Pod Save the World - How Will Putin Respond to an ISIS Attack? (feat. Bernie Sanders)

Episode Date: March 27, 2024

Tommy and Ben discuss the deteriorating relations between the White House and Bibi Netanyahu's government after the UN Security Council calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, the stalling hostage negotiations in Qatar, and Trump's PR advice to Israel. Then, they talk about the ISIS attack at a Moscow concert hall and Putin's response. They also discuss Hong Kong's new national security law, two surprising political resignations, a democratic election in Senegal, why the former president of Brazil was hiding in a foreign embassy, and Kate Middleton's cancer diagnosis. Plus, Senator Bernie Sanders and Ben discuss the looming famine in Gaza, conditioning aid to Israel, and changing US foreign policy for the better. For a closed-captioned version of this episode, click here. For a transcript of this episode, please email [e-mail] and include the name of the podcast.

Welcome to Pottae of the World. I'm Tommy Vitor. I'm Ben Rhodes. Ben, looking good in your hotel room and on European vacation? Yeah. Actually, you're more of a Nordic vibe at the moment. I've got a Nordic vibe here. I'm in Copenhagen. Very good city. Very nice people here. Great city.

The Danes. I think they've figured out a lifetime. They just seem happy. They don't seem as hung up on stuff as we are. Yeah, they got a lot of good things going for them. You guys just running around? What time is there? Like 10 something? It's 10 o'clock. You know, it's, uh, it's, uh, it's, uh, Now that I've said that they've got it all figured out, they'll probably have some, like, extreme far-right party, like, emerge out nowhere, like everywhere else. But it seems for now it's like very pleasant. Yeah, well, it's great to connect to you. We've got a lot going on today. I know it's a hard day for you because Aaron Rogers was passed over as RFK Jr.'s vice president, but we'll get through. We are going to cover, we have an increasingly nasty fight between the U.S. and Israel over Gaza policy as well as Trump's latest analysis of the situation. the terrorist attack outside Moscow and the growing threat from ISIS-K. We've got a new security law in Hong Kong political resignations in Vietnam and Ireland.

Some good news at a Senegal, a wild story about former Brazilian president, Jaya Bolsonaro, Kate Middleton's cancer diagnosis, and then a very fun fact check out of Haiti. And then, Ben, you just talked with Senator Bernie Sanders. What did you guys cover? I did. I talked to Bernie about Gaza, and he's been obviously quite outspoken about the need to like condition U.S. assistance or really just turn off as U.S. assistance. But then he's also like written an article recently for foreign affairs like Bernie going into the belly of the blob there and really laying out the case for like a revolution in our foreign

policy. And so we talk about why U.S. foreign policy is broken. Like what are the incentives, the military industrial complex, the other domestic factors that kind of drive this group think that has led us in bad directions, talk about what a different kind of agenda would look like for the United States. It's really interesting conversation. Bernie's given this a lot of thought, you know, and I think, you know, as I said him at the end, if he can begin to have some impact on our foreign policy in the same way that he's really impacted the mainstream, the Democratic Party on domestic policy, that would be a useful contribution to say the least. Yeah, I'll say. Well, I'm very excited to hear that. Yeah, I mean, it's remarkable. What do you think about

2016 when Bernie was kind of knocked for not knowing enough about foreign policy, you're not focusing on it enough in his 2016 campaign to today, where he really has been pushing in a lot of different directions, not just on, you know, God's policy or Israel, but also on kleptocracy and all these other interesting ways. So yeah, we talk about that, you know, because, I mean, again, the same thing he cares about at home, right? The corrupting influence of money, it definitely seeps into foreign policy as we've seen in many dimensions. Seems like a global problem. Yes. Well, you mentioned he's been leading on Gaza, so why don't we turn there? Because, you know, there's been this growing divide between the U.S. and Israel on what should happen next. And that divide is getting bigger by the week. So the latest fight is over the U.S. decision not to veto a U.N. Security Council resolution that called for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza in the release of Israeli hostages. The U.S. abstained on the vote rather than vote for the resolution because it didn't condemn Hamas. But Ambassador Thomas Green, She's vetoed several previous ceasefire resolution. So while the resolution itself was like pretty

close to U.S. policy, the U.S. decision to abstain rather than veto was a big change. The White House says that Netanyahu's office was briefed in advance that this might happen. But Netanyahu freaked out. He canceled a planned Israeli delegation trip to Washington to discuss the Israeli plan to invade Rafa and generally like decided to make a stink here. So Ben, what was interesting, to me was how both sides are spinning this. The White House line is basically, we briefed BB in advance. There's no real policy change. Netanyahu is trying to create a perception of daylight between the U.S. and Israel where there isn't one. I'm not sure that's really the full story. Netanyahu, on the other hand, is saying that the U.S. had, quote, abandoned its policy in the U.N.

today, which again, it's not totally accurate in terms of the letter of the resolution, but it does probably reflect Bibi's view that the U.S. is supposed to veto every U.N. resolution critical of Israel, because in the past, that's what the U.S. has done with a few notable exceptions. But how big a deal do you think the abstention vote was? And what do you think about, like, that the spin from both sides tells us about where this relationship is heading? Yeah, there's a lot going on here. I mean, first of all, it's a step in the right direction. I mean, we've been saying for a long time that the U.S. should not be seen as obsceney. obstructing the UN Security Council trying to address the situation and address the humanitarian

catastrophe in Gaza. And so just the action of the U.S. allowing for, through an abstention, this to go through, I think kind of cements the international view that there needs to be a ceasefire. Now, just on the substance of the resolution, as you said, it's kind of in between where the U.N. Security Council has been, which is calling for a permanent and immediate ceasefire and where the U.S. has been because they took out the word permanent, and essentially they called for a ceasefire through Ramadan, which is only a couple more weeks,

in exchange for, and also called for the release of the hostages. So it is, you know, kind of in between where the U.S. has been and where the U.N. Security Council has been, but I think a step in the right direction. Now, on the spin, on the U.S. side, I don't understand this, because their spin has basically been, this is not a change in policy, nothing to see here. And I don't understand that because what's the point of doing it?

You know, why not just own, yeah, we're frustrated. Netanyahu is not listening to us. We think Roth would be a disaster. And so we moved to this position, you know. And he also said it wasn't binding, Ben. Did you notice that too, which was surprising to me. Non-binding. The un-cutting the UN.

I saw, but I just don't, if it's not a change in policy, then why do it? You know, like I don't quite. understand why they're at such pains to act like this isn't a shift. And I say that because in a good way, it's a shift, you know, like, so just own the fact that this is a different step that you're taking because the Israeli government is not listened to you because they're committed going through this Operation Rafa over your objections. Yeah. The BB spin, look, we know what's going on here now. He wants the fight with the Democratic president. He wants to appeal over the heads of Democrats to Republicans to get his back. He's got all of his trips on Trump winning

this election. That's what he's doing. So he's running the play where he basically is looking for the fight with Democrats, probably did know they were going to abstain, acted like he's surprised. And that's all the more reason why the U.S. doesn't need to be acting like we're still hugging him somehow, even though we're doing this. And the last thing I'd say is that this idea that, he says we've violated our policy. Like the last time I checked Tommy, the United States of America is a sovereign nation. I didn't know that we took instructions from BB Netanyahu about how we voted the United Nations. Again, that's all the more reason. It's an indication of how broken this relationship is that he believes he's in a position where he gets to tell Linda Thomas Greenfield how to vote at the UN.

That's absolutely insane. Yeah, Ben, it reminds me of a famous Bill Clinton quote where he walked out of a a meeting with Netanyahu and he said, who's the fucking superpower here to a bunch of his aides nearby because BB was pushing him around. And also, to your point, I think part of the reason the U.S. had to abstain on this vote is because we are worried that the view on the world is that the U.N. Security Council is permanently broken and worthless and not even, you know, people are questioning whether it should exist anymore. And if we're the ones who are contributing to that by blocking a resolution that basically states policy that we, mostly agree with. I think we're part of the problem and they recognize that. But, you know,

this rift between the U.S. and Israel, it's far beyond Gaza at the moment. I mean, Tony Blinken, who's been a staunch defender of Israel, the Secretary of State, went to Tel Aviv last week. And upon his arrival, Smotrich, the finance minister, announced the single largest West Bank land seizure since 1993. So just a drastic step in the direction of increased settlement construction. So there's all these instances happening in close proximity of Israeli and U.S. officials just punching each other in the face either through actions or words. And it's not good setup. Yeah. And Tommy, I'm kind of mystified too by some of the coverage of this as if this is all like shocking. The Bill Clinton anecdote you relayed is from 30 years ago. Like this is who

BB has always been. We're not like learning something new about this guy. And if you talk about the Rift, again, the Rift isn't just about this UN resolution. The U.S. and Israel don't agree about this Raff operation. The U.S. and Israel don't agree about aid getting into Gaza, which Israel's obstruction. The U.S. and Israel don't agree about whether there should be a Palestinian state. The U.S. and Israel don't agree about settlement construction in the West Bank. Basically, anything. This Israeli government, this far-right extremist Israeli government is out of step with existing U.S. policy on just about every single issue that is at stake in the relationship. So this isn't some short-term personality break. I mean, the press loves to cover this

as some, you know, BB, you know, Biden bromance ending or something, when in fact it's about real substance. And when you actually reckon with that, the issues get more difficult, not easier, because this isn't the kind of thing where you can paper over differences between two leaders. This is about a far-right government in Israel that is committed to settlement construction in the West Bank, that is committed to preventing assistance from getting people in Gaza, that is committed to preventing a Palestinian state. And we are going to have to reckon with that as the United States if we truly believe those things that we say. The other thing that happened earlier today, Ben, was the Israelis withdrew their team from Qatar

that had been trying to negotiate a ceasefire and a hostage release. Netanyahu in part blamed the United States for that failure to reach a deal, saying, quote, Hamas's stance clearly demonstrates its utter disinterest in a negotiated deal and attests to the damage done by the UN Security Council resolution. He continued, Hamas rebuffed all U.S. offers for a compromise while celebrating the Security Council's resolution. Again, the White House responded to this statement by pointing out to Axios that Hamas had formulated its response to this, you know, sort of the latest hostage deal. offer before the UN vote even occurred. Also, you know, so the, the terms that have been discussed were, again, according to Axios, Israel had agreed to a six-week ceasefire, the release of 700 Palestinian prisoners in exchange for 40 Israeli hostages. And Israel also agreed to gradually allow about 2,000 Palestinians back into northern Gaza per day. Hamas was demanding a full ceasefire, a withdrawal of

Israeli troops out of Gaza in the return to civilians to northern. in Gaza and the prisoner release. So pretty far apart in both cases, but there are also some Israeli officials in this Axio story who said that Netanyahu didn't give his negotiators enough latitude to make a deal. He figured they could just squeeze them and they were pointing the finger at him for this failure. So, I don't know, terrible news, though, for like the hostages and their families. Yeah. And, you know, again, if this rapist... Yeah. And if this rough operation goes forward, I just don't know, you know, what that means for the hostages, what that means for obviously the people in Gaza.

And Nenyao keeps saying he's going to do it. And again, I just don't understand. I think part of what Nenya is doing is he's trying to show with this kind of, you know, tantrum about the Security Council resolution that if we begin to turn up some pressure on him, that it's not going to work. Now, I frankly think the answer to that, as you'll hear with Bernie, is actually more of it, more pressure. you know, like cutting off military assistance full stop.

I don't think the United States should be arming a government that is starving, you know, children in Gaza. And again, I don't think if Nanyahu didn't care about the pressure, he wouldn't freak out so much about the Security Council resolution. It's actually a demonstration that they are concerned about it, you know. And so to me, like, I don't think we should allow ourselves to get bullied back into doing whatever Bibi Netanyahu wants us to be doing it. the UN or with military assistance, I think the point is we need to stand behind our positions. And I hope we see more out of that from the Biden administration. And Netanyahu is also reportedly under a lot of political pressure over some proposed law changes that could force ultra-Orthodox Israelis to do compulsory military service.

Currently, they're exempt, but that is becoming completely untenable as reservists are called up for longer and longer periods of time and as the ultra-Orthodox population grows. but if Netanyahu removes the exemption, he could lose the support of his far-right minister. So I think people think that might be in the back of his head. But then, I mean, any plan Netanyahu might have to turn on Biden completely and go all in for Trump got a little more complicated after a recent interview Trump did with this free, widely distributed Israeli newspaper called Israel Haim, which is owned by the family of the late right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson and is basically known to do puff pieces on Netanyahu.

So this is the part of the interview that raised a lot of eyebrows. Here's a clip. You have to finish up your war. You have to finish it up. You've got to get it done. And I'm sure you'll do that. And we've got to get to peace. You can't have this going on.

And I will say Israel has to be very careful because you're losing a lot of the world. You're losing a lot of support. But you have to finish up. You have to get the job done. And you have to get on to peace. So it's like classic Trump, right? He says you have to finish the job, which you could interpret as going to Rafa. but he also implies that he wants the war over.

But, you know, it was interesting. The full interview is not out yet. They put out like 10 minutes of it. But Trump spends a lot of time attacking Democrats for criticizing Israel. But he never says, Bibi has my full support. He never says, we got to give him what he needs to finish a job, do whatever it takes. It's not like a full-throated endorsement. What did you make of this, you know, interview, this clip?

I think what I make of it is that Netanyahu, the Israeli right wing would be making a big mistake to put all of their eggs in the Trump basket. This is a man who's like basically thrown everybody under the bus, you know, from new NBC news contributor Ron McDaniel to... She got canned, I think. Yeah, well, maybe. To world leaders that he was friends with and then frenemies with, he is still mad at BB for not backing him up on the... the big lie and January, you know, the election results.

He kind of sees BB as like a rhino or something because he didn't back the idea that Biden didn't win the election. And so this notion that you're going to be totally isolated, right, from basically the entire, every government in the world, essentially, if the U.S. is moving to the direction they're moving into the Security Council, because you're counting on both Donald Trump to win the election and then Donald Trump to, you know, be your security blanket in the world. This is just not a guy that I'd want to rely on. And by the way, the fact that he keeps saying these anti-Semitic things about, you know, how he couldn't imagine how Jews could ever, like,

vote for anybody except him because of, you know, Chuck Schumer's speech about Israel or something, suggesting, by the way, that American Jews, like, are basically not fully American. They vote purely based on on Israel, that too would make me question whether this is the man that we want to put our faith in our security. So I don't know. Like, yeah, like it, like it's definitely like, you know, there's a kind of green light on Roth like you said, go finish the job. But I'm not sure that this is the long-term insurance policy that I would want if I was the state of Israel. I think I'd rather have some like, you know, Joe Biden, who actually seems to care about the future of Israel for something other than his own political purposes.

Yeah, it's not the love fest that Trump gives to Xi Jinping or Viktor Orban. That's for damn sure. Ben, Trump was also asked, do you plan to visit Israel? That was the question. Like three sentences into the answer, he says, quote, here we have a lot of people in the United States who are Jewish, but they actually fight Israel. Look at the New York Times. It's a Jewish family.

I think they hate Israel. Later in the interview, he said that Biden and Harris, quote, support the enemy. And this was his explanation for how October 7th happened. Here's a clip. That was a horrible attack. But it was an attack that I blame on Biden because they have no respect for him. He can't put two sentences together. He can't talk. He's a very dumb person. He's a dumb person. So apparently, that's why Hamas wanted to attack Israel. No other reason. It's just Biden's speaking style, I guess. Yeah, real depth of analysis there. I mean, but again, like the answer to even the October 7th question, which should be the one where you can show some empathy for Israel. Right. All he pivots to is his own political interests, you know, trash and Joe Biden. Like, memo to people who think that this is your friend. This guy doesn't care about anything but himself and his own interests. This is not your friend. No, not your friend. Just a few things we're keeping an eye on. So first, the Biden administration is reviewing a set of Israeli assurances that U.S. weapons are being used in accordance with U.S. and international law. Aid groups, 17 Democrats in the Senate say, absolutely not. No, they are not.

So can anybody with two eyes? Yeah, anyone with the New York Times. This is not the hardest review to pull off, Tommy. It shouldn't be. But we'll see if President Biden decides to cut off future weapons transfers. Also, that bill that just passed to keep the government open cuts off funding to UNRWA until March of 2025. That's the UN organization that employs 13,000 people in Gaza. It distributes most of the assistance.

Over the weekend, the Israeli government also said they will no longer allow UNRWA to bring food aid into northern Gaza, so the future of the entire organization is quite unclear. That U.S. funding bill, though, it did include another 3.8 million in military assistance to Israel. And then finally, Ben, you know, we talked so much about the humanitarian situation. We talked about how an Israeli invasion of Rafa could make it exponentially worse. I just did want to point out that, like, while there hasn't been a full-scale invasion of Rafa, even though Ron Dermer, a top Netanyahu aide was on the record today saying it's going to happen, the IDF is still targeting Rafa with airstrikes as we speak. So the people there are hardly safe. It's not a safe haven.

It's just there hasn't been a full-scale ground invasion, just so folks know what we're talking about. Yeah. And one thing I want to pick up on there is the unwrap piece, because this is really grotesque and shame on, on, let's just talk to Democrats here because I'm not sure how many Republicans in Congress who like listen to this show. But like, the idea that when there's a famine that risks killing thousands of children, the idea that you're performatively voting to ban assistance to the number one, two, three, four, and five best way to get assistance to the people in Gaza, it's ridiculous. I mean, like, there's no justification for it.

I mean, how are you going to feel, if you look back a year from now, and realize that thousands of children died because, you know, you... were afraid to take a stand and say, you know what, we shouldn't be cutting off aid to basically the only aid delivery mechanism that works in Gaza. Because there are a handful of people out of tens of thousands who work with UNRWA who are alleged to be part of October 7th, something that you should investigate, something you should get to the bottom of, something we can hold over UNRWA's head. But turning this off now, it's the worst thing about congressional politics on this issue.

It doesn't make any sense. It's immoral. And people should know better. And, you know, I asked Bernie this. Like, how are his colleagues who are, you know, not moving to where he is? How are they rationalizing these positions? Because this should not be a close call. And yet, you know, this kind of stuff continues to sail through Congress, along with billions of dollars in military assistance.

And you can't say you're concerned about the humanitarian situation while voting to cut off the capacity to address it. Yeah, it is really frustrating to see how slowly the U.S. government has reacted to this horrifying, evolving situation. But more on that next week. So, Ben, our other big story this week is this horrible terrorist attack in Moscow last Friday. They killed 139 people and injured over 100. Four gunmen from Tajikistan burst into a concert hall and opened fire at concert goers with automatic weapons and then they doused the venue with flammable liquid and set fire to the venue itself as they escaped. ISIS K took responsibility for the attack,

and the attackers uploaded grizzly videos of the massacre to ISIS social media channels. There have been 11 arrests since Friday, including the four gunmen, who appeared in court on Sunday looking like they just had the shit kicked out of them. One of them was in a wheelchair. He appeared to be unresponsive

to conversation or questioning. There's videos of these guys being tortured that have appeared in the Russian media, including one guy who's part of his ear cut off by his interrogator who tried to then feed it to him. Initially, Vladimir Putin and morons on Twitter like David Sacks tried to blame this terrorist attack on Ukraine, but that line became untenable after ISIS took credit and released video evidence that they were behind it. Putin has since said the attack was carried out by, quote, radical Islamists, but he's still suggesting that Ukraine or the

West was actually responsible somehow. So that narrative for Putin is deeply complicated by the fact that the U.S. Embassy in Moscow issued a security alert on March 7th, warning that extremists had imminent plans to attack large gatherings in Moscow, including concerts. Their timing was a bit off, but they obviously had the gist of it down. Putin dismissed the warning before the attack actually happened as an attempt to intimidate and destabilize Russia. So, Ben, I think there's like two big policy conversations to come out of this. The first is how Putin is likely to respond, and the second is just this growing threat from ISIS-K. So let's take the Putin part first. Pretty much every expert you see seems to think that he's going to use this as a pretext to crack down on just whoever

he decides as his enemy. That could include Ukraine, critics in politics. He might reinstate the death penalty to end up killing off these ISIS guys or just appear even more hardline. Putin has this history of basically spinning his own security failings for political gain. There are even people who believe that the FSB was behind a series of apartment bombings in Russia in 1999. That kind of paved Putin's way into the into power. agree with that broad assessment? What do you think we should be watching in terms of like how Russia reacts? Yeah, I think in in the past you're right. Like he, you know, I mean, there's a lot of smoke around that conspiracy theory. There's actually fire there. The FSB was like caught like planning

stuff in these apartment buildings. And Putin, you know, not just in those attacks, but even in what were clearly, you know, other types of Islamist attacks in Russia, the best law in school. attack being the most notable, one where they took a whole bunch of children, hostages, and hundreds ended up getting killed and this kind of heavy-handed Russian military response. Putin ended up using that as a pretext to do things like cancel the direct election of governors, you know? And so there is a pattern of him using his own security failures, like you said, to just have even more onerous crackdowns.

And so what I'd be looking for is, does he expand? this kind of totalitarian control of the state. And does he use this as a pretext to crack down not just on, you know, potential, you know, people nexus to ISIS, but anybody that he deems a political opponent above and beyond what he's already even done, you know, and I think that's quite possible and likely. I think the other thing I watched Tommy is I don't think this torture thing is a side show. I think this is kind of the point, you know. Yeah, me too. These videos found their way onto telegram channels controlled by Russian nationalists, the government wanted these videos out. And then, yeah, you've got like a guy in a wheelchair with like a bag of his own

piss on a catheter. And then another guy with like an ear missing. This is a message not just to terrorists. This is like what could happen to any political component inside of Russia right now. And it's deeply, deeply messed up. I mean, this is a degree of like sadism that that I just have never seen before, you know? And I worry about a society that is this dark, you know, just kind of where is that going? One of the Navalny people had a good line, which is like, today it's the terrorism suspects. Tomorrow it could be journalists. It could be any opposition figure. And so I think part of the point here is this kind of absolute brutality that kind of goes beyond anything I can remember, you know, seeing, like that they're just kind of advertising

this stuff. So that to me, it's a pretty dark harbinger of like exactly where is, where Russia is now and where it's going. Yeah, obviously, I have no love loss for ISIS or terrorists in general, but to cut a suspect's ear off and try to feed it to them. I mean, that suggests a level of like brutality and brutal, I mean, it's just, it's sick. It's a sick thing to do. It's a sick thing to do that. Yeah, and not because you're even not to be similar to that guy. It's just like, it's just showing that there's no norms anymore and this could happen to anybody that Russia decides to do it to. So let's talk about ISIS-K. They are based out of Afghanistan. The organization has been around for about a decade. It's known for its brutality. It's known for staging attacks inside

Afghanistan and outside of Afghanistan. Those include this recent Moscow attack that we just discussed, but in 2022, they attacked the Russian embassy in Kabul. In 2017, ISIS took credit for an attack in St. Petersburg, I think, in the metro. In 2015, ISIS took credit for blowing up a charter flight carrying tourists back to Russia from Egypt. So there is a history of ISIS going after Russians in particular. Islamic extremist groups have long vowed revenge for Russia's carpet bombing of Syria for Russian crackdowns on Muslims in the Northern Caucasus area and even the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan even further back. So a lot of grievances there. But beyond just attacks on Russians, ISIS K was responsible for the Abbegate attack right at the end of the U.S.

withdrawal from Afghanistan. They staged a recent major attack in Iran, the attack on the Bada Clan Theater in Paris, the bombing at the Ariana Grande concert in England. So Ben, I saw it right before we came in that the BBC reported that Turkey is detained about 40 suspects in connection with this Moscow attack. I guess two of the suspects were in Turkey as recently as February. So they're trying to figure out if there's some sort of cell there or some other nexus. I don't know, man. Obviously, I supported ending the war in Afghanistan, but it is very scary to know that these guys have a safe haven in Afghanistan. Though, I mean, unlike al-Qaeda pre-9-11, ISIS and the Taliban are sworn enemies that attack and kill each other. But it is still frightening because, you know, the head of Sentcom told a House congressional committee that ISIS-K, quote, retains the capability and the will to attack U.S. and Western interests abroad in as little as six months with little or no warning. So scary stuff.

I mean, and to give people a tiny bit of background, I mean, I remember I first became familiar with this group back in 2015. When the U.S. first went into Syria against ISIS, this was actually, I think, one of the first targets that U.S. airstrikes hit in Syria. And the reason why is that, like our intelligence community back then, assessed that within the, you know, underneath the broad umbrella of ISIS, right? this was the collection of people that were focused on external plotting, right? So you had the ISIS that was really focused on kind of governing this de facto state in Iraq and Syria and fighting on the

ground there against, you know, various enemies, the Iraqi security forces, Syrians, the U.S. But these were the people that were acting more like Al Qaeda used to act like. You know, there was, you know, ISIS wasn't acting like al-Qaeda. They were trying to hold territory. ISIS-K, they were trying to set up the... the kind of franchise it was focused on this external plotting. And they clearly hung around and it weathered a lot. And they're now ramping up that activity. And it's hard to say how much of that is because maybe they have a little more breathing room in Afghanistan. I think that's something to dig into. So is this something that is emanating from Afghanistan? Or are they effectively

franchised and they're in places like Turkey? They're still in Syria. They're operating globally. I think they're clearly the preeminent, you know, external terrorist threat out there. And the other thing about Russia, I'd say, is that, you know, when Russia was carpet bombing Syria, I think there were a lot of warnings. And, you know, even back to the Obama years, we were warning Russia like, hey, this is going to come back to you guys. Totally. And it didn't right away. And so a bunch of people were like, oh, see, like, you know, they're still just focused on the U.S. No, no, these people have memories.

They have pretty long memories. And they have a lot of reasons to be targeting Russia. And so this is something that could continue to kind of creep into Russia, creep into places like Chechnya, where obviously they've been pretty brutal and suppressing any dissent or any opposition. But it seems like this is kind of part of the terrorist landscape for the foreseeable future. Yeah, I mean, I guess good news from a U.S. or Western perspective is clearly the U.S. did have some intelligence on these guys and the specific plot. And they tried to warn the Russians, including, you know, privately telling their intelligence services under this duty to warn. that the U.S. intelligence community operates under where we've warned countries like Russia,

warned Iran about impending ISIS plots. But it's still pretty scary. You're right, though, that these guys are this focused on external plotting because, you know, not all terrorist groups are like that. Some of them are just focused on, you know, a region or a country or a caliphate in their words, but not ISIS gay. And we should say, like this in a world in which there's any information that reaches people in Russia, this should be profoundly embarrassing to Putin. There literally was a warning on the U.S. Embassy website about ISIS attacks that are basically indicating, you know, terrorist attacks, which, you know, suggested ISIS at concert venues, you know. And he dismissed it publicly at the time, you know.

And so, look, he may, uh, the idea that this is, these guys were going to go into Ukraine, too, as if that's an easy thing to do, as if it's easy to get from Moscow and cross, like, the front line into Ukraine. Like, none of that really made sense. His efforts to blame Ukraine look ridiculous. I don't know that he can like escalate things against the Ukraine given what he's already doing there, which has been pretty bad the last few weeks with the tax and the power grid. So I don't know. I think this suggests some problems for Putin, but

you know, he'll react the way he does, which is just becoming more vicious at home as we've talked about. Before we go to break, I just want to flag for you guys that this week, the Supreme Court heard opening arguments over the right to access abortion pills. If you want to support nationwide abortion access and show the justices where they can stick their gavels like that. Check out Crooked's No Trespassing Collection and a portion of proceeds will go to Votes of America's Fuck Bands, the Fight Back Fund, which currently supports

abortion rights organizations across Arizona, Nevada, and Florida. Go to crooked.com slash store to shop now. Also, on a new episode of Inside 2024 coming out tomorrow, actor and former White House staffer Cal Penn joins Dan Fifer and Alyssa Master Monaco to talk about their time in the White House together and how accurate shows like the West Wing and Veep. actually are to get access to this Friends of the Pod subscription series and others like it, go to crooked.com slash friends. Check it out now. Changing gears here, Ben. So let's talk about Hong Kong where last week the parliament unanimously passed a new security law called Article 23. These are the following crimes that this law covers. Treason, incitement to mutiny,

insurrection, external interference, espionage and state secret theft and sabotage. This new law comes on top of a previous national security law passed in 2020. That one has been used to go after pro-democracy advocates. Previous efforts to pass laws like this were often met with huge protests, dissent from within parliament, you know, pushback generally from the media. But those voices have been steadily pushed out of the country. They've been arrested. They've been otherwise silence. Ben, I know you're just in Hong Kong. How significant is Article 23 compared to these previous efforts to strangle what's left of democracy and how worried were people you talked to. Yeah, well, I was in Hong Kong for a couple days and I actually did the pod.

And, you're like, let's not cover this this week. I didn't, I didn't want to be the first guy to test this loss, you know, to be honest, you know, which by the way, kind of makes the point, you know. It sure does. Which is, why does this matter? Well, first of all, this is what something in Beijing has won for a very long time. And, and they, the first effort to kind of pass these laws was all the way back in like 2003. And each time they tried, there were all these protests and all these demonstrations. So this is kind of the core of whether or not Hong Kong has quote unquote one country, two systems, whether they have their own separate system with their own kind of more relaxed approach to civil liberties.

And people might say, well, I thought this was dealt with. I thought there are these national security laws passed a couple years ago. Those were passed by the Beijing government, right? this is the Hong Kong legislature and the Hong Kong chief executive passing this law. Everything you need to know, this passed unanimously in the allegedly democratic legislature of Hong Kong. We know that there's not unanimous opinion in support of these laws in Hong Kong because just a couple years ago, there were like hundreds of thousands of people protesting against exactly this. So it really matters because this is the Hong Kong government aligning its approach to national security

with the Communist Party in China. This is them doing it unanimously, which is sending a message that there's no room for dissent. There's a lot of ambiguity, Tommy, around this? Like, what does it mean? What is treason? What's a conversation that I can't have with a foreigner?

What's a political activity I can't engage in? What's speech I can't engage in? Like, if I do something in private on my phone, is someone going to find out about it and put me in prison? The ambiguity is the point. It's meant to have this kind of chilling effect so that there's like self-censorship and it's worked and you know the people that used to stand up to these things in the media they're all in prison we talked about apple daily uh and the the publisher

of that which was like the last remaining independent media voice while he's looking at you know the rest of his life potentially in jail so sadly i think it's a sign that you know the communist party has kind of fully swallowed up any notion of hong kong having uh independence now there's still some differences. It's a slightly different economic system and, you know, I don't know, there's more English speaking in Hong Kong, but like for all intents and purposes, the vibe there is one that, you know, this is now a Chinese city and in the same way that Shanghai is, and there's not this kind of separate space for more freedoms. Yeah, incredibly sad when you think about the protest movement several years ago and how hopeful it felt at times. But, you know,

I'm sure Taiwan is watching and there are many others in the region. Tommy, I had this surreal experience of flying from Hong Kong to Taipei, you know, and what's surreal about that is, you know, there's this kind of cloud, obviously, over Taiwan, and you go there from Hong Kong and you're like, you see where the dilemma facing the Taiwanese, which is like if we make a deal with China, we could end up, you know, like Hong Kong. They could promise us one country, two systems, but we know how that ends. If we don't make a deal with China, we could. could get invaded. And I, you know, I just have a tremendous amount of sympathy and affinity for

the Taiwanese trying to figure this out. Yeah, me too. Two big political resignations that we wanted to flag ban. So the first is in Vietnam where President Va'a Vantung stepped down last week for violating Communist Party regulations, which we don't totally know what it means, but it seems to mean corruption. The position of the presidency in Vietnam, it's largely ceremonial. The real power rests in the hands of the leader of the Communist Party. But the president does represent Vietnam in meetings with foreign leaders. And Von Tung was seen as first in line to become the next party leader. So it's a big change for him to get pushed out.

He's also the second Vietnamese president to resign in two years amidst a broader crackdown on corruption that dates back to, I think, 2016. The second major resignation comes out of Ireland where Prime Minister Leo Varadkar announces resignation. Here's a clip from his speech. I'm resigning as president of leader, Finnegati. effective today and will resign as Taoiseach as soon as my successor is able to take up that office. My reasons for stepping down are both personal and political, and I promise I'll keep working for

Ireland and my community in any way I can in the future. Thank you very much. So for those who don't know that in Ireland, they call the Prime Minister of the Taoiseach. Veracar was the first openly gay, the first multi-ethnic Taoiseach in history. His successor will be a 37-year-old guy named Simon Harris of the Fine Gale Party. Ben, a lot of political analysts think Varadkar's resignation was tied to that recent failed effort we talked about to update Ireland's constitution, basically to make it less sexist. But I'm curious if you have thoughts on either of these pretty significant changes. Well, the Vietnam one, I mean, there's not a lot of turnover that, you know, usually in these jobs. Like it's older people that have been around forever.

And so it does just speak to some volatility in the Communist Party, some maneuvering, obviously corruption. is both the real thing and something that people weaponize. So, you know, this could be a generational change that's taking place. It just bears watching there because obviously Vietnam increasingly important country. In Ireland, you know, I think you're right. I mean, I read about this a bunch as a friend of Ireland. And it does just kind of feel like this guy was a little burned out, but also that this constitutional referendum was just pretty mishandled, you know,

kind of half-ass. It was just everybody involved in it, kind of screwed up. And, you know, he may have gotten to the point where, you know, he just wasn't throwing his fastball anymore, you know. And he's a relatively young guy, though. He's already made a political comeback. I just want to say, Tommy, like, don't you feel old when there's, like, some 37-year-old who's, like, taken over the country, you know? It's outrageous. Yeah. But I'm for it. I mean, I'm glad it's happening. It just makes me feel kind of old. I like it, but I hate it personally. Yeah, sad to see him leave because he seemed like an exciting person. Like, I think we both knew people that knew Red Kerr personally and were pressed by him.

I thought he was a good person. So, you know, it just sucks to see good people leave politics. Yeah, hopefully, you know, it might not be his last act, you know. But you're right. Like, there's something, you know, you keep seeing these younger people kind of burning out on politics pretty fast. And let's hope that that's not a permanent trend. Yeah. There was some good news at a Senegal, Ben.

on Monday, the incumbent president, Maci-Salle, conceded defeat to opposition leader. Basiru Di Maiifi. He's a 44-year-old former tax inspector who kind of came out of nowhere. He had been arrested last year. He was only released from prison on March 14th, so it was pretty remarkable that this guy managed to win. There was a lot of concern, though, that Senegal was about to go from a pretty stable democracy to the latest country in the region to evolve victim to a coup or just, you know, a president that wouldn't leave. So some good news here that we're going to have a democratic transition.

Yeah. I mean, you know, Maggie Saul kind of reversed himself, you know, after saying he wasn't, well, several reversals. After saying he wasn't going to run again, he kind of, you know, made a power grab, but then let this go forward. Bottom line is, it's a good thing that they had the election. and it's a good thing that, you know, Mackie Saul and the ruling party have agreed to abide by the results. That's not something that happens with great frequency in that part of West Africa. And again, assuming that holds, I think it's a real credit to Senegal that, you know, their democracy is kind of holding. That you can have this transition of power back and forth between political parties.

I would hope that the party that one doesn't seek retribution, but actually governs in that, that, respect of the peaceful transfer power. And it shows it underneath the surface of these coups, which have a lot of factors behind them, including some foreign interference, including a lot of frustration with, you know, ex-colonial powers and corruption. Yeah, the French, basically, thanks for naming it, that there's like a democratic culture that wants to assert itself, right? And so that's a good thing. And we should celebrate that and note it. Now, let's see what happens and let's hope that that continues and carries over into the new administration there. But Senegal, is a critically important country and, and they're bucking the trend thus far, and that's a good thing.

Yeah. Speaking of democracy asserting itself and recriminations for the past. So listeners might remember that in January of 2023, Brazil faced its own sort of January 6th style insurrection when supporters of president, Jaya Bolsonaro, stormed the federal government buildings in Brasilia, the capital, and just ransacked the place. Since that time, Bolsonaro has gotten out of office, but he has been hit with a bunch of criminal investigations for corruption, for falsifying vaccine records, and potentially this coup plot. On Monday, the New York Times reported that four days after two of Bolsonaro's aides were arrested for plotting a coup, Bolsonaro himself sought sanctuary in the Hungarian embassy in Brazil, where he can't be arrested because the grounds are legally off limits.

The Times reviewed both security camera footage from this embassy building and satellite photos of the embassy ground so you could see Bolsonaro's car still parked there for some of these days. So he's since left and he's confirmed to the press that he was at the embassy but said he was just there to talk politics with Hungarian diplomats where I guess, you know, you have a two days sleepover to talk politics. But Ben, we have talked a lot of times in the show about this weird nexus of right-wing politicians. It's the U.S. It's Brazil. It's Victor Orban in Hungary. It's El Salvador. But this one just like jumped out at me as next level because, I mean, Basically, you know, if anyone who's seen, what lethal weapon movie was it, like, diplomatic community.

The guy was, like, just trying to hide, like, Assange style in some embassy grounds. Yeah, it's actually Anas and the Ecuadorian embassy, you know? Yeah. Well, previously, Boltonara was just chilling in Orlando, Florida for about three months. I guess he got pushed out of there. But I don't know, just a weird story that was worth flagging. Well, no, yeah, he was, like, previously he was, like, trying to, like, take up refuge at Maralago, you know. And, and, and I have to say, like, the Orban play here, um, putting himself,

at the vanguard of this group of creepy right-wing, you know, nationalists, it's really being, you know, quite validated. I mean, he's got this kind of strange stature in the Star Wars bar of these far right guys. But I think it just is yet another data point that we should keep pointing out that this really is a group of like-minded fellow travelers. And it's a pretty big club and growing club. And it's also like geographically diverse, right? So, you know, this is not just Orban going to CPAC and hanging out with American Republicans. It reaches down to Brazil. It reaches, you know, into, well, a bit into Argentina.

It reaches out to, like, the Philippines to, like, a deterte. There's a global collection of very like-minded people invested in one another's success. And it's easy to laugh at and make fun of because it's funny. And these people are somewhat ridiculous. but it's also quite serious because they're pretty politically viable and resilient. And a guy like Orban, he's kind of the Mussolini of the crowd, right? The first mover.

And that's something that I think we should continue to call out. Definitely. Two more quick story. So last week, Ben, we discussed the huge proliferation of a conspiracy theory surrounding Kate Middleton's disappearance. She hadn't been seen in public since December. We covered that story because Kensington Palace released this very obvious. obviously photoshopped picture of Kate and her family, which sent the internet into overdrive

and sort of made it a story worth covering. On Friday, Kensington Pallas shared a video of Kate informing the public that she had been diagnosed with cancer following a planned abdominal surgery and that she is in the early stages of preventative chemotherapy. Here's a clip from that video. This, of course, came as a huge shock. And William and I have been doing everything we can to process and manage this privately for the sake of our young family. As you can imagine, this has taken time. It has taken me time to recover for major surgery in order to start my treatment. But most importantly, it has taken us time to explain everything to George, Charlotte and Louis

in a way that's appropriate for them and to reassure them that I'm going to be okay. We hope that you'll understand that as a family, we now need some time, space and privacy while I complete my treatment. So obviously we wish her the best, scary, serious thing. And Ben, I'm sure the Internet will learn its lesson this time for good. Yeah. I mean, turns out like the more obvious explanation for her absence was true, albeit the kind of worst case of those possibilities. And we still don't know exactly what her diagnosis is her trials is. I guess the only thing I have to add to this beyond this just being sad.

it being yet another confirmation that internet conspiracy theories or Tommy, whenever you hear or see any coverage the term internet sleuths. Oh, I know. That's almost always an indication that crowdsource investigations or policing. It's like so every once in a while they get something right, but way more often than not, they absolutely screw over some innocent person in the worst possible way. In this case, it was like accusing her husband and infidelity and accusing her of getting a Brazilian buttlift when really she was getting fucking chemotherapy. But yeah, it gets worse from there. The only point I'd make, though, is like, you know,

we joke about the world's a lot, you know, ourselves. And, you know, you feel bad about that when you see something like this. But the serious point is, I do think part of the problem is just, it's not clear what this institution is anymore, you know. And I'm not even saying that to be critical of the institution or certainly of Cade in this moment. It's just like, is it, what is it? You know, because I, you know, I've seen all these debates of like,

what should she have to share? Should she have to share what her diagnosis is or not? And again, this is not to put any of this on her, particularly, or even Charles, for that matter. It's just, we're in this weird place where, do they have a political role? Or is it a reality show? Like, I think part of, like, the strangeness of all this is just this kind of,

it's just not clear anymore what the world family is. The queen somehow bridged this old era when they really were, like, you know, the symbolic kind of head of state function, now it's not, I just don't know what the world family is at this point. Yeah. And, you know, we're, we're kind of trying to figure that out. And that's, I think, part of why this is so weird.

And I'm actually, I'm not defending the PR shop, because I saw a lot of people that were like, you know, trafficking conspiracy theories. They came out and said, well, I only did it to call out the PR shop at Buckingham Palace. Yeah, they could have done a better job. but like that's some people like leaning on that to be sympathetic to the PR shop, but what is their obligation? Is it to share the diagnosis? Is it to conceal everything?

Like, I don't think anyone knows, you know? Yeah. It's kind of this identity crisis. I think that's a really good point. I mean, I do think like the PR shop obviously screwed up. You can't, you know, you can't release a fake false. No, no. Yeah.

Yeah. You know, and like that, that's just sort of like, that I think was if I drove it into a real story for everyone. You know, you and I talked last week about how the AP had the photo up on its wire and had it issue a kill order and remove it. It's like those sort of machinations are going to, you know, they're going to make news. I do you think you're right, though.

I mean, not only did the queen kind of bridge, it was a by, she, she represented a bygone era in terms of the importance of the monarchy and the institution, but also of a a difference of cultural era where you actually could kind of contain and manage the press. There wasn't like, you know, a papar. And every single person alive now is a paparati because you have iPhones and you can photograph them everywhere. And it's clear, like from Harry's book, that the royals are not just victims of the media, but they are playing the game with the media.

And they have, like, reporters in their pocket and they're giving them scoops. And now we all suspected that, but we know that. So it's like, I don't know that hearing Kate speak herself. I can't remember the last time I actually heard her speak directly. I usually just hear people talk about the royals. It was sort of jarring. I didn't know her voice out of them. Yes.

Yeah, that's a good point. I mean, should we hear more from them or less from them? I mean, they need to figure this out, and the Brits need to figure this out, because right now, you're right. Like, it's just not clear. They're playing the game and they're victims of the game, and that's going to have to evolve to something different. That's a tough place to be. Finally, Ben, I just wanted to thank the good people at PolitiFact for keeping us all honest. So on March 19th, Politifact released a fact check that said, quote, no video of Clinton's engaging in cannibalism with Haitian gang leader, end quote.

This apparently was in response to a tweet that claimed Mel Gibson had released a video of Bill and Hillary Clinton engaging in cannibalism with who else a Haitian gang leader named Barbecue. It's good that every good conspiracy theory needs to have an anti-Semite like Mel Gibson just kind of tucked in there. So, Ben, I know you are concerned about this one, and I just wanted to reassure you that Bill Clinton is still a vegan. We're good. Well, you know, internet slews have been like obsessed with conspiracy theories related to Bill Clinton in Haiti for a while. And part of what you notice is how they just merge these narratives, right? There's a guy named barbecue that's kind of irresistible information on social media. There's something happening in Haiti.

The Clintons must be involved. And so like let's put all this together. And somehow it connects back to Mel Gibson. Of course it does. Of course it has to. Probably did internet slew this himself, you know? Yeah, I think you're right. You know, the weird thing is about this, I was in, when I went to Haiti like five days

or whatever after the earthquake, at one point when I was down there, Bill Clinton came down. And I remember like he was doing, he was going to a hospital with like Dr. Sanjay Gupta, I think. It's like Tommy getting that like car, go with them right now to like manage the press. So I'm like, all right. Oh, you win with Sanjay Gupta and Brooklyn? Yeah. And so we were like driving through Port-au-Prince. It is like the place is just, you know, there is literally bodies in the street still.

It is like a disaster. And we go to this hospital because they're trying to deliver some supplies. And I've never been more angry at an assembled press corps in my life because there's this horde of people surrounding Clinton. And there's literally patience, not just like in a waving room, but there's people lined up on the sidewalk, like back to back to back to back to back, like hundreds and hundreds of feet of them, like, you know, in a row. And these reporters with cameras are like about to back into people who had lost limbs

or like had like been crushed in some, you know, horrible accident. And I'm literally like shoving reporters as hard as I can, like to push, them away from fucking like trampling people and it was just like completely out of control bizarre wild situation like i think you know clinton was just trying to like highlight the need for humanitarian relief to highlight the fact i think his plane i think they flew down there with a bunch of stuff to like deliver personally but it was um it was one of those moments where i was like this is weird and bad and in demoralizing and i don't know i wish this hadn't happened yeah that's that's pretty dark and kind of says something about how like

we look at Haiti, you know, which is like you're not seeing the actual people there, you know. Yeah, that's exactly right. Okay, we are going to take a quick break. When we come back, you'll hear Ben's interview with Bernie Sanders about what a better foreign policy could look like. So stick around for that. Okay, we are very pleased to welcome back to POTSafe the World, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Senator, thank you so much for joining us. My pleasure. Thanks for having me. Okay, so there's obviously a lot to talk about. One of the things we want to get to is there's a article in foreign affairs that you wrote called A Revolution in American Foreign Policy that we definitely recommend to everybody. I think a natural way into that conversation is obviously to start with Gaza, which is the most pressing issue that we're dealing with right now. And so I just want to start with you on Gaza. We've obviously seen a bit of an in the situation from the administration, which originally did not want to have much public

disagreement with Israel. That kind of evolved into some public disagreement without necessarily a lot of consequences. We've now seen the administration and a real substantive public difference with Prime Minister Nanyahu over a UN Security Council resolution that they abstained on. They allowed to pass. It called for an immediate ceasefire. I just wanted to start. you've been a very outspoken voice on this. What do you think is both necessary to try to impact Israel's strategy in Gaza and what kind of leverage should be on the table for the United States, given the intransigence of Prime Minister Nanyahu and his coalition government? Well, Ben, the leverage is obvious. We have provided Israel with tens of billions of dollars

over many years. Just the other day against my vote, another $3.3 billion went to military aid for Israel is part of the supplemental bill, which is still being discussed. It's $14 billion more, including $10 billion more for unfettered military aids. You want to talk about leverage? That's leverage. The idea that Israel is telling us what they're going to do, at the same time, is there accepting our money is a bit absurd to me. When I look at the situation there right now, what is most important is that as we speak right now, hundreds of thousands of children are facing starvation,

while at the same time, hundreds if not thousands of trucks are lined up to get into Gaza, to deliver the humanitarian aid, and Israel is refusing to allow them. allow that. That is obscene. That is unacceptable. And a matter of fact, is in violation, as you know, of American law, because any country that bars American humanitarian aid should not be getting financial support from the United States. That's the law. Yeah, so one more question in Israel, because, again, it sets up something you do very well in your

article, which is discuss kind of what the underlying reasons are for some of the irrationality in hypocrisy in our foreign policy. I guess one of the things is frustrating in watching the situation play out in Gaza is that this has been evident for a while now. And you're someone who sincerely, I think, felt the trauma that Israel experienced in October 7th was open to the idea that they needed to do something in response. But frankly, you also were pretty quick in realizing that this government, this Israeli government, under Netanyahu was not going about this in a thoughtful way and certainly was not going

about this with much regard for the lives of Palestinians. And I guess my question to you is, for the last few months now, it's been pretty clear that this is harming American interests. We're isolated in the world. It's harming the people of Gaza. And frankly, it's harming Israel. It's isolating the state of Israel from the rest of the world and, frankly, contributing, I think, to the ideology that Hamas relies on. And yet, as you said, there's this kind of autopilot, right, where

the military aid's still going out. I'm sure if this was a straight up and down vote in Congress, tomorrow they pass that military aid. Are people not aware of what's going on? Or is this, or is it APAC? Why is it that there seems to be so much, that Washington seems to be the last place on earth that is able to get its head around what's happening. Ben, well stated, and I sit in a room where it kind of blows my mind as to what is being discussed, because you have, I mean, I think from the Republican perspective, it's 100% politics. They perceive that the Jewish vote historically has gone to Democrats. They have an opportunity now to seize some of that, and that's their perspective.

Although it really does, it really does get to me that not only are they 100% in support of Netanyahu, there is total disregard for the suffering and the starvation and the misery of the Palestinian people. And that really gets to me. In terms of the Democratic caucus, I think if you talk to not just progressive members, But average members, they will tell you what's going on there is horrible.

And more and more of them are speaking up about the number of civilian deaths, the destruction of military, of medical facilities. They are aware of it. And more and more of them are signing on to letters that are demanding the Biden admitted. do something. But there is something else that's going on, and that is that relatively few are prepared to pull the trigger and say, you know what? Hey, Mr. Netanyahu, you continue that. You're not getting another nickel in American aid. Why that's so? I guess it has a lot to do with APAC. It has a lot to do with the president. I think who has been deeply, emotionally committed

to Israel for 40 years. And I think to many people do not understand that the Israel of today is not the Israel of Golda Maya of 20 or 30 years ago. It is a right-wing country, increasingly becoming a religious fundamentalist country where you have some of these guys in office believe that God told them they have a right to control the entire area. Not a whole lot different, by the way, than what Hamas is saying. So bottom line, Hamas committed a atrocity, in my view, Israel certainly had the right to defend itself, but it did not and does not have the right to go to war against the entire Palestinian people, two-thirds of the casualties and deaths of women and children, unacceptable. Do you see in the long run the capacity of the U.S.

What is the outcome that you think we should be aiming for six months, one year, two years from now, assuming hopefully that we can bring the immediate suffering to, to some end and get assistance in? Well, the immediate concern is the feed starving people. And you know better than I do, Ben, this is something, a crisis that has gone on for 75 years. You've had five wars. You have had a leader, a leader of Egypt and a leader of Israel assassinated for the crime of trying to bring peace to the region.

I mean, bottom line is Hamas is a terrorist organization. I don't think who wants to destroy Israel. I don't think you're going to have peace so long as they're in power. I think clearly the Netanyahu government is right-wing extremist. I don't think you're going to have peace so long as they are in power. So hopefully the people of Israel will elect new leadership, which appreciates and understands as difficult as it may seem the need for a two-state solution, that the Palestinian people will get rid of,

leadership, which has a mentality that they must destroy Israel rather than pay attention to the economic and social needs of their own people. Not easy stuff. Yeah. But I think that's the direction that we've got to go. Well, look, I want to get into your article, which again, I think is entirely consistent with this conversation we've been having, you really talk about the need to have a wholesale revolution in how America put its foreign policy.

that the kind of group thing that we've seen out of Washington that has gotten us into wars, that has gotten us out of step with the public that has tolerated extreme inequality and the kind of export of that inequality around the world, that that requires a wholesale rethink. And I thought one way to enter into this conversation is, you know, in a way there's an opportunity because Trump is kind of so scrambled the whole foreign policy debate, right? he wants to pull out NATO. He's also attacked trade agreements. He doesn't want to give any foreign assistance. He speaks against military interventions, although you point out in your piece that there was a lot of militarism in the first Trump term. Part of what's interesting, though, is he's kind of blown up

this Republican kind of mindless hawkishness. I don't agree with the vast majority of his prescriptions or his impulses. But at the same time, it's kind of interesting that a lot of Americans seem to be open to this, either, if not his approach, certainly his critique. And so I wanted to ask you, how does this kind of scrambling of the traditional, you know, left-right divide on foreign policy or view of globalization? Should we see some opportunity as Democrats and progressives for more wholesale reform? I think so. And the reason I wrote the article is I hope we can do some fundamental reasons.

of the group think and the status quo. What astounds me, let me just start off with the military industrial complex, which is a very important part of this. Ben, we are spending $900 billion a year before the proposed $100 billion supplement on military spending, $900 billion a year. Do you think that there has been in Congress or within the American people serious discussion about whether we need to spend 10 times more than the next 10 nations. And the answer is, no, there has not been.

The budget passed the committee, the Armed Forces Committee, I think 22 to 1 or something like that. No serious discussion at all. What role do the defense contractors play in shaping American foreign policy? Should we be concerned that the half a dozen or so major defense contractors are seeing record-breaking profits? that they have substantially raised prices for many of the arms that they're selling to the United States and around the rest of the world? Is that a discussion worth happening?

Yeah, we talk about Ukraine, the need to protect Ukraine. Price of Stinga missiles has gone up by seven times. Ukraine is getting less help while these defense contractors are doing massive stock buybacks. Should we be discussing that? Yeah, I think maybe. And the other issue that we don't discuss is the role of global oligarchy.

You know, we talk about nation states, what's going on in the world? And what's going on in the world, unbelievably, at a rapid rate, is the people on top, countries all over the world, including the United States, becoming much wealthier. You're seeing alliances, Elon Musk, working with Saudi Arabia, etc., etc. Global alliances of the very rich and powerful, while the people at the bottom are suffering. So those are some of the issues that I think we need to bring to the table.

And the other issue, of course, is the failure. How was American foreign policy done in the last 50 years? Vietnam a great success? I don't think so. The war on terror, a great success? I don't think so. But we continue to have the so-called bipartisan consensus, which is moving us in pretty bad ways. You know, again, listening to you talk and also reading this, I thought one of the things that's really interesting is there's a question of just people making bad decisions, right?

People, you know, getting us into war on terror, people decide and invade Iraq. But then there are these structural issues, right? The military industrial complex, which leads to enormous defense expenditures, but also a lot of incentive to go to war. And, you know, they fund a lot of think tanks. You've got the kind of fossil fuel industrial complex, which makes it harder to lead on international climate. You've got APAC, which makes it harder to have a rational approach to Israel, Palestine. You know, you've got the Chamber of Commerce. It was pushing trade agreements, free trade agreements.

How much of this is about, you know, different, you know, ideas and think tanks and different policy papers? But how much of this is actually just about kind of reforming the wiring of influence in our government to get better outcomes? Well, I think it obviously is, and it has to do with money. I mean, let's not be naive about it. As I mentioned, the military industrial complex is making record-breaking profits. Oil industry is in the process of destroying the planet, and they're doing extremely well. And I think it's, you know, it's time to really ask ourselves, what is the purpose of foreign policy? Do we really believe in democracy or do we allied with people like MBS in Saudi Arabia,

who is a monarch, who treats women as third-class citizenship, who really mistreats immigrant labor there and so forth and so on? What are our values and how do they manifest themselves in our foreign policy? Those are questions I think we don't discuss anywhere near enough. But to your point, if we're going to bring about real change in our foreign policy, We create a democratic foreign policy, a foreign policy that is working for peace, not war, a foreign policy that is working on behalf of American workers and workers all over the world. We need fundamental changes.

You talk about this idea of solidarity, too. You know, when you look out at the world, you know, I think you and I share a bit of a concern about when our partners are people like MBS, right? Or obviously when we, you know, don't stand up to a BNNN. know, who should we be in solidarity with? Like, who are the partners that the U.S. should be looking for, whether they're in governments or whether they're outside of governments, as we think about in a world where there's China and Russia and, you know, their axis? And then there's the kind of Elon Musk, kleptocracy, and oligarchy in the world. Who are the partners that you think

a small-de Democratic foreign policy should seek in the world? Well, this is not easy stuff, as you will know. And if I had all the answers, I let you know. No, immediately, I don't. But I think we have to stress what are our values. You're going back to the trade policies, which I vigorously opposed. And what really galled me is we fought the war in Vietnam because the communists were so terrible and so horrible. And then a few years later, there were trade agreements exploiting the cheap labor in Vietnam.

in the process, shutting down thousands of factories in the United States of America, creating massive political discontent, which, by the way, helped elect Donald Trump. Right? So we lost 59,000 young men in Vietnam. Millions of Vietnamese people died because we hated the communist, and then a few years later we're doing trade agreements and corporations are doing just fine. How's that? I mean, how ugly is that?

So I think to answer your question, it's not easy. And, you know, you got to think long term, you got to think short term. Long term, what are our values? Our values is, I believe, you believe, in democracy. All right? So we want to work with those forces around the world that are prepared to allow for governments that are democratically elected. All right?

And clearly on that issue, we have a former president who does not believe in democracy. His allies will be not only Putin, but right-wing governments and right-wing movements all over the world. And by the way, let me say this. If Trump, God forbid, is elected, I think, Ben, you might be thinking about the end of the 250-year experiment in modern democracy. I mean, not just in America, but all over the world. It's Bolsonaro and Brazil and so forth, all on. around the world. So we've got to be talking about what our values are.

We have got to be talking about how we develop agreements. I remember when I was a kid and a little bit older than you, and I remember seeing the TV programs and movies where poor people around the world receive packages that from the people of the United States. You remember that? Yeah, yeah. All right. I want that.

poor people around the world to know that we are on their side. I want governments in the developing world to know that we are on the side of their people who can't afford prescription drugs that save their lives rather than the pharmaceutical industry that is denying them those drugs. That's what I would like for a start. I want the United States to say, you know what, we are concerned about world poverty, children dying from easily cured diseases, Children dying from hunger. That's not what America stands for. We're going to work with those governments.

And we're going to support international organizations. It's too obvious a statement to repeat. War is horrible. This is the year 2024. We should be talking about how we eliminate war in the world through international organizations, not cutting funding for UN, but strengthening the UN and other international organizations. That's some of what we should be doing. Yeah, no, and it strikes to me, you know, listening to you that we are in some ways in this kind of competition with China and Russia and these countries that have an alternative world order in mind.

And we've had trouble, even, you know, in the Biden administration, connecting with countries in the global south, like Brazil, like South Africa, in part because we don't seem to be talking to them about what they're interested in. I mean, I know you've traveled, you know, you know Lula, you've traveled globally, you know the international labor movement. and you've interacted with civil society. I mean, do you think that there can be an agenda from the United States that can put us on the right side of those countries in the global south again? What do you think it would mean to the world? If the president of the United States or the Secretary of State goes to the developing world, goes to Brazil, goes to South Africa, and say, you know what?

We are developing lifesaving drugs, for example. And I talk about drugs, come on the committee that deals with that. You can't afford those drugs right now. Well, you know what? Under my administration, everybody in this world is going to be able to get the vaccines and the life-saving drugs they need. Because we understand that all children are created equally. What do you think that would mean? What signal would that send to the entire world on whose side we are on? I think it would be profound.

And I think that's what, you know, the United States of America is not going to let children stop the death. Not in Gaza, not any place else in the world. Yeah. That's good foreign policy. It's morally right. It's good foreign policy. Yeah. And I guess, you know, I mean, this begins to bring us back to where we started. But do you think that there's a capacity to understand, you know, and I'll be honest with you, Senator, like, you know, I obviously like you, I have a lot of regard for the Biden administration and friends and a lot of people in it. And yet, you know, when you hear them talk about a rules-based

order. And then you see our Gaza policy, and you look at it from the outside in, you know, you see why it's not even, I don't lay this on the fee of the Biden administration either. I was in the Obama administration. We had this kind of relationship with a number of governments, not just Israel. It seems like the bar is higher in us to kind of purge the hypocrisy, that, you know, we kind of got away with this for some time at the end of the Cold War because we were so much more powerful than other countries, but the margin of era where we can have that, the degree of hypocrisy that is on display in Gaza, we need to start seeing those issues as connected to this broader agenda, right?

Absolutely. We can't carry around this hypocrisy the same way we have in the past. Let me give you one example, and I agree with you, absolutely. What Putin is doing, has done and is doing in Ukraine is outrageous, right? And yet how can the United States condemn with a straight face Putin's bombing of apartment buildings and killing children. How do you say, this is a terrible thing? Really?

Compared to what? Compared to the destruction that's going on in Gaza, where we turn a blind eye. So you're right. I think we have to end the hypocrisy. And I think, look, you know, we haven't even begun to talk about climate change and future pandemics. You tell me how this. planet is going to be habitable and healthy for future generations if we don't deal with climate

change. How do you deal with climate change if we're not dealing with China? How do you deal with future pandemics if you're not dealing globally? How do you do that? Really? Pandemics don't stop with the country's border. Climate change is going to wreck China or it's going to wreck the United States. So we have to have to save ourselves, to save ourselves and the world. We've got to work in a cooperative, much more cooperative way. So the last question for you then is if you, you know, you've outlined, I think, a policy that makes, you know, very good sense, right? And the elements of that policy, too, are fighting climate change, fighting kleptocracy,

protecting democracy, which is obviously deeply imperiled, finding solidarity with other people around the world who are doing these things, avoiding wars and in being open to engagement. it all sounds like kind of what we need and also probably more popular than the kind of group thing that emanates from Washington. You've been at the center of American politics for a long time, but especially the last, you know, decade plus. And you've already seen in the domestic policy side, you know, ideas that you've kind of

brought into the mainstream, the Democratic Party. Is it your sense that the Democratic Party under President Biden, under future leadership, is ready for this kind of, this? this degree of a shift politically, you know, and how it thinks about foreign policy. Again, you've done a lot of this on the domestic side. Do you think that the party itself is willing to kind of go through the kind of restructuring and almost reinvention that you're talking about? I think the American people already.

I think when you say to the American people, we've got 600,000 Americans who are homeless. We don't have enough money to build affordable housing. But, yep, we have 900 billion for the military. You know what? Whether you're conservative or progressive, that does not make a whole lot of sense. That we have military presence in dozens and dozens of countries throughout the world. That doesn't make a lot of sense. I think it's going to be a hard fight within the Democratic Party.

There is a lot of money defending the status quo. But I think the American people are ready for some fundamental changes. Well, look, I really am so glad you're continuing to raise your voice on this as well, so many other things. You'll find a lot of sympathy, not just here, but among our audience, and we'll keep trying to raise these issues as well. So thanks so much for coming on today, and everybody should check out this latest article you've written in Foreign Affairs and obviously continue to follow your leadership on Gaza. So thanks for joining us and for all you're doing. So thanks very much for having me. Thanks again to Bernie Sanders for doing the show. Ben, thanks again to you for dialing in from Copenhagen.

and, you know, have some special dish. Do something fun. Someone tweet it Ben, some good recommendations for food or something. Yeah, there's a very good design here, Tommy, you have to say, like, very well-made furniture. And if you're, like, if you're into, like, home accessories, too, like, Scandinavia is the place to be. Sleak, severe. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But, no, it's great.

Yeah, and it's good to see, good to see you from yet another continent this week. You too, my man. We'll save travels, get some sleep and talk soon. See it. If you want to get ad freak episodes, exclusive content, and more. Consider joining our Friends of the Pod subscription community at crooked.com slash friends. Don't forget to follow Crooked Media on Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter for more original content, host takeovers and other community events.

Plus find Pod Save the World on YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content, and more. And if you're as opinionated as us, consider dropping a review. Pod Save the World is a Crooked Media production. Our executive producers are me, Tommy Vitor, Ben Rhodes, and Reed Cherlin. Our producer is Alona Minkowski, and associate producer is Ashley Mizuo. It's mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick, audio support by Kyle Segglin and Charlotte Landis. Our studio technician is David Tolls, thanks to our digital team, Elijah Cohn and Phoebe Bradford, who upload our episodes and videos to YouTube.com slash Pod Save the World.

Hey, this is Tommy Vitor. I want to tell you about a new podcast from Tenderfoot TV called To Die For. Imagine you were a fly on the wall at dinner between the mafia, the CIA, and the KGB. That's where this unprecedented podcast begins. To Die For marks the first time a Russian-trained sex spy has told her story. Whoa. Yeah. To tune into this one. All of it.

Taught to seduce men for their secrets and sometimes their lives. Alia Roja was trained to believe that her body no longer belonged to her. It belonged to the state. She was meticulously trained to be the perfect weapon, able to seduce her targets into compromising situations that have ended careers in some. times lives. From Tenderfoot TV, the studio that brought you up and vanished, and to live and die in L.A. Make sure you check out to Die for. It's available now wherever you get your podcasts.