Robert Kagan: A Total and Complete Shutdown of Trump

Now it is time to eat.

The best way to eat is to eat a gratis.

The people who have been in cheese, cheese, cheese. Now to the gratis. Time for 18 years. The coffee and the coffee and the coffee is ready. Only a long time.

A long time to eat. The time for the gratis and cheese. Hello and welcome to the lower podcast. I'm your host Tim Miller, delighted to welcome back to the show. Contributing writer at The Atlantic and Senior Fellow at Brookings.

His most recent book is Rebellion. How anti-liberalism is tearing America apart again. It's Bob Kagan. How you doing, Bob? I'm great. Thank you.

How does it feel to just be a one-man victory tour

while America is on a one-country surrender tour? It creates an internal tension. Yeah, I mean, I'm not thrilled that we're losing. We've lost this war. No, I mean, maybe something for the therapist.

No, I know. It's a problem. I mean, I do want the world in America to see what Donald Trump has done to us.

“And I think that is useful to point out.”

But I take no pleasure, obviously, in our suffering. I made your defeat in a major strategic region of the world. I want to get deep with you on Iran and some related issues. Real quick, we were live last night on the next level during the Texas Senate Results. We're John Kornin just gets absolutely annihilated and humiliated.

When his primary hit 10 packs in. So if you want the long sermon on that, go check out TNL. I have a couple additional thoughts. You've got, I mean, John Kornin would in a different world be a Bob Kagan senator. No, no thoughts on his demise or how that relates to our broader issues.

I have no strong feelings about John Kornin one way or the other. I feel like he's been a block of wood in the Senate for decades. I'm sure he may have voted at times in ways that I would agree with. But I'm unaware of that. I really have no strong feelings about John Kornin.

And I think it's wonderful we're going to chance to get pure magma on the ballot. I mean, you know, you have it tested. I think this is interesting. It's kind of what I wanted to bring up. So we're doing this live last night.

A lot of conversation about Talleriko.

“And I think we assessed that you know, he's the underdog still with packs.”

And it's a better option. But we're noting a better only lost by basically two and a half to three points.

Never let a poll in 2018 that was a really bad political environment for their Republicans.

But there's a chance this one ends up being worse. A big issue is his fan X. One thing would jump down to me last night. There's this carry star carry which is near McCallan. There were 6,000 democratic votes in the primary.

The only 100 Republican votes. This was a Trump flip, county. Just so really bad sign for Republicans right now among Hispanic voters in this key group that they gained. And and packs and I liked this from from Talleriko. They posted this an image of his mug shot.

Have you ever had a mug shot? So far, no, sorry. Okay, I've never seen mine. I'm hoping I just disappeared. I didn't get one from a minor in possession of alcohol and Boulder, Colorado once.

But hopefully I liked better than Ken Paxon did in his because he looks rough. One eye is closed. Talleriko puts it up was indebted on three felony counts for investment fraud. Reporting to the FBI by his own staff for bribery. Different case was impeached by 60 Republicans in the house for corruption.

His personal life makes Trump look like a good Christian. I don't know. You know, if there's going to be a chance in Texas, this feels like it's going to be it. So an interesting race last night more on that over the next level. I'm trying to think of a good transition from corn and simulation to Trump's surrender.

I guess that's going to be it. You wrote for the Atlantic five days ago that Trump's end game in Iran is surrender. This is what we have this morning that I think tells the story pretty well. This is what the Iranian news media is saying is part of the memory memory and we've understand it. So take this with a grain of salt just like you would anything that Trump pleats.

The Iranian media saying this one, US military forces withdraw from the vicinity of Iran to the US Navy will lift its blockade. Three Iran is committed to restoring the number of commercial transit ships to the state of Hormuz to pre-war levels within one month. They say military vessels are not included in this agreement. The management and routing of ship traffic through the state will be handled by Iran and Oman. And if the deals reach within 60 days that will be approved in form of a binding UN Security Council resolution.

“So, Wolf, that's what's coming out of Iran. What's your sense of the state of life?”

It's fair to say that there is unreliable as Trump about what the likely terms of a deal are going to be. Except that I actually think they have a better chance of actually getting the terms that they're laying out in Trump's Trump has no ability to affect them at all.

One is that we effectively lost the war after March 18th. Trump has done nothing since March 18th basically since Iran retaliated to an attack in a par as well. I feel by hitting the guttery gas industrial plant. And fear of what Iran can do to the region has stymied Trump and that's been the end of it. So we basically lost the war back in March and Trump has been spending all these months trying to delay that reality.

And therefore, as a result, Iran has not made a single concession on any point. The Trump administration keeps saying that they're making concessions. They keep saying that there's a deal. They keep saying that they've agreed to do something with their uranium, et cetera.

The only people who've never said that are the Iranians.

“And since they're the ones who are completely in the driver's seat right now, I think their deal is the one that is going to emerge.”

And mostly right now, what's happening is Iran is just shaking Trump down from money. And by the way, money for nothing. I mean, basically, they are demanding unfreezing of billions of dollars worth of assets. The reporting on this has just been terrible. This is where they will open the straight. And so the New York Times keeps blaring the headlines, deal to reopen the straight. And I really just think it's very important to focus very specifically on what the Iranians mean by opening the straight.

It'll be open under new management under Iranian control, which whether they choose to charge tolls or not in the first 60 days, they're going to wind up charging for it. And in any case, more importantly, they're going to use their control the straight as leverage against every single nation in the world, which is this asked of Israel in the United States. A couple media shots there. Do you have any other media criticism? Some of our commenters were concerned.

“I think have been quite appropriately skeptical and hostile to all information coming out of the Trump administration.”

But I will acknowledge, like on Saturday, I was a minor victim of the media reporting because, you know, essentially, the reporting was that Trump had all of the Arab nations in Pakistan and everybody on board and this deal is almost done. And I could bet, you know, times and everybody acts. Yes, obviously it was reporting this as a done deal. And it seems like we're no closer today than we were that.

This is a real problem for the media. And I just think in the Trump era, and they just have never been able to solve it.

You know, Trump has been absolutely brilliant. I have to just take my hat off to him in one respect. He has controlled the markets throughout this entire process. And kept the futures price of oil low by repeatedly saying that we're about to have a deal. And then the markets respond and are very happy about that. Now, this wouldn't be possible for people pointing out what a fraud the whole situation has been. And that's where I think the media have fallen down. Now, partly it's because the Republican National Security establishment would normally be the ones who would all along have been

jumping up and down about how badly this is going. But because they can't say anything bad about the amount of Trump they've been quiet.

“The media, I don't know whether it's just if Trump reports says that it says something is happening. They have to report that that's what he said.”

And they have to sort of, I guess, take it seriously, even though as people didn't pointing up, these said it like seven times in a row. You know, I think he said there's been a deal seven times. He's also said he was going to wipe out their civilization six times. I mean, and every day that the media reports it sort of due to flee. You know, even the New York Times, I just don't think they understand the essence of what has happened in this crisis. We still treat this like it's an open ended anything could happen.

This thing has been settled for months. My question has always been when does reality just become unmistakable. And I think we're getting pretty close to it right now.

Just kind of expanding on that. So your more recent articles talking about kind of the surrender in these terms of negotiation and then and then previously that kind of the broader strategic to feed. So just focusing on the negotiation for now. You're at this five days ago when they're discussing basically like a 30 day continuation to kind of iron out the deal. In 30 days the new Iranian straight regime will already firmly be in place as the Institute for the study of war reports. Iran has been using the ceasefire period to normalize as control over the straight by compelling oil importing countries.

To establish transit agreements with Tehran and charging fees on vessels from nations without such deals. And like this is kind of the detail of what you're talking about about how this thing has already been done for a while now. You mentioned South Korea a couple of other countries that are like already working with them on how to do this. Right, because the whole world could see where this is going even if the New York Times can. The fact that Trump even is talking about authority or now 60 day truths people don't see that for what it is he wants to walk away and hope that nobody notices that he just gave away a fundamental strategic position to one of the most dangerous powers in the world.

One of the limits on his ability to do that, I'm sure you're taking this like you mentioned that you know in any other time if it wasn't Trump, I certainly just a democratic president, but even if it was or a public in president they weren't they weren't scared of domestically. The Republican hawks would be the loudest people talking about this right like talking about how big the disaster this is how it's empowering Iran.

I was interested over the weekend like when he signaled that that what you just described is basically coming like this kind of surrender mass as negotiation.

There was some pushback in mega world and in Republican world Lindsey Graham's tweeting with in his tweeting criticizing this and on Sunday they had a call with all of these kind of mega influencer types. You know our old friends got Jennings then they're all tweeting the same thing right which is basically no this deals in as bad as teams. You know one talking point they all had is that like there's going to be no dollars for Iran without dust no dollars you know without dust with their lie and I like the dust being the nuclear material.

And to me that signal that like unlike some of the other crazy Trump gambits like maybe there are some limitations on his right flank for what the.

What the specifics of this could be I don't know I definitely felt like he was susceptible to pushback on this at least in the public positioning of it I don't know what you made about.

Well that's the thing I mean I don't know how to interpret the fact that he backed away you know when he was saying we have a deal and then he said maybe we're going to take our time and people took that as a response to the. To the hawks complaining I took it as a response to the fact that the Iranians were not giving him any even even the thing leave that he wanted and that that the problem was he haven't nailed actually nailed down the Iranians so. I guess I feel like mostly he's not going to pay attention he's going to start to run against the hawks I believe you know what we're at the very beginning by the way of a real shift in policy by the administration I think you know that's sort of the next step and that that shift is going to.

That shift is going to turn in against Israel for instance and and that'll be interesting to see how. How people who've been so pro is real that throughout this process and have been so pro the war because of Israel.

“What will their response be when it becomes clear that the Trump is really turning against Israel and obviously I think Maga will follow him.”

I think that shift is happening because the interesting thing for me is it's kind of unclear why he hasn't thrown Israel under the bus earlier and it's not as if Trump is not. Willing to throw allies Peter dev allies under the bus and he does it all the time everybody who's worked for him he's thrown under the bus at one time or the other various Republicans he has and you know like you said it's been two months that he's been mired in this quagmire. It's not doing him any good politically speaking.

The fact that he hasn't yet makes me a little skeptical that he is going to but I don't know what makes you think that he is. He's denouncing Israel is is one thing I don't know I don't expect him to denounce Israel the defense of Israel is too much in the blood of the sort of administration right now.

“I don't think he can just do that but if you just look at the way he's treating that in Yahoo and Israel I think that's the biggest picture.”

They've been excluded from these negotiations even though they are the most vitally concerned with how this agreement comes out. I mean look we fought this war the mind of states fought this war for Israel everybody can see that unfortunately for Trump the Gulf states and the Arab states can also see that which is why. The Iraq Accords far from expanding are now dead but you know it was clear that we were doing this for Israel and now that he wants to get out. Israel is the victim Israel is going to pay the biggest price by far you know the United States is a big strong wealthy country we can take a major strategic blow even and still survive but Israel is Israel's right under the right under the thumb of an Iran that is now going to be very powerful.

By the way I think Israel is going to do everything it can to make sure this deal never happens and you know some of that is what they're already doing in Lebanon right now.

You know the Iranians insist that Lebanon is part of the deal and Netanyahu is announcing that he's intensifying strikes in Lebanon.

“I think that Netanyahu is every desire to kill this deal so by the way and also Trump saying Netanyahu will do what I tell him to do I mean that was pretty disrespectful for a partner to say about a partner leader.”

And again this is one of those situations where if it if Netanyahu weren't definitely afraid of admitting that he's having a breach with Trump which would be a disaster. I mean I think he's in trouble anyway but it would be a disaster to say that this guy who you know BB put everything on his relationship with Trump to say that Trump is now dissing him publicly would not be in BB's interest but that therefore we're downplaying.

That's interesting yeah I don't know his bragging about being at 99% in Israel yeah at some level maybe there's a psychological desire to feel like maybe this is the place where it was still.

That was a direct gig at BB because he's right before saying that he said they really they really mean to him. There's really people they really mean to BB he's he which is when other way of saying he's really unpopular in Israel whereas I on the other hand I seem to have like immense popularity in Israel. So maybe BB is like doesn't know what he's doing I you know what I mean that was the that was the tenor of those remarks.

“Have you ever thought I should really be doing something to protect myself from stalker scammers and hackers?”

No my husband's thought about that a lot everyone's like a little stalker curious.

It's never as good as you think it's going to be I guess.

Or maybe the rest of you don't think a stalker would sound good every once in a while I think it sounds fun but that seems wrong. And if you're concerned about that or are more likely to scammers because scammers seem to be proliferating now in the AI era and you're not sure what to do about it. Here's what you do go to www.joingdeleteenee.com/bowlwork and enter code bowl work and you get 20% off of delete me.

“Delete me removes your personal information that's being sold online and the age of AI we're especially vulnerable to scammers using a personal data that's floating around on the internet against you.”

You're Googled yourself and found your home address phone number or the name of the family member it is unsettling.

Talk about it unsettling you know the AI things do now is they like put up random like fake profiles of me. And so you'll see false information about my family you won't believe how much money my daughter's making. She's crushing it out there her net worth it's way higher than you'd expect. Here's the good news delete me can help delete me does all the hard work to wipe your personal information from data broker websites. I've told you all the voices something that we're working on here at the bowl work but also for me and my family.

You don't want your data falling into the wrong hands the one thing that delete me really does is makes it easy to keep updating keep checking it. Send you reports it's not a hassle and that's the most important thing for me in a product like this take control of your data and keep your private life private by sending up for delete me now to special discount for our listeners get 20% off your delete me plan you go to www.joinedelete me dot com slash bowl work and use promo code bowl work to check out the only way to get 20% off is go to www.joinedelete me dot com slash bowl work and check out that's www.joinedelete me dot com slash bowl work code bowl work.

Let's just stay in the region then for a second cause you you know a couple of interesting points what was on the Gulf States and I feel like this is an area where maybe there's some bad information out in the public sphere that I bought into about the degree to watch the Gulf States were for this action I was talking to somebody over the weekend. Last weekend who had been a direct conversation with the cutaries and it seems that MBC was for it initially for variety of reasons and the MBS and the cutaries were skeptical from the start and that some of the information going out there that MBS is for it was it kind of an attempt to manipulate the media to try to pressure and to be on on the side of of action.

What's like your sense for for the Gulf state kind of positioning and all this well first of all I'm I'm pretty sure that the action the initial action was taken without consultation with the Gulf States it was it was something that is really United States did you know getting consult the Congress or with anybody in the NATO or NATO needs to say but I think they also didn't consult with the Gulf States so the Gulf States I don't know how much they've supported it they obviously fear and they would like to see around white out I think when it looked like it was possible.

That did this regime and Iran was going to be completely wiped out I'm sure they were I thought that was a great idea.

“Unfortunately they learned two important things in the course of this war one was that the United States undertaking a war.”

Fundamentally on behalf of Israel was unable to protect them they've suffered enormous damage throughout all this and not just the immediate physical damage but their entire economy especially the UAE. It's now based on attracting Western investors and you know come to Dubai it's really great and you can set up your business here you can set up your data centers here etc etc. Well if the place is dangerous they're going to lose all that they're going to lose all that business and that's why by the way they were imprisoning people for taking pictures of the damage that Iranian strikes were having on the UAE because they didn't want that to get out there.

So the Gulf states have have suffered they've saw that the United States was not as concerned about them as it was about Israel. By the way another fact came out the Washington Post reported on Thursday something I thought was really astonishing which is the United States used up more of its interceptor.

We did not give the interceptors to the Gulf states even when they asked for them because we didn't have enough and now the Gulf states are turning to everybody else in the world Turkey and others to find interceptors because the United States doesn't have anything for them. The bottom line is the Gulf states must feel that they have picked a very wrong horse in the United States in Israel and it is led to there being subject to Iran and now they're staring down the barrel of Iran really being a much more powerful player in the region and controlling their fates through its control the state of our moves.

Yes what they're going to do they're going to have to cut deals with Iran and those deals with Iran are not going to be favorable to the United States and they're not going to be favorable to Israel.

“So that's what's been accomplished and if for Trump to come out now, Lindsey Graham said it first didn't he I don't know.”

The come to come not now and say everybody needs to sign up with the Abraham Accords must be one of the most ludicrous statements even in this administration. And that was the other thing that peaked my interest in your spots so I was just talking with Abraham codes a little bit more I do think there's a feeling during Trump one point now you know the Abraham codes was like the thing where if you asked. They anti-Trump internationalist like what was something that went well in the Trump term so that was the thing that they would say like well Trump was horrible and he attacked democracy and he's an idiot and he's corrupt but like the Abraham Accords seem to work out pretty good.

And then the narrative on that I think really started to shift after October 7 and you know now we're sitting here today and it's still something Trump trying to hang us at on the cushioner is and like you said they're trying to claim that they're going to expand it.

“Do you hear me a little bit more on why you think the opposite is true.”

Well first of all I never understood what the Bruhaha about the Abraham Accords was I mean it was initially between you know Israel and the United Arab Emirates I mean okay congratulations I remember but like what you say is a hundred percent true I'm ever sitting at a table at the. And it's been strategy group with all the big farm policy and it's probably true complete bipartisan union in the midday well at least the Abraham Accords were and I'm like why you know what what you know we. We have a deal with some tin pot dictator you know sitting on a lot of oil and that's big that's anyway but that that was the case why is because.

Israel is now complete pariah you know does anybody think that Israel can bomb these countries can attack them can assassinate leaders clearly purely selfish Israel isn't care.

A wit about the straight they don't get anything through the straight and that's never been their concerns so they're completely unconcerned with these alleged allies of theirs.

“Arab states are not going to be signing up with Israel in fact a man is the one now saying we need Muslim we need Islamic solidarity here you know and I think that's going to be a more appealing.”

Look right now when you consider the fact that the United States has discredited itself in their eyes when you consider the fact that Israel. Is now a losing power in the region not the dominant power that it was that it was before this war by the way I mean the Israel was completely in a dominant position before this war and now they are and now they are very weak. Who's going to be lining up to to sign up with them as setting aside the hostility that most Arab and Muslim people feel toward Israel. Yeah I agree on the manner in which they have just pushed away potential allies and become a pariah for a lot of the countries in the region.

The case for the Abraham courts in the first term would have been that Israel is not sort was in a precarious and dangerous position was surrounded by a lot of threats and you know the more countries they had diplomatic relationships with the safer they would be. I guess it wasn't maybe an unreasonable thought though it doesn't it doesn't seem to have panned out. Look Israel was secure because Israel's the most powerful country in the region backed by the most powerful country in the world that's why Israel was secure.

You didn't need a peace agreement between two people who were never conceivably going to go to war. You know the UAE was going to attack Israel.

The other problem of course and this is what we've said all along is are we sure these dictators are going to be in charge forever and that maybe someday there might be I don't know a revolution where they get over throne and then the true feelings of the people will be expressed and I'm confident those two feelings are not pro Israel. I mean you know we this has been in Israeli strategies really is basically regard Muslims as sort of subhuman and they don't think they should be led by the mocks. They don't want to they want dictators throughout the region. Why do United States signed up for this deal and not just trump by the way you know every administration the Clinton administration the Obama administration they were perfectly happy to work with these dictators but I've always thought over the long run and maybe even over the median run maybe even the short run. I think it's a losing it's a losing strategy.

It has an America too and if you're right that the trump administration those away from Israel like there's not a lot of domestic options for you know political allies at this point and I think that the domestic pro Israel.

You know political coalition is basically doing everything possible to turn people off it seems like right now.

I don't know what it would take for Israel to resurrect its position in the United States I think it's been a reparably damaged and rolling at the beginning of the damage precisely because I do think the bulk of maga is going to turn is going to at least become indifferent to Israel.

“By the way, I was I was going to say before and we can get into this or not but I do I was going to say before that this is the beginning of a of a general turn to real America first foreign policy I think I think that the Iran expedition.”

It is probably the last thing that Trump does outside the hemisphere and they seem to be accelerating there withdrawal of troops from Europe. The Asian alliances are in complete disarray.

Trump has already said that he's basically given away all for all intents and purposes the aid package to Taiwan that he basically gave that to she as a gift for nothing in this last trip.

And now I think we'll be focused on what are we going to do in Cuba. I think he's going to go back to trying to take Greenland. It is really going to be purely hemispheric aggression purely hemispheric activity and basically telling the rest of the world. To have a nice day and jump off a bridge except continue to play us are the exorbitant tariffs that we've slapped on everybody. I agree with that and maybe that was the case the BB is making was that that's the best strategic argument you could make for the decision is that they saw that this was the last gas, but it's like, hey, this is the you know, this is our last rise right out of town.

It's just good as much as we can get out of it. But anyway. Let's talk about that broader strategic positioning that we're in. You know, the piece you wrote a few weeks ago that was referenced many times in the bulwarks. I hope your ears were burning. Check me in Iran talked about the broader strategic setback and in one of the points you made in that piece. You write the roles of China and Russia as Iran's allies are strengthened. The role of the US is diminished. There's going to be a chain reaction as our as foes respond to our failure subsequent to that piece. We have the China summit and just kind of wondering what you saw on the China summit and how it informed your thoughts on the strategic positioning.

“Well, the summit I think reflected reality for anybody who could see which was that she was in a very comfortable position.”

I think that Chinese had a very easy role to play here. They just need to look like the stable power. They can get along with the United States. I think the U.S. and China as equal partners in shaping the world, although I think he probably thinks China is now in a superior position. Otherwise, you know, the summit was a nothing burger. I didn't produce anything. It didn't even produce, you know, some of the benefits for the United States that people were anticipating. I mean, the Boeing plane sales if they ever materialized were much lower than expected, etc. Okay, fine. That was all fine.

It was what Trump did on the way on the way back that that really was the big sellout. And also just the worst negotiating strategy in the world. The fact that this guy has a reputation for being a deal maker is really quite extraordinary. This is a case in point.

“So Trump heard she say Taiwan is really important to us, by the way, and we really want you to like tell the Taiwanese what to do and not to mess with us and not to declare independence and also you should really stop supporting them so much.”

And Trump said in his in his brain, he said, ah ha, it's something that she cares about. So now I've got that as leverage instead of using it as leverage, he announced that he regarded it as leverage.

And therefore he immediately raised a question mark as to whether he would go forward with the $14 billion arm sale to Taiwan.

And so China, therefore predictably, has now made that the key factor in the relationships. So they recently denied a visit by the great Elbridge Colby under Secretary of Defense on the grounds that they're not permitting them to come because as long as we're selling the going ahead with the Taiwanese sale. So now because Trump indicated that it was on the table. Now the Chinese are going to use it as leverage on every issue they want to use it on, whereas if he had just gone forward and used his leverage instead of announcing that he was going to use his leverage, he might have been able to use it as leverage.

And you know, when you mentioned it, I mentioned Elbridge Colby, I think it's funny because Elbridge Colby's big line before he got into the administration was, all the neocons keep getting us into wars in the Middle East and weakening us in our very important and vital and only really important tasks, which is containing China and defending Taiwan.

So here we are, the neocons have gotten us into another war in the Middle East and we are weakening our position vis-a-vis China. Only now Elbridge Colby's under Secretary Defense.

Yeah, the only unfortunate thing about all that is I wish the China would accept an Elbridge Colby and just captain, you know, how it would have been preferable to denying him denying an entry for me. We need him. So talking about the other elements of the chain reaction, but kind of other, you know, implications of this failure, you know, vis-a-vis our former quasi allies in Asia and Europe. Yeah, 80 years the United States was the protector of the warways of the world and that included the straight of our moves and that included the energy supply. So the countries like Japan, which are 95% dependent on energy coming out of the Persian Gulf and countries like Korea, which are like 90% dependent, could count on the United States to keep that flow going.

That's over now. The United States has proven that it cannot, will not, does not care to, which leaves them in an impossible dilemma.

Their economies are absolutely dependent on this source of supply. Their politics are dependent on it, therefore. And so it's an imperative for countries like Japan to make sure that they can secure access. So there's only two ways of doing that. One is by force, which they don't have. And the other is by cutting a deal with a ran, which they will do, but those deals with a ran will not just be about getting the oil. They will also be about certain international behavior. So the notion, by the way, I keep hearing people talk about how there's going to be a sanctions regime on a ran still.

No, there isn't because the Iranians are not going to let anybody with a vessel who's putting sanctions on them get their vessels through the straight. It's as simple as that. So the sanctions are all going to fall anyway. The point is, Japan and other countries are going to now. They can no longer rely on the United States for this. They're going to have to find other ways of dealing with it. And this is true in Europe and it's true in other places too. So that's one thing. Another thing that's happening is we are simultaneously. This is unrelated to Iran, but Iran is certainly exacerbated. We are simultaneously pulling out of Europe.

“And the Europeans now are worried and I think this is a correct worry that Putin who is sort of stalemated in Ukraine is now going to take aggressive steps to stop the supply of weapons in Ukraine. I have been wondering for really a few years now.”

Why Russia hasn't tried to stop the supply of weaponry that that's coming first in the United States and then from Europe. I think that is his goal now. And I think he will use threats.

They're already, they've really stepped up what is, you know, what people hold the hybrid warfare against European states, especially in the Baltic States, especially against Lithuania. For instance, lately there's a whole Kalinin grad scenario, which I don't, we can get into if you feel like it. But I'm intrigued. You know, the corridor that runs Russia has this fluke, whether they control Kalinin grad, which is not, you know, Kultarmus, they're border. So the idea that they would open a corridor, which just happens to go through other states to be able to reach Kalinin grad, et cetera, has always been one of the possibilities.

Other possibilities have to do with protecting the Russian population in some of these countries. He's made a fuss about that. And the past there's all kinds of pretexts of things that Russia could do with the goal, not necessarily invading Europe, but with the goal of getting the Europeans to cut off a to Ukraine.

“And that's why when people say Putin's in big trouble now, the war's going badly, that's all true.”

But that's also happening at a time when Putin must see that this is maybe a once in a lifetime opportunity to really make a fundamental strategic gain in Europe because the United States is so evident. And by the way, Europeans are going to build up their military capacities as quickly as they can. So there's a window before which, you know, Putin may feel that it's time to act. And Iran, the Iran war is aided this because now Putin also happens to be getting an infusion of cash from the higher world prices.

And by the way, the Russians have no interest in this Iran crisis ever being settled because they love the oil, the oil prices. So Russia's being strengthened, the United States is bogged down, the United States is withdrawing. I mean, it really is a recipe for complete breakdown.

“The sanctions regime is such a good point that I hadn't really kind of thought through, right?”

Because it's like even if the US keeps some sort of sanctions regime on there as part of the deal, as part of some gradual effort to pull them back like why would other countries in the world participate in that?

If they need anything out of the Persian Gulf, they're not going to participate because that is what Iran has gotten out of all this. Iran that some people have said this is Iran's actual nuclear weapon. They don't really need the nuclear weapons, which is also amusing, given that that's all that Trump has focused on.

“The only way he measures himself is against Obama, which is about the nuclear deal.”

But what Iran has accomplished here is much more important to them than a nuclear weapon right now. Yeah, I think that's a losing dick measure in contest for him. I want to ask you about some of the other people you sit with at these aspects of security conferences, not personally, I don't get invited. I don't know, I don't want you to personally tell them, but I am just curious, like thinking about the Pompeo's and the Mark T-Sense of the world. Not like the total Trump hacks, right? Not like the Lindsey Graham's, but there's a group of like quasi anti-Trump or people that have gone with Trump and had a falling out with him in the case of Pompeo, Hawks.

Who, like, all seemed to get on board from this war, and that from day one, you, you know, were here on fire of how this strategic disaster it was. Like even when it looks like it was militarily working for for a few minutes, what was it? Why do you think they missed it so badly? Was it a misjudgment of Trump? Was there a way that this could have worked out well? How do you assess their bungling of this?

“You know, I've tried to think about it, and it's not easy to answer. I think it's a complex of things.”

I mean, first of all, why did I think this wasn't going to work? And one of the reasons was setting everything else aside.

One thing we learned in the 1990s was that you could not bomb your way into success like this. You could not bomb your way into regime change. You could not bomb your way into solving problems. And that's, you know, why do we think that George W. Bush sent troops to Iraq in order to get regime change? It wasn't because he was dying to send troops somewhere. It was because we'd already figured out that if you didn't, if you didn't do that then you weren't getting regime change. Which is fine. Maybe we shouldn't have done it, whatever. But if you were going to do it, you had to do it.

So we learned that that was true. And these people knew that too. So I was just surprised. And I think it was a combination of they want to be pro-Trump. You know, they've obviously made that calculation in their heads whether it was for career purposes or money purposes or because they truly liked all the top of it. They really hate the Democrats whatever. So they were initially pro-Trump. And then Iran is a special issue for some people, clearly.

And so the notion that the United States was finally blowing up Iranians and killing the regime.

I just think was just a very, you know, after decades, some of these people have committed themselves to containing, defeating, etc. And that they'd got the better of them. And maybe they even believed what they said they believed. And this is the thing that I think has been a big factor in all this is that Donald Trump is different from all the rest of these guys. He can do, he's willing to pay the price. He's not going to be bogged down by international law. The Wall Street Journal was bragging about how international law is bunk. He's not going to be bogged down by liberal sensibilities, et cetera, et cetera.

But really, finally we have someone who's willing to go all the way. That's my best explanation.

Then of course, when you paid $10 million for a phony painting, you don't want to ever admit that you paid for a phony painting.

“So then you're now your stock. And that's why it's been hard, I think, for them to turn against the conflict.”

And now I think I'm going to be very interested to see for these people how much of it is about principle and how much of it is just needing to get along in the Donald Trump era. So I'm a cheese mo, self delusion, something to write a book on it. So it works, I give Ben Rhodes, shit, when he's on the pot for time to time with love, about his book after the fall. It's just like quite good. And he goes around the world after Trump wins in 2016 and meets with all these dissidents. And there are parts of the book where he kind of sounds like John McCain, and I'm teasing him a little bit.

You have this McCainian bill crystal Bob Cagan streak in you. That's not him. Yeah, he doesn't enjoy it. And I tease him about this. And I'm like, you know, talking about the importance of, you know, supporting people who are struggling for freedom around the world. Because, you know, the world that comes after, you know, the American world for all of our flaws seems like it could be a lot worse. And the book he also has plenty of criticism for American foreign policy, of course.

There's another side of that coin, though, which is you and Bill are starting to sound like Ben in other ways. And I'm wondering how you're kind of processing that emotionally, you know, that you're kind of making a lot of the points, the critiques of the neocons, that the Ben Rhodes is the world has made up for the years. You know, I don't really think that's true, honestly. I mean, I know that apparently, apparently being me means that I favor every war that could possibly be fought by anybody at any time.

I don't say that.

You know what I'm saying is that if you listen to you, this podcast and you go listen to last week's episode of "Pod Save the World."

“A lot of the points that you're making, the same as a brago moments, and that's what the security advice are. That's all I'm saying.”

No, I know, but look, it's not, I can't help it that this was, that this was an obvious mistake. Setting aside all that the amusing aspects of it, I'm interested to know where does this lead people from a doctrinal, since this is a doctrinal discussion. You know, where does this lead people in that regard? Now, you know, my view has always been and remains that the United States created a unique international system, which has worked better than any other international system in history, and was worth preserving, and that that system was based primarily on American power.

And it was based primarily on what America accomplished in World War II, and it heavily relied on America's willingness to use force. Fortunately, throughout the Cold War, and certainly throughout the post Cold War period, the Ben Roads of this world didn't believe any of that, any of that. I had lunch with Barack Obama in 2012, and we talked about it, and his view was that every use of American force since World War II had been a mistake, every single one, and basically did not believe in the use of American power.

“So that's one version of what they have always been saying, and I've never been saying that. Now, does that mean that therefore we should be using force everywhere, no matter whether it's smart or not smart?”

So from my point of view, I'm not opposed to war as a concept when I'm not, certainly not opposed to the United States using force, but this clearly wasn't going to work, and is now led to the disaster that was clear. So I don't even think this is really an ideological question. I think it's mostly a practical question. I feel like I've been pretty consistent, whereas I don't think that the liberal Democrats have been consistent. I was amused to see after the Obama administration spent really years saying Ukraine was not a vital interest to the United States, and making it perfectly clear to the Russians, and to Putin that the United States, not regard Ukraine as a vital entry United States. Obama said, "I'm not going to have a nuclear war over Ukraine."

As soon as the Russians invaded Ukraine, people like Ben Rhodes are up there saying, "We have to stop them from doing this, is it terrible? We have to support democracy." And I was glad. I'm, you know, yes, I agree, a hundred percent, but it's like, you know, so what's the doctrine here?

You know, the doctrine is, let's never do a rack. Agreed, you know, we'll never do a rack again, okay? I get that. But from a doctoral point of view, we have to come out of this.

Not with the view that the United States should never use force. On the contrary, we have to come out of this with the view that the world depends on American power, but it has to be used intelligently. In retrospect, there are very few of the examples that fit the bill. Post World War II. I guess I'd be my defense at the Obama Reds take from lunch. And there's some examples, but there are more, there are more misses than hits. I guess I would say.

“And I guess, I mean, this is, this is a much longer argument. Even the misses I don't regard is entirely misses. I think this point is important.”

The countries that rely on us for their protection, that have relied on us for their protection, counted on us being willing to use force.

Okay, and so if we never used force, we would not have been a useful country to be allowed to. And so, which is why, even during the Vietnam War, the European Alliance held.

You know, in one of my books, I'm quoting a German chancellor saying, look, we need the Americans to fulfill their commitments. This is one of those commitments that they made. And so we shouldn't be, you know, cheering for them to abandon their commitments because then they're someday going to abandon us. So it's more complicated than that. And the kinds of wars that we fought in during the Cold War were not wars of conquest. They were not wars that you win because you plant your flag in the other guy's capital. They were wars of global order management, really.

And in that respect, some of them were successful. Cost of all was a successful conflict. You know, it really did save thousands of lives. You know, even Somalia, if you remember the Somalia conflict in the early 1990s, you know, that saved hundreds of thousands of people in Somalia. So I just think we've been, I know, shaped too much by sort of a Quincy Institute view of the world. You know, we're not going to use power on airingly, but we really do have to be willing to use power. Or we get the world that, unfortunately, we're now about to get.

Is that ship sailed, I guess, at this point? Is that another part of the doctrinal question, which is, is a two-late to turn back the clock? It's too late to recreate the post World War II world. It's too late to recreate that world, but it's not too late for the United States to come back and be a positive influence on World Affairs.

I mean, my problem with the Democratic Party is that, you know, when people say, well, we got to get Trump out, and then we'll get Democrats in and we'll get back to normal again, and I just want to remind people, this is not the, the party of Dean Anderson.

“This Democratic Party. I mean, if you want to say, how did we get to where we are today, where Americans seem perfectly willing to elect a president who's going to withdraw from the world practically entirely?”

The Democrats, especially on the left, played a huge role in setting us up for that. They're the ones who said that American leadership was a bad thing that American power was bad.

They really undercut a lot of the moral justification for our behavior, and then the right swooped in and took the Citadel. You know, I really think the left and the, and the liberal Democrats have a lot of responsibility for where we are today. Yeah, I guess my additional, my yes, and the left, I know you've gone full left. Well, here's why I've gone full left. Okay. No, that's fine. We could not let's talk about it. That's good. We're having a, this is a great podcast. This was people want at the beginning. I said, we're going to have a heated agreement only did for like 42 minutes. And now, you know, people want a little bit of tension.

Myrsan said, it's kind of similar to what I would have said about BV at the beginning of this, right, which is like there was a series of choices that were made by these really government that made it rational for people that are potential allies, you know, to say, I can't sign up for this anymore because of what has actually happened in the real world. Like we're not having this conversation like in a, on a college campus with the aspect security retreat where in a, you know, in a vacuum, you know, you would prefer whatever a strong democratic Israel.

And that's what we have, like we have what we have in the world. And I guess I would say that the left side of the democratic party on foreign policy has been empowered quite a bit by the failures of the like bipartisan establishment on the foreign policy side. And, you know, the series of failures now has led to a moment where like I think that people on the left are going to have a lot more purchase with the electorate because the electorate is going to look at what's happened in the world.

And say, I don't want part of any of this anymore because it hasn't done anything to help me.

“That's what I blame the not just the left, but so the liberal laugh and the realists are also about this, which is precisely that, you know, the bipartisan foreign policy establishment led us to failure.”

It wasn't a failure. I mean, you know, in that is taking for granted the American order, which is now going to collapse, okay. And as people used to say that Walter Meeda said this like dozens of times. You know, the last 25 years, the last 30 years have been the biggest failure of American foreign policy in history. And I'm like, do you know any history at all, because which 30 years do you like better. Do you like the first 30 years of the 20th century when we had World War I, did you like the second part where we had World War II? I mean, which 30 years have been better than this. Yes, we've gotten into some conflicts that have that have not worked out in 1989 to 1999 plus an imaginary 20.

Yeah, really. No, like exactly. This has actually been a period of great American success because again, the World Order remained intact even under presidents who I didn't think were fully committed to it like Barack Obama and nevertheless remained intact. He didn't walk away from it.

“And the consequence of that order was no conflicts among great powers, which is, you know, for decades, which is not the norm, enormous increase in human prosperity. And this spread of democracy in a way that's never been seen before.”

That is what the bipartisan foreign policy establishment after World War II gave us. The fact that Americans, what really happened in my view was that Americans came to take that for granted, they assumed that that is the steady state.

And therefore, all we were ever doing was getting into trouble without realizing that the getting into trouble was part and parcel of the overall effort to sustain this world order.

And that you could not sustain this world order if you were not willing to take those kinds of risks. Now does that mean that they all work? No, but they did ultimately support the order. And now we're going to find out what what it looks like when you don't have that we're going to find out what real failure looks like. And just it's all been very a historical and really thinking that somehow the alternative to our bad policies is some kind of utopian world where we really never have to do any of these things. And that really is not realism I would say.

This is my style going to have to cut a middle ground between Bob Cagan and Walter Means. Assessing. Assessing the last 30 years of foreign policy, but we can do that. We can do a retrospective in 2029 if we get through this. I was supposed to spend the last 10 minutes as I guess on Cuba, but we have this really wonderful diversion, but why don't you just give us a quick assessment of what you think the state of play is with Cuba?

And I don't know. I didn't think that even then as well it would be as stable as it is right now, so I don't want to go out on a limb, but you know I don't want to go too far with prediction, but Cuba is going to be a mess.

You know, I mean, let's say they swoop in and they take out a Castro and bring them to trial and then put somebody else in Cuba is bankrupt.

They have no electricity. They are in us. The people are dying for want.

“Are we about to give them a multi-billion dollar aid package? Are we going to help them restore their economy? Are we going to really get in there?”

And help, this is a nation building situation. This is not a matter of turning the keys over to some other students like we did in Venezuela.

In addition to which the Cuban American community is a very vocal community and really cares how things turn out in Cuba.

And I'm not sure, you know, that they will be satisfied if we simply decapatate the regime handed off to somebody else and then let the chips fall where they may. So I think that this is yet another Donald Trump quagmire in the making. I'm curious, you know better than I do, whether this actually will buy him anything politically. I mean, it is the average voter going to say, "Oh wow, thank goodness we're not really paying attention around anymore. Now we're invading Cuba." We'll see if no stroke egg in is right again or if it's in Cuba. The political impact is basically nail. I mean Florida, I could have some impact on it. That Florida might be a swing state again. This year, which is kind of interesting.

No, I think for Trump, this is about Ega, this is not about politics. It's about ego, it's about legacy. So having people compliment him, it's about the idea that people will say, you know, in the future, it may be Trump was a disaster, but look at what has happened in Cuba and Venezuela.

“They have statute of him and Havana, whatever. I do think that's the notion politics wise, because I think it's all, if anything, it's a negative.”

In the Venezuela situation, which I will see how that all shakes out. Like maybe the best case scenario is you get some plot, it's in the DC media that's like desperate to compliment him for something to feel unbiased, right? But in the public, to your point, there's no demand for all this, right? And it puts Trump further away from what his unique selling proposition was politically to people, which was that he cared about them, not about the DC nonsense, right?

Like that was his selling point to a lot of people and he's gotten really far away from that. So that's my take on the politics.

You know, I think, as you've said, also, all this is going to be taking place in the context of increasing economic difficulties. I mean, I don't see any way around that as as people who are not even at the war literally ended tomorrow and everything that's straight open tomorrow, it'll be months before we see these effects. Well, I do wonder, by the way, can the military do all this without cracking, you know, these aircraft carrier battle groups now that are serving in the in the Gulf have been on station for a very long time.

There's people are not getting leave. The military is canceling training exercises because they're running on a money. And now we're going to have to devote another aircraft carrier battle group to Cuba in addition to the ones that we've got in the Gulf, which again are all detracting from our defenses in Asia. Again, this China, so I'm not sure militarily we're not straining the military to the point of cracking. We'll see. Bob Cagan, what a banger of a podcast. That was wonderful. I'm setting up a cake and roads beer summit though.

“I think that both of you are resistant to the truth, which is that TV, you're almost you've almost met. You've almost met. There's some differences. There's some, there's some, you know, some wounds that need to be scabbed over.”

But I can see it, you know, I can see the path and I'm going to organize it. Maybe down in New Orleans over a sazerack or something. All right. Sounds great. All right. We'll see you soon. That's Bob Cagan. We'll be back with another banger tomorrow. We'll see you all then peace. The board podcast is brought to you. Thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, associate producer Ansley Skipper and with video editing by Katie Lutz and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.