Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

The Strategic Implications Of The New Iran Deal; 57 Days Left To Negotiate Final U.S.-Iran Deal To End War; Why Birthrates Are Declining. Soccer Fever Grips Once Skeptical U.S. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired June 20, 2026 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

PIERCE FREELON, MUSICIAN: Be able to pass wisdom, knowledge, information, legacy, heritage from one generation to the next. So now when you walk into a room, it's not just you, it's dad, it's grandpa. It's a whole tribe of ancestors that are with you. And that "Black Boy Glow" is nurtured in that ancestral knowledge, wisdom, understanding and worthiness.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: That's dope, right? "Black Boy Glow" is out now. Check out piercefreelon.com for more.

Thanks for joining me. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish is up next.

[09:00:42]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Nobody's happy, but Donald Trump may have made the right call. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs.

I know how that sounds, but bear with me. Winston Churchill stood in the House of Commons in 1947 and he said this. He said, "Nobody pretends that democracy is perfect or all lies. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried."

The worst form of government, except for all the others. That's exactly where we are with Trump's Iran deal.

Let's start with what just happened. On Wednesday, the United States and Iran signed a 14-point memorandum of understanding. The war that began on February 28, 40 days of bombing, is now officially over. The Strait of Hormuz will reopen. The two sides have 60 days to negotiate something more substantial.

And here's what Iran gets, sanctions relief, billions in frozen assets, the right to sell its oil freely again, a $300 billion reconstruction fund, although some analysts think that number is fictional. Here's what America gets, Iran reaffirms that it won't build a nuclear weapon, a pledge that can't be taken entirely seriously because of Tehran's actions over the past decades. And that's it. And the critics have a point. Mike Pence called it appeasement. Nikki Haley said that it was a huge mistake.

Ted Cruz said that giving billions to theocratic lunatics who want to murder us is not a good idea. Even the Israelis, who were supposed to be the beneficiaries of this some are feeling betrayed. The editor of the Israeli newspaper the Times of Israel called it a catastrophic capitulation.

And here's what makes the deal even harder to defend. Some say that Trump achieved considerably less than Barack Obama did with the 2015 JCPOA. Obama forced Iran to send 98 percent of its enriched uranium out of the country. He limited Iran's future enrichment for 15 years. And he didn't drop a single bomb in order to get that?

So why am I not joining the chorus of outrage? It's because nobody, not Pence, not Haley, not Cruz, has answered the harder question, what's the alternative?

Max Boot, writing in the Washington Post, notes, quote, "For once, the president's lack of consistency and conviction proved to be an advantage in allowing him to exit an unwinnable war rather than escalating to save face."

Think about that. The very thing that drives everybody crazy about Donald Trump, the inconsistency, the refusal to commit it may have been an asset here. He didn't need to save face because he never had a fixed position to defend.

None of that makes this a good deal. The money flowing back to Tehran that will likely fund Hezbollah, Iran's missile program going untouched. The regime that Trump vowed to overthrow, still standing. And now with a financial windfall to rebuild.

But here's the cold truth. Iran was fighting for its survival. You don't bomb a country into submission in 40 days when their survival is on the line, not without ground troops. And there was zero appetite for ground troops anywhere. Not in Congress, not among the public, not among our allies.

A new AP NORC poll finds that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump's handling of Iran. Fifty-three percent say the war went too far. Hawks hate the deal. The public hated the war.

Nobody got what they wanted, which is often what an unwinnable situation looks like at the end. The proper lesson here isn't that Trump should have kept bombing, but that he never should have started the war. When you launch an unnecessary conflict against a determined adversary fighting for its survival, you don't get to choose your exit. You take the one that's available.

Churchill's framing fits. The deal is the worst possible outcome, except for all the alternatives. And that brings me to today's poll question at smerconish.com. Agree or disagree, Trump's Iran deal the worst outcome except for the others.

Let's go over the strategic implications of this new Iran deal with CNN Senior Military Analyst, former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO, Admiral James Stavridis.

Admiral, good morning. What concerns you the most?

ADM. JAMES STAVRIDIS (RET.), FORMER NATO SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER: Well, you started by quoting the world's most quotable man, Winston Churchill. And I agree with your framing. I would add a quote from one of his near contemporaries, and that's Rudyard Kipling. Kipling said, here lies a fool who tried to hustle the East. Meaning these are pretty smart folks.

[09:05:14]

And look, in the course of my life and times and travel in the Middle East, I walked into a lot of carpet shops and negotiated for beautiful Persian carpets. I'm not sure I ever walked out with a good deal. These folks are good negotiators. That's a point to be made.

Secondly, your point is a very good one. Least worst option. I tend to agree with that. He had three options. He could have simply walked away entirely, pulled the U.S. forces out, let the chips fall. That would have been disastrous for the global economy.

Option two, he could have resumed massive bombing problem with that, very expensive. We're 100 billion and counting into this right now. And as you point out, doesn't look like there's much quit in Tehran.

And thirdly, bad option but negotiate. See where it goes over time. I think he picked the best of three really bad options.

SMERCONISH: You have sailed the Strait of Hormuz dozens of times in your career. Might it now be essentially a toll passage?

STAVRIDIS: Yes, you can call this the Aya Toll Booth. I'm afraid it might be trending that way, and that concerns me deeply. Look, you know, good deal, bad deal, we can have that debate. It appears to be a done deal. So I think the question is, how do you -- how do you fix it?

How do you make it better? You got a tactical problem that's opening the Strait of Hormuz. That means minesweepers, guided missile destroyer escorts. Let's hope the Europeans step up. Second, you have an operational problem which we haven't touched on, but it's a big one, and that's Israel and this triangle of death north of Israel with Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah.

That's unfinished business. And then thirdly, and I think most importantly, the strategic problem you have that you've got to try and fix is the nuclear material. You got a thousand pounds, highly enriched, and, oh, by the way, 20,000 pounds of somewhat enriched. What's going to happen to that? That's to be determined.

The shape of this deal ultimately is still to reveal itself.

SMERCONISH: I think it's point number eight, Admiral, of the 14 points that speaks to the, quote, unquote, "down blending" of what we've been colloquially referring to as the dust. STAVRIDIS: Indeed. And as you well know, it's not actually dust. I like to point that out. It's in gaseous form and canisters. Be that as it may, there's got to be a solution. I don't think down blending answers the problem because what you can down blend, you can up blend.

I think it's got to be removed. That is going to be challenging. See paragraph one about these folks are pretty good negotiators. But I think that's what's rattling around in Steve Witkoff said, Jared Kushner said, JD Vance has said, how do we construct a deal where we can have a visual of pulling that nuclear material out, pulling it out completely, send it wherever. But I think physically you got to get there.

That's the strategic challenge. Still very much extant in the deal.

SMERCONISH: "2084" is Admiral Stavridis futuristic novel of war and a great summer read, sadly prescient probably.

Turning now to the political ramifications of this U.S.-Iran deal with CNN's political and national security analyst, David Sanger. He's a White House and national security correspondent for the New York Times, having covered five American presidents and reported on the Iranian nuclear program for more than 20 years. His latest piece, "Trump demanded Iran's unconditional surrender. He got a surprise instead."

David, last Sunday night, the president celebrating his 80th birthday, you were in London. You look at your phone, it's him. What did he want to say to you?

DAVID SANGER, CNN POLITICAL & NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Well, he wanted to tell me what a great deal he had. And he walked through the major elements that we now all know from seeing the document, Michael. But the fact of the matter is he doesn't yet have the real deal. You mentioned the paragraph 8 there about nuclear down blending that you and Admiral Stavridis were discussing. It's the only paragraph in the entire document that even refers to the nuclear problem, which was, of course, the impetus for the war.

So the big negotiation, the one that you can actually compare to whether he gets more or less than President Obama got in 2015 is yet to come. And you know, people talk about this as technical negotiations. And I've seen that phrase bandied about a lot. That's the real negotiation. Because it's from that we're going to learn the question that the admiral just raised.

[09:10:24]

Are they going to ship most or all of their nuclear material out of the country as Obama got in 2015? Are they going to get 20 years of suspension of any new nuclear enrichment? Are they going to close their nuclear facilities? What about missiles which aren't mentioned at all in the 14-point document and which Secretary Rubio told us were the protection for the nuclear program?

SMERCONISH: I find his relationship with you so intriguing because it was just May 18, flying home from China. Roll the tape, please.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SANGER: What would the use be of repeating the bombing? You did it for 38 days.

TRUMP: No, we did. We did.

SANGER: And you did not get the political changes in Iran.

TRUMP: Oh, I got -- I had a total military victory. But the fake news guys like you write incorrectly. You're a fake guy. I actually think it's sort of treasonous what you write.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: David, he calls you a faker and treasonous. You were a gentleman. You just stood there and listened, held out your recorder, and yet here we are, month later, you're the guy that he wants to call on his birthday to make sure that the record is clear. Will you explain that to me from your perspective?

SANGER: I'm not sure I can. And look, just on the treason charge, we're there to ask questions and to assess results. And here the assessment is how did the president do compared to the standards he set when he let out -- when he began the war. And on that, I think there's pretty much unanimity that he did not achieve those. But the fact of the matter is, reporting is not treason.

Reporting is what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the First Amendment. And thank goodness for that because it's made a big difference in the course of reporting on this war.

On the second point, which is why does he call me? Look, I don't think it's about me in any way, Michael. I think it's about the fact that I work for the New York Times. I've written on foreign policy for the New York Times for a long time. And he cares about what the New York Times says about his foreign policy, understandably, because, you know, we cover this stuff intensely.

And I think he has a sense that people read it intensely.

SMERCONISH: Final thought from David Sanger on my premise, which is to say very, very easy to criticize the status quo and the end game as we understand it, but I argue, much more difficult to come up with an alternative. Your thought?

SANGER: So it is more difficult to come up with an alternative, particularly after you started the war. And he started the war on the premise that it wouldn't last very long, right? That this would be -- how many times did he tell us, following the Venezuela model, which is to say a couple of days, knock off the leadership of the government, take it over. At some points he even talked about taking their oil fields.

I think the bigger question today is after this, what does it take to persuade our adversaries, China in relation to Taiwan, Russia in relation to going into other NATO countries, that the U.S. still has staying power and that's the real damage that has been done, that he started something in a military way that he couldn't finish against a lesser adversary. And then the question is, how do we recover from it?

We will recover from it. We recovered from Vietnam, we recovered from Iraq. We emerged as the greatest technological and military superpower. But it's not going to be easy.

SMERCONISH: David Sanger and Admiral James Stavridis, we appreciate both of them for their expertise.

What are you thinking at home? Hit me up on social media. You can find me on all the usual platforms. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program.

There goes Michael again, chief apologist for the Trump administration. No, Harry, just calling them as I see them. And as I said to David Sanger, in this case, very easy to criticize this deal. I'm critical of this deal.

Now, you tell me what's the alternative and whether you have a stomach for it. Do you have stomach for troops on the ground? You want to -- you want to open the strait militarily or through negotiation? Do you want to seize control of the enriched uranium? I sure do.

Are you prepared to put boots on the ground in order to facilitate that? No. No, I'm not. And you're probably not either. And that's why it's probably the worst.

It's the poll question. Put up the poll question today. You know how I'm voting. This is the worst possible outcome, except for all the others, just like Churchill said about democracy.

[09:15:10]

So go vote at -- it's It'll be very interesting to see where this one ends up today.

Up ahead, don't let anybody tell you our national politics are all about being either on team Democrat or Republican. Fascinating new data that show how much more independent and multi-dimensional U.S. voters truly are and the birthrate in the United States. You know this. It's dropped to dangerously low levels for years. Experts couldn't explain it.

What if the culprit could be right in your pocket? There's a joke in there somewhere.

Sign up for my newsletter smerconish.com when you're voting on the poll question of the day. You'll get the work of illustrators like Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:20:00] SMERCONISH: Who needs birth control when we have our phones? Our next guest is here to discuss a topic that is certainly not new. America's declining birthrate. It's no secret that here in the United States, we're having far fewer babies so much so that we're no longer reproducing at the so called replacement rate.

Consider this. In the 1950s, women had an average of 3.5 births. Today, the number is 1.62 below the replacement rate of 2.1. And this trend shows no signs of reversing. Nearly 710,000 fewer babies were born in the United States in 2025 than in 2007.

And even fewer are predicted for 2026. For years, people have been pointing fingers, trying to figure out why is this the case? Is it the cost of housing? Is it child care? Is it delayed marriage? Changing attitudes toward family and parenthood?

Cat ladies, as our vice president once said. Well, what if the culprit was something that we carry around every day, our phones? Two recent studies suggest the rise of smartphone use may help explain a significant portion of the decline in fertility rates, particularly among young people. That theory isn't that phones act as birth control. It's that they may be replacing the face to face interactions that lead to relationships, intimacy, and ultimately, family formation.

Contributing opinion writer at the New York Times and author of "Rethinking Sex: A Provocation," Christine Emba joins us now to discuss all of this.

Christine, you posit that it's really not complicated. If you're on your phone, you're not having a personal interaction. And if you're not having a personal interaction, you're not having sex.

CHRISTINE EMBA, SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE: Right. Exactly. You know, honestly, I think that the fertility rate is actually kind of a lagging indicator, right? Having babies is the very end result of all of these social interactions that come before. First you have to get outside of your house.

Then you learn to talk to people. Then you form relationships, start dating, maybe get married and have sex. And finally, at the end, you might have a child, which would be great, of course. But the iPhone is preventing us from even starting at the beginning, even having those basic interactions that lead to relationships. And while fertility rate falling is, you know, a tragedy, I think we need to be worried about the social isolation, the decline in social skills, the lack of community that start at the very beginning.

SMERCONISH: So your explanation makes perfect sense to me. So old school, by the way. Love that. But at the Times when I was reading your coverage, there was a video that captivated me. I'm going to roll a minute of it.

Let's all watch.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Motherhood should come with a warning label.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm being penalized for giving birth.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I stepped up and nurtured the next generation and --

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Financially we pay a huge price.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My career took the biggest punch from it.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Having children cost me around 750 grand in career earnings.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I'm giving up my pension, essentially.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The system is set up to shaft women.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: So I do feel like there's going to be a penalty.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Financial penalty.

MULTIPLE SPEAKERS: A motherhood penalty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The motherhood penalty. Christine Emba, what do you make of that?

EMBA: I think that's very true. I think that in the United States especially, having children is hard. We don't have a federally mandated maternity leave or paternity leave. We have FMLA. But that doesn't necessarily mean that your job will be there when you get back if you leave to have a child.

And of course, child care is expensive. Having children is expensive, as all of those women stated in that video.

You know, both of these papers that I mentioned in my column do note that the iPhone is perhaps a contributing factor, that smartphones are an accelerant on an already declining birthrate. But they're not the only factor. And I think by focusing on the smartphone as the cause of falling fertility, it becomes easy to neglect all of these other reasons that people aren't having children. The fact that we make it really difficult in the United States. It's easy to focus on one cause, which then makes it easy to not find solutions for the really important other ones.

SMERCONISH: One of the most responded to comments to your piece. I'll put it on the screen and just read a sentence, if I may. It came from Tom. "I just cannot comprehend as a Gen Z gay guy, why people older than me will drum up any explanation except the obvious to explain low birthrates. We don't want to have kids."

You say what to that? EMBA: All right. Well, first of all, I'm not that much older than him. But you know, I think that he is kind of mistaking cause and effect. Again, there are reasons why people don't want to have children, but a lot of them have to do with the social climate in the United States. The fact that, as that video said, having children is really expensive.

[09:25:04]

The fact that Gen Z especially, you know, was brought up in an environment where they spend a lot of time online, where socializing has become difficult, where they see a lot of media and discourse about how children are ruining the planet, about how having children will change your life in ways that you don't like. Much of the social media that they end up seeing on their smartphones is kind of anti- natalist. So it's not surprising then that they, you know, find the idea of having children really daunting.

But having children, wanting, you know, a future for the human species, for your own family and bloodline is a sense of hope for the future. And the fact that Gen Z doesn't feel that hope is really disturbing.

SMERCONISH: I think you nailed it. Get off that phone and get out and actually meet. Stop watching it on your phone and instead engage in it.

Christine Emba, thank you as always. We appreciate your expertise.

Let's see what some folks are saying via social media from home. Find me on X, follow me on YouTube. Yes, the iPhone has turned America into a nation of I. No one cares about anyone else anymore and only about them.

It's not -- it's not necessarily a narcissistic explanation, CJ that Christine is offering and I agree. It's -- I hope you watched my special here last week -- it's a lack of mingling. People are not mingling. Instead -- and as Scott Galloway told us in the special last week, too much time -- and Debra Soh as well -- too much time watching porn and not enough time investing oneself in activities that lead to that kind of a relationship.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question. This is going to be really interesting at the end of the hour to see how it's going. Agree or disagree, Trump's Iran deal the worst outcome except for all the others. I am in the agree camp if you didn't know.

Still to come, your social media reaction and my take on the biggest political tribe in America, the one that I'm part of and we are a majority. Make sure you're signing up for my newsletter at smerconish.com. You'll get the work of illustrators like Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:45] SMERCONISH: We're not a two-lane highway. New data this week on where the country resides politically proves we are so much more than just the usual left versus right depiction.

First, CNN revealed that independents have grown to 47 percent of the population, the highest share that CNN has measured in more than a decade. But lest you think that we have three groups, left, right, and center, now comes another data set.

Pew Research Center just published a political typology quiz, something they've been doing every five or so years since 1987. This is a study of more than 10,000 Americans who answer 30 questions on issues such as race, immigration, the economy, government.

It's confirmation that while the most enthusiastic supporters of the two major parties hold the most extreme views, there's a larger, broader swath of less engaged voters, adding up to over 60 percent of the population who are more moderate and often decide elections. Viewed as such were not two groups or three groups, but closer to nine groups.

Jocelyn Kiley is the director of research on U.S. politics at Pew, and this week on my SiriusXM radio program, she told me the intent is to sort people on more than just the conventional Republican and Democratic labels. Instead, to do so based on values.

So, I took the quiz. Among my responses, I said that I favor a smaller government. I said that I think very few people run for office out of a genuine wish to serve others.

I said that I support capitalism. I said that I think climate change is a big problem. I said that I'm uncomfortable with open carry of weapons in public spaces, and that I think the legacy of slavery still affects black people a great deal. I believe religion needs to stay separate from government, and I favor civility and compromise.

So what was the diagnosis? Where did they put me? They put me in a category with 11 percent of other Americans that Pew calls the Pragmatic and Polite Right. That places me among a Republican tilting group that leans conservative on economics and the role of government, but is more liberal on issues of race and foreign policy.

But enough about me. What does it say about all of us? Well, it says this, that the way the media covers politics and the way that the two parties organize themselves doesn't reflect how most Americans actually think. The loudest voices on the furthest ends of the political spectrum, they get the most air time and attention, but they are not the majority.

Nine groups, not two, not three, nine. America is not a two-lane highway. We're a superhighway. A much more complicated road map, one that neither party has fully figured out how to read. And until they do, or until the media stops covering politics like it's always just red versus blue, then the people in the messy middle will keep feeling like they don't have a home. But as the numbers show, I'm not alone. You're not alone. Now to your social media reaction to today's program. Follow me on X. Check out my YouTube page. Are you out of your effing mind?

[09:35:00]

Yes, I am, but why do you think so? We started another war. I think that's what you mean. And we lost another war. Iran gained the Strait of Hormuz. And don't say Churchill and Trump in the same breath.

OK, but Suzan189, notice what you've not done. You've not given me the alternative. OK? I said it's the least bad outcome. And you hear what you want to hear. Oh my God, he's embracing Trump. No, I'm embracing the way that Trump is getting out now.

Do you want to put boots on the ground? Do you want your sons and daughters to go fight this war with Iran? I didn't think so. So you tell me what the alternative is, and until somebody comes up with an alternative that's satisfactory, I'm going to continue to believe that this was the least bad outcome. Which takes me to today's poll question at Smerconish.com.

Here it is. Agree or disagree, Trump's Iran deal, the worst outcome except for all the others?

Up ahead, the U.S. qualifies for the World Cup's knockout stages. Has men's soccer finally won over America's heart? I think so.

We'll get into it with the executive director of the White House Task Force for the FIFA World Cup. That would be Andrew Giuliani. Don't forget to sign up for my newsletter at Smerconish.com, for which Eric Allie sketched this.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:34]

SMERCONISH: A bit more than a week into the 2026 World Cup, it's becoming clear that soccer has grown on America. And thanks to the U.S. co-hosting the World Cup, America has grown on the world.

That American delicacy ranch dressing has become so popular with international visitors that the TSA has issued warnings not to pack full size bottles in carry-on luggage. Scottish fans in kilts drinking so much Boston beer that the local bars are running out.

Europeans and others posting pictures on social media showing the wonders of such must sees as Walmart, Costco, Buc-ee's. Not to mention exotic experiences like a 1:00 a.m. breakfast at Waffle House, sampling dipping sauces at Chick-Fil-A, and checking out the shooting range in Bass Pro Shops.

But the enthusiasm of Americans for a sport once seen as an also-ran it's amazing. A record 27.5 million viewers watched team USA's opening game -- opening match. That's more views than the decisive game five of the NBA finals. And on Friday, yesterday, the U.S. men's national team advanced to the knockout stages by defeating Australia, setting off wild celebrations in the streets of Seattle.

Not so long ago this level of enthusiasm was unimaginable. And the anecdote that I love repeating that sums out how far we've come in this country is as follows. Jack Kemp, former NFL quarterback for the Buffalo Bills, nine-term Republican congressman, Bob Dole's vice presidential running mate in 1996, my one time boss at HUD, where he was the secretary, in 1986, he took to the House floor to weigh in on whether America should host the 1994 World Cup.

His answer was no. His reasoning was memorable. Quote, "I think it is important for all those young men out there who someday hope to play real football," Kemp said, "were you throw it and you kick it and you run with it and put it in your hands, that distinction be made that football is democratic capitalism whereas soccer is a European socialist sport."

Kemp would later say that his tongue was planted firmly in his cheek, maybe, but the attitude he captured was real. A national survey at that time ranked soccer 67th among favorite spectator sports. Tractor pull was then 66th. Congress disagreed. They passed a joint resolution unanimously. In August of 1987, they brought the bid home. The World Cup came to America in 1994.

Fast forward to today, a new Economist survey shows that 10 percent of Americans now name soccer as their favorite sport, edging out baseball. The self-described national pastime, at 9 percent. Soccer ranks third in America today, behind only football and basketball. The man who called it a socialist sport would have appreciated the irony, I assure you.

Let's get into the national response to the tournament and more with my next guest, Andrew Giuliani, executive director of the White House Task Force for the 2026 FIFA World Cup. Andrew, I understand you came in on a red eye to Houston. You were in Seattle for the two nil victory over the Australians. What was it like to be there?

ANDREW GIULIANI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, WHITE HOUSE TASK FORCE ON THE FIFA WORLD CUP 2026: That's correct. I left my -- I guess, I left my heart in San Francisco, my voice in Seattle. Really, really amazing to be able to see just this team really meld together.

You know, from our standpoint here on the White House Task Force, so much of the focus over the last 15 months have been the safety, security of the sites of the fan festivals, of team hotels, of the visa process, of the transportation, getting people around. It's so much fun now to see these incredible athletes go and capture the heart of a country.

Just think about this, Michael. If this team is able to do the improbable and go up against these world powers, these world soccer powers, and make a deep run this summer past our country's 250th birthday, you're talking about arguably one of the greatest sports stories in American history, will rival the Miracle on Ice. Really, really exciting to see from my standpoint.

SMERCONISH: Andrew, I'm loving all the matches. I'm into it like I've never been before. But I got to tell you, I also enjoy the ranch dressing story. I love that they're into Buc-ee's and that they want to go eat at the Waffle House. I mean, this is really the larger message, is it not?

GIULIANI: Yes. I actually didn't even know you could put ranch on pizza. I thought that was like a sacrilege sin as a New Yorker, but I'm learning that that's something that's actually really done.

[09:45:05]

So, they're teaching Americans, actually, what can be done. It really is awesome, Michael, to be able to see the Scots in Boston, as you highlighted, drinking Boston dry in four days. Didn't think it was possible, they did it. The incredible respect the Japanese show --

Yes, exactly. The incredible respect the Japanese show for the stadium after they get done. We saw one of the NFL quarterbacks, Jameis Winston, cleaning up the Japanese section, the stadium before they left. That's the respect that they like to show the host any time that there's a match.

The exploits to Waffle House, where's Freddy, basically? He's our where's Waldo. I think it really, really shows just the incredible diversity of this country and how wonderful, wonderful this country is.

Look, we, from our standpoint has done -- have done a lot to make sure we're processing ESTAs, to make sure that visa wait times for B1, B2 visas are reduced significantly. So, then that way we can have as many fans as possible come to the United States for this incredible moment over our semiquincentennial.

SMERCONISH: I had the privilege of working for Jack Kemp. I know that you had the privilege of spending time with him in a variety of settings. What do you make of where we've come from them then and what accounts for it? Is it suburban moms who like, want their kids to play soccer instead of football because they worry about head injury?

GIULIANI: Yes, I think you're over the target. That may have a little bit, but I would actually point to suburban moms in a different way. I think Title IX, actually, believe it or not, had a lot to do with this because what happened was women had the opportunity.

So probably around that time, '86, Title IX is about 17 years old or so at that time, a little less than 20 years old. And what you've seen is, as those American women had the opportunity to grow through the program, through the 80s and in the 19 -- in 1999, they encapsulated a world. Now, all of a sudden, you had the greatest female soccer team of all time.

So where is men? Maybe at 12 years old would play a little soccer. They were moving then to football. They were moving to baseball. They were moving to basketball.

Women would continue on and they said, wait a second. We have the best athletes in the world. They've won four World Cups. I think those same women that have gone through the youth sports, have gone through, maybe played college sports, maybe they didn't go to a World Cup, maybe they played professionally, maybe they didn't, maybe they were just competitive in high school. But they now had the opportunity to start getting their kids, getting their sons and daughters into soccer. And that's where that growth has happened.

Head injuries might have something to do with it as well. I also think that the European soccer leagues have done a fantastic job broadcasting, finding time slots, maybe, let's say on a Sunday morning or a Saturday morning if they're not watching Smerconish, they might be watching premier league soccer, let's say, on a Saturday morning before American football goes on.

So I think it's a host of things, but I'd certainly point to the women's dominance and kind of that building up through generations where we see it go from behind tractor pull now to the third most popular sport in the United States.

SMERCONISH: I know we've got another month. And, you know, so far, so good. We don't want to count our chickens before they're hatched. But let's -- let's just hope that it continues to be as smooth as it appears to be going so far. Andrew, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

GIULIANI: Thank you, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Checking in on social media reaction to the program so far. What do we have? From the world of X.

It's been wildly successful. Packed stadiums, hordes of traveling foreigners, vlogging the best of America, watching parties stretched beyond capacity. U.S. national team playing attack minded soccer. Negativity not allowed. This has been fantastic.

Can I say, Betatesting? It's -- it's mingling on a global level. I had the privilege. I was off last Saturday. I was in San Francisco and had the opportunity to take in the match between Switzerland and Qatar, and it was just great to be there.

But on television, I'm loving it. And all of the interaction between people of such disparate backgrounds is what the nation needs the most, and what the planet needs the most.

Sports, the greatest unifier, the same way that Knick fans came together and celebrated this past week. There's nothing else like it.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Check this out, agree or disagree, Trump's Iran deal, the worst outcome except for all the others.

Please sign up for my newsletter while you're there voting. You'll get exclusive editorial cartoons from the like of Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:46] SMERCONISH: OK, there's the poll results so far, 27,000 and change have -- I'm surprised by that outcome. Wow. Trump's Iran deal, the worst outcome except for all the others. Two-thirds, almost, 64 percent of us, rare that I'm in the majority, but I am today, are in agreement. Right, it's the least bad outcome.

Social media reaction. Follow me on X. Check me out on YouTube and all the other usual places.

Weren't you advocating for finishing the job and now you're supporting this terrible deal.

Because, Spicy Pickle, the American people just don't have the stomach to finish this job. They just -- they just don't. And you know why we have all the weaponry in our arsenal. Do you know what they have? Patience. They have patience.

And the gas prices and the midterms looming, and you saw the market response, no. People want this shut down now. And that's exactly what Trump gave them. Me? I want control of that dust, that's for sure. But am I ready to put American boots on the ground to get it? No, I'm not.

More social media reaction to today's program. What do we have?

Men today want a traditional wife that comes with a modern income. You can't have it both --

What is the tradwife? Tell me, Catherine, we almost -- tradwife.

[09:55:01]

Is that what it is, Tara? Yes, tradwife, a traditional wife. There's a whole movement. We may do a segment on this next weekend. We almost -- we almost did it today, but we didn't have enough space in the program.

But yes, those, those mores are definitely changing. And you're right to point out, yes, they want a traditional wife. But wait, I need the income as well.

One more if I've got time for it. I think that I do, social media reaction.

Michael, just as Trump has angered both the left and the right, I notice you often have critics on both extremes, yes, I do, as well despite your best efforts to remain neutral. Oh, keep up the good work.

How did -- how did that get in there? Chuck, let me say this to you. I was heartened, not surprised, but heartened this week that CNN came out with new data that said that 47 percent of the country are independents, which confirms Gallup in their last year, party identification sorting, which said that 45 percent are independents compared to 27 percent who are Rs and Ds.

But you'd never know that from watching television or paying attention to our political scene. You'd think that everybody is way the hell over here or way over there, and it's just not the case. There are plenty of us who are right here.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)