Pod Save the World - Jerusalem went to Jared

Episode Date: December 8, 2017

Tommy talks with Politico’s foreign affairs correspondent Nahal Toosi about Trump’s controversial decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Then they discussed news reports indicating Rex Tillerson’s disastrous tenure as Secretary of State may be coming to a close. It was lit. 

Welcome back to Potsave the world. This is Tommy Vitor. Thank you for tuning in during a busy, busy news week. My guest today is Nahal Tusi. She is a very, very good foreign policy correspondent at Politico. She's worked for the Associated Press. She's been in Islamabad, Kabul, all kinds of places. We talked about Trump's big announcement this week that he was declaring Jerusalem, the capital of Israel. We talked through the response, the implications, and what it could mean for a broader effort to get a peace agreement. Then we talked about one of my least favorite cabinet members in the history of time, Rex Hillerson, his record, what he has or has not accomplished, and why he chose to approach the job in the way he did, and what it would mean if he were to leave and new people were to take over. She's a brilliant reporter. You should read her stuff at Politico and enjoy the conversation. My guest this week on PODSA of the world is Nahal Tusi.

She is a foreign affairs correspondent at Politico. Before joining Politico, she was at the Associated Press. and is reported from places like New York, Islamabad, Kabul, London, Iraq, lots more places you've heard of or not heard of. Now, thank you so much for being on the show. Thanks for having me. So when I initially pitched you about doing this interview, I pitched it as a let's talk about the life and times of Rex Tillerson, as is so common this day and age events have overtaken

this. So I was hoping we could start with Trump's announcement yesterday about Jerusalem. Right. So on Wednesday, President Trump officially declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. In doing so, we broke with nearly seven decades of U.S. policy, the entire world, including allies like the French, the Pope, frenemies like China, even members of his national security team like Rex Hillerson and Secretary Mattis oppose this move. Can you explain on sort of basic terms why this is such a big deal? Sure. Well, both Israel and Palestinians, the Palestinians,

have claims on Jerusalem. At least parts of it, in the case of the Israelis, for sure, you know, They claim the whole city undivided and eternal as their capital. And for decades, the U.S. and other countries have not taken a position on this. They've said that the status of Jerusalem should be one of those things that's negotiated as part of a peace deal, one of those final, big, sensitive things. And so they have tried not to formally side with one group or the other on the status of this very holy city. And so for Trump to do this and say, you know what, we believe that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, it really sends a message to a lot of Palestinians, at least that's the way they're taking it and many others in the Arab world that he's basically siding with the Israelis over them. And it's something that's so kind of shocking to a lot of people. But frankly, after the last year or so of this presidency, in many ways it shouldn't be shocking because Trump has shown.

that he is willing to buck the international consensus on any number of issues. Yeah. It's like every piece of negotiations over a two-state solution, every piece of it is fraught. I can't think of a piece of the negotiation that is more fraught than Jerusalem and who will get what territory. And notably, he didn't mention in his speech that the Palestinians want to have their capital in East Jerusalem. That was just left out. Right. And you could take that in a positive way.

Like you could say, well, because he didn't say anything, he might be open to it. He didn't use the word undivided Jerusalem being the capital of Israel. So that sort of left the opening that maybe in the long run he might be willing to settle for something that does divide the city. And, you know, so what he didn't say and to some extent was almost as important as what he did say. And he also did say repeatedly that he understands that the peace talks. still have to go on. He understands that the final borders are still subject to negotiation, but he also and his advisors also claim, look, this is the reality. Jerusalem is Israel's capital. Israel has many of its government offices in Jerusalem. So they say, we're just recognizing what's

really there, but we're still open to negotiations in the long run. So it's sort of like trying to have it both ways. And I don't know, you know, how is it going to work out? We'll have to see. Yeah, come on, no biggie. Do you think that's going to play well in the region? But it's not playing that well right now. I mean, we're seeing already clashes and the Arab countries have come out against this. Pretty much every country has, like you mentioned. There's even plans to hold an emergency session of the Security Council at the United Nations tomorrow based on what the United States just did. And that's pretty extraordinary. Yeah, that is extraordinary. Yeah, let's take into the reaction a little bit because the reaction in Israel. was, I think, not surprisingly overwhelmingly positive. Bibi Netanyahu is lavished praise on Trump. He's getting cheered in the streets. The reaction in Palestine is totally the reverse.

Prime Minister Abbas said, it's an attempt to change our history and it will not succeed. It's a Palestinian city, an Arab city, a Christian city, and a Muslim city. Someone pointedly left out the Jewish city. As we speak, Palestinian-Israeli forces are clashing in the West Bank and Gaza. The leader of Hamas has called for a new intifada. the State Department has set up a 24-hour monitoring center to keep track of all that's happening and possible security threats. How worried are State Department, Defense Department, intelligence officials you talk to about things getting worse? I'm particularly concerned about the potential for incitement at Friday prayers tomorrow, but I'm not sure what the professional foreign policy community is seeing now.

There's a lot of concern. People are kind of aghast. They feel like Trump has put diplomats in particular diplomats, but also other Americans in danger. This is the same president, you know, who railed against what happened in Benghazi and, you know, spoke about the need for securing Americans. And yet he's taken an action that many believe could definitely put a lot of Americans in danger, especially those serving in embassies. That being said, you know, the calculation in the Trump circle is, well, you know, you. Yeah, there's going to be some riots. There's going to be some violence. But ultimately, you know, it'll go away. It'll fade away. And people will just kind of adjust to this new reality. Yeah. I mean, I get the argument that you can't let the potential reaction of a mob, let's say Hamas or extremist group, dictate the terms of U.S. policy. But it does seem like there are prudent steps you have a responsibility to take to protect U.S. personnel and innocent people that might be impacted by violence that,

that could come as a result of a U.S. policy decision, right? Right. And they'll argue that they've done that. I mean, they've sent out travel alerts through the State Department. They've restricted the movement of U.S. diplomats in the region. But it's, you know, these things are a little unpredictable. And frankly, I know a lot of people are worried about what's happening in the Palestinian territories, obviously, and in Israel. But I'm really concerned or I'd be really interested to see what's going to happen in other Muslim countries. I mean, like Pakistan where I used to be based and, you know, everywhere really, who where, especially like you mentioned after Friday prayers. I mean, that's where things could get really, really messy.

And, you know, how long do you keep people cooped up in their diplomatic compounds? Right. You know, this provides extremist groups with a new excuse to target Americans. You just made such an important point because when we've had, you know, when the Quran has been desecrated in the past, the response, has been sort of across the entire Arab world. When the innocence of Muslims video came out that mocked the Prophet Muhammad, that led to a series of protests that were in dozens of countries, we saw it wasn't just Benghazi attacks that were incited by that video. It was attacks against our embassy in Sudan, massive protests in Pakistan. I kind of wonder if this is a test case, though, to see how sincerely held this issue.

actually is, right? Because I think a lot of these countries pay lip service to the Palestinian people. You don't always see, say, the Saudis step up and do a lot to help them. Is that too cynical? Oh, no. It's not cynical at all. In fact, I think you put your finger on something that's very important. You know, the Palestinian cause has always been a major issue for people, especially in the Arab world, but much of the Muslim world more broadly. That being said, it's not quite the issue that it used to be. It's not, it doesn't get the kind of passion that it used to get. Why is that? Because there's other things that have come up. The U.S. invasion of Iraq, to begin with. What's happening in Syria is another example. And perhaps more than anything, and I'm pretty confident this is what's factoring into

the calculations that the Trump team is making, in particular his son-in-law Jared Kushner, which is the question about Iran. There's so many Arab countries who are so worried about the rise of Iran in the region. And some of them have been increasingly friendly toward Israel because they have a common enemy, Iran. And so it might be that the Trump team is making a bet that the frustration and anger with Iran is going to be enough to where the Arab countries will say, oh, this is terrible about Palestine, but they'll put the issue to the side and they'll continue to work with the Americans and the Israelis on issues including Iran. So a lot of people are asking, I mean, why do this now?

Like you said earlier, Trump's team says basically, we're just stating the obvious. You know, Jerusalem will be the capital of an Israeli state. Everyone knows that. So why not say it? I've seen some experts, including Democrats who I respect, say that maybe by giving the Israelis something big now, by giving them this announcement about Jerusalem, you can build political support in Israel and get them to do something hard down the road. Color me skeptical of Bibi Netanyahu's willingness to do anything hard. The more cynical take is that.

this is just good domestic politics because evangelical Christians support the move, major Republican donors like Sheld Nadelson support the move. I think I lean towards the cynical take, but I don't know, is there a more charitable explanation for why now that you've heard or that you maybe believe? You know, I think the year is coming to an end and the president doesn't have that many wins he can point to. And so I do tend to lean toward the analysis that this is a give to his domestic political base, including events. evangelical Christians, but also many right of center Jewish leaders. And so, you know, there's a lot of happiness in those groups that he has taken this step. You know, it's also worth pointing out, like,

look, there's something to be said for a president who keeps a promise, right? I mean, he promised this during the campaign, and he's fulfilling this promise. Other presidents have, when they were campaigning, promised the same thing, and then they didn't. So, you know, you might disagree. You might disagree. agree with what he did, but he did keep his promise. And there's something to be said about that, right? Yeah, I agree. Yeah, look, as long as we're sort of being charitable, like, I also think, look, I have zero faith in Jared's brainwadage or judgment on this issue or in the same with Donald Trump. But I'm also kind of sympathetic to the argument that, hey, we've been trying this the same way for literally decades. Like, I remember when Obama was trying to launch a series of Middle East

Peace talks. There's a policy expert and reporter, scholar named Aaron David Miller, who, kept writing these really cynical pieces about how the context wasn't there. It's the same old shit. We're trying the same old plans. And I remember thinking how outrageous it was that you'd say that and so dismissive. But ultimately, we didn't get anything done. So I kind of understand Jared's take on this, that let's just upend the apple cart. Let's try something entirely new and see if we can get a different result. Like, I don't support that view, but I can understand it, you know? Oh, yeah. I mean, look, I'm not allowed to have opinions because I, I'm a reporter.

You're too informed to have an opinion in Washington. It's hard. But one of the things that struck me is, you know, the U.S. has always kind of tried to cast itself as like this honest broker and all this stuff. And frankly, like increasingly over the years, I think the Palestinians have just not viewed the U.S. as an honest broker. Now, they will say now, look, like this just shows that they're not an honest broker if they're taking the extreme Israel. position on Jerusalem, then why can we, why should we believe that they can be an honest broker? But there's also the argument that, hey, now you know where the U.S. stands on this. And now you know that if you go into negotiations with them, they're going to champion the Israeli

side on any number of things. So that could actually be just a more realistic view. Now, does that mean that they're going to be willing to go into negotiations? Maybe not. And, I mean, they've waited decades. I don't understand why they can't wait another of four or eight years, you know, for another president to come in. And so I predict we will see a stalemate for quite a long time. Yeah. I mean, I wonder if they'll even get back to a process, like indirect talks or direct talks. The value of those, in my experience, has been even if they haven't come close to settling the underlying problems, sometimes when there's a process in place, when discussions are happening, you can prevent things from escalating or getting worse or, you know,

further retrenchment into corners and violence. And I worry about that absence here because you're right. I mean, look, I think you could probably have made an argument if you were a Palestinian for a very long time that we were not a fully honest broker. I mean, when one side gets several billion dollars in military aid a year and the other does not, it does seem like you're thumbing the scale a little bit. But it's hard to see where this is going to go in the immediate aftermath beyond the sort of very cynical response from Abbas. Look, I'm really intrigued to see what Jared Kushner and Jason and Greenblatt and others, a small group of AIDS in the White House, are going to be coming up with in terms of their peace plan. And that's, you know, this is kind of a new crew. They're outsiders.

They say that they're willing to think outside the box. And I would like to see how far outside the box this plan is going to be. It's one of those things that you just, you know, after a certain point, there's so many iterations and so many possibilities and you just think what new thing could they possibly come up with. But maybe I certainly wouldn't rule it out. Now, you mentioned process, and I think that's interesting because one of the things about the Trump administration that has actually been a real frustration to diplomats overseas and other foreign officials is simply that there doesn't seem to be a very coherent process on any number of things, right? So, you know, process has broken down on any number of issues, not just this. But, you know, you know,

Now, at the same time, maybe the fact that there's only a handful of people really dealing with this can actually be a benefit because you don't have every single side and every single agency and a million different people weighing in and frankly weighing down the process. Yeah, watering down everything, pulling back on big decisions, et cetera. To your point about the broader Middle East peace plan that they're apparently going to roll out, there was a report in the New York Times recently that the Saudis called Prime Minister Abbas and basically off. him a peace deal that was in many ways worse than anything that they had ever agreed to. There were reductions in territory. And I think essentially gave them a suburb of East Jerusalem as their capital and not any part of East Jerusalem. And he was told, take it or will force you to resign in a couple months. They offered him some money.

I don't know if that report has been confirmed as accurate or not. But boy, if that's the case, if the new process is pre-cooking a plan, with the Israelis and trying to ram it down the Palestinian throat via the Saudis. That doesn't sound all that new to me. Yeah, I mean, this is the thing that's really fascinating again. And I think it's partly because the Saudis are so concerned about Iran that they're not as passionate about the Palestinian issue as they used to be. The person who is said to be behind this or who has, you know, told this to Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, is the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman. Now, remember, he's not the king. And the king has come out against.

what President Trump did regarding Jerusalem. But the Crown Prince has a tremendous amount of power. And if it is true indeed that he did, you know, tell this to the Palestinians, it's, you know, it's quite a slap to them. Now, I don't, I mean, I think the New York Times is obviously a fabulous paper and I don't question they're sourcing at all. I will say, like, I spoke to a Palestinian official shortly after the Abbas visit. And he was telling me that it was actually a very good visit that the Saudis were very encouraging and very supportive of the Palestinian leader. So I don't know, the weird thing about these times that we live in right now is that completely opposite things can be true at the same time.

Explain that. Tell me more about that. Well, I mean, it's just crazy. You know, like, it's like cognitive dissonance on every level. You have, as a journalist, like I'm covering this administration. And, you know, you're seeing like Nikki Haley say something that's completely, different from what the president says or tweets. And then you have Rex Tillerson, you know, trying to take a position that somehow is somewhere in the middle, but frankly, feels like it's an outer space. And you don't know what to believe. It's like one of those, you know, blurry pictures. And it's just not something. And the truth is it's possible that they all believe what they're

saying and that they all believe all of the things the other people are saying. And so I can imagine, I mean, it's hard being a reporter, but it must be like crazy trying to be like a foreign diplomat or a foreign intelligence analyst trying to figure out what on earth the United States is doing these days. Yeah, that's a really good point. Yeah, inconsistency used to be pointed out and covered and penalized. And now it just seems to be par for the course. I don't get it. I mean, you could also argue that I have been told that it's part of their strategy. You know, they like this whole good cop, bad cop.

They like the fact that when Rex Tillerson holds out something soft, the president follows it with a punch. They feel like it's a useful tool to be unpredictable. They feel like the president's tweets can sometimes be a pressure point that makes people overseas turn toward the more softer positions that the Secretary of State and others take. Is it working? I don't know. I think they've just made a lot of people. unhappy. I don't know that I've seen a lot of results. Back to your point about process. One person who has, you know, seemingly or at least reportedly

been cut out of this Middle East peace process is Rex Tillerson, the Secretary of State. They have been very publicly led by Jared Kushner, someone with no diplomatic experience, clearly got his job because of nepotism failed at real estate in Manhattan, probably not the best credential to run a Middle East peace process. Tell me how you really feel, Tommy. Yeah, I mean, Jared. What an idiot. I do think that anecdote, the fact that Rex is cut out of like the most high profile issue in diplomacy probably tells you all you need to know about Tillerson's tenure as Secretary of State, who the New York Times reported is sort of all but fired. He had this limited role in handling this key issue. Trump has repeatedly undercut him publicly and privately.

I guess my question is, do people think Rex was bad at the job or did Trump scope it in a way that kind of made this a foregone conclusion? because he handed out pieces to his son-in-law. He doesn't value diplomacy. I mean, what's your assessment of a year of Rex or whatever we're at? A year of Rex. You know, looking back, like, honestly, the professional demise of Rex Tillerson started being predicted, like, within two months of him taking over as Secretary of State. So this isn't, this is an old story.

And I am one of those people who's just, you know, I've come to believe. that Tillerson is a very stubborn person. And I get the sense that the more people say, hey, he's on his way out, the more he's going to, you know, try to prove them wrong. Rex Tillerson came into the Secretary of State's office very much not caring what the public thinks about him and very confident about the notion that he could get things done quietly and behind the scenes, almost silent diplomacy, if there is such a thing. He quickly, you know, came under criticism for that. And that's just, you know, from the fact that they wouldn't hold press briefings in the beginning to the lack of readouts from calls to this whole notion that

he just felt like he could do everything quietly. And that has upset people pretty much all across Washington. This is not a guy who has a lot of allies right now in D.C. And that's on everything from the way he has approached foreign policy to the way he has approached the State Department and managing the building. So is he going to leave soon? You know, we all have to leave at some point, right? We're all checking out at some point. Yeah. I mean, these reports, though, of like the sky is falling in foggy bottom.

There's an exodus of senior foreign service officers. There are people going into work at state and having nothing to do all day. there's low morale. Do you pick up on that? Is that your sense that the building is in a bad place? I'll tell you this. Like I've written a lot of stories about what's happening over there and some of the changes and some of the unhappiness. And what I've often found, frankly, is I'll write a story and then people will get in touch with me afterward and be like, hey, so that was a good story. But guess what? You did not, you know, get to the bottom of nearly how bad it really is. So what I'm constantly being told is even worse than what I'm reporting. As a journalist, you know, one of the things that's been fact. fascinating to watch is that people are so unhappy that whereas under previous administrations, they would never, some people who would never have even considered talking to me. I mean, like completely like ignoring my emails or whatever. These people are actually now reaching out to me and asking me to go have coffee because they're so unhappy. Now, you know, the thing about the

exodus and how many people are leaving, that's a little bit more tricky. I've been really careful about, you know, not trying to make too huge a deal of that because it just depends on how you look at the numbers. If you look at the overall foreign service, it's not that different in terms of the numbers. And just for the record, the State Department has 75,000 people across the world. Most of those are like local hires in various countries, but, you know, there's a component that's foreign service and a component that's civil service. But the numbers overall haven't really changed that much. But if you look at the senior ranks, like we're talking like, you know, career ambassadors or just really high-level folks, there have been some very prominent departures.

And, you know, the numbers do do seem down, but I don't think it's something that's irreversible or even quickly irreversible. The difference, though, is that Tillerson doesn't seem interested in promoting people, in hiring new people and filling these leadership slots. So the question isn't like, you know, are people leaving? it's more like are people going to be able to get ahead in the Foreign Service the way that they used to. Right. Yeah, and you're right. In addition to that, like, he seems to have made this protracted, painful reorganization of the State Department workforce. The defining issue of his tenure associated with that are significant personnel cuts. Like, do you have any sense of why Rex is so passionate about gutting the State Department? Well, like, why is that the organizing principle of his life?

And can you give us a sense of, is there any example of something that's not getting done because a job isn't filled that you think might be illustrative of the broader shrinking we've been discussing? Well, Tillerson comes from an engineering background, right? And he spent decades at ExxonMobil. And so he's very familiar with this whole idea of a corporate organization and how things should function. And Exxon is hugely interested in efficiency. And so is Rex Tillerson. Now, like, plenty of people inside the State Department and outside it would love to see more efficiency at the State Department. I haven't met anybody, like even critics of Tillerson, even fierce critics who disagree with the broad concept that there needs to be a shakeup at state, that things need to be changed around and that there is some fat to cut.

Like, plenty of people will say, look, it's fine to cut, you know, hundreds, even a few thousand people. It could be leaner. It could be more efficient. one of the things that he has done is from the very beginning he decided that they needed to cut like 9% of the staff. So that's like some 2,300 people through buyouts and nutrition. And that was before like he even held his first town hall. And so people just felt like, look, you know, you've already decided that we have to cut this many people before you even talk to us. So they felt like he has, you know, come into it and sort of a backward.

approach of things. But also I think what's really hurt him in this process in terms of his reputation, it's just not been very transparent. He and his people have been very secretive about the whole thing. And you're seeing now, I mean, I wrote about this the other day, members of Congress writing letters saying, hey, you need to loop us in about what your plans are. Because guess what? At some point, some of this stuff is going to need our approval. And we need to know what you're going to do. They have not at all been happy with. the lack of information that's been shared. And this isn't just Democrats for the record. I mean, even Senator Bob Corker, who has been a champion of Tillerson on a lot of levels, has criticized

him very harshly on the fact that they just haven't been handing over information to lawmakers about what's going on. So, and you asked about, you know, whether anything is not getting done. I think that, you know, it's not necessarily the stuff that we hear about on a regular race. The big stuff is being paid attention to. North Korea is getting a lot of intention. Iran is getting a lot of attention. But it's other things. For instance, you know, when there are these donor conferences or other types of gatherings of international diplomats, the U.S. officials often go in and don't really know what to say because they haven't been given directions from the Secretary of State. They might have requested a direction like months earlier, but nobody ever got back to them. So it's at these kind of lower level situations where the communications are breaking down. and people often just don't know what they are supposed to say. Yeah. An issue that people on this who listen to the show have heard me talk about frequently

is the ongoing ethnic cleansing against the Rohingya. It feels like that's a place where Tillerson could fairly easily step up and start rallying support to pressure the military in Burma and sort of quickly squeeze them to stop this. It doesn't feel like anything is happening there. And I don't know if that's a directive from the top, a lack of personnel to implement that policy. Maybe I'm just wrong and cynical about this. I don't know. What's your take? I think, again, it's one of those things where the totally opposite things can be true at the

same time. In the beginning, the State Department was pretty slow off the mark. The whole Trump administration was to reacting to what was happening in Burma. But after a while, they got more on top of it. And Tillerson actually traveled to Burma and spoke out against what was happening. Shortly afterward, the State Department declared, Tillerson, I should say, declared that what was happening was ethnic cleansing. And that's not something, that's not a phrase you just throw around in the U.S. It's something that's kind of a legal issue. So he was waiting for the lawyers to come through on that. You know, they have said that they are looking at new sanctions and they are going to try to use laws that prevent the U.S. from in any way supporting a military unit that's been involved in an atrocity.

But frankly, it's also kind of difficult because the U.S. actually doesn't have a heck of a lot of leverage in Burma, even after all these years of a more open relationship. So it's highly questionable how much they can do that would make a difference. What hasn't happened, and I think this is what's really frustrating to a lot of people, including people in the Obama administration, who are watching things fall apart right now, is that there hasn't been as much of a rallying of the international community. They haven't been able to bring the countries in Southeast Asia together to really make it a point to Burma that they have to stop what's happening. That seems to be missing. And frankly, the thing that's been missing most of all is President Donald Trump's voice on this. He hasn't said anything publicly. And I think that really, really undercuts what Tillerson and others may desperately want to do to help the Rohingya.

And, you know, of course, the cynical take on that is that Trump doesn't want to say anything about the Rohingya because they're Muslims. Yeah, I mean, I'm with you. Like, there's, we probably have limited direct leverage lawyers screw up every quick policy decision and make it slower. And, you know, using the Leahy law or other tools to help stop, you know, punish people conducting extrajudicial killings of individuals like the Rohingya can take some time. That said, it's like, hurry the fuck up, you know, do something, rally the international community to squeeze these guys now before it's too late. time is not on the side of the people were actually suffering. So I'll get off my hobby horse here, I promise. Actually, if I'd add one thing, you know, I've actually been doing a lot of research on the Rohingya. Actually, I don't even, people pronounce it in different ways.

I know. I've heard that both are fine. So I'm like, I mean. So I've been doing a lot of research on this. And one of the things that has come up again and again is that the majority of the people in Burma support what their military is doing to the Rohingya. So it's one of the things we're like, if it's about domestic political support versus what the U.S. thinks, you know, I think they're going to go with the domestic political support every time. Yeah, it's awful.

So back to Rex. I mean, I think you're right that he's played his politics so badly with Congress, with the White House. But he's also seemed to like refuse to meet with the professionals in the building that work for him that could be really helpful. I mean, I was some idiot kid who came off a campaign and got to work in foreign policy. I'd walk into a meeting and there'd be some relatively low-level State Department staffer there who had been an ambassador in three different countries and spoke nine languages and had context and insight and sort of knowledge of issues that was irreplaceable and invaluable. And, like, they did so much work to get the decisions to a place where they were fully thought through and vetted

before they even got to the White House. It seems like he won't even sit down with those people. He reportedly refused a meeting with the people who do embassy security. After all this talk about Benghazi and the finger pointing at Obama over talking points and what happened that day, it's like that seems like a pretty basic meeting you take and a dereliction of duty to not. That was a pretty shocking report. And for the most part, I think what you're saying is also matching what I'm hearing. Now, there are a few people that Tillerson does turn to who are. our career foreign service officers or civil servants,

Undersecretary Tom Shannon is someone who he does consult. The acting assistant secretary for East Asia, Susan Thornton, is another one. But for the most part, you're right, most of the building has been cut out. I don't know if you saw the story. I wrote a while back about this leaked document that I got a hold of about the policy planning process. What's happening is that there's a division in the State Department called policy planning. And they are supposed to be sort of like an in-house think tank. And they are supposed to do like, you know, medium to long-term strategy kind of papers types of things about issues. And that's how they've generally been used in the past. Under Tillerson, they are much, much more heavily involved in day-to-day decision-making. And a lot of the policy planning for, you know, normal routine things is falling on this one group of people who are, none of whom are confirmed by the Senate. The leader of the staff is Brian Hook.

He is not someone who's been confirmed by the Senate. So all of these decisions in many ways have been transferred to this one small group. And the rest of the building, you know, what they're basically not directly being told, but effectively being told is, hey, you guys are not really going to be part of, you know, making policy anymore or planning policy anymore. But you're just going to implement what we decide. And that's really upset a lot of people, including members of Congress who, you know, in some cases are taking steps to try to limit the policy planning staff's power because they just feel like, you know, you need people like assistant secretaries and others who are accountable to Congress and who face confirmation. Yeah. You know, we're nonpartisan. So let's say the Times had reported that Tillerson is gone.

So let's say that he goes back to Texas to spray waterfowl with oil or whatever he does in his free time. the transition plan that they reported is in place is that Mike Pompeo moves over from CIA Director to be Secretary of State, and then they'll install Tom Cotton as CIA Director. What do you make of those reports? And what do you think would be the impact of those personnel moves on policy creation or execution? Well, on the Pompeo front, you know, if you'd asked me a couple months ago, and I know because I was asking people, people at State Department a couple of months back probably would have been very worried. about having Mike Pompeo as the State Department leader because he is seen as very, very partisan,

very, very hawkish, you know, to some extent almost dismissive of diplomatic triumphs. You know, he's not a fan of the Iran deal, but many at the State Department feel that was a huge diplomatic achievement. But things have gotten so bad under Tillerson. The morale is so low that a lot of people now would be happy to have Mike Pompeo as secretary. of State. Wow. Yeah, they feel like, look, Pompeo has a really good relationship with the president. And if he is the head of our agency, he might be a better advocate for us. He might raise the esteem of the State Department in Trump's eyes. And so there is that point of view right now. I was actually pretty surprised, but, you know, it just kind of goes to show how low the morale is

over there. And as far as Tom Cotton goes, so that's a really interesting one. I was struck because I remember when the news was coming out after the New York Times report, in the beginning of the day, it was like, yeah, cotton to the CIA. That's the one. But then later in the day, there were reports of a Robert Harwood, the naval officer as possibly be floated. And it almost, like, to me, it seemed like it was something where people in the intel world were kind of pushing back at the notion of cotton by pushing forth the Harwood idea. Now, let's say the hardwood thing is just nothing and it's going to be cotton. I think, you know, when I talk to people in the into hell community, you know, mainly former folks, they're very wary of Tom Cotton at the CIA. And it's because, you know, just for the same reasons that they were worried about Pompeo.

Pompeo, like I said, was very partisan and, you know, somewhat rigid in his point of views and they feel like cotton is actually even more so. If there's somebody who could be more hawkish than Pompeo, it actually would be. Tom Cotton. At the same time, I think part of it is they're just a little concerned. Tom Cotton's really quite young. He doesn't have experience like managing a large organization. The CIA has is in many ways steeped in its own traditions and has its own habits and he might, you know, find it tough to adjust to that. So those are all concerns. But that being said, these guys, you know, they're professionals, their career staffers and they'll work with whoever the president puts at the helm. Yeah. I mean, you're right. These jobs are ultimately like,

massive management jobs. Certainly you can kick it to a deputy or a chief of staff and sort of lean on them to handle a lot of this, but it's a big piece of the job and you got to be ready for it. So my final question is a overly cynical one, which is, do we think it really matters? Every NSC from Obama's to Clintons, everyone else is in between, is accused of micromanaging policy and sort of having outsized weight for the national security advisor and the national security staff in terms of foreign policy decision-making, and Congress doesn't like that because they're not Senate-confirmed and somehow unaccountable. But in this White House, it seems maybe even more acute because decisions are made on the fly by the president with Jared and the gang on the seventh hole of some golf course. So, I mean, that's sort of what leads to my more cynical question.

Like, do you think that Donald Trump will find religion and suddenly respect the State Department because Mike Pompeo is there? or is he only going to like, you know, agencies with guns and tanks and, you know, things that go boom? I think that Trump, he doesn't necessarily respect institutions, but he does respect individuals. So he has a lot of respect for Pompeo, it seems. They have a good relationship. So if, whereas he doesn't seem to get along as well with Tillerson. So it's entirely possible that if Mike Pompeo is a person that's delivering the message on a particular diplomatic issue, Trump will take him more seriously. And Pompeo does seem to be more willing to think outside the establishment box on a lot of issues.

Now, Hal Tusi, thank you for your excellent reporting. Thank you for responding to my incredibly leading, probably overly cynical questions today in a professional way. with thoughtful responses and keep up the great work. Really appreciate you joining the show. Thank you so much for having me, Tommy. Thanks for tuning in to POTSave the World. If you like the show, please give us five stars in the iTunes store. It means a lot.

And if you want more information, check out the POTS day of the World Facebook page. Thanks, guys.