Jack Houghton:
Well, joining me to discuss is the Chief Economist at the Institute of Public Affairs and, of course, former Washington correspondent for The Australian, Adam Creighton, joining me again on the show. Welcome back.
Adam Creighton:
Thanks, Jack. Great to be here.
Jack Houghton:
Now, this comment from Donald Trump, he obviously uses a lot of colourful rhetoric, but it was the particular “Annihilate a civilization” comment which has set off fireworks across the media. What do you make of how this has played out?
Adam Creighton:
Well, look, I suppose I can understand the disquiet with the language, but it shouldn’t really be a surprise with Donald Trump. As you said, I mean, he’s very colourful. He uses strong language. He tweets a lot at all hours. I think people are pretty used to that now after, what, 12 or so years of his being in politics. Did it work? Did it… Is that what triggered the peace deal? Maybe.
We don’t really know. I mean, my sense is that both sides basically had to take a step back here. Neither side really wanted to go to that level of confrontation and destruction. Of course, the US has overwhelming power, but you never really know how a desperate regime like Iran, facing a huge existential crisis, would’ve responded. So thankfully for the world and for both parties, that never happened.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah. And it’s interesting. From my point of view, looking on, there appeared to be almost a double standard. When you think about the rhetoric and the propaganda that comes out of Iran, there doesn’t seem to be the same outrage from the media. And I was even watching some pockets in the media who are now saying that Iran now has this kind of moral superiority over Donald Trump.
Adam Creighton:
Well, look, certainly I think it’s been clear much of the mainstream media has been hoping that Trump failed because they have massive dislike for him and have for a very long time. I certainly think from the point of view of American media, that’s a very bad thing. They should be supporting their country, I think.
Look, I mean, it’s certainly true that the level of propaganda in a country like Iran or China or Russia or any country like that is going to be far, far greater than in a Western country where you’d expect and hope that there is some criticism of the government of the day. So look, it doesn’t surprise me though that the bulk of the focus has been on Trump’s behaviour and not on Iran’s behaviour.
If there was a different president, if it was Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama or something like that, I think you’d see a lot less criticism of their language in a similar situation. But who knows? The point is, I think we need to be grateful that in the West we do have media that can be critical of governments, because, of course, that just doesn’t happen in totalitarian nations.
Jack Houghton:
I completely agree. How great is it that we can criticise? They can’t do that in Iran for obvious reasons. I’m glad you mentioned Hillary Clinton, though, because in 2008, Hillary Clinton gave an interview, and she used the word obliterate to describe what she would do to Iran if it used nuclear weapons against Israel. Let’s have a listen to that.
Hillary Clinton:
Well, the question was, if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran.
Whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons programme in the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.
That’s a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic.
Jack Houghton:
Totally obliterate. It has similar connotations about the civilization-ending existential threat. The one caveat here is she was talking directly about if they took nuclear action, but I guess that’s what’s at stake here. This was always the primary objective of Donald Trump is to… And I know there’s a lot of people on the left, and there’s a lot of people that aren’t well-read in this situation that don’t seem to understand just how close they were to obtaining a nuclear weapon. But this is the thing which is the central threat from Iran.
Adam Creighton:
Yeah, certainly. Look, that is true. We don’t know how a Clifton administration would’ve responded to this situation. I mean, I suspect that a Democrat president would’ve been just as likely as Trump to engage. So, of course, he’s getting all this criticism from the left in the US about being too gung-ho and so forth, but I think they would’ve behaved similarly.
Of course, they get the same advice from the US intelligence agencies, et cetera. Look, whether it’s been a success or not, I think we can’t say yet, right. We have this semi-true, seems to be falling apart as we speak. I would… I’d probably guess that the war still has some way to go, and whether or not it’s succeeded in completely neutralising their nuclear capability remains to be seen.
Of course, last year, when the country was bombed by the US, they said then that the nuclear possibility basically had been obliterated, but apparently not. So we never really know. And of course, it’s a vast country of 90 million people with many mountains. It’s very hard to know where their nuclear material actually is.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah. No, well said. I definitely agree with that. The way that Trump’s handled this has created a bit of a MAGA divide. I want to play you a grab from Megyn Kelly.
Megyn Kelly:
Now, as you can imagine, that post did not go over well with the Iranians or with many Americans. I mean, I don’t know about you, but I am sick of this (beep). I’m just… I’m sick of it. Can’t he just behave like a normal human? I mean, honestly, like the president [inaudible 00:05:50] just shut up. (Beep) Shut up about that (beep). You don’t threaten to wipe out an entire civilization. We’re talking about civilians just casually in a social media post.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah. It’s a split on the conservative line of politics, definitely. Strong language there. What do you make of it?
Adam Creighton:
Yeah. Look, it’s very interesting. And there has been indeed this spectacular explosion, if you like, rift on the right of politics in the US, which has been going on some time now. Basically, Megyn Kelly, of course, she’s sort of joined the Tucker Carlson side of things. And then, of course, on the other side, you have the Ben Shapiros of the world. And it’s interesting that this split is over foreign policy, clearly, and especially about the Middle East, but not just the Middle East.
It’s also about attitude to Russia and whether or not the US should escalate. I mean, the only observation I have is that there’s just so much more intellectual debate, I would say, on the right of politics, certainly in the US, but also here, I would say. Whereas on the left, it’s very sterile and there’s really no internal disagreement about things. So I think it’s healthy to have this debate. I think it’s bad, though, for the Republicans in the US because they are fighting each other far more viciously than they’re fighting the Democrats.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah. But great for the contest of ideas. I agree with you there. Adam Creighton, thank you for your insights. A quick break, but stick-
This transcript of Adam Creighton on The Media Show Sky News Australia from 10 April 2026 has been edited for clarity.
