Pod Save the World - Fresh Prince of Saudi Arabia

Episode Date: March 22, 2018

Tommy talks with Washington Post columnist David Ignatius about Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s visit to the United States and his "reform agenda". Then they discuss Trump’s call with Putin, reports that he ignored his staff’s plea to be tougher, and the risk of North Korea negotiations. 

Welcome back to Potsave the world, Saudi Arabia. We get a ton of oil from them. They're one of our most important security partners in the Middle East. That is probably part of why Muhammad bin Salman is in the United States this week and is blanketing the airwaves and newspapers you read with stories. I talk with David Ignatius, one of the smartest columnists I know for the Washington Post about why Mohammed bin Salman is in the United States, what his reforms really mean and why some people are skeptical about his ability

to deliver. Then we talk about Trump's fun little phone call with Vladimir Putin and all the details that leaked. We talk about the risk of the North Korean negotiations failing and the fate of the Iran deal. Spoiler alert, not looking good. I loved working with David back when I was at the White House because he was one of the smartest columnists out there. His analysis, I think, is some of the best in the business. So I think you will really enjoy this conversation. My guest today is David Ignatius. He's a foreign affairs columnist for the Washington Post. He's also written eight spy novels, eight,

and is one of the smartest people I had the pleasure of working with when I was on the National Security Council. David, thank you for braving the blizzard that is striking Washington, D.C., and doing the show today. It is absolutely deadly out there, actually. It's by real snowstorm standards. It's pretty modest. I am a nitpicker, so I'm going to tell you in your audience that I'm actually the author of 10 spy novels. Oh my God.

My latest The Quantum Spy came out in November. Wow. Well, look, we'll update your wiki page. And also, I just want to say it's raining in Los Angeles. So I think everyone knows I'm the hero here for making it to work. The topic today I'd like to start with is the crown prince of Saudi Arabia. He is everywhere this week. He met with Donald Trump in Washington.

He was the subject of a somewhat gauzy 60 Minutes profile. I would like to talk about why he's here, why some think he may be controversial. in a minute. But first, let's talk about who he is and how he came to power. Where does Muhammad bin Salman fit into the Saudi royal family? How did he elevate so quickly at a young age? Well, the simple answer is that he is the favorite son of the king. And when King Salman took over after the death of King Abdullah, his ambitious son, then 29, he has older sons from different marriages, but Mohammed bin Salman, who had been with him at the Saudi Defense Ministry when he was Minister of Defense, suddenly began moving to push power.

He was named initially Deputy Crown Prince, the number three in succession. But from the very beginning, it was clear that he was the driving force behind his father's efforts to modernize the kingdom, install his own people in key positions. He then moved last year to replace the Crown Prince, Mohammed Binai, somebody very well-known to the U.S. government. It had been a key counterterrorism partner, much admired at our CIA. So he was pushed out as Crown Prince, and MBS, as he's called, took over that job. What animates him, what drives him? I think on the basis of three lengthy conversations with him, he is a young man in a heart.

Curry, as I wrote this morning, with a vision of creating a more modern Saudi Arabia that is less tied up in traditional ideas of religion, power. He's essentially broken in these three years. The way in which Saudi Arabia has been governed since I began covering it in 1980, really all the way back to the 50s, Saudi Arabia operated as a kind of a consensual family enterprise. The House of was very slow to move on issues, very protective, very defensive, because they wanted to maintain consensus within the royal family. Muhammad bin Salman has blown that apart in trying to push through his ideas of modernization. I have to say, having just been in the kingdom a few weeks ago, you do see the signs of a

much different, more modern place, especially in terms of the rights of women. There's just impossible to deny that it's changing in ways that I think most of us would see as positive. Also impossible to deny that this headstrong, sometimes impulsive crown prince now, you know, has got a kind of top-down, want to say autocratic side to him. Saudi Arabia's been an autocracy for decades. That's not different. But he's consolidated that power more closely within his own royal court with the king and himself as the king's key aid. I mean, I think the mere fact that he spent so much time with you, or was willing to, is fascinating in and of itself.

And I guess the big question about MBS, which I will refer to him as now, is whether he can deliver on these reforms, these promises of reform and modernization. Like you said, he's pledged to root up corruption to diversify the Saudi economy away from oil, to curtail the power of religious police, increase women's rights,

including the right to drive and wear more modern clothing. So you were in Riyadh, you met with him. I mean, was your impression of him, that he's sincere in these pledges? And did you see signs that he's able to deliver or has it delivered? So there's no question in my mind after this most recent conversation at the end of February and the two previous ones that he does have a vision of change and that he means to bend Saudi Arabia to this idea of a more modern country. I found two things on this trip that encouraged me and then I'll mention one that worried me. The encouraging

things are first that these reforms, especially his putch against corruption, rounding up all these hundreds of billionaire princes and other Saudi notables and putting him in the Ritz Carlton in Riyadh last November, that's been very popular, especially with younger Saudis. I went out in the streets just to talk to Saudi kids, walked into a cafe, don't really think anybody could have staged manned it, and said, you know, what do you think? What did you think when you saw all these people being hauled to the Ritz Carlton. And the response from every person I talked to was, we think this is great.

You know, one young man said to me, these princes think they're better than us. They think that they're different. Well, they're not. We're all Saudis. So it's tapped this feeling among the people I was talking to were bank tellers and school counselors. I mean, these were not big shots.

Feeling among these younger people that after decades of gross abuse, everybody has stories of princes at the public trough. Maybe that that's changing. The second thing that I found was that there's surprising support for these changes among people in the religious leadership who are close to MBS. I interviewed the Sheikh Mohammed Alisa, who is head of the Muslim World League, which is a government-backed organization, but is part of the Ulama, the religious leadership. and he was emphatic in saying, we don't see any reason why women shouldn't drive. We don't see any reason why women have to wear a black obaya. We don't see any reason why women have to cover their faces with this nikab, it's called,

which makes only their eye slits visible. He said, we think that the religious police had abused their authority. They have no police powers to arrest people. So the religious leadership doesn't challenge that. I found that fascinating. I kept asking him. Surely there are some people who are more conservative than you within the Ullama. Aren't they concerned, aren't they upset? The answer is yes, there are other views, but he kept saying there's consensus that these changes are appropriate and consistent with the Quran. So those two things, I think, public support and surprising support or acceptance from the religious leadership are both very popular. The thing that worries me is that he is, as I wrote this morning, he's a young man trying to do everything at once. He's fighting every battle on every front. He's super ambitious. And I think there's so much at stake in Saudi Arabia becoming a more modern country, better accommodating the modern world, that I think anybody who wants that more modern Saudi Arabia has to worry that this young man is taking on more than he can be. than he can handle. But, you know, that's a question for the future. The Trump administration has

embraced him, Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, clearly see MBS as a kindred spirit. One thing I hope will come out of this visit is that as he travels around the country, he goes to Boston, New York, Silicon Valley. He'll meet a lot of other Americans outside the orbit of the Trump White House. And maybe we'll make some new contacts, friendships, alliances. For Saudi Arabia, to change in the ways that we've talked about, it needs a broad base of support in the Muslim world and in the U.S. Let's hope Trump doesn't come away thinking maybe he should lock a bunch of rich people up in a hotel and, you know, maybe Jeff Bezos or something. Well, it would be bad for the Ritzcarl of a brand name. You may lock them up in Trump Towers. Yeah, that would be Trump Towers. So the critics of MBS say, you know, the Saudis for a long time have been talking reform, but they don't deliver.

They'll sort of point to the fact that, you know, this anti-corruption campaign you talked about. locked up 381 wealthy Saudis at the Ritz until they repaid $100 billion in restitution. But not long ago, he spent $550 million on a mega yacht that he spotted when he was on vacation. Some of the people he locked up were reportedly tortured, one died, you know, the Saudis still behead and stoned people as young as 15 years old as punishment. How do we grade progress made versus the status quo in Saudi Arabia versus the Western standards, which I think we all would say, you know, they're not where we need to be. Well, Saudi Arabia, like sadly, every country in the Middle East is a long way from where we

would think they ought to be in terms of basic human rights, in terms of the structure of their legal system. I do have the feeling that there's been some movement. Is it sufficient? No. Does he want to do more? He says he does. but again, we have to, I think, be wary and watch.

I had one interesting encounter with him. I asked him when I was interviewing him February 26th, said, you're coming in the United States, we're concerned in the United States about human rights abuses in Saudi Arabia. Isn't this a good time for you to release some people from prison who are being held human rights organizations, say, for completely spurious reasons? I read him a list of five names of people who are particularly seen as victims of injustice.

And he came back with quite sharp negative response. Our standards are different from yours. We think our standards apply. Every time Americans try to lecture us about human rights, it ends up backfiring. It's the usual response that you get, frankly, in many countries around the world when you raise human rights issues. He concluded this part of the interview by saying, our feeling is if it isn't broken, don't fix it. So, okay, I took that as a quite sharp negative sign. The interesting part is that before I had sent off the interview, but before it had been actually published in the paper,

so presumably there are ways that they knew what I had written, and I'd use that quote about it, if it isn't broken, don't fix it. I got a call from the palace saying that the crown prince thought about that. And he just wanted to make clear that in this area as in other areas, he would consider making changes where needed. I have no idea what that means other than that they're attentive to their image. But I did think it was interesting that they understood that on this question of human rights, they're vulnerable. No country likes to seem as if it's capitulating to American pressure on these issues. I mean, it's one problem with our ritual statements about this, and then we're always surprised when nothing's done.

But they understand it's important. Saudi Arabia needs to be a freer country. Mohammed bin Salman himself is creating expectations among younger Saudis that they're going to live in a freer, more modern place. And this is part of delivering on that. So if he doesn't get that, in the end, he's going to have to deal with the consequences. Yeah. You mentioned his trip to the U.S. and the people he works directly with at the White House.

Who is managing the U.S. relationship with the Saudis? I mean, Rex was canned on the can via tweet. So does that mean Jared's in charge? Is the White House at all worried about reports that powerful countries see him as potentially corruptible or malleable because of his business interests? The White House, on so many things, is a bit of a. substantial mystery. But as near as we can tell, this is a Jared Kushner account. It's reported that MBS, while he's here, is going to have a private dinner with Kushner. Kushner is, I reported and met with him late into the night in Riyadh to talk about business. He does

feel that Donald Trump and Kushner have his back, that they're strong supporters. And I think it's clear from Saudi public statements that they felt that Tillerson was siding with gutter, which they see as their family feud, as it were, with gutter, their next door neighbor. So I assume that Tillerson's departure makes them feel relieved on that score. But if you had to guess, you'd say, yes, the Saudi account is the case manager is one Jay Kushner. Let's talk about the war in Yemen. The Saudis went all in on this conflict three years ago. with backing from the Obama administration, I should add,

against a Shiite religious political rebel movement called the Houthis. The Houthis are backed by Iran. This conflict is part of a proxy war between the Saudis and Iran. MBS recently compared Iran's supreme leader to Hitler. So, safe to say, not a fan. A thousand days later, humanitarian organizations are calling the situation in Yemen the worst humanitarian crisis in the world. 75% of Yemen's population needs humanitarian to see.

60% of Yemenis don't have enough to eat. How did things get this bad? So the Saudis unwisely thought that through use of force, they could prevent Iran from having another proxy in the Arab world. It infuriates Sunni Arabs that the capitals, traditional capitals of the Arab world, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and now, perhaps Sana the capital of Yemen are under what they see as control of Iranian proxies. And they wanted to stop that process in Yemen. The way they chose to do it, bombing, attacking, one of the poorest countries in a very poor part of the world, has had catastrophic results.

And I think even the Saudis have realized that the best they can hope for now is some kind of negotiated settlement with the Houthis, the tribal group in northwestern Yemen that the Iranians had been supporting. There was a negotiation process in Kuwait that 18 months ago, two years ago, almost delivered a settlement. And Saudis that I talked to, including MBS, I think, would like to get back to that negotiation process. They think that the Houthi's killing of, of their Sunni ally, Ali Abilasala, the former president of Yemen, infuriated Salas supporters

and actually turned the tide against the Houthis and toward the Saudis and their clients. Is that true? Who knows? It's just a terrible tragedy. You think about American efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan to achieve political outcomes through use of military power. and you know the Saudis aren't unique in making that mistake. But the only way out of this is some negotiated settlement, the sheriff's power, and then the process was trying to rebuild Yemen begin.

I'll never forget listening to John Brennan yell at Ali Abdullah Salah in Arabic when he was not being as helpful as he needed to be in the wake of a bunch of terrorist activity. John Brennan yelling in Arabic sounds even scarier than John Brennan yelling in English. It was something else. And Sala was usually a little tipsy, so I don't think that made things go smoothly. You miss the white ass, I can tell. I miss John. I miss being in those conversations was, you know, the most remarkable thing I will probably

ever do in my life, you know, period. The Nessie job. But here we are, podcasting away. Do we screw this up? To the Obama White House screw up in its support of the Saudis in this proxy war? I mean, this is a humanitarian disaster. This is a five-alarm fire on the world stage. And I feel like, one, there's not a lot of accountability in the West for how we got there,

including my friends and people I worked with. And two, not a lot of conversation about what the world should or could be doing to help them. I'll give you an honest answer. I think, as with so many things, especially in the Arab world, Obama used military power reluctantly with strict limits. in a way that probably got him the worst of both worlds. He didn't do it in a decisive way that would have made the Saudis happy and would have made it easier for them to have early military success. But he did it and the bombs began to rain down on Yemeni.

That part of the Obama story and legacy is especially painful. I watched it as a journalist play out in Iraq, in Syria, in Afghanistan. and I wait for President Obama's memoirs in which he will explain to all of us his own feeling, which I'm sure is very conflicted when he thinks about Yemen, for example. I want to ask you about Russia for a second if I can. This week, The Washington Post, your paper had an extraordinary scoop about President Trump ignoring specific instructions in his briefing materials that warned him not to congratulate President Putin on his reelection when they spoke on the phone.

He was also supposed to condemn the recent. poisoning of a former Russian spy in London and he did not. What do you make of Trump's softer tone towards Russia and how on earth could something like this leak so quickly? It is stunning to me as a former NSC goon. It's an amazing leak. I think people must have been so offended. But feelings within the Atlantic Alliance, the France, Germany, the UK about Russian behavior are really high feelings in the U.S. military the same way. So obviously somebody was aware of the briefing notes and decided to leak them after Trump himself bragged about the conversation. I try to distinguish between two things, Tommy, looking at the current situation between the U.S.

and Russia, especially in the area of nuclear arms, with each country racing to announce new programs and destabilizing systems. I think the idea of having arms control discussions that might eventually lead to arms control negotiations is a good thing. And I don't want us to get so kind of reflexive in our anti-Russian state of mind that we don't embrace the obvious need to have some dialogue. And what I've written about this, I've said that Putin has crossed so many lines that he does have to start cleaning up the messes he's made. You want to talk, okay, let's do talk, but it's important that Russia begin to show through its actions that it's behaving more responsibly.

I thought it was interesting that Joint Chiefs of Staff today released for the second time in two weeks, the fact that Chairman Dunford, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has again talked with his Russian counterpart, Gerasimov, about the situation in Syria. Again, I think that kind of conversation, given just how hot and dangerous the world is, is important. But if Trump has in mind that he's going to, you know, the great dealmaker is going to put his arms around his pal Vladimir, who's been so careful not to criticize,

and it's all going to go back to being piece to peace and comrade. there can be just too many people around the world who will protest, starting with the Brits who say, you know, Russia used nerve agents on our soil. That is unacceptable. It's illegal. It's a violation of our sovereignty. Yeah. And President Bush sort of tried this whole look into his eyes and see his sole thing. I mean, I too am in supportive of any arms control conversation we have. I mean, the context here is in Putin's annual speech to the nation, he unveiled a super heavy thermonuclear armed ICBM missile. He talked about a nuclear powered underwater drone that can deliver a nuclear payload and a nuclear powered cruise missile that would outmaneuver our entire missile

defense system. So he is whether or not those things are real or they're just sort of, you know, alarming sounding announcements, the trajectory is not good when it comes to arms control. The arms control is a dead category in the U.S. Russian dialogue. And this really can't continue. I thought that Putin's speech on March 1st, I think it was, with the kind of ridiculous mock video of his new super missile skirting mountaintops and, you know, heading on its way to destroy Mar-a-Lago. I thought if you stood back and looked at it, it's not all that plausible as a military threat and heaven knows the U.S. military is developing its own new super bombs of various

sorts. What it did say was this is somebody who is just desperate to be taken seriously, who wants to make threats, rattle a cage, do almost anything to get what he feels is Russia's dignity back. So ignoring that forever, I don't think is the right answer. What we need to do is demand evidence that Russia is prepared to change the behavior that the world's not just the U.S., the world is found unacceptable. You talk to the Trump administration folks every day.

They rolled out this fairly remarkable agreement to sit down with Kim Jong-un, and direct talks with the president himself. Do you think that's ever going to happen? Do you have any sense of when, where, what they'll discuss? Are actual preparations happening? So it seems as if preparations are in the hands of Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State designate. If there is a back channel to Pyongyang now, I would think it would go through Pompeo, either him personally or one of his people. This situation, as with arms control, where I think any sensible person has to root for diplomacy.

I thought it was an insanely unconventional thing for Trump after dissing this idea back and forth and threatening fire and fury, then suddenly to announce after. this initial fragmentary encounter by the South Koreans with Kim Jong-un, that, okay, that's it, we're going to meet before May. It was impulsive, ill-prepared, potentially big problem. But still, you're not going to hear me saying that a diplomatic contact with a potential nuclear adversary is a bad thing. I don't think it is. The irony of this is that the person who set the table for diplomacy with North Korea,

who thought it through carefully and systematically, who issued repeated public statements explaining the parameters within which negotiations would take place was Rex Tillerson. It's the thing that Tillerson can take most pride in and credit for during his very rocky, generally unsuccessful tenure as Secretary of State, and for which he was trashed by Trump over and over again. But he's the person who set up the moment that, Trump then jumped on. Does Trump have the stuff to deliver anything real? I have no idea. But the idea that he's now planted his flag on the idea that he's going to negotiate a denuclearization agreement with North Korea? No, I'm not against that. Yeah, I'm not against it either. But, you know,

it does drive me crazy that, you know, he's going to negotiate a deal that I think the best case scenario would end with North Korea having some sort of nuclear weapons capability, unless we really think they'll truly denuclearize, which I'm skeptical of. Here's the thing that I think we should all worry about. So Trump has this big, high visibility, high voltage encounter with Kim Jong-un. The chance that Kim will quickly say, Donald, you're right. You know, what have I been thinking with wanting nuclear weapons? I'm just going to get rid of them.

I mean, you know, that's not going to happen. It'll be protracted. It's about the future of the Korean Peninsula. But that's not the kind of thing that Trump is going to do well. So the danger, I think, is that in the aftermath of an unsuccessful initial contact, there'll be a sort of spasm of response to try to, you know, up the ante, show we're really mean it, show that there's a price for not giving Donald what he wants. That's when this gets really dangerous. And so I think people, while endorsing the idea that we want a diplomatic outcome, should try to make sure that this is real diplomacy, not a piece of showmanship that could lead to a really, disastrous aftermath that he's disappointed. Yeah, I mean, meanwhile, a real diplomatic effort led to the

Iran deal, but it feels like, you know, the Trump White House is pushing the Europeans so hard right now to implement additional sanctions on Iran with a gun to their head, saying Trump's going to pull out if you don't succeed. And I read this morning that Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker is predicting that the Iran deal doesn't make it past May. Does that jive with what you're hearing and your reporting and very planning. Sadly, yes. The Iran nuclear remit, which I think is good for U.S. security, I think is good for Israeli security. I hear from people in the Israeli national security establishment over and over again.

We do not think that a sudden break in the JCPOA is good for us. I just feel as if it's a balloon that's losing its air week by week. Almost nobody seems willing to step up and try to save it, even if the Europeans did everything that the Trump administration has asked them to do. I'm not sure that Congress will then take the steps that would safeguard the JCPOA. Trump has succeeded to making it politically radioactive for Republicans to support.

It's very strange. It's something that, you know, I think most people around the world, certainly in Europe, many people in Israel would say is good for security and stability. It seems to have no friends. I don't get how we've gotten to this place. It's another part of a Trump world that I really, really worries me. Politics is very stupid, especially when combined with national security.

It is demoralizing. David Ignatius, I subscribe to the Washington Post. I pay for that bad boy. Just to get your columns, I was pleasantly surprised that it came with a whole bunch of fantastic reporting. You're the author of 10 spy novels. How about this? Your author are 11 spy novels. We're going to give you extra credit.

Thank you so much for doing the show. go get your dog sled and your snow shoes and please travel home safe. Thanks Tommy. Thank you. Bye-bye. Thank you guys, as always, for tuning in. If you enjoyed the show, please share it with your friends. Please rate and review us on iTunes.

And if you haven't deleted your Facebook page yet because of Cambridge Analytica, you can check out some of the shit we throw up on the podcast of the world Facebook page. You don't have to. If you hate Facebook, if you're going to boycott Facebook now because of some random company, you can do that too. Or you can check it out.

Have a great week. Thank you.