Latest / The Nation Podcasts / Iran War Heats Up w/ Matt Duss / The Time of Monsters with Jeet Heer

Transcript

Iran War Heats Up w/ Matt Duss / The Time of Monsters with Jeet Heer · The Nation Podcasts

• 0:00
  [SPEAKER_01]: The old world is dying, the new world struggles to be born.
• 0:03
  [SPEAKER_01]: Now is the time of monsters.
• 0:05
  [SPEAKER_01]: With those words in grams, she, I welcome you to the time of monsters podcast.
• 0:09
  [SPEAKER_01]: I'm Keith here, the host of the podcast.
• 0:11
  [SPEAKER_01]: I'm a writer for the Nation Magazine, which is the sponsor of the program.
• 0:16
  [SPEAKER_01]: We've often taken up foreign policy and the Middle East and it continues to be in the news that conflict with Iran has never really ended.
• 0:24
  [SPEAKER_01]: It seems like it's ramping up again in very dangerous ways.
• 0:28
  [SPEAKER_01]: But there's also claims by the Trump administration that they've negotiated a new agreement with Saudi Arabia that will allow the
• 0:37
  [SPEAKER_01]: oil rich kingdom to receive assistance for building nuclear power.
• 0:43
  [SPEAKER_01]: And that itself is a sort of controversial position and it has many of the sort of incoherences that one sees in Donald Trump's foreign policy.
• 0:51
  [SPEAKER_01]: So to talk about
• 0:53
  [SPEAKER_01]: both of these developments and other matters.
• 0:55
  [SPEAKER_01]: I'm very happy to have on Matt Duss, a speaker and guest of the program, who is Vice President of the Center for International Policy and is on this program a lot because he's very astute and wise about these matters.
• 1:09
  [SPEAKER_01]: So first of all, Matt, welcome to the program.
• 1:12
  [SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Jade, very, very kind introduction.
• 1:14
  [SPEAKER_00]: Always glad to be with you.
• 1:16
  [SPEAKER_01]: So yeah, let's just talk about what's actually happening in the news because to be like, there seems like a weird disconnect between what I'm reading about in the release, which is like very alarming.
• 1:27
  [SPEAKER_01]: And the general nonchalance that a lot of people in the United States seem to have about this.
• 1:34
  [SPEAKER_01]: I know that there are some members in the elements of Congress in the Senate, including some Republicans that are getting alarmed.
• 1:43
  [SPEAKER_01]: To me, the reaction to what's actually happening is not commensurate with the actual situation.
• 1:49
  [SPEAKER_01]: Let's just run through where things stand right now.
• 1:52
  [SPEAKER_00]: Right, I mean, I totally agree.
• 1:55
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, the amount of destruction, destabilization, the United States and Israel have kicked off with this, I don't know how many, is it four months old now, this war with Iran, maybe end of February.
• 2:07
  [SPEAKER_00]: You know, and the impact this is already having and will continue to have on very vulnerable communities around the world, much, much more so that will be felt in the United States economically is pretty extraordinary.
• 2:21
  [SPEAKER_00]: But I think the relative lack of alarm we're seeing from political leaders in the United States.
• 2:26
  [SPEAKER_00]: And I want to say we are seeing some of them, I think we've further very beginning.
• 2:29
  [SPEAKER_00]: We've seen a number of Democrats be very aggressive in their criticism.
• 2:35
  [SPEAKER_00]: As for the broader American political establishment, I don't think there is a level of alarm anywhere close to where it should be and in part that's a reflection of the fact that a lot of this war is being fought by remote control.
• 2:45
  [SPEAKER_00]: We are not seeing American casualties or Americans coming home in body bags and coffins as we did during the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan obviously.
• 2:57
  [SPEAKER_00]: other larger wars like Vietnam and those are the kinds of things that would really create massive opposition and part of the populist but on that I would also say this war has always been very unpopular from the beginning among the public.
• 3:13
  [SPEAKER_00]: which is very strange that usually in wars historically there's been at least a moment of rally around the flag, support the president, support the troops, but this war started very unpopular and has only become more so, but the fact that the president is able to continue waging this war with no congressional approval and in the face of public disapproval, the face of congressional disapproval, I think just goes to a much bigger problem of how
• 3:43
  [SPEAKER_00]: take in much more and more power and authority to use military violence around the world, just under their own progative.
• 3:51
  [SPEAKER_00]: That is a much deeper problem than Trump, and I think we're really seeing it reflected here.
• 3:57
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, no, absolutely.
• 3:58
  [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, I had the question of like certainly the body bags.
• 4:03
  [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, I think there's also the case that we see them because I'm good reporting that at least like injuries for the war are like what's more extensive than is being reported than that there is a ongoing sort of cover up of that.
• 4:16
  [SPEAKER_01]: I've just saw that they said in like 100 more medics to Germany.
• 4:20
  [SPEAKER_01]: Just very alarming because it indicates that there are expecting like you know much more American casualties But as you mentioned like the side of American military deaths, which are tragic, like there is a lot of people in the region that are dying and then a lot of people around the world that are like actually suffering that the real like material cost of like much higher energy prices
• 4:41
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
• 4:42
  [SPEAKER_00]: And on that point, I mean, it is very consistent of Trump.
• 4:48
  [SPEAKER_00]: You know, we saw this during the first term to really conceal the number of American casualties.
• 4:54
  [SPEAKER_00]: I'm thinking particularly of, you know, the retaliation by Iran after the assassination of Custom Soleimani in January 2020.
• 5:03
  [SPEAKER_00]: to which Iran responded with a missile attack on a U.S. base in Iraq that lasted hours.
• 5:10
  [SPEAKER_00]: It was a very intense attack.
• 5:13
  [SPEAKER_00]: Initially the...
• 5:15
  [SPEAKER_00]: you know the Trump administration said oh thank goodness there were no casualties but it turned out you know information was dribbled out little by little over the following days and weeks that no it turned out that over a hundred close to a hundred and fifty um... american service members had been very seriously injured many of them with it was traumatic brain injury concussion um... you know the kinds of injuries that require long-term if not lifelong care um and i think we're seeing the same kind of thing here
• 5:43
  [SPEAKER_00]: yet another example of how Trump gets to operate according to a very different kind of political gravity than normal presidents.
• 5:50
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, imagine, if a democratic president lied to the American people that, oh, no, everyone was fine.
• 5:57
  [SPEAKER_00]: No American service members were heard, and then this information came dribbling and leaking out over the next few weeks.
• 6:03
  [SPEAKER_00]: No, it turned out that there were a lot of American casualties.
• 6:05
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I mean, you know,
• 6:07
  [SPEAKER_00]: just imagine the response from Congress, from the political media, I mean this would be a scandal of enormous proportions and yet Trump simply lies about these things and he gets away with it.
• 6:20
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I don't know, but as you say, like the worst starting out on Piper, so it's always almost benefiting from the, from the, for firstly, from the fact that it's an unpopular war, so like any war.
• 6:30
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, public opinion can turn against it.
• 6:32
  [SPEAKER_00]: It was, it was against it was never, it was never there.
• 6:35
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, but we're pretty, we talk about like, like, laser, the current escalation in terms of like the real kind of dangers, because the
• 6:43
  [SPEAKER_01]: It seems like the, you know, the trumpet reservation keeps thinking that if they will just like exert a little bit more pressure on Iran, they will be able to get the kind of deals that they want and you know,
• 6:55
  [SPEAKER_01]: Um, certainly they haven't been fighting with their hands behind their back.
• 6:59
  [SPEAKER_01]: They have, you know, like committed like very serious war crimes already, but to me, like, this strategy, like, just, you know, like, let's try, you know, like, it's almost like an alcoholic strategy, you know?
• 7:10
  [SPEAKER_01]: And they just like, a love, you know, like, another drink and everything will be fine.
• 7:16
  [SPEAKER_01]: It underestimates the real danger, and now we're seeing things that one didn't have earlier, one of which is the sort of food-the-envolvement, the closing of the Red Sea.
• 7:26
  [SPEAKER_01]: I think the strategic reserves are a very low, so if the war continues, we could be in very dangerous territory.
• 7:35
  [SPEAKER_01]: So what are some of the dangers that could come out of this re-escalation?
• 7:41
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.
• 7:42
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, there's that.
• 7:43
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, I'll get to that in a minute.
• 7:44
  [SPEAKER_00]: But, you know, as I said earlier, already, this war is already going to have a very long tail.
• 7:49
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah.
• 7:49
  [SPEAKER_00]: Um, the, the, the blocking of, of the, of the shipping through the straight-up form moves, whether it's energy, whether it's fertilizer, um, a whole number of things that are going to continue to have impacts over the over the next years, whether there's, you know, we fertilizer not being able to get, uh, to, to, to
• 8:06
  [SPEAKER_00]: crops, which is going to cause crops to fail and decline, which will turn lead to probably mass migration from regions which are unable to get the necessary amount of food, which in turn creates pressure and potentially conflict in a lot of places where these people migrate to.
• 8:23
  [SPEAKER_00]: We're going to be seeing the impact of this for a very, very long time.
• 8:28
  [SPEAKER_00]: But turning back to the immediate
• 8:31
  [SPEAKER_00]: You know, as you said, I mean, Trump still seems to exist in this, you know, believe that American military power is magic, and if I can just apply the appropriate amount of magic, then things will go my way.
• 8:44
  [SPEAKER_00]: And once again, I hate to keep, you know, banging this same gong, but this is not just a problem of Trump.
• 8:50
  [SPEAKER_00]: This is a problem of America's foreign policy establishment, the belief that American military power is so awesome and so technologically advanced.
• 9:00
  [SPEAKER_00]: that this is a problem we can solve by just kind of dialing up the use of force, and then our enemies will capitulate.
• 9:08
  [SPEAKER_00]: Clearly, that's not going to happen.
• 9:10
  [SPEAKER_00]: But again, the way that this is about Trump is that if you look at Trump's kind of approach throughout his career, whether it's in business, whether it's in politics, there's a Trump basically has one move, is that he escalates.
• 9:23
  [SPEAKER_00]: He is the guy who's seen as, oh, he doesn't have any scruples, he's the guy who's going to say and do things that no one else would, and that's kind of his power is that others are like, okay, this is getting out of hand.
• 9:35
  [SPEAKER_00]: I will kind of back down.
• 9:38
  [SPEAKER_00]: But clearly that is not happening here.
• 9:40
  [SPEAKER_00]: Iran has shown that it will, you know, re-raise essentially.
• 9:44
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, you talked about, you know, the alcoholic, you know, one more drink for me.
• 9:47
  [SPEAKER_00]: It's a gambler.
• 9:48
  [SPEAKER_00]: you know it's throwing good money after bad if I can just push more chips in that will cause my an opponent to fold.
• 9:54
  [SPEAKER_00]: Iran is showing a we we have chips to and where we will continue to re-raise and you know what they've done with the straight-up for moves is shoving a lot of chips in and showing that they have a lot more chips to continue to push in here and and he and Trump just doesn't know how to respond here.
• 10:10
  [SPEAKER_00]: He has what's called escalatory dominance
• 10:13
  [SPEAKER_00]: in so many other relationships throughout his career that when he's faced with an adversary that has shown that it will not fold in the face of his threats to re-raise, he really just kind of becomes discombobulated.
• 10:30
  [SPEAKER_00]: We saw a similar thing just for example with China.
• 10:33
  [SPEAKER_00]: You know, when he announced this trade war with China and China showed, well, what we can do is we can start to threaten and cut off your access to rare minerals that you need for a whole number of things.
• 10:45
  [SPEAKER_00]: As with the Stratophore moves, that was not China's first choice.
• 10:48
  [SPEAKER_00]: That was kind of a break glass in case of emergency maneuver.
• 10:51
  [SPEAKER_00]: But what they showed is that, yes, we can escalate, too.
• 10:54
  [SPEAKER_00]: We can re-raise, too.
• 10:56
  [SPEAKER_00]: And Trump there, you know, kind of back down.
• 10:59
  [SPEAKER_00]: He's not decided to back
• 11:02
  [SPEAKER_00]: And really, that's the only way this conflict comes to an end.
• 11:06
  [SPEAKER_00]: Is if somehow Trump decides, OK, I just can't sustain this anymore, whatever kind of story he needs to tell to himself in his own mind about how Donald Trump succeeded yet again, just get to that point.
• 11:22
  [SPEAKER_00]: Because there is no way to know a way out of this that's just about more military force or more pressure.
• 11:27
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, I think that's a very astute sort of assessment of Trump's approach.
• 11:33
  [SPEAKER_01]: And I will say that the sort of, you know, his sort of strategy of escalation dominance does work against weaker parties, particularly like America's allies.
• 11:43
  [SPEAKER_01]: I feel like it's actually like my country, Canada has like, you know, had to retreat on many issues of, you know, real importance to us just because like for us, like, you know, we, we're not trying to, we can't actually.
• 11:57
  [SPEAKER_01]: I'd say as much as I can hear it, so it's really like Venezuela, you know, not in that I've got like a very weak country and the NATO countries, I mean like so is he's like a, you know, like escalation dominance works full enough with allies and was very weak opponents.
• 12:16
  [SPEAKER_00]: But also because, you know, and again, it's not just that the United States has enormous economic and military power to bring to bear on less powerful allies and partners, is that Donald Trump himself, you know, he always, as I said, throughout his career in real estate and now in politics, he relies on the fact that his opponents actually do adhere to a set of norms and rules.
• 12:39
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, but he himself rejects and that's part of his power, but here, you know, Iran and China for just two examples, they also have decided that well, we don't have to play those by those rules.
• 12:55
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, I think that's very accurate.
• 12:59
  [SPEAKER_01]: And is there any sort of thought as to why, I mean, there was a kind of path of the escalation through the, you know, so-called memorandum of understanding.
• 13:10
  [SPEAKER_01]: And actually, that might preach to something else.
• 13:12
  [SPEAKER_01]: I want to think up a little bit later.
• 13:14
  [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, like, any thought just to why that altered because like, it did seem like if he did want, you know, to go on the off ramp, it was right there.
• 13:24
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I think it was, it was, you know, obviously, you know, conceded a lot to Iran from Iran's very reasonable reading of it.
• 13:33
  [SPEAKER_00]: If Trump had really wanted to use that as a pathway to really ending the conflict, he could, unfortunately, he was convinced by people around him, including Netanyahu, including the Hawks in Congress, people like Tom Cotton, or at least until very recently, Lindsey Graham, who's no longer with us.
• 13:55
  [SPEAKER_00]: But you know, he unfortunately became convinced that okay, this is this is not a win for Donald Trump.
• 14:00
  [SPEAKER_00]: This is a loss.
• 14:01
  [SPEAKER_00]: I think I feel like he could have kind of kind of fashion that into a win.
• 14:06
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, because let's be clear, Donald Trump can tell his father or say anything.
• 14:10
  [SPEAKER_00]: And most of them will believe it, but I think he, you know, again, this is just my interpretation is that he took so much criticism from his own side and from a few Democrats about the weakness of that agreement.
• 14:22
  [SPEAKER_00]: And also I think he had an understanding of what was going to happen in the state of her moves that was quite different from the Iranian government's understanding.
• 14:31
  [SPEAKER_00]: which was that, you know, Iran for the time being will continue to oversee traffic through the straight.
• 14:37
  [SPEAKER_00]: It will not return to the pre-February status quo.
• 14:42
  [SPEAKER_00]: And I think that makes perfect sense from Iran's point of view because they're not going to give up this card.
• 14:48
  [SPEAKER_00]: unless and until they are confident that the U.S. will not simply start up the war again.
• 14:54
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, that is Iran's number one priority.
• 14:57
  [SPEAKER_00]: They need to make this hurt.
• 14:59
  [SPEAKER_00]: They need to retain leverage until they are convinced.
• 15:04
  [SPEAKER_00]: that they have established some measure of deterrence, both against the United States and Israel.
• 15:10
  [SPEAKER_00]: And again, Israel, obviously, a huge part of the student, Yahoo, for his part, he's still in the position where he needs to remain at war everywhere all the time, as a matter of his own political survival.
• 15:23
  [SPEAKER_00]: So all of these things, when you add these things up into an equation, it does not equal peace, unfortunately, equals continued war.
• 15:31
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, yeah, just on that point of view, like it does seem one of the sort of problems that the memorandum of understanding was that from right from the start, it seemed like, well, one easy way this could fall apart is, you know, is really continues to fight or escalate.
• 15:50
  [SPEAKER_01]: which it did like and in Lebanon, which is the fact that the Iranians like actually decided to make Lebanon as well one of their red lines was maybe a little bit of a surprise but certainly from the side of the Americans like they gave Israel this power to that's right no anybody Ron like again not here to be an attorney for Iran but Iran correctly understands this as a regional war.
• 16:16
  [SPEAKER_00]: This is what it is.
• 16:17
  [SPEAKER_00]: It is a regional war that is being waged by the United States and Israel at Began and Gaza, then it's spread to Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Iran.
• 16:30
  [SPEAKER_00]: A regional war needs a regional solution.
• 16:33
  [SPEAKER_00]: But as we see with Trump initially, he said, yeah, Lebanon is part of this agreement as it should be than Israel pushed back hard and basically show up.
• 16:41
  [SPEAKER_00]: No, we're just going to go ahead and keep bombing Lebanon whenever we want.
• 16:44
  [SPEAKER_00]: Trump had an option there.
• 16:46
  [SPEAKER_00]: He could have used the United States enormous leverage on Israel to get them to change their behavior, and he chose not to.
• 16:54
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, I think that's right.
• 16:55
  [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, the Iran does have a kind of regional vision of what it's needed, but I think it's worth it from their own end, the United States also has a kind of regional vision, which is kind of outlined through the Abraham Accords of this idea.
• 17:11
  [SPEAKER_01]: of like a grand coalition of the Arab autocrats with Israel where there's some exchange of recognition of Israel for the United States becoming increasingly integrated militarily.
• 17:27
  [SPEAKER_01]: with the Saudi Arabia and the other trucker seas.
• 17:31
  [SPEAKER_01]: And with these very curious that while, you know, this more is still going on Trump then suddenly decides lately, let's revive the Abraham Accords, basically.
• 17:39
  [SPEAKER_01]: And let's actually say that we're actually going to do finally make it, even though the Abraham Accords, especially on that issue of Saudi Arabia, it always had this kind of like stumbling block of
• 17:56
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, it's bizarre, I mean, again, as you know, we're saying to it, you know, talking before we started recording, like, there's always tempted to try to kind of, find some logic, but it really is just completely incoherent with Trump.
• 18:11
  [SPEAKER_00]: You know, my, my read, yes, he announced this Saudi nuclear agreement a few days ago, surprising a lot of people, and just today, or maybe was yesterday, he announced that no, no, before Saudi gets this nuclear agreement, they have to join the Abraham Accords.
• 18:24
  [SPEAKER_00]: You know, there's a couple of ways to read this that, you know, he took so much criticism from, you know, Israelis and also some, you know, conservatives that why did you leave what Israel out of the loop here, but also.
• 18:37
  [SPEAKER_00]: You know, if you wanted to make sure that we're not actually going to get this agreement with Saudi, you know, making Israel normalization a condition of it is a way to kind of tank your own deal because they're just not going to do that in the absence of any meaningful movement toward a Palestinian state, which this, this is really gone right.
• 18:57
  [SPEAKER_00]: And frankly, any Israeli government that could replace it is absolutely not going to do.
• 19:02
  [SPEAKER_01]: It's also, yeah, I don't think we need to rehearse too much, just what a crackpot thing it is, and very typical from sort of move, you know, just announcing something that has no basis in reality, I do want to underscore that there's some like significant overlap.
• 19:21
  [SPEAKER_01]: with the, you know, the way he's handled the memorandum of understanding with this Saudi nuclear deal, which is that it's not a negotiation where you go in and you talk to the other party and find out what they want and then what you want and you hammer out a real understanding.
• 19:36
  [SPEAKER_01]: It's like you try to do by fiat of saying, you know, this is what we have achieved.
• 19:41
  [SPEAKER_01]: And if the other party has a completely different understanding, you try to just paper it over steam roll and say, we have an agreement, right?
• 19:48
  [SPEAKER_01]: So you're saying that we have a Saudi nuclear deal, even though the most crucial element that's been holding the deal back, the solving of the Palestinian issues so that Saudi Arabia can recognize Israel.
• 20:02
  [SPEAKER_01]: That was not settled at all.
• 20:03
  [SPEAKER_01]: So it seems like that this is pattern of trying to declare victory or deal making by Fiat, just like a third thing.
• 20:11
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I think that's right, I mean, but even, you know,
• 20:15
  [SPEAKER_00]: with regard to the Iran negotiation, there was, there was a negotiation.
• 20:20
  [SPEAKER_00]: People sat diplomats and worked some things out.
• 20:23
  [SPEAKER_00]: It's unclear to me, I don't even think it's reported yet, who were the people involved in writing this proposed deal?
• 20:30
  [SPEAKER_00]: I don't think it's even been shared with Congress yet.
• 20:33
  [SPEAKER_00]: It will have to be because Congress gets to vote up or down on agreements of
• 20:39
  [SPEAKER_00]: But as always, the question is, okay, what were Jared Kushner and Steve Wittkov doing these two idiots who understand nothing about the region, understand nothing about nuclear power, and who are always involved in doing side deals for their own businesses and their own interests on top of whatever kind of official negotiating role that they play.
• 21:02
  [SPEAKER_00]: But no, I mean you're totally right.
• 21:03
  [SPEAKER_00]: It seems like this, you know, it's typical Trump slapped it together.
• 21:07
  [SPEAKER_00]: Hey, you know, sounds good, got to keep Saudis on side, something they want, nuclear program.
• 21:12
  [SPEAKER_00]: Okay, let's just go ahead and do it.
• 21:14
  [SPEAKER_00]: Oh, whoops, I'm getting a lot of criticism.
• 21:17
  [SPEAKER_00]: I should have, I didn't think this through at all because I never do.
• 21:19
  [SPEAKER_00]: So I'm going to just make, you know, add a couple other demands on top of it.
• 21:23
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, just completely incoherent.
• 21:26
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, um, I think like the other stepping back, it is maybe worse we hear saying, you know, what does that mean behind my cords in tail and the sort of problems with it?
• 21:38
  [SPEAKER_01]: There's even beyond Trump.
• 21:39
  [SPEAKER_01]: I mean, this is actually a policy that, you know, divided under the Democrats.
• 21:43
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yes, unfortunately, yes.
• 21:45
  [SPEAKER_01]: will relate to go forward with and it does even so it has a lot of sort of buying from the sort of foreign policy establishment and it is like to go back to your earlier point like you know what's what would a regional settlement look like um the unfortunately I think the Abraham Accords is the American region of a regional settlement um and I think you know what can
• 22:08
  [SPEAKER_01]: As you say, like, you know, like it's a mistake to focus too much on Trump, one can focus on Trump and say, you know, he's doing this in an incredibly incompetent way that like, you know, totally undermines any chance of success, but let's like imagine a sort of like competent American administration, you know, a Democrat, you know, Biden is similar to like Biden.
• 22:30
  [SPEAKER_01]: with many of the same people on board, you know, like carrying through the Abraham Accords.
• 22:36
  [SPEAKER_01]: Like to remind that that would also be a disaster.
• 22:39
  [SPEAKER_01]: Like this is a policy that would be bad even if it were done well.
• 22:43
  [SPEAKER_01]: Let alone that in the circle.
• 22:46
  [SPEAKER_00]: No, a competent version of the Abraham Accords already exists.
• 22:50
  [SPEAKER_00]: It's called the 2002 era piece initiative.
• 22:53
  [SPEAKER_00]: It was offered by the Saudis back in 2002, which offered Israel full peace and normalization from every era of state in exchange for basically following international law.
• 23:09
  [SPEAKER_00]: For enabling the creation of a Palestinian state on the 67 lines,
• 23:14
  [SPEAKER_00]: with negotiated, even, you know, roof or negotiation, that's ultimately, I think, and again, there's a whole other argument is a Palestinian state, even still feasible, but just in terms of, you know, a regional arrangement that deals with one of the key sources of instability conflict and grievance, which is the Palestinian issue.
• 23:34
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, the 2002 Arab peace initiative, which was reaffirmed multiple times over the following years by all the Arab states,
• 23:42
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, that's a much more realistic basis for regional peace, but of course, Israel, you know, of course never even responded.
• 23:52
  [SPEAKER_00]: They didn't even bother to reject the Arab peace, of course.
• 23:54
  [SPEAKER_00]: They have never even really acknowledged it in any meaningful way, which is astonishing, right?
• 23:59
  [SPEAKER_00]: When you consider what this proposal was offering,
• 24:04
  [SPEAKER_00]: basically everything Israel said it always wanted, which was to be accepted into the region.
• 24:09
  [SPEAKER_00]: And so what was significant about the Arab peace initiative, which was announced in August of 2020, I believe, is that it kind of affirmed what Netanyahu and much of the Israeli right and much of their supporters here in the United States have always claimed, which is that all the Palestinian issue is not that important.
• 24:25
  [SPEAKER_00]: It's just a lot of propaganda.
• 24:27
  [SPEAKER_00]: Israel can make peace and make deals in the region without dealing with the Palestinian issue.
• 24:34
  [SPEAKER_00]: And I think that's just a fantasy, you know, it's a fantasy of the Israeli right in their supporters here in the United States that Israel can continue to control all of the land between the river and the sea and just kind of kick the Palestinians into a corner kind of contain them,
• 24:59
  [SPEAKER_00]: I think we found that out very horrifically on October 7th.
• 25:04
  [SPEAKER_00]: We will find it out again unless we change course.
• 25:08
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, I think that's right.
• 25:11
  [SPEAKER_01]: And this is where, like, on the sort of like topic, there's a lot of discussion of the Israeli election.
• 25:20
  [SPEAKER_01]: And you know, like, one would hope for a variety of reasons of like, you know, but different to Tanya, you know, who gets punished by the electorate.
• 25:27
  [SPEAKER_01]: But as you kind of indicated earlier, and I'd like, you know, maybe expand upon that.
• 25:31
  [SPEAKER_01]: Like, any foreseeable Israeli government is not committed to dealing with the Palestinian issue.
• 25:37
  [SPEAKER_01]: So, you know, like one could possibly get a government that's like less reckless than Netanyahu, less sort of, you know, communities are like permanent war, and has done less doing a lot of very dangerous things than Netanyahu is done.
• 25:52
  [SPEAKER_01]: But like, you know, on the sort of core cause of regional instability will not be different.
• 25:59
  [SPEAKER_01]: Like that's why sense of it.
• 26:00
  [SPEAKER_01]: But I didn't hear what you think.
• 26:02
  [SPEAKER_00]: No, unfortunately, I think that's right.
• 26:04
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, of all the, you know, Israel's going to have elections in October, you know, there's, it's gotty Eisencott, who's a, you know, a key military leader in the past, is seen as probably the most plausible replacement for Netanyahu.
• 26:24
  [SPEAKER_00]: But so he's not offering any, you know, he'll, he'll be a less awful version of a net.
• 26:28
  [SPEAKER_00]: And Yahoo, that's, that's not nothing because net, you know, who is a particularly odious figure.
• 26:33
  [SPEAKER_00]: And frankly, I think a very dangerous figure for the region and for the United States.
• 26:38
  [SPEAKER_00]: It's like there are very few people in the world who have done more to promote the kind of global authoritarian, illiberal tendency.
• 26:47
  [SPEAKER_00]: then Netanyahu and Netanyahu and Trump.
• 26:51
  [SPEAKER_00]: But Netanyahu has been playing this role even before Trump came along.
• 26:55
  [SPEAKER_00]: So to remove Netanyahu from power, again, we should acknowledge that will be important and very good.
• 27:02
  [SPEAKER_00]: But again, I think there's no conceivable Israeli government that could replace them, that would show, you know,
• 27:09
  [SPEAKER_00]: any meaningful interest in moving forward to end the occupation, to enabling Palestinian liberation and real self-determination, so that's going to continue to be a problem.
• 27:21
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, I think that's right.
• 27:25
  [SPEAKER_01]: And but this is also like an issue that is sort of becoming increasingly prominent in the United States.
• 27:32
  [SPEAKER_01]: And it's, you know, like on the sort of democratic side of things, you know, as become a major issue in sort of like primaries.
• 27:43
  [SPEAKER_01]: Now, what's your sense of that?
• 27:46
  [SPEAKER_01]: Where the Democratic Party is and how this is rolling through domestic politics?
• 27:54
  [SPEAKER_00]: Right.
• 27:54
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, obviously, Michigan, Democratic primaries, or this is showing up most prominently, but also we had a round of progressive Democratic victories in New York a few weeks ago where this issue.
• 28:07
  [SPEAKER_00]: was very prominent and I'd say there's there's two things one is you're just substantively as a policy issue we've seen the polling over 10 years probably more that show that democratic voters are moving in a much more pro-Palestine direction now I would not you know there are folks on the right who want to say oh the Democrats are becoming anti-Israel
• 28:25
  [SPEAKER_00]: There's definitely some of that, but I would say there's more of a recognition and we saw this articulated by Bernie Sanders first in 2016 and since then.
• 28:34
  [SPEAKER_00]: We're just a sense of like the United States needs to play a fair role here.
• 28:38
  [SPEAKER_00]: There are two peoples with rights and who need security.
• 28:44
  [SPEAKER_00]: The United States should play a role that upholds the rights and dignity and safety of all of these people, not just one side, which is what the United States has unfortunately.
• 28:52
  [SPEAKER_00]: I've been doing so I think you see more and more Democrats I would say a majority if not a super majority of Democrats at this point who who share that view
• 29:02
  [SPEAKER_00]: But also, and this is part of what we see in Michigan and elsewhere, is that this issue has become a litmus test for you.
• 29:11
  [SPEAKER_00]: Are you for real?
• 29:13
  [SPEAKER_00]: Are you telling us the truth?
• 29:14
  [SPEAKER_00]: Are you standing against a corrupt and ineffective status quo?
• 29:19
  [SPEAKER_00]: Right?
• 29:19
  [SPEAKER_00]: Because for so many years for decades, you know, just lockstep being lockstep unconditionally pro Israel has been the establishment position.
• 29:28
  [SPEAKER_00]: And we are in a moment now where there is enormous and I would say very justified suspicion, criticism, and opposition to the establishment.
• 29:39
  [SPEAKER_00]: And taking a more pro-Palestinian position is a way of signifying that I am with that opposition.
• 29:47
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, I mean, it does seem like it's become a wedge issue within the Democratic Party.
• 29:53
  [SPEAKER_01]: Right, in particular, like any sort of association with APAC has become very toxic in a way that it wasn't in the past.
• 30:04
  [SPEAKER_01]: And I believe one point, you know, since you mentioned the assemblies campaign and sort of like a autocracy is the role of sort of like money, which I think is like, I mean, there's a foreign policy element.
• 30:20
  [SPEAKER_01]: You know, sympathy for the Palestinians, especially considering Gaza, but I think like a lot of this is like the sort of classic Bernie Sanders issue, like you know, to you want billionaires to be like, you know, controlling the electorate.
• 30:42
  [SPEAKER_01]: don't be a very cynical way where it's not like a normal lobby group like you know like even the NRA you know like you know where you know we'll give you money if you take this position on gunwrites and we'll run pro gun at so it's like I pay fact puts in like an effect of affiliates putting like huge amount of money
• 30:59
  [SPEAKER_01]: without announcing that it's a for a pack and they reach other issues.
• 31:06
  [SPEAKER_01]: But the other aspect I don't bring up and I think like it's particularly with your background in centuries is a lot of the effect money isn't just like a pack related.
• 31:16
  [SPEAKER_01]: It seems like these are sort of a chord of people that are like a pack, AI, and crypto, crypto, yeah.
• 31:25
  [SPEAKER_01]: which have a line to become the sort of main financingers of the sort of centrist wing of the Democratic Party.
• 31:32
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, and I think that's right.
• 31:33
  [SPEAKER_01]: I think that's right.
• 31:34
  [SPEAKER_01]: So for the point of view, like a pro-democratic message, like even if one doesn't care about for policy or the policy issue, like it should be a matter of concern that like these groups have such an oversized rule.
• 31:45
  [SPEAKER_01]: And frequently this honest rule in the political process.
• 31:49
  [SPEAKER_01]: But like, I think it's like your thoughts on that.
• 31:52
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I mean, I guess there's two points I would make here.
• 31:55
  [SPEAKER_00]: One is the fact that APAC is now openly spending on elections, which is something it didn't do until a few cycles ago.
• 32:03
  [SPEAKER_00]: APAC, obviously, a well-known and very powerful influential lobby group, but it always claimed that we don't spend on elections, which was, I guess, technically true, but it was always understood that APAC would signal to other donors, give to this person, don't give to this person for all these reasons.
• 32:22
  [SPEAKER_00]: It was always understood that if you disappoint APAC, you don't sign their letters, you don't vote for the things they want you to vote, then very likely the person who runs against you is suddenly going to be flooded with all kinds of money, who knows where it comes from, that's something that people can do and are unfortunately very, very corrupt political system.
• 32:40
  [SPEAKER_00]: A few cycles ago, APEC decided that, okay, now it's time to actually form superpacks.
• 32:45
  [SPEAKER_00]: Now it's actually time to get engaged openly in spending on elections.
• 32:51
  [SPEAKER_00]: And for me, that was an admission APEC understands that they are in trouble.
• 32:55
  [SPEAKER_00]: Right, because Apex theory of the case for the longest time, at least what they proclaimed was that, you know, a U.S. support for Israel is so bipartisan, it is on question, there is really no debate, but by choosing to engage in elections now as they are doing, that's a tacit admission that there is in fact a debate.
• 33:17
  [SPEAKER_00]: and we are engaged in it.
• 33:18
  [SPEAKER_00]: We are engaged in it by spending millions and millions and millions of dollars on primary marries.
• 33:25
  [SPEAKER_00]: So again, this is a defensive action.
• 33:28
  [SPEAKER_00]: It's going to lose.
• 33:29
  [SPEAKER_00]: I actually, I think this train has already left this station.
• 33:32
  [SPEAKER_00]: I think this, in my view, this debate is already
• 33:42
  [SPEAKER_00]: Second point, I mean, and this goes to your really good point is like it's not just about Israel, and yes, isn't it very curious that APEC refuses to run ads that actually mention Israel?
• 33:50
  [SPEAKER_00]: They find all kinds of other things, which is itself, I think, in admission, that their issue is not as influential, and their views not widely shared, then they have always proclaimed, because if you actually believe that the majority of Americans agree with you, why when you run ads making that case, so obviously they know that they know that they're not telling the truth about that.
• 34:10
  [SPEAKER_00]: But the second is, yes, I mean, it is really true that they have not just, they have become kind of the tip of the spear for a much broader kind of conservative corporate democratic establishment effort to fight the progressive left.
• 34:25
  [SPEAKER_00]: And I just think this is just a massive strategic miscalculation.
• 34:30
  [SPEAKER_00]: by apath.
• 34:31
  [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, if they were smarter, they would have just stayed focused on their one and only issue, which is continuing to give Israel money.
• 34:39
  [SPEAKER_00]: But they have chosen to allow themselves to become essentially a pass through for all of these other horrible, you know, forces, conservative forces in democratic politics.
• 34:54
  [SPEAKER_00]: And again, I think that's that's that's
• 34:57
  [SPEAKER_00]: that's already doing them serious harm because they have just established themselves as just part of the establishment.
• 35:04
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, no.
• 35:05
  [SPEAKER_01]: I think in a period where some anti system politics is very popular and we're a lot of Democrats are very unhappy with the establishment.
• 35:13
  [SPEAKER_01]: We get their party.
• 35:15
  [SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't feel like it's strategic mistakes.
• 35:17
  [SPEAKER_01]: So, you know, for my point of view, like, you know, like, let's welcome them.
• 35:22
  [SPEAKER_01]: I have a little bit concerned about just the amount of money that's going to be, you see congressional, not just congressional races, congressional priorities, where tens of millions of dollars are being spent.
• 35:35
  [SPEAKER_01]: As you mentioned, they've lost, they've been losing some of these significant fights.
• 35:41
  [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, and they've won some, they won more, but even the ones that they've won, they are paying so much more for so much less.
• 35:49
  [SPEAKER_00]: You know, I think that is the thing to keep in mind.
• 35:51
  [SPEAKER_00]: They are having to spend so much money to sustain an ever-dwindling kind of cohort of Democrats in Congress.
• 36:02
  [SPEAKER_00]: And they're going to continue to spend even more for even less.
• 36:06
  [SPEAKER_00]: That's the kind of spiral that A-pack is in now.
• 36:09
  [SPEAKER_00]: Okay, well, that's actually like a very optimistic, no, no, that's good news, that's, yeah, that's not to say that we're not going to lose some really frustrating races, we probably will, because again, our politics is unfortunately deeply corrupt and dominated by big money and, you know, outside spending can sway in election and, and a pack like many other lobbies, you know, like the NRA, like big formal, run down the list,
• 36:35
  [SPEAKER_00]: are very good at weaponizing that corruption, but, you know, again, I think the trends are in a positive direction on this issue.
• 36:42
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, I'm glad for the optimism.
• 36:44
  [SPEAKER_01]: I am a little bit concerned about Michigan just because I think it's a state where TV is very important.
• 36:50
  [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, sort of like real areas, but it is absolutely the case that, like, despite their overwhelming money advantage, you know, they've been wrong for it and are
• 37:00
  [SPEAKER_01]: like in retreat, which is like great news.
• 37:02
  [SPEAKER_01]: And actually, I mean, I am very tempted to end at this point because I think like our conversations are usually very pessimistic, say, Laurel.
• 37:11
  [SPEAKER_01]: So I think like for what's for the summer, I want to end on a note of like, off the visit and sort of good cheer, but how to do it.
• 37:22
  [SPEAKER_01]: The battle continues.
• 37:22
  [SPEAKER_01]: So let's again, I want to thank Madness for being on the program.
• 37:26
  [SPEAKER_00]: All right, great to see you, man.