now! Professor Zunas. If you could just begin by laying out your argument, how did the Democratic Party pave the way for this war on Iran?

Speaker 2:
[15:36] Well, to their credit, the Democrats have opposed this war, though largely on procedural grounds, the Constitution and the failure to account for the economic problems and the like. They have been pushing for war on one level or the other. Obama was an exception. Obama really tried to solve the crisis through the Iran nuclear deal, but hawks in the Democratic Party and in Congress and elsewhere have made a whole series of very confrontational statements exaggerating Iran's capabilities and the threat to give to the region, threatening military force, undermining diplomatic initiatives. Just for example, the 2024 Democratic Party platform attacked Trump from the right, accusing him of fecklessness and weakness in dealing with Iran. They pointed out four incidents under Trump's first term when US forces were attacked by pro-Iranian militia and criticizing him for not responding militarily, even though each of these incidents were a direct reaction to a provocation by the Trump administration. They contrasted that with Biden and his ordering airstrikes and the like. And also during the campaign, Harris was also saying Iran's the biggest threat in the world, you know, more so than nuclear-powered countries like Russia and North Korea, China. And also taking this very, you know, a tough line of a confrontational approach without talking about returning to the nuclear deal.

Speaker 1:
[17:12] Well, let's hear from some Democrats in their own words about Iran. This is Vice President, this is former Vice President Kamala Harris during her first debate with Donald Trump in September 2024.

Speaker 9:
[17:24] The one thing I will assure you always, I will always give Israel the ability to defend itself in particular as it relates to Iran and any threat that Iran and its proxies pose to Israel.

Speaker 1:
[17:38] In October 2024, Kamala Harris appeared on CBS 60 Minutes and was questioned by Bill Whittaker.

Speaker 10:
[17:46] Which foreign country do you consider to be our greatest adversary?

Speaker 9:
[17:50] I think there's an obvious one in mind, which is Iran. Iran has American blood on their hands. Okay? This attack on Israel, 200 ballistic missiles. What we need to do to ensure that Iran never achieves the ability to be a nuclear power, that is one of my highest priorities.

Speaker 10:
[18:13] So if you have proof that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, would you take military action?

Speaker 9:
[18:19] I'm not going to talk about hypotheticals at this moment.

Speaker 1:
[18:22] And as recently as last summer, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer criticized Trump for not being tough enough on Iran. In a video posted on social media, Schumer belittled reported Trump administration negotiation attempts with Iran and used the taco epithet, that is, Trump always chickens out.

Speaker 11:
[18:42] When it comes to negotiating with the terrorist government of Iran, Trump's all over the lot. One day he sounds tough, the next day he's backing off. And now, all of a sudden, we find out that Witkoff and Rubio are negotiating a secret side deal with Iran. What kind of bull is this? They're going to sound tough in public and then have a side deal that lets Iran get away with everything? That's outrageous. We need to make that side deal public. Any side deal should be before Congress and, most importantly, the American people. If TACO Trump is already folding, the American public should know about it. No side deals.

Speaker 1:
[19:18] So, Professor Zunas, your response to the comments we just played, and to what extent you think they're representative of the Democratic Party overall?

Speaker 2:
[19:30] Well, certainly Schumer and Jeffries are among the more hawkish members of the Democratic caucus. We've seen that regarding Israel and other issues. But we've also seen very one-sided resolutions passed by a number of Congresses with overwhelming Democratic support. We've seen Democratic Party planks that are really hawkish as well. Even in terms, I think of these 2016 Democratic platforms as we will not hesitate to use military force if Iran violates the agreement, even though there were already enforcement mechanisms within that agreement that would automatically put sanctions back in, even though it would take in years for Iran to rebuild their nuclear program. Similarly, in 2011, Congress passed, or the House passed a bill that fortunately did not pass the Senate because of constitutional questions and Obama administration opposition, that would have prohibited any representative of the US government from even meeting with any representative of Iran. The following year, there are a series of resolutions saying that we will not rely on containment towards the supposed Iranian threat. And again, these are passed by overwhelming bipartisan majorities, 90% of Democrats. And indeed, there's one that was supported by a resolution and supported by every Democratic senator that said if Israel feels compelled to use military action in its self-defense of Iran, we'll give them military and other support. In other words, not just if they're attacked by Iran, but if Israel, even if Israel attacks first.

Speaker 1:
[21:20] And, Professor Zunas, this House vote was considered a concurrent resolution. If you could explain what that means, and then also say what you expect to happen. You know, the federal law requires congressional approval for military actions extending beyond 60 days, and the war on Iran started on February 28th. So we are approaching that deadline.

Speaker 2:
[21:49] The War Powers Act was passed in 1973 in response to the Vietnam War. It had bipartisan support, in fact, to override President Nixon's veto. And basically what it did was underscored what is quite clear in the US. Constitution, that only Congress has the right to declare war or authorize military action. I mean, as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, the President has the power to defend the United States if attacked. I mean, back in the late 18th century, if Congress wasn't in session, so it would take weeks for people to get back to Washington. So they wanted to give the President the leverage to defend the country. But any offensive military action is quite clear. It was a congressional prerogative. In fact, the War Powers Resolution give us a President more power than the Constitution said because it gives them these 60 days. But the failure to enact it here is quite disturbing. Now again, to the Democrats' credit, they are united in large part in support of this. I'm not taking the argument in this article that both parties are the same. I don't think the Democratic President would have launched this war, if not for the moral or legal reasons, simply because they would have listened to the intelligence experts, the military leaders and others who said this is going to be a mess. It's not worth doing. But at the same time, the climate that the Democrats have helped lay in these 20 years of hawkish statements and resolutions and the like really made Trump's job easier and has enabled him to thus far get away with it.

Speaker 1:
[23:34] And if you could comment also, Professor Zunas, on the significance of 40 Senate Democrats voting last week to block weapons to Israel, 13 of those Senators voted to block weapons for the first time.

Speaker 2:
[23:50] This is significant and I think it reflects the power of the growing movement in the United States, not just the pro-Palestinian crowd, but those who just simply for basic human rights grounds do not want to give unconditional aid to a country that's engaged in massive war crimes in Gaza, in Lebanon, in the West Bank and elsewhere, not to mention of course this war with Iraq, because people like Schumer and those Democrats that vote against this resolution of disapproval, they can't say they oppose the war while at the same time providing Israel with unconditional offensive military aid. But in many ways this reflects what we've seen historically regarding Vietnam, regarding Central America, regarding South Africa, Iraq, etc. That the Democrats tend to start with a very hawkish position, but eventually they get pressure for their constituents, that where they get the message very clear, that if they want to be re-elected, if they want to have support, they're going to have to side with the anti-war majority and not for the administration's militaristic policies.

Speaker 1:
[25:03] And Professor Zunas, what about the Iran nuclear agreement, which of course was signed, formalized by the Obama administration? How many Democrats, in your view, now would support renewed— to go back, effectively, to the Iran nuclear deal?

Speaker 2:
[25:26] It's hard to say, because they have been talking about it. I mean, even—again, Schumer, Jeffreys and others who are opposing the war, they always say, oh, we will not— we should not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon, really underscoring that point. And questioning the military action, I had not heard them say, let's go back to the nuclear agreement, because not only would that make it physically impossible for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. While that was in effect, Iran was moderating its policies. It was not voting on these proxies in Iraq and elsewhere. They were not engaged in confrontational activities. Indeed, if you look at the whole history of US-Iranian relations since the revolution in 1979, when the United States has been more accommodating and more towards diplomacy, it's moderated Iran's overall foreign policy. When it's been confrontational, they've become more provocative and more militant. Similarly, with the domestic repression as well, when there has not been an active threat, there's been a little bit of a space opening, both for reformists within the system and people outside the system trying to change it. But when there's threats, when there's war, that's when some of the worst crackdowns have taken place. So, again, I am really perplexed about why we're not hearing a call for return to the agreement. It was not in the last two Democratic Party platforms, and we have not been hearing it from the halls of Congress.

Speaker 1:
[26:58] Professor Stephen Zunas, thank you so much for joining us, professor of politics and director of Middle Eastern studies at the University of San Francisco. We'll link to your new piece for Truthout titled, This Isn't Just Trump's War on Iran, Both Parties Paved the Way for Disaster. Coming up, we look at how the war on Iran could cause a global food crisis. Back in a minute. Come Down Here, Say That by Dear Hoof. This is Democracy Now, democracynow.org. I'm Nermeen Shaikh. We turn now to the risks of a global food and hunger crisis if the Strait of Hormuz remains closed to shipments of fertilizer, oil and natural gas. The Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, warned last week that a prolonged crisis in the strait could lead to a global food catastrophe due to rising oil prices and disruptions to the fertilizer supply chain. A top United Nations official echoed the FAO's warnings Wednesday, saying that the closure of the strait was creating a crisis in the agricultural industry in Asia and Africa. According to the FAO, India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Kenya and Egypt are among the countries most at risk from the strait remaining closed. Jorge Moreira da Silva, executive director of the UN Office for Project Services, said the UN has established a task force focused on fertilizers and supplies of raw materials in order to prevent a humanitarian crisis.

Speaker 3:
[29:32] The disruption of the strait of Hormuz can push 45 million more people into hunger and starvation. So, clearly, we need to do something. And that's why it's so important that the UN is ready through this mechanism.

Speaker 1:
[29:52] Before the war, one third of the global fertilizer trade, as well as roughly one quarter of crude oil and a fifth of liquefied natural gas, passed through the strait of Hormuz. But tanker traffic has essentially come to a standstill for nearly two months. For more, we're joined now by Adam Hanyay, who's been closely following this. His latest piece in the Financial Times has headlined The Coming Global Food Crisis. Adam Hanyay is director of the SOAS Middle East Institute at the University of London. And his most recent book is Crude Capitalism, Oil, Corporate Power and the Making of the World Market. He joins us now from Shanghai, China. Professor Hanyay, welcome back to Democracy Now! If you could just begin by laying out all the different factors leading to a possible global food crisis, the signs of which actually are evident already in several countries.

Speaker 12:
[30:52] Thank you, Nermeen. Yes, the article argues that we need to move away from just considering the Gulf as oil and gas producers and actually think very carefully about the ways that they have diversified down the value chain into things like fertilizers. As you pointed out, about a third of the world's basic fertilizers now pass through the Strait of Hormuz. And in some of these chemicals like urea and ammonia, the Gulf monarchies stand as some of the world's largest producers. So the closure of the transport through the Strait of Hormuz has really strangled the global supply of these key fertilizer inputs. It's not just a question of supply shortages, of course. We're actually seeing price rises accompany this process as well. So we see supply shortages of fertilizers, price rises of fertilizers as well, of course, price rises of basic energy, including gas and oil, which impact very deeply farmers and agricultural systems around the world. So this is, I think, as we've heard earlier, the Food and Agricultural Organization warning of the impact of this. And I think it is now that this real reality is actually becoming very clear.

Speaker 1:
[32:18] Professor Hania, the piece actually begins with laying out why it is that countries have become more dependent on the fossil fuel industry for the production of food. If you could explain what the Green Revolution did and how, over the decades, it's made fossil fuel so central to all kinds of agricultural production.

Speaker 12:
[32:45] Yes, the Green Revolution was an enormous transformation to agricultural production that took place in the post-war period, through the 1950s and 1960s in particular. Countries like India, Mexico and elsewhere were major epicenters of this revolution. And what it essentially did was it tied the introduction of new seed varieties to fossil fuel inputs, in particular, synthetic fertilizers, as well as pesticides, and of course, the mechanization of farm work itself, irrigation and so forth, that depended also on these, on fuel imports, fossil fuel inputs as well. So this kind of transformation brought with it enormous social and ecological costs that have been documented very well by those who study the green revolution. But it has done something actually much more fundamental, which is being illustrated in this current war, is that it tied our food systems to fossil fuel inputs. It really closely tied the way that we do agriculture with these basic fossil fuel chemicals as well as energy sources. So when we see a moment of crisis as we do today, that's when these links become so apparent.

Speaker 1:
[34:12] And you speak specifically in fact, in the piece about nitrogen fertilizer, I'm sorry, the most widely used of nitrogen fertilizer is urea. So where is this produced and where exported? And what's happening with its production and distribution now?

Speaker 12:
[34:32] Well, nitrogen fertilizers are very important to consider in this story because half of the world's food production depends upon this kind of fertilizers. We're talking here about things like urea and ammonia. These are the essential nitrogen fertilizers and the Gulf monarchies have become leading exporters of these fertilizers. So Saudi Arabia is the world's largest exporter of urea, for instance. Oman, another Gulf monarchy, is the fourth largest. So these chemicals, these nitrogen products are no longer being shipped through the Strait of Hormuz, from these countries. And this really does impact very dramatically the ability of countries like India, for instance, that depends very heavily. About three-quarters of India's ammonia exports, sorry, imports come from the Gulf region, for instance. 30 percent of Morocco's nitrogen imports, ammonia imports come from the Gulf. So these countries can become very heavily impacted when these supplies are cut.

Speaker 1:
[35:50] So let's go to what the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN is warning. The, Maximo Torrero, who is the chief economist of the FAO, spoke earlier this month about how the strait's continued closure could affect decisions made by farmers.

Speaker 13:
[36:09] As we move to April and we move to May especially, then there will be decisions made by farmers. And that will imply that they will choose to move towards producing with less inputs if the strait continues not to have mobility. It will imply that they will move to other commodities which they can fix more nitrogen, like for example move from wheat or maize to soybeans. And it will imply that they could allocate because they will allocate more of these resources to biofuels. That will restrict the capacity, the amount of supply of commodities of food. And of course that will start to increase prices. And you have to add to that the uncertainties. The more uncertainty we have over the next weeks, the more the transmission will move. And if that transmission keeps moving, we will have a period of higher food prices, commodity prices, and higher food inflation.

Speaker 1:
[37:02] So that's the FAO's chief economist, Professor Hania, if you could comment on what he said.

Speaker 12:
[37:10] I think it's really important to understand this coming food crisis as an intersection of multiple crises. We are of course, as we've just heard, going to see price rises in food and in fuel, but we are also experiencing the moment, the climate and debt crises in much of the global south. So it's a perfect storm, if you like, of this food, fuel, climate, and debt crises that are all very deeply connected to one another. In that sense, it's different from earlier food crises like the 2008 or 2022, the following Russia's invasion of the Ukraine. So you can take a country, for instance, like Sudan. Sudan is reliant upon the Gulf for more than 50 percent of its fertilizers, which is actually the most reliant of any country in the world from imports from the Gulf region. And Sudan is a country suffering, of course, from three years of civil war. Indeed, many of the actors involved in this civil war are the Gulf monarchies themselves, particularly Saudi Arabia and the UAE. So it's a country that's enduring famine across major parts of its territory. About 40 percent, according to the World Food Program of Sudan's population, are currently experiencing famine conditions, about 19 million people. So acute levels of food insecurity in Sudan. And it's also experiencing massive levels of displacement, about one in three people are being displaced. So we overlay this kind of conflict crises alongside the questions of food, fuel and debt, and the inability, of course, of humanitarian assistance to get into Sudan now, because that has also been interrupted as a result of this war against Iran. We really see this perfect storm, affecting many countries surrounding the Middle East.

Speaker 1:
[39:21] Professor Hania, we'll go back in a second to the issue of debt for many countries in the developing world, which you also talk about in your piece. But another point you make is to return to the centrality of the Gulf countries, that the UAE now ranks as among the top five re-export hubs in the world. So, if you could explain what this means for the distribution of food around the world and talk also about Dubai's Jebel Ali Port, which is the world's largest human-made harbor, as you point out.

Speaker 12:
[40:02] Yes, this is another critical part of the economic transformations that have taken place in the Gulf over recent decades. The emergence of the Gulf states, in particular the UAE, the United Arab Emirates, and in particular the Dubai Emirate, where Jebel Ali Port is located, have emerged as key logistics centers globally. This means, of course, ports, as well as shipping infrastructure, air corridors connected to economic zones, free zones, these kinds of logistics networks which have now become deeply centered in the region. So when we talk about Dubai as one of the top five re-exporters, what that means is that goods are imported into Dubai and then exported elsewhere. So Dubai and other Gulf states, but in particular Jebel Ali Port, supplies a lot of the goods that are consumed not just in the Middle East, but also in surrounding areas in the African continent and South Asia, where goods come into Dubai and then are re-exported there, including of course food. So this adds another dimension to the emerging crisis because with those logistics corridors no longer operating, it makes it very difficult for countries to actually import their food through these logistics networks. One striking fact is that China, for instance, exports about 60% of China's exports to Europe and Africa pass through Dubai, pass through the UAE. So that shows its centrality to global trade. And of course, one of the reasons that the Emirates, Dubai has become this epicenter of global trade is because of its role in the distribution of food.

Speaker 1:
[42:04] Professor Hania, to talk about another issue that you raise that is exacerbating this crisis, which is that the developing world is already deeply debt distressed, UNCTAD or the UN Conference on Trade and Development has said developing countries paid a record $921 billion only in interest payments in 2024. If you could talk about the implications of this.

Speaker 12:
[42:34] This is a hugely important factor to consider. It's been described as the worst debt crisis on record, worse than the so-called lost decade of the 1980s. What this concerns, of course, as you've just stated, is that countries are paying interest, servicing their debt, but still taking on new debt on top of that. So, what this means is that countries are no longer able to afford or to adequately pay for basic services like health, education, or other kinds of social infrastructure. Currently, the number of countries in the Global South that are paying more to their external creditors, to their lenders in debt servicing than they receive in fresh loans has doubled over the last decade, which really shows the striking situation that many countries face today. About 3.4 billion people in the world are paying more on interest payments on their debt than they are on health or education. Again, a striking figure that really shows the situation that countries are coming into facing this looming crisis. So, I really think when we think about the potential impact of this war against Iran, we need to think about the situation that countries are already in the multiple crises that they're facing in order to understand what the impact of these kinds of trade shortages might be.

Speaker 1:
[44:14] And finally, Professor Hanyay, before we end, if you could say, even if the fighting were to stop today and the strait is re-opened, is it already too late to avert a global food crisis?

Speaker 12:
[44:30] Well, I think we're getting very close to that point. The question of, I mean, we look at kind of the predictions around energy prices moving forward and also food prices. Earlier on, a few weeks ago, the Food and Agriculture Organization estimated for the first half of 2026 that prices of fertilizers would be 20%, up to 20% higher. And this is now the war has been much prolonged since that estimate was made. So I think the kind of knock on effects that we will see, we're already seeing fertilizer shipments being diverted to those wealthier countries that can pay. And it does mean, I think, that price prices and food inflation are certainly on the cards for the remainder of the year.

Speaker 1:
[45:22] Professor Harnier, thank you so much for joining us. Director of the SOAS Middle East Institute at the University of London. His most recent book is Crude Capitalism, Oil, Corporate Power and the Making of the World Market. We'll link to your new piece in the Financial Times, The Coming Global Food Crisis. Coming up, our officials and staffers in the Trump administration directly profiting from the war by placing well-timed bets on prediction markets just before President Trump announces major developments in the war. Stay with us. Michael Hurley, performing Let Me Be Your Junebug. We turn now to the dark world of online betting markets that allow bets on virtually any news event. For a small group of traders, the war with Iran has been a windfall. On the night of February 27th, 16 bets on the trading platform known as Polymarket made $100,000 each for accurately predicting when the US would strike Iran. Soon after, one trader made over half a million dollars betting that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would be toppled moments before he was assassinated by Israeli forces. The same surge was seen in oil futures trading as well. Right before President Trump announced a temporary ceasefire with Iran on March 7th, traders bet $950 million that oil prices would drop, which they did. On the same day, 50 polymarket accounts placed bets that the US and Iran would reach a ceasefire before Trump announced it on social media. Overall, traders have placed over a billion dollars in perfectly timed wagers relating to the Iran War. A recent analysis by the BBC of online bets placed throughout President Trump's second term found a consistent pattern of spikes just hours or sometimes minutes before a social media post or media statement from President Trump was made public. The timing of these bets and the huge windfalls they've created are raising concerns of possible insider trading. Prediction markets and platforms like Polymarket and its biggest competitor, Kalshi, are governed by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, or the CFTC. This means they can avoid state-level restrictions in place for traditional gambling and sports betting today. A growing number of states are trying to stop this, but the Trump administration has pushed back. Trump's son, Donald Trump Jr., has advisory roles in both Polymarket and Kalshi. For more, we're joined now from Washington, DC by Amanda Fisher, policy director and chief operating officer for Better Markets, an advocacy organization focusing on making financial markets fair and accountable. She was previously the chief of staff and senior counselor for the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC. Welcome to Democracy Now, Amanda Fisher. If you could just begin by laying out what has been happening in prediction markets, particularly since the Iran war began.

Speaker 14:
[49:29] Yes, thank you for having me. And, you know, these markets have actually existed for decades, and they have a good purpose and intent in that original design of the markets. And it's to allow companies in the real economy to manage their exposure to volatile commodities, like oil, and basically place bets that will pay out to them if the prices spike. But in recent years, and particularly since the inauguration of President Trump, we have seen an explosion of these event contracts available to retail users using apps on their phones that allow them to bet on everything from frivolous things like celebrities and pop culture to what will happen to the price of bitcoin in the next 15 minutes to things as grave and serious as war and proxies for war. And the real innovation that has taken place in the last 18 months or so is that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which is supposed to police what bets are available on these markets and really narrow the focus to be on bets that help people in the real economy manage real commercial risks. They have stood down their enforcement and oversight and now we see just really a proliferation in any number of gambling opportunities available to people in the United States and around the world.

Speaker 1:
[51:04] And could you explain, Amanda, how these prediction markets work? Most jurisdictions here do not require polymarket users to disclose their names. Unlike the stock market, users are presented with a binary option, yes or no, so they're actually competing against one another. And the fact that polymarkets use cryptocurrency, if you could tell us what the implications of these things are in terms of regulating the industry?

Speaker 14:
[51:39] Yeah, it's a great question. So polymarket is not yet licensed to operate in the United States, but they're seeking to. But during the Biden administration, the CFTC with the Department of Justice found that polymarket was offering their bets to US traders without the appropriate licensing, and they had turned into a settlement in a consent order that required polymarket to geo-block anyone signing in from the United States. But since the Trump administration came in, there is really not a lot of clarity around if that prohibition is actually being enforced. And obviously, all of this aberrant trading activity around the Iran War raises questions on if people in the United States are placing these bets and profiting. And I think the president's family's involvement in polymarket as advisors really heightened concerns that perhaps polymarket is not abiding by the restrictions put in place in 2022. And further, they are seeking to expand in the United States and have some licensing pending with the regulator, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Speaker 1:
[52:55] Amanda, do we know when exactly did Trump's family become involved in these prediction markets as advisors, including, of course, most prominently Trump's son?

Speaker 14:
[53:07] You know, similar to the president's involvement in cryptocurrency, this all happened around the time of the election and the inauguration. And again, as you mentioned, at the top of this segment, you know, his son is an advisor both to Polymarket and its competitor, Cauchi, which is highly irregular to be an advisor to two firms competing directly head to head in the market. And it's really no accident that just really weeks after the inauguration took place, the CFTC, the regulatory agency stood down on a legal challenge to Cauchi offering bets on election outcomes, US election outcomes. And then also the platforms exploded and started offering bets on sporting events, which have traditionally been regulated by state gambling commissions. And now we see a proliferation of bets related to activities that really ought to be prohibited under US law. So there is a strict prohibition on offering gambling related to war, assassination, terrorism, gaming, activities that are illegal under state law, or anything that's contrary to the public interest. But the CFTC under President Trump has completely retrenched from any enforcement of what kind of contracts are made available on these platforms.

Speaker 1:
[54:35] Well, let's go to the beginning of the war on Iran. On the very day the US and Israel launched attacks on Iran, numerous bets were made on prediction markets, drawing criticism from lawmakers. On Polymarket alone, half a billion dollars was traded over when the US would bomb Iran. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy posted on X, quote, It's insane. This is legal. People around Trump are profiting off war and death. I am introducing legislation ASAP to ban this. Meanwhile, Senator Richard Blumenthal argued that prediction markets are, quote, turning war into a casino game and creating a market for national security leaks. So, Amanda, if you could comment on that, and also in particular, what effects prediction markets now have on real world events? What kinds of incentives are created by profits?

Speaker 14:
[55:33] It's a great question. And these instances of outsized profits around the announcement of major military actions raises a lot of concerns. It obviously erodes trust in our democracy, creates national security threats around the leakage of sensitive information. And, you know, law enforcement agencies in the United States should be looking into whether or not people in the United States were making these bets on offshore platforms and looking to follow the money and trace it back. I unfortunately don't have a lot of confidence that that is actually taking place. So, you know, it just introduces so much risk. Think about, you know, there are frivolous things like if a streaker is going to run out during a soccer game, right? And then that obviously incents someone to go streak at the soccer game. But take that example and put it in a life and death situation around whether or not a strike hits a particular location in a global conflict. Not only does that encourage particular targets to be hit, but somebody also has to be the arbiter of whether or not the strike took place, because as we know, news events can be ambiguous. It requires people to sort through and provide objective information on what happened. So we already have one example of a journalist being harassed and stalked online because his reporting said that a strike did not happen. And people who had placed bets wanted him to change his journalism, to say that it did happen, so that they could win out on their wager.

Speaker 1:
[57:20] And just to go back to a point that you made earlier, Amanda, the fact that PolyMarket was founded here in the US., an American CEO, in fact, a very young man who went on to become the first self-made billionaire in the country, in the world, in fact. So if it's founded here in the US., why were US customers barred from using it?

Speaker 14:
[57:49] Because in order to offer these types of wagers in the United States, you have to have the appropriate licensing from that agency, the CFTC. And Polymarket did not have that licensing. And also, I should really underscore that, again, these platforms were designed to offer opportunities for companies in the real economy to manage their exposure to corn price fluctuations, soybean price fluctuations, gas price fluctuations. It was not meant to be a retail betting app. So, the fact that they were offering these contacts.

Speaker 1:
[58:25] I'm afraid we're going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much. Amanda Fisher, policy director and chief operating officer for Better Markets. She was previously the chief of staff and senior counselor to the chair of the SEC. And that does it for today's show. Amy Goodman will be back tomorrow, broadcasting from Seattle. She'll be speaking in Seattle tonight and tomorrow after the screenings of the new documentary about Democracy Now! called Steal This Story, Please. Today, it will screen at CIF Cinema Uptown at 4.15 and 7 p.m. and Friday at 7 p.m. Amy will then head to Portland, Oregon. I'm Nermeen Shaikh. Thanks so much for joining.