Pod Save the World - Everything Mike Pompeo touches turns to sh*t

Episode Date: July 22, 2020

Democrats sound the alarm about foreign election interference. Experts say Israel and the US are responsible for mysterious explosions across Iran. Mike Pompeo uses taxpayer dollars to run for President. A fire on a US Navy ship has major implications. Lebanon’s economy nears collapse. The UAE launched a space craft. The White House threatens to prevent 92 million Chinese citizens from entering the US. A coronavirus update and some baseball news. Then Bernie Sanders’s foreign policy advisor Matt Duss joins to talk about lessons from the 2020 campaign and how to push for a smarter, more progressive foreign policy.

Welcome back to Pot Save the World. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Ben Rhodes. Ben, we have a very fun show today. We got a lot going on. We're going to talk about why Joe Biden and Democrats in Congress are really sounding the alarm about foreign election interference. We'll talk about this covert, ongoing, massive sabotage campaign being waged against Iran. Checking on our buddy Mike Pompeo, just to see what he's up to. It seems like he's in a bit of trouble.

We'll talk about why Navy ships are burning and what that means. We'll talk about Lebanon's economy and how it's cratering. And then our guest today is Matt Duss. He is a top foreign policy advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders. He's super smart, progressive guy. They've been doing amazing work in that office on U.S. policy towards Yemen in the Middle East. We'll talk about what's happening in Congress, lessons from the Bernie campaign, and how progressives can push U.S. foreign policy in a better direction.

It was a great conversation. I'm excited for you guys to hear from that. Two quick things before we get to the news. So, Ben, exciting news. Over the last year, 25,000 people have contributed to the crooked media get Mitch or Die trying fund to flip the Senate, which is pretty wild, if you think about it. Like, that just means 25,000 people were, like, hate reading some article and they decided they were so mad at Mitch McConnell that they needed to donate money.

We have raised over $2 million so far for Democratic Senate candidates. If you want to chip in and give more because these races are so important, go to Vote SaveAmerica.com slash get Mitch because it won't mean much if Joe Biden wins the presidency and the Senate can block everything we do. And then just so everybody knows, next Tuesday, July 28th is National Vote by Mail Day. Crooked Media, we have big plans to celebrate because that's what we do here. Stay tuned to all our accounts on Twitter and Instagram for the latest and request your vote by mail ballot if you're able to at vote saveamerica.com slash absentee. Okay, Ben, you want to talk about

this foreign interference alarm that's gone up? Yeah, definitely. So Speaker Pelosi, Leader Schumer, and the chairman of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees sent a letter to Christopher Ray, the head of the FBI, asking the agency to provide a briefing to Congress regarding foreign efforts to interfere in the presidential campaign. That letter noted that Congress appears to be the target of a concerted foreign interference campaign to basically launder and amplify Russian disinformation, presumably. On that same day, I believe, Joe Biden put out a statement calling on the intelligence community to publicly report on any such interference efforts. So, Ben, it feels like there's a couple pieces to what they're talking about. You have hackers trying

to, you know, break into email accounts and get private campaign data. And then there's just like the propaganda piece. And I think we have not seen the problem. propaganda piece as much because COVID has dominated the news. But Russian intelligence-linked individuals in Ukraine have been trying to kick up these conspiracy theories about Joe Biden and his son that we've been hearing about since impeachment. And the Biden campaign, I think, is very concerned about the possible release of doctor or fake documents or audio as we get closer to election day. And so, you know, I think Biden's team has been smart about trying to get ahead of this disinformation effort. They've been working the refs in the media. They're publicly

warning foreign governments that they will basically punish election interference if he wins and he becomes president. They're basically calling out Senator Ron Johnson for holding hearings that are basically just invitations for, you know, foreign interest to send in this kind of propaganda. It also seems like this letter from the congressional leaders was coordinated with the campaign. So, Ben, you know, this cycle is different than 2016 because I think, we all expect that the Russians and probably the Chinese and maybe others will try to help out Trump. So in a sense, I think maybe we're more mentally prepared. But we also know that the intelligence community is totally politicized. I don't know that we can trust them. I don't know

the little disclosings in a timely manner. So I guess my question for you is like having lived through this last time, how prepared do you feel like the Biden campaign is we are as a body politic and what else you think needs to be done? Well, look, I mean, in some ways we're more prepared, in some ways we're much less prepared. We're more prepared in that we know what to anticipate. We've learned from the Russians at last time. And frankly, we're not even bothering to entertain the fact that the Republicans would go along with this. And one of the mistakes we made last time was, you know, we took this to the bipartisan leadership in Congress and said, let's make a bipartisan statement condemning Russian interference. And Mitch McConnell, get Mitch.

or die trying, literally blocked it and said he didn't think that they should. And so then, you know, we had to put down a Democratic statement and then a statement from the intelligence community. Clearly, the Democrats are not wasting their time doing that, in part because some of the disinformation efforts are being laundered through Republican members of Congress. So Ron Johnson literally is going to be a vessel for Russian disinformation. He's more than willing to hold hearings on Hunter Biden on crazy Obamagate conspiracy theories. And we should be calling that out. The Biden campaign is right to be concerned about the release of deep fakes or doctor videos because that's already happened. We've already seen some conversations released,

manipulated, edited to make Joe Biden appear like he said a certain thing. We're going to see a lot more of that. I think we had to prepare ourselves for an avalanche of disinformation in September and October coming from Russia and Russian backed individuals that is amplified by the Republican Party and by people, even like Lindsey Graham, who cast himself as some Russia hawk. So I'm glad that we're calling that out, and hopefully we have antibodies in the media. You know, the media that's so gleefully and greedily reported on WikiLeak dumps that were Russian hacked documents as if they were news when it was just kind of Clinton campaign gossip, they shouldn't be repeating the mistake of essentially being a mouthpiece for Russian disinformation. We've seen other countries do this. The French before Macron's election, the French media, not that they're all supported Macron, but they said we're not going to release and report on the.

the so-called Macron leaks, right, which was an effort to replicate what was done here. Where we're much less prepared is that the executive branch is not going to try to defend our election. And that has two dimensions that should worry us. One, we don't know what we don't know. And when Rick Grinnell was running the intelligence community, and he's been replaced by someone who's not quite as big a hack, but is a hack, he took steps to kind of limit the number of people reportedly who could have access to any information about Russian interference, including not reporting this information to Congress. So clearly what you're seeing is the U.S. government is going to be a winning partner of Russian disinformation.

They're going to try to keep it from getting out that Russia is interfering in our election. I mean, it's astonishing to think, even though it's totally predictable in a way, that that's where we're out, where we are. I think the most extreme scenarios are there were some concerns in 2016. The Russians did not hack the results of the election, but, and this has come out in some of the congressional committee reports, that the Russians were kind of probing election infrastructure, right? the absolute worst case scenario is that the Russians try to hack the actual election and that the U.S. government isn't trying to defend that from happening. Now, I think we'd see that because the states hold elections, but we need to have our antenna up. And I'm glad that Biden campaign and

Democrats and Congress are already trying to get ahead of that. Yeah. And like, I think that all our friends who worked on the Clinton campaign in 2016 felt like when they talked about potential Russian involvement in these hacks early on that they looked like, looked at like, they were wearing, you know, tinfoil hats. But today, you have a report out by the UK government that basically says their governments, several governments in a row, ignored warnings about Russian interference in their politics. And they basically haven't really investigated or dug into the impact that Russian interference might have had on major issues like Brexit. So it's like, despite the fact that propaganda from Russia, from the U.S., from all these countries, has been

happening for decades, it does seem like the recent iteration has really caught people by surprise and no one has figured out how to deal with it yet. Yeah, and everybody should anticipate that the Russians won't just do exactly what they did last time. You know, the Russians evolved their tactics and they learn from what they did in the past. They try new things. And so this could take all manner of different forms. And the hack we saw, for instance, of Twitter, right? You know, there's part of me that seriously doubts that that was just somebody seeking to get some Bitcoin, you know? No chance.

Like, having the keys to everyone's Twitter account is so much more valuable than $100,000 in Bitcoin. Give me a fucking break. Yeah. So that's another, you know, Russia could do different things. They could hack Twitter accounts on the day of the election and try to spread chaos and disinformation. They could put out deep fake videos of Joe Biden. And they could do all manner of things that are new, right?

So it's both about, yeah, they're going to. flood social media with bullshit and try to turn people against each other and poses Bernie bros and, you know, try to attack Joe Biden from the left and from the right and from conspiracy theories. But they could be doing other shit too. And we just need to have our antenna up here. And again, this isn't just on, you know, elected officials. It's on the news media to be wary of the sources of information, right? Because, you know, we know it's coming and we shouldn't fall in the same trap again. Yeah, I was very glad to see the Biden campaign is really trying to get ahead of this and that, you know, Congress is working with them too. Let's talk about Iran for a minute because I think

last show we talked about some mysterious explosions in Iran, specifically at sites linked to their nuclear and missile program. Those mysterious explosions continue. Last week, seven ships at an Iranian port caught on fire. There's like gas storage tanks are mysteriously blowing up. There's like literally dozens of fires and explosions happening across Iran. And so, So you and I obviously have zero information that isn't publicly reported about what's happening. But most security experts believe this is a sabotage campaign by the Israeli government and that the U.S. is either aware of it and okay with it or actively participating. And I guess the question that I come back to is why now?

Last week, Ben, there was this Yahoo News report that said the CIA has been given much greater authority to wage covert warfare, cyber warfare, against adversaries like Iran, without approving. by the NSC without having to go back to the White House for more approval. That'd be a big deal if it's true. Some people are speculating that, you know, those conducting these attacks, say the Israelis, want Iran to respond and then get drawn into a broader military conflict. You know, the Washington Post had an editorial on this today. They tend to be pretty conservative on these issues. They called the maximum pressure strategy of failure and talked about how Iran stockpile

of enriched uranium is now five times greater than it was when transatliferation. Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal. Our former colleague at the White House, Dennis Ross, told the post, what the Israelis have seemingly done is create space for diplomacy if Biden comes in. Now, I think I know what Dennis means there. He's saying that, like, this sabotage set back Iran's nuclear program and would give Biden more time to negotiate. But I think it's a bit Orwellian to suggest that blowing stuff up leads to diplomacy. I'm not, I'm not sure we'd feel the same way if the situation was reversed. So, Ben, that's a bunch of background. But back to, like, that that central question, like, why do you think this is happening now? Do you have a theory and, like,

I don't know, how should we understand this? Well, I, you know, one theory, right, is that Trump may lose, you know, and so the Israelis may recognize that they have a U.S. administration coming in that is not going to want to go along with their cyber war and that is going to want to reenter the Iran nuclear deal of some sort. And they're just trying to get done what they can while they can. And by the way, I'd watch this across the board. It could be a very destabilizing kind of few months here, both leading up to the election and if Trump loses in that transition window, where every creep in the world is going to want to do whatever they can as fast as they can before Trump leaves office. So this is something to watch in Iran and globally. I think also there's almost no chance that Iran isn't going to respond in some fashion, you know, whether that's rocket attacks in Iraq against our forces.

whether that's through terrorist attacks, whether that's through their own cyber attacks, they will respond. So this will be the tinderbox that it's been. We've already seen they've made a mess of it. It's not like this is working. Like whatever minimal, you know, setbacks on the Iranian nuclear program they're achieving through sabotage or nowhere near the setbacks that were achieved through the Iran nuclear deal, which rolled back that program. And as you said, now they've increased their stockpile. They're expanding their program. So this is not working. And I think what people have to understand here is that maximum pressure sounds like a slogan generated where it was, which is in, you know, think tanks in Washington and Mike Pompeo's brain. We're in a state of war with Iran.

We're, you know, I'm assuming, you know, there's no way in which Israel's doing this that we don't at least know about it if we're not participating. Things are blowing up. The sanctions are so extreme that they're causing people to die, I'm sure, in Iran. Like, we have to start to understand these policies for what they are, which is kind of a low, grade state of war. And that is not creating space for diplomacy. That is an insane thing to say. Like, we need to get out, and we talked to Matt Dessa for this later in the show, this mindset that like the starting point for everything to do with Iran is this kind of low grade war. It's not working. It's failing against our own objectives here, which is their nuclear program. So it's a very dangerous situation to watch, watch for Iranian reprisals and watch for other

governments around the world to start to be more belligerent if they, feel like Trump is going to be gone soon and they're no longer going to have top cover from an authoritarian in the White House. Yeah. Speaking of authoritarians who want to be in the White House, let's talk about Mike Pompeo for just a bit. So Mike is in some trouble, but we don't totally know why. So according to a heavily redacted whistleblower complaint released after a FOIA request from a nonprofit group called American Oversight, a State Department employee witnessed some sort of misconduct by Pompeo, but was blocked by the staff around Pompeo from doing anything about it. So the whistleblower filed a complaint to the State Department Inspector General.

It was about misuse of taxpayer resources by Pompeo and his wife. We talked about that previously. There was some, you know, the alleged misconduct was that, you know, he maybe made an employee walk his dog for him or get his dinner or resources. In May, Trump fired the State Department Inspector General of Pompeo's request. the allegation says the misconduct took place in D.C., New York, Florida, and overseas. That does give you a clue there. There were some allegations that he was meeting with donors in Florida, which is not what

his secretary of state should be doing. Ben, I'm just fascinated to know what's in this complaint. But I guess stepping back, what's weird about it and what's a little frustrating is that the politicization of the job and the corruption is happening in plain sight. Like last Friday, Pompeo took a State Department funded trip to Iowa to speak to a right-wing religious conservative group. Clearly, he's plotting a run for president on the taxpayer dime. It seems unprecedented to me. I'm imagining Hillary Clinton flying to Des Moines when she was Secretary of State and what the reaction would be. But I just don't get it. Why aren't people

caring about this? Well, I think because Trump is so lowered the bar and all this stuff. But people need to understand this does not happen. Like, nobody in the cabinet should be doing things political like this, but the Secretary of State in particular and the Secretary of Defense have been seen as uniquely apolitical offices, in part because the Secretary of State is staffed largely by Foreign Service Officers, Civil Servants, these are not political people. They're not supposed to be doing this kind of crap, right? So it's a total abuse of the office and it just shows how much Trump has corrupted the entire federal government that this is now like just kind of standard operating procedure. It doesn't even shock people. I'd like to say one other thing, though, Tommy,

which is like, who the fuck wants Mike Pompeo to be President of the United States? Like, this is, you know, kind of assumption. Like, Mike Pompeo, he's one of the guys who's next in line based on what? Like, what on earth is this man done to justify being in any conversation anywhere about being president of the United States? He's been a complete abject failure as Secretary of State. Everything he has touched has turned to shit. You know, North Korea is building nuclear weapons.

Iran is re-accumulating stockpile of nuclear material. Nicholas Maduro is basically giving the finger of the United States back by China and Russia. The U.S. standing around the world has completely collapsed. This is the platform this guy is going to run on? So I think there's, I don't know why the media too doesn't adjust. Nikki Haley is another one of the people who's putting yourself forward. What is her big achievement as UN ambassador?

What on earth did she do that anybody can remember that had any positive impact on anything, any U.S. interest, right? So to me, it's like the absurdity of him doing this. And the absurdity of these people like Nikki Haley and Mike Pompeo are somehow growing in stature in these jobs when their careers should be over as American politicians. Yeah, it's baffling. I mean, look, what one more Pompeo item? And again, as far as I can tell, he's still a secretary of state. He's supposed to be dealing with foreign policy.

But I read this big speech he gave in Philadelphia about religious freedom that included passages attacking the New York Times 16-19. project about slavery, called it Marxist ideology, and then he pivoted to this big defense of Confederate statues. And the only answer is, again, he's trying to set himself off to run for president. But again, the speech was supposed to be a rollout of a report about religious freedom and like a defense of, you know, U.S. values. And a lot of what he said in the speech was kind of boilerplate. You could take any other Secretary of State in history, put it in their mouths, and it'd be like, you know, sort of a celebration of American history and values. But, you know, the hypocrisy is just so glaring. For example, in a speech about religious freedom, the Muslim

band didn't come up. No one should be surprised by that, but it just makes the entire speech bankrupt to people around the world. And again, I'm glad to hear Pompeo talk about China's horrific treatment of Uyghur Muslims in Western China, but we all know that Trump told Xi Jinping that building concentration camps for them was the right thing to do. So I don't know, Ben, I don't know if you had a chance to read the speech and check out the report and what you made of it. I mean, I think this is something, it's a topic that secretaries of state often talk about, but it just felt more political from Pompeo this time. No, and what's so absurd about it is that there is not any audience in the world that wants to hear

the U.S. defend its history of slavery and Confederate statues, right? So if you're just trying to think about, like, what serves the interest of American foreign policy, no American foreign policy interest is served by that. Like no one around the world is like nodding their head and being like, thank God the Secretary of State and the U.S. is standing out for Confederate statues, you know. Like, what does that do for the people of Hong Kong or for Uighurs? Right. So there's no reason to do it. Nobody would advise that this is the way to win over hearts and minds around the world.

The way to do that is actually to show that America is willing to acknowledge it that we have our own dark past and that we're trying to fix it, you know. So there's absolutely no interest or whatsoever from some random drug. by on the 1619 project other than domestic politics. And it actually undermines our foreign policy because sure, he says the right things about the Uyghurs, but it's totally undermined by the fact that he's serving in a completely undemocratic administration in this country that puts people in camps and deploys fascist militias to Democrat-run cities because that's part of their electoral strategy. Yeah, weird speech.

Really excited for this guy to be off the big stage. I was talking with the Navy for a minute. So you guys might have seen. seen that there was a huge fire on a U.S. Navy ship called the Boneholm-Richard. It was in Port in San Diego, and it took basically four days of around-the-clock work by firefighters to put out this blaze inside this 850-foot ship. And the interesting thing, Ben, upsetting, but interesting, is it looks like the impact on Navy readiness will be, like, far reaching. It could be decades long. So the Navy had been upgrading the ship so that could support the F-35B fighter jets. F-35Bs

can take off on a shorter runway and then land vertically, like kind of like a helicopter. So what that means is that you can have a Marine Corps fighter jet unit on a ship like this one that isn't a full aircraft carrier. It's a big deal. It's a technological advancement. But the problem is that the ship is one of just four in the Navy fleet that has this capability. And now the thing is out indefinitely for repair. So according to CNN, the ship costs $750 million to build. The improvements to allow them to have death. 35B cost a few hundred million more. It remains to be seen if they can fix it at all or if that will be too expensive and not

worth it. So I just thought it was an interesting window into how U.S. naval power can be impacted by like literally one ship. It's maybe something we should think about as we hear more and more about the Chinese developing ship killing missiles is what they're called. And it's also the latest in just like a string of very troubling accidents in the Navy where you've had destroyers colliding. in sailors' lives being put at risk through these accidents that should not be happening.

Yeah, I mean, I remember friend of the pod of Ray Mabas was Secretary of Navy for a long time under us, and he once broke down for me, you know, just how much like the way in which the Navy looks at things, you know, individual ships are massively expensive and kind of irreplaceable. You know, it's not as interchangeable as airplanes, right? Like, you only have a certain number of aircraft carriers. you only have a certain number of destroyers, like a certain number of ships with certain capabilities. And it's something to watch, too, in the context of a potential kind of arms race, naval arms race with China, because part of what China is trying to do is project power in the South China Sea,

where they claim this entire body of water. And the U.S. has tried to push back on that, tried to show that we will, you know, conduct exercises in areas that China claims, that other countries also claim that are internationally disputed. So the risk of, you know, a pretty expensive kind of naval arms race is something to watch going forward, in part because of the high price tags associated with individual ships. And yeah, hopefully you'd see better management of these very expensive pieces of hardware because, you know, a billion dollars is the hard thing to ask American taxpayers to swallow going down in a fire. Yeah, agreed. Let's look at Lebanon for a minute because there is a incredibly dire situation in Lebanon, and economists are increasingly predicting a Venezuela-style economic collapse. Liz Sly at the Washington Post has been on the show before.

She had a great breakdown of the situation over the weekend. She reported that most parts of Lebanon are only getting two to three hours of electricity a day. Banks and citizens are running out of foreign currency all at once, and the Lebanese pound is collapsing in value. people are having a hard time finding bread, literally, and any hope of a bailout from the IMF or some other international institution is fading away because the Lebanese government refuses to reform their kleptocratic ways. It's incredibly sectarian in the way the country is divided. And so the situation is brutally difficult for the people of Lebanon, but it's also exacerbated by the fact that one in five people living in Lebanon are themselves refugees, mostly from Syria.

So, Ben, I wanted to hear how destabilizing, you know, you think this could be for the region and, you know, what you think the international community should be doing right now to try to prevent a full collapse because I think with the benefit of hindsight, we all know that the Syrian refugee crisis had cascading consequences across Europe to the United States through political situations everywhere. And no one wants to see that repeated for a million reasons. Yeah, it's very worrisome. you know, in part because it'd be worrisome anywhere, right? They see any country kind of collapse and economically implode like this, you know,

their humanitarian consequences, obviously. But in Lebanon, where you have this history of civil war and this history of sectarian competition and you have, you know, the presence of Hisbalah, and then you've had, you know, issues between Muslims and Christians and different sects. And then you introduce a million Syrian refugees into the equation. that kind of implosion could lead to sectarian violence, could lead to competition between groups for resources, and could add another de-stabilizing factor

to an already very troubled part of the world here. So there's an incentive, I think, for international organizations and donors to step in and try to stop this spiral, which again would avert hopefully a humanitarian crisis, but also potentially a political crisis that could lead to violence, to violence as well. I also worry, Tommy, that, like, look, we're at the beginning stages of the COVID-initiated global economic crisis. We could see this happening in other countries, too. Like, other countries that are vulnerable to economic shocks, if they last for a year,

two years or more, we could see Domino's falling, not just Lebanon here. And that will create a lot of strain on international donors and aid organizations. But, you know, I think the lesson the financial crisis in 2008, for instance, is better to prevent the collapse, do what's necessary to prevent the collapse, than to have to respond to it, because it's ultimately going to be more expensive to clean up the mess that comes from implosion than it is to prevent it. Yeah, totally agree with that. And we'll get to this in a little bit, but it does look like the EU is building on that lesson, and they took some dramatic steps today to help bail out countries suffering from the coronavirus. One positive, interesting story out of the UAE, the

United Arab Emirates, they launched a spacecraft on Monday. that is scheduled to spend the next seven months on its way to Mars. The UAE has a goal of building a human colony on Mars by 2117. This launch comes shortly after an astronaut from the UAE, spent a week of the International Space Station. So, Ben, I have no question for you. I thought this was cool. I hope a lot of people go to Mars.

I don't want to go there. I don't want to live in the colony, but, like, best of luck. Yeah. I mean, hey, look, I've been critical of the Emirates about a lot of stuff. I mean, but, I mean, there's no questioning, you know, their innovation here, ambition here, you know, reflects the innovative culture that they've built. I will say 2117

feels a little far in the future, but you know, with COVID and climate change, like these timelines may have to accelerate a little bit, you know? Yeah. We got to, we may have to decamp to the colony a little earlier than we intended here. And, you know, in the Emirates, like, you know, it should be an air-conditioned colony, at least. Yeah, it'll probably be nice. Lots of tall towers in AC. Let's talk with China for a minute. Because last week, the New York Times reported that the U.S. considering imposing a travel ban on all Chinese Communist Party members. And that might include revoking visas for members of the party and their families in the U.S. So, Ben, three million Chinese citizens visited the U.S. in 2018.

The Chinese Communist Party has 92 million members. How on earth would you implement a policy, this sweeping, this draconian, this difficult to verify? and what do you think the economic impact would be of banning all visitors from China? Yeah, I mean, I think it's crazy, you know. And look, we've been quite critical of Chinese policies, particularly human rights abuses in Hong Kong and the Uyghurs and many other things. But clearly what Trump is doing is not working. And what's been happening the last few months kind of under the radar almost is we're

really starting the Trump administration to throw a lot of stuff at the Chinese, you know, sanctions, kicking media out. now these travel bans being discussed. And can anybody argue that's working? Like, is the Chinese behavior improving because of it? This is a classic case of the goal of your policy becomes punishing somebody, not actually accomplishing something. Because clearly this escalation is not.

The Chinese have swallowed up Hong Kong while this has been going on. The Chinese have kicked out U.S. media. The Chinese have begun to sanction Americans. Like, this tit for tat thing is not working. It's time to take. a different approach here. The approach I would take is trying to rally other countries to address concerns with China, you know, in a multilateral, concerted way, not this kind of Mike Pompeo wants to give a speech about China and announce something. So we come up with some crazy idea like

this. That's not to say we shouldn't take a tough line. I'm just saying what they're doing is clearly not working. And it's time to rethink this. I think it also shows Tommy that if Biden wins, he does take a different approach. I think it'll be a quite firm approach, tougher in many ways in Obama. the Republican Party is going kind of nuts with this stuff. And I can foresee a situation where there's a President Biden, he is trying to stand up to China and all these things. But the thought leaders in the Republican Party on this are like Tom Cotton and Josh

Holly and Mike Pompeo. And they're going to be calling for kind of crazy, crazy stuff here. And again, just because you're concerned about China and rightly want to do something about it and I very much do, that doesn't mean that this is the right thing to do. And frankly, the worst case scenario of Trump's election. it is it could raise the risk of real conflict in addition to huge global economic disruption. Yeah, I mean, we've talked about, you know, smart targeted sanctions. We've talked about sanctions that are too broad and really hurt regular people,

deciding to ban 92 million people because they happen to be members of the Chinese Communist Party from coming to the U.S. Even when many of them are not in any way involved with the government might disagree with a lot of the views of the government, how they just like have to be a part of the party, seems blunt and stupid. Well, and also just so much of this is just do better and be better ourselves, right? Like take technology. Our approach to Trump approach has been go around the world and hector countries not

to use Chinese 5G. Well, why not get together with our team, our friends around the world, and develop our own 5G, you know? Like we go and hector them by Hong Kong. Well, why not set a better democratic example here and then join the world's democracies and diplomatically pressuring China on this and raising it in international forms. There are other ways of being tough

than just like this endless cycle of sanctions and economic disruption that clearly is not mitigating the Chinese behavior it's intended to target. Yeah, for sure. Quick coronavirus round up here. So the European Union agreed to an $857 billion spending package to rescue economies

hurt by the coronavirus. So shout out to German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron for really pushing that forward. Hopefully our own Congress here gets it together and gets another rescue package through soon. Some bad news, Ben, ProPublica reported that a recent proclamation by Trump, it was on June 22nd,

that barred the entry of almost all immigrants on work visas to the U.S. has led to an acute shortage of doctors who are supposed to come to the U.S. and start residences and treat people, especially coronavirus victims. So great work, Stephen Miller, who apparently wants to race.

racism, us all to death. Last thing is good news. Three vaccine developers have said that so far their vaccines are working. They're providing an immune response. Phase three tests will begin in a couple places, including 30,000 participants in the U.S. I think next week. So that's very positive. That would be the fastest vaccine development like ever in history. People are very pissed off about the Russians and Chinese trying to steal those formulas from various companies. I have to admit, I don't care. I just want them to work. Ben, respond to any part of that you want. Have fun. Yeah, the Stephen Miller thing really jumps out to me because, like, this just shows you how much these guys, they don't think through the consequences of their insane, bigoted immigration

policy. For sure. Because it's been obvious to anybody for many years that an enormous number of doctors and healthcare workers in this country come from other places, ranging from nurses all the way to some of the best heart surgeons and pioneering medical professionals in this country. So yeah, you slam the door shut in people's faces and then you need doctors and then you have a shortage, right? I mean, so like this is exactly what they're not thinking of too in other areas of immigration, like when they want to ban high-skilled workers of certain kinds or kick out Chinese students, people who've helped drive innovation in this country. So in COVID, we are experiencing the cost of these insane immigration policies. I think,

vaccines super promising is someone like you who clicks refresh on the Oxford reports as much as I can. I just want to ring the alarm again that I would like to think that right now the U.S. is sitting down with other countries working through the World Health Organization to figure out how on earth we're going to disseminate a vaccine globally. It's been hard enough for this government in our country to get testing out in the country. So the idea that as soon there is a vaccine, you know, 300 million Americans are going to get it is not guaranteed. And obviously that's not happening because we're not even in the WHO under Trump. So, you know, watch this space. Don't just assume that vaccines once tested and proven can be scaled

up and disseminated. It takes international cooperation. And in the doggie dog world where Trump's pulling on the WHO and the Russians and Chinese are trying to hack the vaccine, that doesn't exactly send a good message. I hope that, you know, it's either to do. developed here, the Europeans at least develop at first because Europeans will at least try to think about this in a competent and fair way because, you know, God forbid there's some kind of, you know, Game of Thrones competition for this thing once it's developed. Yeah, I mean, look, we're threatening to ban 92 million people from coming to the U.S. right along the same time when we're learning that we have a supply chain that is entirely dependent on Chinese manufacturing. Yeah. And Lord knows

what little highly specialized item we will need to produce a vaccine or disseminate a vaccine. It could be tiny glass tubes. It can be something that simple. It can be certain kinds of PPE. Yeah, coordination is going to be important whether we want it to be or not here. Totally. And I can't imagine that anybody in the White House is connecting those dots right now. Not a chance in hell.

Final thing before we get to the interview with Matt Dust is a little baseball news. So the Canadian government has told the Toronto Blue Jays that they cannot play their home games in Canada because the risk of playing in the U.S. and then traveling back across the border because of our explosive COVID outbreak is just two I. They're looking at alternative options, including playing in a minor league stadium in Buffalo or maybe the Blue Jays spring training facility in Florida. I have to say, Ben, I read that article and I felt very embarrassed. Also embarrassing, the Bahamas is refusing visits from the U.S. starting on Wednesday, July 22nd, but they will allow visitors from Britain, Canada, in the EU.

So yeah, we are just, you know, self-owning. We might screw up the baseball season because we can't get it together. People can't travel places. So good work. I mean, I'm already, you know, as I mentioned, devastated every time I see a Taiwanese or Korean baseball game full of fans. Now the Blue Jays can't even play home games in Toronto. And like an American passport used to be the gold standard, the thing that could like

get you access anywhere. the world. Now, like an American passport, you're like a pariah. Like, you can't show up anywhere. I mean, there's probably no clear indication of Trump's failure that Americans are now basically banned from traveling just about anywhere. You know, can't go to Europe. Like, can't play baseball in Canada. Yeah, this is really going gangbusters. I think that we really need four more years of this. But by the end of four more years, the world will have to have constructed a dome over this country to just try to try to isolate Americans from the rest of the world. It's so depressing. Yeah, we can watch baseball with cardboard fans for the rest of our lives.

It is like, I don't know, have you watched the game yet? Yeah, I watched a little bit of my Mets getting beaten an exhibition game by the Yankees. By the Yankees. Oh, yeah, the Yankees are nasty. Yeah, I guess, are they piping in crowd noise or are we going silent? Yeah, they were kind of experimenting with it, I could tell, you know. It is weird. I've been watching like the occasional soccer game on Saturdays and Sundays, and they pipe in the crowd noise there. And it's a little weird when you look at the stands and you notice they're empty, but then you kind of just don't really care and it sounds normal and it feels fine, I guess. It's been very strange to live without sports for this long, you know.

It'll be interesting to see how it resumes and unfolds because, yeah, it's not going to look the same. Like the NBA dome thing is, you know, it's going to be very odd. Very different, yeah. Okay. When we come back, we will have our interview with Matt Dusts, Foreigner Policy. advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders, a great progressive voice on the Hill and in these foreign policy debates. So stick around for that. We are thrilled today to have our guest on Matt Dust. Matt is a

foreign policy advisor to Senator Bernie Sanders. He's the former president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace. Matt, welcome to the show. Great to be here. Thank you. You have made me smarter via tweet, DM article you've shared for for many years now. And so very excited to have you on. Let's just jump into it. So let's talk about the campaign because you work for Senator Sanders now, but you were also advising him on the presidential campaign. And one of the knocks on Bernie during the 2016 primary, fairly or not, was that he was more focused on domestic issues in foreign policy, right? Like here's a representative take from the New York Times, which is the headline February of 2016. Foreign policy questions pushed Bernie Sanders out of comfort zone as a David Sangher piece.

That was clearly not the case in 2020. I think Bernie was driving the conversation when it came to the war in Yemen. He was driving the conversation when it came to U.S. policy towards Israel, a whole bunch of areas. What changed in your mind, if anything, between 16 and 20? And like, what lessons did you take away from your experience on that campaign about how to get progressives to care more about foreign policy issues? Because obviously, most of the fights we had were about Medicare for all and domestic issues. And sometimes it's hard to break through. on this stuff. Sure. I mean, so I'll answer the first question maybe in a couple ways. One

humorous and one a little more serious is like I think, you know, I mean, it's true. I mean, for a long time, Bernie had focused on a number of domestic and economic issues, health care. But I think, you know, he has talked about foreign policy in the past, especially during the 1980s. His, you know, focused on Latin America policy. But I think it's true that when he did talk about foreign policy, he maybe pushed David Sanger out of David Sanger's comfort zone. And I thought him getting a little better at that, you know, as he pushed forward into a broader range of foreign policy issues in 2020. But, you know, I think it's fair to say that he, you know, belatedly in the 2016 primary started to focus on foreign policy, but I think when he did, he noticed and others noticed,

I certainly noticed the impact it made and the reaction at God. I'm thinking of, you know, particularly about, you know, raising the issue of Palestinian rights and in one of the primary debates among another issue, you know, you know, the great line about I'm glad. Henry Kissinger is not my friend. I mean, just challenging this idea that we're supposed to treat this guy, you know, as this respected elder of American foreign policy. You know, and I think this gave an idea of the broader critique that he was really going to articulate in the future. But yeah, after, after, you know, the 2016 election, he decided that he really wanted to put some more thought into making foreign policy a part of his broader vision. And that's part of why he brought me out to his staff. And it's been, it's been, it's been, great to work with them all of it. Matt, I just want to, again, credit you for really moving the conversation in the, in the Democratic Party. And in, you know, our politics generally in a more progressive direction with the campaign that you guys ran and the work you did on it. Thanks.

I think people don't, it's almost impossible to appreciate how much you accomplished in that regard. And I just wanted to draw it from you. Like, what did you think were the most important elements of what should become the foreign policy for a future Democratic administration, a Democratic Congress. You know, you guys led on so many dimensions the AUMF repeal, the Warren Yem, the Saudi relationship, the Israel relationship, but that's just the Middle East. You were also raising, you know, climate change as a foreign policy issue, raising issues around authoritarianism. What do you want to see translate from your campaign and Bernie's vision into kind of the more mainstream approach of the Democratic Party? Well, I think, you know, if you look at the way Bernie

has always talked about foreign policy, but even more so, you know, later in 2016 and since then. And this is very conscious, like when I joined his staff and we started to work together on, you know, remarks and speeches and ideas, and the project was not to like attach a foreign policy trailer to Bernie Sanders' agenda. It was to really think through what does a foreign policy based on these ideas and principles that Bernie has talked about for a very long time? and that progressives has prioritized and are, you know, even more so now, what does a vision of America's role in the world based on these ideas of equality and dignity and human security and collective security? What does this look like? And I think that has kind of been the guiding light as, you know, as Bernie has gone about kind of challenging some of these, you know, so-called consensus ideas showing that these, this so-called consensus is not rooted in a lot.

It needs to change their things, you know, like these long-term military interventions, endless war, the prioritization of the military tool over diplomacy, and really thinking through, you know, what tools we have to affect, you know, better outcomes, not only for the American people, for our security and our prosperity, but the great power we actually do have in helping to facilitate global cooperation and innovation. And I think climate change is one of the most obvious, you know, issues there, because that is, when he said it was the number one national security threat in 2016, people kind of chuckled, but no one's laughing about that anymore. I think that's the fairly broad consensus in the party, if not even beyond. But that's just one area. And I think that, you know, that's going to color the way we address a whole range of other issues because climate change and some of the consequences

of that, as you both noted, I mean, this is something that makes other issues harder. It exacerbates other conflicts. You know, Matt, so you kind of like jokingly said to my first question, like maybe Bernie was talking about issues that are out of David Sanger's comfort zone. And David Sanger is like the heavy hitter foreign policy reporter at the New York Times. And you're kidding around, but it's actually true that issues that on foreign policy that seem to come from the left are often treated as unsurious, right? Like whatever you think about Dennis Kucinich, and you're allowed to think about it,

the idea of a Department of Peace was laughed out of the room on the campaign trail. But if a Republican proposes bombing Iran preemptively or bombing North Korea preemptively in Congress or on the campaign trail, that's a serious idea, worthy of consideration. Why do you think that mindset exists where ideas from the left are treated as unsurious and war is treated as worthy of debate? Right. No, you've landed on one of my absolute, like, bug was here. And that's totally right. I mean, like, just for example, like, the polar opposite of, like, John Bolton is, you know, I guess the love guru or something, you know, it's just, and yet John Bolton is treated as this kind of serious foreign policy thinker. There is this kind of, yes, seriousness that adheres to someone, the more they are willing to talk about, you know, dropping bombs that tread people's bodies. And that's just crazy.

You know, I think progressives recognize that we need, you know, defending the American people is one of the most important roles of the government. But what we also have is, like, evidence that a lot of the tools and policies that we've been using over the past decades have actually produced, you know, bad outcomes. So I think part of it is just, you know, mounting a critique. I think you see a much broader movement of groups and individuals who've been working together over the past years engaging and coordinating much more effectively now. But it's also, you know, recognizing that people like Bolton and others like and who make these kinds of hawkish arguments, They have an enormous amount of resources at their disposal, whether it's from an ideological standpoint or a profit-making standpoint if we're talking about the defense industry and defense contractors who obviously want to be dropping more bombs so they can keep selling more bombs. So I think you have to attack from various angles. You know, Matt, I remember, like, you and I kind of first came into contact way back in the first Obama campaign.

you noticed something that he had said in a debate that was more important than maybe other people noticed, which is that we didn't just need to end the war in Iraq. We needed to end the mindset that got us into war. I think there's some appropriate progressive critiques of Obama that, particularly in his first term, he was kind of slowed to change his mindset. But clearly in the second term on the Iran deal in particular, that was an effort to kind of change that mindset. And to get into a specific issue, we can start with Iran. there are a few we can get to. But on Iran, you know, we've talked about the discordance between, you know, people promote peace and kind of the assumption that military options are, you know, mainstream. There's also kind of that defensiveness in the Democratic Party that we experienced in the Iran debate,

where you have to kind of clear your throat for about two minutes talking about a horrific Iran is, how terrible they are, how this deal is not perfect. And by the time you get to the end of that throat clearing, you'd wonder why a voter would want to side for the person. If they want a belligerent candidate, they'd just go to Donald Trump, right? And so as we think about, okay, we've seen the mess that's been made of Iran since we pulled out of the deal. Everything's gotten worse. If there is a Biden administration, what would you like to see happen and what concerns you, what traps do you potentially see in what I call the better deal crowd that isn't really wanting to get a better deal?

they're just wanting to kind of engage in cyber war against Iran, endless sanctions on Iran. What are the traps we have to look out for and what would be a better way of changing that mindset? Yeah, no, that's a great question. Because again, I brought this up numerous times. But that statement from Obama in that primary debate is, you know, the best encapsulation of the progressive foreign policy project that I think I've ever heard. And I repeat it all the time for that reason. and the Iran and the diplomacy and the JCPOA, I think, was a perfect demonstration of that philosophy. Like, this is how this works.

You know, so what I'd say about how a Biden administration might go about this, I mean, I think they're on the right track. I mean, the commitment to rejoining the JCPOA and all the reasons they've articulated why. Not surprising. A lot of the folks close to Biden worked on the JCPOA the first time around. They understand why it was a good deal and why it was such a bad, you know, decision to withdraw from it and turn to this ridiculous maximum pressure policy that is producing just countless bad outcomes, while also radically undermining American credibility into the future.

So rebuilding that is going to take some effort, but I think what's important is, first of all, knowing who your allies are. And I don't mean just internationally, I think domestically. And I think this is true more broadly. And, you know, I mentioned a few minutes ago about this rising progressive foreign policy coalition, grassroots organizations, scholars, journalists, you know, NGOs, all the folks who, you know,

who worked against the Iraq War, who worked in support of Iran diplomacy, who worked in support of the Yemen War Powers Resolution. This is one of the most interesting and exciting things happening, I think, in foreign policy right now, is this range of groups that are really getting engaged on these questions because they understand, and they've been saying this for a long time, how, you know, foreign policy can't be kind of a backwater of democratic politics anymore. This is really important. So I would say, you know, to come out of the gate running,

talking with these groups, working with these groups, and understanding the role they play, you know, they need to play at the table at the very beginning, but also, you know, helping defend the diplomacy, pushing new ideas out into the bloodstream, into discussion. And also a second part of that is understand who your enemies are. You know, these better deal folks,

Don't want a better deal, okay? They didn't oppose the JCPOA because it was a weak deal. They opposed the JCPOA because they don't support deals with Iran. You know, they've made this abundantly clear in public multiple times. Do not engage with these bad faith actors. There's no benefit in it. Yeah, agreed with that. You know, look, the good news about, you know, what you're just alluding to

is that the progressives and the Biden camps are already at the table in a lot of ways, like literally and metaphorically. I mean, Bernie and Biden have established these unity task forces. They're looking at key issues like health care, climate change, criminal justice reform. And those task forces have made recommendations that will go to the DNC platform committee that really have meaningfully impacted Biden's policies. So an enormous success story for the Sanders coalition. There isn't a foreign policy task force per se. But my understanding from news reports and talking to you is that there are some conversations between the Bernie and Biden teams about foreign policy issues.

use. Is there anything that you can share about those talks and sort of areas where you think there's progress? And then, you know, one area that's leaked out is some frustration about the refusal to use the word occupation in the section about Israel and the West Bank. And I was hoping you could sort of explain why that's contentious to listeners who might not know. And, you know, why do you think Biden would be hesitant to use a word that was used by Bush and Obama? Right. So, I mean, on the first part of that, I mean, yeah, I mean, there has been, you know, not just conversations, but they really steady and regular and serious engagement on the part of the Biden team with a whole bunch of progressive groups. You know, I've been talking to them helping to facilitate some of that.

Others, you know, have worked, you know, their own relationships. And I think from the very beginning, both publicly and privately, they showed that they understood how important it was to bring progressives on board. And I think we progressives really appreciate that because that's important not only from a policy standpoint, but in order to win and then to govern, how important that was. You know, and again, Biden and his team may have some views that don't align with, I think, where progressives are, but there is a lot of alignment on some very, very key issues. And I think even though the platform isn't public yet, I think I can say there are some really important progressive achievements in this platform in terms of foreign policy,

some really important progressive priorities that are now shared Democratic Party priorities. There's a lot to celebrate about that, and we should do that. I think specifically with regard to the, you know, the word occupation. My colleague, Josh Orton, you know, in the public platform drafting committee, you know, I think he put it very eloquently, ending the occupation is an issue of racial justice. You know, the Israel-Palestine conflict is a complicated one, but there are certain things about it that are not complicated, and that is the daily reality of humiliation and violence that occupation encompasses.

I think you both, you know, the letter that you all joined a few weeks ago making some of these points was really important. It articulated some of this. So again, even the language on Israel-Palestine, I'll say is an improvement from past platforms. But we think this, you know, the acknowledgement of occupation is important. So we're going to continue to engage constructively and see what we can do. But again, I think this idea that's been, you know, kind of floated, you know, and gained steam or just over the past decade. Because as you said, you know, Barack Obama said this in 2009. George Doeby Bush said it before that. Ariel Sharon said it in 2003.

You know, I think Ariel Sharon is a pretty pro-Israel guy. You know, that's my understanding. So if he's able to acknowledge this, you know, in 2003, I'm not sure why the Democratic Party can't in 2020. Yeah, I may, you know, go farther than you mad at it. And look, I was a part of this, I have scars myself. In 2012, I helped write our platform, and I landed in Charlotte to find out that there'd been some kind of revolution, not our revolution, Matt, this is Apex Revolution, against, you know, the fact that we didn't include some of the past language about Jerusalem and, and, you know,

I got rolled by a Mac truck on that 2012 platform. But, I mean, look, if it's not an occupation, what is it? I mean, Israel legally occupies Palestinian lands. There are Israeli military in Palestinian lands. At times, there's Israeli military, literally quartered in Palestinian homes. Like, I mean, we could go on and on. If it's not, if you can't say what it is, then you, you know, that has to be a starting point for dealing with it. The question that I would draw out of this, Matt, is both substantive and political, which is you've

working on issues related to Israel, Palestine, and Palestinian rights for a long time. You know, politically, what's happening in Democratic Party is kind of interesting because you see this kind of old guard, you know, Elliott Engel, for instance, who was kind of always taking a pretty hard line in favor of whatever the Israeli government's position was. And, you know, he was defeated by Jamal Bowman, who has, you know, a much more, I think, even-handed a view of this that, you know, recognizes the occupation and the need for the U.S. to play a different kind of role here. I think, so the political question is, you know, how do you see the Democratic Party changing on these issues where you have such a vast disconnect between some of the leadership in Congress,

you know, in L.A. Dengel, just one example. Bob Menendez, you know, the leading Democrat on the Farm Relations Committee would be another example in the Senate and there are others. But then you have, you know, incoming, you know, members like Jamal Bowman. or you have younger members like AOC and others, you know, who want to push this conversation in a different direction, don't want to see this as an issue used to kind of divide Democrats. And frankly, then, you know, on the other side, we also see these kind of dark money groups. The same people dropped a bunch of ads on Jamal Bowman attacking him, dropped ads on Bernie, attacking Bernie, although interestingly not about Israel.

But so how do you see the politics changing the Democratic Party and more importantly, substantively, what are the kinds of approaches that a Democratic administration and Congress should take here? Is it there's, you know, conditioning assistance if Israel moves forward with annexation, there's question of Palestinian recognition. Do we extend recognition to Palestinians? What can be done to kind of break this endless multi-decade momentum towards Israeli annexation aided and abetted by, you know, American policy? Right. I mean, a lot in there. Let me kind of tick through a few things. One is, yeah, I think, You look at the Jamal Bowman race.

And I think what's important about that is the way he spoke about foreign policy in a way, you know, I mean, Bernie has talked about it like this and sort of Warren and a few others, but I think Jamal really in the moment, especially in the moment of, you know, after George Floyd's murder and the protest, an understanding of, you know, how the walls between domestic and foreign policy just shouldn't exist. I mean, these things are domestic inequality and are some of the world. of our problematic foreign policies are mutually reinforcing, our militarism abroad and our inequality at home. There is a relationship there.

And we need to understand that. And I would say that he represented the new progressive way of approaching these issues, and it's simply to say that we are going to be consistent when we talk about these relationships. You know, it's not singling Israel out, despite the fact that I think a lot of these conservative groups, like some you mentioned, want to characterize this as anti-Israel. It's not. You know, you can be supportive of a strong U.S.-Israel relationship as I am, as Senator Sanders is, as Jamal Bowman is, but still say American taxpayer dollars should not be used to abuse human rights. The same is true for Saudi Arabia. Obviously, those are two different relationships, but, you know, no one really accused Senator Sanders of being anti-Saudi when we wanted to cut off support for the Yemen war. It's just we don't support these policies and we shouldn't be paid. for them. You know, so yes, we want democratic unity. We think some of these conservative

groups should stop stoking tension over these issues as we try to, you know, promote a more consistent progressive vision for American foreign policy. And I want to add one more thing to, and that is, you know, the way that Bernie has talked about this, and I think this is true of progressives more broadly, is we want to be in solidarity with our Israeli and Palestinian colleagues who are trying to end this occupation, who are trying to bring that kind of conflict to a close. And when when leaders, American leaders can't speak like kind of truthfully and acknowledge the reality of the occupation, that undermines their work. You know, I think the kind of inability to criticize the inability to talk about any consequences for constant settlement expansion, for home demolitions, for land expropriation, has affirmed and empowered the Israeli pro-settler right in enormous ways. So, I mean, this idea that we shouldn't interfere, I mean, we do interfere by making sure there are no consequences.

So listen, if our goal is a two-state solution, if our goal is to end the occupation, let's talk about, you know, the tools we have to actually create, you know, get to those goals and, you know, respond and create consequences for policy that undermine those goals. We've been talking a bit about Congress. Ben and I talked last week about the jockeying on the House side for the chairmanship of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. There's Joaquin Castro, Brad Sherman, Greg Meeks are all in the running. We're not going to ask you to pick a side here. But as someone who works in foreign policy in the U.S. Senate, can you help listeners understand what the stakes are? What would it mean to have more progressive leadership in these committees in practice for, say, Joe Biden if he wins? Yeah. Well, I think, you know, to have, you know, let's just take a step back and you guys know

when you have talked about what a challenge it was to have some Democratic leaders who were not supportive of diplomacy with Iran. I mean, having to fight with like Elliott Engel, having to put, you know, that was a huge pain, wasn't it? I mean, wouldn't you have rather spent that energy and time doing other stuff? It was harder to secure Democratic Party support for the Iran deal than it was for George Bush to secure the Iraq war resolution. Right, exactly. And this is something that Democrats broadly supported at the time. So I guess what's important and is going on here is like we have the possibility, you know,

imagine a chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that, you know, speaks for Democrats broadly instead of just this one tiny hawkish faction. I mean, imagine what could be done, you know, with a party that was moving and supporting diplomacy with Iran, but a more of diplomacy-oriented foreign policy in general, as D.P. Biden has talked about what he wants to do. And this, on top of this growing movement and coalition that I've talked about. I mean, this is, you know, we are witnessing, I think, a paradigm shift in foreign policy. And it's really exciting. I want to just, on top of that, I'll just mention something, you know, because this was very much on my mind. I saw Joaquin Castro's piece today.

explaining why he was running for the chairmanship of the committee. But also this week you saw two reports from two fairly different organizations. One is a report from the Quincy Institute, which is a restraint-oriented kind of a realist, new think tank that I think has got some great folks doing some good work, but it was let's end American military domination of the Middle East. Here are some new policies and changes we need to make. also this week was a new report from the Center for New American Security, which is a much more kind of centrist, I guess we'll call it establishment, foreign policy think tank, also called demilitarizing U.S. policy in the Middle East. Now, some of these policy proposals and analysis differed, certainly, but I think when you've got these two very different think tanks putting out these kinds of reports saying it is overdue that we need to rethink this, I mean, again, this is what a paradigm ship looks like. So, Matt, I got one more question for you, which is you talked about politics. Here, we talked about, you know, the solidarity with progressives in Israel and Palestine. One thing you and I've also talked about, and I know Bernie cares about it. And actually, we spoke briefly about it at J Street, is this global authoritarian trend, which we spent a lot of time on this podcast talking about. So we don't have to go through the list of goons and creeps around the world. But I'm wondering if, you know, part of what's missing is a global,

progressive front that has solidarity against these people in which activists, political parties are sharing common strategies, common media, common messaging, lessons learned, best practices so that we can be as organized and coordinated as the far right has been over the last decade or two. And you've now been a part of a presidential campaign that was really a movement. Have you given any thought to what lessons you take from that, to how to forge that kind of of international solidarity amongst progressive political actors? What could we be doing that we're not yet doing in this space? Yeah, I mean, well, the first is like identifying our counterparts as much as we can. And I think you're right to raise this. I know that I really, you know,

this is something you've talked about a lot and written about. And I think it's really important because it is one of the most important phenomenon we're witnessing right now. You know, I think there's this great group, the progressive international, which is, you know, which I think is inspired by this idea and they're trying to facilitate international cooperation at the kind of grassroots and civil society level. But I also think it's important to understand, you know, you know, the trends and the different things that these authoritarian and illiberal leaders are exploiting to gain power. And again, this is where I would return to, you know, when we look at the last 20 years, you know, I'm not going, we can't and we shouldn't, you know, blame everything on U.S.

policy. That's just inaccurate. But we, We got to understand the way that, you know, the invasion of Iraq and the destabilization of that region and the massive, you know, flows of migrants, what it did to Syria, what it did to the region, what it eventually did, you know, in Europe, and how, you know, these authoritarian leaders have fed on racism and hatred and anti-immigrant sentiment, both in Europe and in here. And again, this goes back to what I was saying is understanding the connection between foreign and domestic policy, how these things are mutually reinforcing. And they kind of show themselves in different ways in different societies, but I think there are a lot of commonalities.

So I think talking through that with our colleagues in other countries and pushing our own government, you know, protecting political space is, I think, a key priority. It's like the U.S. government cannot be the one kind of reaching in. We have neither the right nor the ability to kind of reach into other societies and change the. What we can do is speak out in defense of civil states to allow activists in these countries to to stick and organize and work together. Last question for me, Matt, so you know, we've talked about demilitarizing U.S. foreign policy in Middle East. We've talked about giving activists space to protests and freely assemble. I'm a little worried about demilitarizing our own. streets right now. You know, you and I were talking earlier offline about the emergence of these

DHS, their equivalent of a SWAT team on the streets of Portland. They're reportedly going to Chicago, maybe other cities. They seem not particularly accountable to the Constitution. They seem like they answered directly to Donald Trump. These are staff, you know, these are positions like CBP, TSA that have no training for this kind of craft. crowd control. What's the level of concern in Congress for what we're seeing in the streets? And what avenues do you guys have to try to curtail or end this sort of bizarre paramilitary force being deployed to our streets? Well, I think the level of concern is quite high. I think you saw just over the past few days, Senator Merkley and Senator Wyden,

two senators from Oregon, a law for a bill, which Senator Sanders and a number of others have co-sponsored. against this sort of deployment of federal troops against the wishes of the local authorities. I think there's, you know, denial of funds. That's the power Congress has, is the power of the purse. And denying funds is a way to kind of rein in the executive when it behaves lawlessly. I think it clearly is. But I also would just use this, and I think you put it lightly, I would call it, I think we are seeing, you know, this is the president effectively using, you know, these, you know, the CPB and others,

as his personal militia. You know, as someone who has studied Middle East politics, this is very familiar, and it's not familiar in a good way. And I'm not prone to overstatement, but I think we have to be real about what we are seeing. This is not looming fascism. This is fascism happening in our streets. And, you know, it seems that, you know,

you know, something I said over the weekend was, you know, paraphrasing Maya Angelou, when someone tells you that Cece is their favorite dictator, believe them. This is where Trump is coming from. And I think he is kind of testing the limits here to see what he can get away with as we move closer to the election. So, yeah, and I'll just finish by saying like, these are the stakes. You know, when we're talking about this presidential election, you know, even though we are, you know, we'll continue to engage with the Biden team and have some, you know, constructive debates over where we might not align.

We all understand the stakes here. We understand what needs to be done. I mean, this is existential for this country, and that's how we're going into it. Yeah, listen, totally agree with you. And sincerely, thank you to you. Thank you to Senator Sanders for not just the campaign you ran, but the way you guys are making the policies put forward by the Democratic Party more progressive, more thoughtful, more fleshed out, they're speaking to the urgency of the moment when it comes to climate change.

You know, like, look, everybody to go from something serious, something mundane, and follow Matt on Twitter at Matt Dust, DUSS, because you don't often get the more progressive view on foreign policy. I look to your Twitter feed for a lot of it. So thank you for that. Hey, thanks a lot. I really appreciate it. And thank you guys. I mean, I think you guys touch on some issues and shine a light on stuff that a lot of other media don't.

So always appreciate the conversations you guys have. It's great. Great talking to Matt. All right, you too. Thanks to Matt for joining. Thanks to you, Ben, for doing these shows. Is that a record player back there? Is that new?

Yeah, I got a record player. No, I got it a while ago, but I haven't, is my one indulgence. So you have kids like you don't like get anything for yourself anymore. But like I haven't figured out how to hook up my speakers yet. So it's really ornamental at this point. Oh, yeah.

I mean, hopefully it's not that hard. The problem we have is we have to, we have the placement of the record player figured out. But we have to plug it in, which involves like drilling a hole in the shelf. And I am the least. handy person in addition to not having good taste. So this is a hurdle that must be cleared at some point. It's a good, it's a good pandemic project. But I mean, I'm beginning to, you know,

develop a bit of a vinyl collection here so that I'm ready to hit the switch when it's ready to go. Yeah, I got, Hannah gave me one for my birthday. We bought, there was a cool record store near my house that I guess used to exist. It probably doesn't anymore. Michael O'Neill, friend of the pod, has sent a handful of must-haves over. So, yeah, you know, If you're listening, O'Neill, send them my way. I'm trying to build a jazz collection over here. There you go. There you go.

All right, man. Well, hopefully, you know, we'll postmates you a drill. And next week we'll have that rocket in the back. Yeah, yeah, yeah. We'll have the soundtrack next year. All right, buddy. Talk to guys soon. Pottae the world is a product of crooked media.

The executive producer is Michael Martinez. Our assistant producer is Jordan Waller. It's mixed and edited by Chris Basil. Kyle Segglin is our sound engineer. Special thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn, Nar Malkonian, and Milo Kim, who film and share our episodes his videos every week.