Pod Save the World - New year, same problems

Episode Date: January 9, 2019

First, Tommy talks with Congresswoman Elissa Slotkin about Trump's Syria flip flops and how he's demoralizing the intel community. Then, Ben Rhodes joins to talk about Secretary Pompeo's middle east trip and Cairo speech, the new authoritarian President in Brazil, and the anti-BDS bill going through Congress. 

Welcome back to POT Save the World. This is Tommy Vitor. I hope you're enjoying the new music bed and new art for the show. It was time for a refresh, a rebrand, new year, new me, resolutions, Ben Roads in the House, all sorts of new stuff. So I'm happy about it. If you're not, please don't tweet at me. If you love it, echo chamber me. I want to hear more.

Great show today. Two parts. First is Congresswoman Alyssa Slotkin from Michigan. She was just recently elected part of a badass new crop of freshman lawmakers. She was in the CIA. She was the acting assistant secretary of defense. She worked in the NSC for the Bush administration and Obama. So she's someone who's got a lot of foreign policy experience.

She worked on the ISIS account for a long time. So we talked about President Trump's Syria plan and what that means and a whole bunch of other national security issues on a busy day in Washington. Then Ben Rhodes dialed in from his layoffs. over in Singapore. I believe it was like 4 a.m. there, so I was glad to get him on the line from whatever airport lounge. People were sick of hearing him talking. We talked about Secretary Pompeo's week-long swing to the Middle East and his rejoinder apparently to President Obama's decade-old Cairo speech and what the hell he's trying to accomplish there. We also talked a little bit about

Trump in Syria and the flip-flop flip on the policy there and what it actually all means. Then we talked about Brazil. They just inaugurated their new right-wing president, Yeager, Bolsonaro. It's a disconcerting election and even more scary series of steps he's taken since that election. So we talked about the stakes there and how Trump should be handling it, even though you'd be shocked to learn it's not going on that well. And then finally, we talked about a bill moving through Congress that deals with the Middle East generally, but there's a really controversial provision that is designed to counter the boycott divestment and sanctions movement against Israel or the BDS movement. There's a lot of concerns about the constitutionality of this legislation and how it might impair free speech.

So we talked through that. So two-port show. First, you will hear the conversation with Alyssa Slotkin, and then you'll hear Ben. On the line from Washington, D.C.C. on the line from Washington, D.C. is Congresswoman Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan. She is a former Assistant Secretary of Defense, NSC staffer, CIA analyst, and a card-carrying member of the freshman badass caucus. Alyssa Slotkin, thank you so much for doing the show. It is exciting to have you on.

There's just amazing world of administration alumni who are now representing us in Congress. Yeah, thanks for having me. It's fun to be here. It's so cool. So, Congresswoman, you worked in the Intel community at the Defense Department and a number of senior roles, including the point person on ISIS and Syria.

Do you have any idea what Trump's Syria policy is right now? And what do you think the impact is of his flip-flopping on whether or not to keep troops in their region? Yeah. I mean, I don't know that there's anyone who feels like they have a firm handle on what are Syria policy right now. Obviously, I have major problems with both process and policy. Obviously, I didn't agree with announcing any of this by Twitter. And in the intervening days, as we've had Bolton and others kind of come back and say, well, not really. We sort of take that back.

It's just laid out what we knew, which is that it's just been really difficult to follow who's the voice here on foreign policy. And then obviously on substance, you know, the fight against ISIS is not over. We know what happens when you leave, you know, cells of terrorists just doing what they want in territory that's ungoverned. And then honestly, something that caught my attention was John Bolton's comments from Israel, where clearly the Israelis were very concerned, our allies were very concerned to hear about, you know, Trump's announcement of the pullout. And Bolton said, you know, we're pulling out of the fight against ISIS, but we're going to maintain a presence in El-Tomp to counter the Iranian threat. And, you know, that certainly got my attention as someone who's now in Congress.

Obviously, countering the Iranian threat I'm a big fan of, but you've got to come back to Congress and explain what you're doing and get permission to station troops in a combat. zone when the mission is not al-Qaeda or ISIS. Oh, so we're talking war powers now. Well, I got to tell you. I mean, listen, it was a transcript that I read of John Bolton, but he said we're staying in out town, you know, this town in southern Syria, because it's a way station for the Iranians to move things back and forth.

And there isn't ISIS in that town. And, you know, as well as I do, that right now, the military has permission to act against al-Qaeda and against ISIS. and they need to come back to Congress if they want to prosecute something new against Iran. God, it's so great to hear a member of Congress say that because Obama Bush to prompt there's not enough pushback. I mean, Ben and I were talking earlier about some of the things John Bolton was saying were the conditions for that would have to be met to get troops out of Syria. And it was basically completely eradicate ISIS, which is going to be impossible if you

think we're defeating an idea, protecting the Kurds from the Turks. And then, there's this overtone of pushing back on Iran in Syria as part of that mission. And, you know, in some ways to me, it sounded like a de facto recipe for an indefinite troop presence. But you're right. It has absolutely not been authorized by Congress or in any law. Yeah. And like I said, I mean, I was a Shia analyst at the CIA. I spent a lot of my early career exposing and sort of linking Iranian nefarious activities to some of the bad things that were happening. And the shooting against, you know, U.S. forces in Iraq. So I am by no means sympathetic to the Iranians and their agenda in the Middle East, but I just believe there is a clear distinction as laid out in the Constitution on the

role of Congress. And I know that Congress has sort of abrogated their responsibility for, you know, a long time, basically since 2001, 2002 of providing oversight. And as someone who worked at the Pentagon, I just, I believe the system works best when both the executive branch and the legislative branch understand what our policy is, and there's a clear mandate from both bodies to be there. Amen. You, I imagine, had to talk to a lot of foreign counterparts about policy choices made by administrations talking to partners in the region about Obama's plan to combat ISIS. What do you think they're thinking right now about their ability to count on America to stand with them in this fight or any other fight? Like, how do they respond to us just being all

over the place. Yeah, I mean, I think obviously, particularly our partners who are fighting with us in Syria, who literally rely on the American backbone in order to prosecute the fight against ISIS, who are the ones who are going to have attacks in their capitals, probably before we have attacks in our capitals. I think it's just a, it is a betrayal to do policy by Twitter and not properly consult our allies when they are risking blood and treasure to be there and, you know, join us in this fight, I think is just a major break with what an allied relationship has been since World War II. And I think that what it does also for the Kurds who are fighting with us in northern Syria,

you know, the next time we're trying to engage in the world five years from now, ten years from now, and there's a group who's willing to fight terrorists. And, you know, you say to them, listen, we're going to help you and support you. We're the United States of America, fight with us. They're going to say, we know what America does. you use us and you have us fight ISIS or you have us fight a terrorist group and then you leave us without warning. So I think it sets really dangerous precedence both with allies on the ground and the coalition countries that are fighting with us. Yeah. And unfortunately for the Kurds, this probably

feels all too familiar. We do know that Trump's Syria announcement managed to who drive his Secretary of Defense and head of ISIS diplomacy, Brett McGirk out of government. So that's not great. I imagine you still have countless friends at DOD and CIA. How worried are you about Moral? and attrition and people just getting fed up and leaving? Yeah. So I know that morale and OSD, Office of Secretary of Defense, is pretty low. I think a lot of the folks who are there are really big believers in serving their country, and they're willing to weather a certain amount of political instability.

But I think General Mattis was certainly setting a tone in the Pentagon that people understood and felt like, you know, was a leader that they could. believe in. And so his departure is a big loss for the staff. I certainly know a lot of the younger staff have been departing. And I know because they're looking for jobs with me and other people here on the hill. And I think we need to think about what does it mean if a generation of both young people and some of our most senior folks are all departing government now, are all saying to themselves, I'd rather turn tail and get out than have to serve here. I mean, what is that going to do for the future of government service five, ten, fifteen years down the line if we're not.

not growing that new generation. So we'll have major repair work to do. Yeah. I was really glad you mentioned war powers earlier. I mean, the president has a lot of latitude to conduct foreign policy. But do you think that in addition to the war powers conversation, that this Congress can provide a meaningful check on Trump when it comes to foreign policy, given all that he can do under Article 2? Yeah. Listen, we built a system where the president has really expansive powers. We all understand that. There are some significant powers also given to the Congress. They need to exercise. And I think that it's been a while since we've been really, you know, sort of approaching that

oversight role with vigor. I think, to be honest with you, it's for a long time been sort of a standard that maybe Republicans are thought to care more about defense and national security than Democrats. And I think we see a real shift going on right now. And I think that a number of us coming in in the freshman class have a deep national security background. We plan to put it to youth. the president can do a lot of things, but we also have quite a big spotlight that we can place on things. And that's the fundamental difference between Congress three months ago and Congress today is we're able to shine a spotlight on the things that are concerning us when it has to do with the security and safety of our troops abroad and, you know, our mandate in the world. So having hearings, calling people up to testify, things that I used to do under the Obama administration, that's the normal order. And we need to get back to that.

Yeah. You served in Iraq alongside U.S. soldiers and diplomats. Your husband, I believe, served in the U.S. Army. How did it make you and your family feel when you saw President Trump send troops to the border in a nakedly political effort to drive up fear about immigration right before an election? Yeah. I mean, I think any time we're talking about sending U.S. soldiers, Air Force, Marines, to a mission that may not be required. First of all, it just breaks with our tradition of being really judicious about where we send U.S. forces, especially within the United States. And then it also, I think, breaks faith with the military because it should be that we are only sending them on missions that are truly required.

And I think as someone who has a stepdaughter who's a brand new army officer, my husband was 30 years in the Army, my stepdaughter is a physician for the VA. We are a service family. And it's part of the reason I decided to run was I'm not a political person. I haven't been by training. I worked for both Bush and Obama. But the kinds of things that are going on now, the tone and tenor, the actions that the president are taking, it just feels unbecoming of the country, unbecoming of the military. And it just really, it's just my head shaking.

Yeah. I know that you have an incredibly busy day, and I'm grateful for the time. So I'll ask you one final, very difficult question. Sure. Shutting down the government because Ann Coulter was mean to you, good idea or bad idea? Obviously, as someone who is a federal worker for 14 years, shutting down the government should be absolutely a course of last resort. We all care about the border. I'm a big believer in preserving our borders.

But shutting down the government because you can't get what you want instead of engaging in a real negotiation is just to me, again, it breaks with a, fundamental responsibility of the executive and legislative branch. So we went ahead, the House went ahead on our first day and passed Mitch McConnell's bills to reopen the government, his funding bills. We didn't change a thing so that we could speak with the United Wars, voice with the president, get the government opened. Then we can have a real conversation about border security, not just throwing a wall around, but if there's an issue at the border, and I can concede that there are some places where we need to improve the security for sure, let's talk about it. You know, more border agents, more technology.

But this is obviously a political move and to throw the lives of so many federal workers and so many missions of the federal government into doubt is, I just, again, I don't think it's unbecoming of the White House. Do you see any light at the end of tunnel here on this shutdown? Is there any progress being made that we're not hearing about? You know, I think that there's an interesting conversation going on among Republican senators right now about what to do. And I know a number of them have already said, okay, I'm willing to vote again for the same bill I approved before the Mitch McConnell funding bills.

And I think if a few more start to do that and you start to have the numbers you need to pass both the House and the Senate, well, then maybe the conversation starts to change. I think there's always been a need for everyone to stand up when something is not right and when we need to get some work done, not just Democrats. And so I think that there is some progress being made on that front. but, you know, the president is making an announcement tonight, and we'll see what comes out of that. We have designed a system where the president has a lot of powers, and he can use them. So we'll have to see. Right. Congresswoman, thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for your service, for your family service. And I'm so excited to see what you do and this class does on foreign policy and everything else this. Thanks so much, Tom. Have a great day. Bye. When we come back to my conversation with Ben Rhodes, on the line, the co-host of Pod Save the World Ben Rhodes, who is calling all the way from Singapore. I believe you are at a layover at an airport that will last forever.

Does that sound right, Ben? Yeah, it's a seven-hour layover, Tommy, between 1 a.m. and 8 a.m., so it's not helping with my body clock adjustment particularly well here either. Brutal. Where are you heading? I'm headed from here in Singapore to Yangon, the capital of Myanmar, or Rangoon, capital of Burma, depending on how you target at it. That is a cool trip, and we don't often have guests calling in from the Singapore airport. One last question. You're not with Hank Kissinger or any other former elected, or former officials.

No, no, no. This is a solo trip. I'm not in solo here. Yeah, I'm just kidding. You don't hang out with war criminals. Generally, sort of what is, especially in the top of Asia. Yeah, exactly. Let's talk about what's in the news. Ben, Mike Pompeo is taking a journey like yours. He's embarking on a week-long swing in the Middle East where he's going to do a bunch of stuff. he's going to give Trump's rejoinder to Obama's Cairo speech, apparently. I guess they want to remind us that Trump's only foreign policy ideas are reflexively opposing everything that Obama did. Politico reported that Pompeo will slam Obama's engagement with Iran while asserting that President Donald Trump has the region's best interests at heart.

I want to dig into what we think about this speech and this trip of his, but can you give us a quick reminder of what Obama's Cairo speech said and what Pompeo was apparently slamming? Yeah, well, after the Bush administration had, through the use of torture and Guantanamo and the Iraq War, really left things in a great place in terms of America's relationship with the Muslim world, when President Obama wanted to essentially reset the narrative for how we engage with Muslims around the world, and do so by just laying out, you know, here's what I believe about all the issues between us. Here's what I believe in terms of the United States and the wars that we're fighting and how we're going to try to end them. Here's our approach to the Arab Israel peace issue. Here's our approach to the Iranian nuclear issue.

Here's how we look at issues related to democracy and rights in the region. So he really covered the waterfront, but the purpose was, you know, lay down a mark and say, I'm the new president, and I want to tell you what I believe. And it's different from who came before me. But we didn't rebuke Bush. We did have differences on issues like Guantanamo and Iraq. But that was the goal. Another thing that political reported was that a draft of Pompeo's speech suggested that Iran can learn from the Saudis about human rights and the rule of law.

Just a brief reminder for all you listening that as of August 2018, Saudi Arabia was seeking the death penalty for a young woman whose alleged crime was organizing a protest. Ben, do you think the Middle East needs more Saudi-style justice? Is that what we're missing? Well, you know, first of all, I don't know why Mike Pompeo is giving this speech in the first place. I mean, the Cairo speech was 10 years ago. And, you know, he's pretty juvenile that, you know, all he can do 10 years later is, you know, try to take some shot of Barack Obama. And, you know, Tom, the fact of the matter is Barack Obama is a world historical figure. Mike Pompeo is like an errand boy for Donald Trump.

And nobody will remember him in 10 years except as a kind of a bea-hist actor and the rogue gallery of criminals and incompetent. confidence and ideologues around Trump. Not a fan I see. Having said that, you know, Pompeo is fixed, they did, obsessed with framing everything that they are doing as somehow different from us because they're, quote, unquote, getting tough on Iran, and we were weak on Iran. And a lot that's wrong with that. The first thing is that, you know, we viewed Iran as an adversary, and we ratchet up sanctions on Iran after the Cairo speech. And that is how we then got them into a diplomatic negotiation. And the Iran deal wasn't a gift to them.

It was them making a series of significant concessions to roll back the nuclear program in exchange for the relief from some of those sanctions. Now Pompeo takes the Saudi view that Iran is responsible for every problem in the entire region and that the Iran deal somehow was a part of that. And neither of those things are true. Iran is responsible for a lot of the problems in the region and has been a bad actor for a very long time predating, certainly, the Iranians, but they're by no means responsible for everything.

And the human rights point is a good example of that. So somehow hold up the Saudi regime in any way possible as a regime that could teach anybody about human rights is absurd and offensive, not only offensive to the family of Jamal Khashoggi, who was brutally murdered at the direction of the Saudi leader, but all the other people who get brutally murdered and imprisoned. We've had women's rights activists in prison. We've had Shia, you know, systematically repressed inside Saudi Arabia. And I think all it does, you know, the last thing at the time it's important is that we were trying to address kind of honestly in the Cairo speech.

Some of the double standards and, yes, hypocrisy that's been involved in U.S.-farm policy in the Middle East for decades, where we talk about human rights but then support dictators. We were trying to kind of cut through that, BS in some ways, in the kind of the speech. And, you know, Pompeo, I don't know how the people of the region are going to take this speech, because they know the nature of these regimes. And he's just taking us full bore into the hypocrisy. And when you talk about human rights and embrace Saudi Arabia, you have zero credibility. And that's why Mike Pompeo's words have zero credibility. Yeah, I mean, a reminder that the preferred form of execution in Saudi Arabia is still beheading. So, yeah, not a role model there.

I mean, yeah, I wanted to work the like umbrage portion of my response and personal feelings about this speech out at the beginning because it was just, it's so ridiculous that there's still shadow boxing Obama. But I guess like my sincere question is like, what the hell is Pompeo trying to accomplish here? Because Pompeo John Bolton, Middle East policy seems to be, as you stated, like hating Iran, supporting Israel, and then letting the Saudis and other rich countries do whatever the hell they want, as long as they hate Iran and support Israel and get our back. So that's their view.

But Trump has been all over the place. Like last week he basically said he doesn't care what Iran does in Syria. So in addition to flip-flopping on the policy, he is directly contradicted their sort of core organizing principle, or this is foreign policy team's core organizing principle of things they care about. So like, what can you accomplish in this context where no one knows if he even speaks for his boss because his boss doesn't have a vision for the world? Yeah, and that's a big problem, you know, because we ask about audience. I mean, you know, Pompeo's audience, you know, if Obama's audience was, you know,

all the Muslim people around the world, Pompeo's is really a domestic political audience back home that he thinks likes a hardline message on Iran, including his boss, and the Saudi government, the Emirati government, the Israeli government in the region, who seem to be the only government that, you know, the Trump administration particularly cares about, and who were concerned about the Syria announcement. I think the crisis in one of many in America's FAR policy right now, though, is that no other government can know that any of the people who work with Trump speak for him because, you know, you just have the national security advisor out in the region saying that actually

the Syria pullout has all these conditions and the conditions he cited, our conditions would keep it there for a very, very long time. But why would anybody believe that? And if you saw in the news today, Tommy, you know, Erdogan wouldn't even meet with Bolton. You know, I think that's an indication that Erdogan's thinking, why would I meet with this guy when I can just call Trump and get what I want? Yeah, right. So, you know, I think that's the real problem for Pompeo.

It's not how the speech goes down. It's that the people he's meeting with just don't know if he, what he's saying is going to be U.S. policy. Right. And then, you know, we mentioned Syria in passing. I mean, I don't even know what to say anymore about Syria. did an episode where we talked about how the reported plan was to stay essentially indefinitely. Then we did another when he precipitously had pulled out. I mean, at this point, I feel confident that literally no one in Trump's team knows what their Syria policy is because he probably doesn't

know. I mean, Bolton wants our guys to stay in Syria until ISIS is defeated. The Turks agree to leave the Kurds alone. And I guess until Iran is somehow deterred or pushed out. But I mean, A huge caveat, again, is that we don't know what Trump wants, probably because he doesn't either. He just wants good headlines. But I think it's worth at least digging into the fact that the conditions that Bolton laid out are a de facto permanent or at least very long-term troop presence, right? Yeah. And, you know, we talked about this, if you add the Iranian influence in Syria to the conditions

for our troop withdrawal, that's never going to happen, ever, as long as Bashar al-Assad is in power. And the Iranians have had influence there for decades. It's something that 2,000 troops is going to make go away. And frankly, if you talk about, you know, conditions around assurances for the Kurds and others who fought with us, well, what are those assurances? Right. You know, I mean, someone could say that, but, you know, I'm not sure how you exactly measure that. So it seemed like an effort by Bolton to try to walk back what Trump had said and apparently decided to do. And also to calm people down who were pissed off at Bolton because he'd been telling people that those were our conditions.

And then it turned out they weren't. So, you know, I think the problem here for Bolton is nobody has any idea what the policy is. You know, Trump said that the troops would be out in 30 days. And that's clearly not going to happen. Tommy, I have no idea what our policy. Do you know what our policy is? when are they coming home, how many of them are coming home. It's crazy that we can't say for certain what actually is going to happen with U.S.

service members in Homsweigh. Yeah. I mean, I sincerely couldn't tell you what the policy is. But, like, it seems like the net effect is back to status quo, but you've driven out Jim Mattis and Brett McGurk, who are two of the most seasoned and accomplished foreign policy aides he had when it comes to dealing with ISIS or managing the United States. the Defense Department generally. I mean, it seems to be having a pretty hard time filling those jobs at this point, too.

Yeah, and this is what we talked about about Trump doing the withdrawal responsibly, right? This is a classic case of what's wrong with doing it irresponsibly, because he's now gotten all the downside of announcing the pullback. You know, he's lost some of his most competent or well-established people. He's caused kind of a crisis of competence in U.S. leadership in the region, and it turns out he may not to bring the troops out. That's why you have a process for making decisions and announcing them and implement. Not any way to run a railroad.

Let's move to another growing disaster in Brazil. Brazil just inaugurated their new right-wing president, Yaira Bolsonaro. The Washington Post, I think, summed up his first few days pretty well. He has so far eradicated the country's labor ministry, ordered monitoring of non-governmental and international organizations, undermined indigenous rights, and excluded the LGBT community from explicit protection by the human rights ministry. Apparently, he wants to make it easier to get guns because what Brazil needs is more guns. A quick reminder that Brazil is the eighth largest economy in the world. Ben, this feels like a big, scary problem that no one is

really acknowledging or talking about. Yeah, I mean, it's scary first and foremost for people in Brazil because, you know, he systematically, you know, potentially marginalizing communities like the LGBT community, he mentioned. You know, clearly, you know, Brazil's had longstanding problems of racial inequity. Afro-Brazilians suffer much greater levels of poverty and violence, and, you know, that risk being exacerbated under him. And frankly, just the fear that, you know, the big countries you would have hoped had kind of left behind this turn to really hard-line, right-wing, authoritarianism in ways that repressed their people. And you don't want to see that making a comeback down there,

just like you don't want to see it making a comeback in Europe. I think more broadly, you know, we had, Brazil was a key country that, you know, we in the Obama administration, have tried to bring more into the fold internationally to solve problems. So, you know, Brazil was pretty key part of the Paris climate group, given the size of their economy and things that they needed to do to reduce emissions. and promote clean energy, they were a pretty key part of the G20 and boasting global growth after the financial crisis. And, you know, if they're not good actor and they're a bad actor, you know, it does make things harder.

And again, it adds one more piece of uncertainty to this global economic picture that we're not talked about where there are a lot of gathering clouds for the potential for a real global economic slowdown. And when that happens, it's frightening. It's the people who are going to have to respond to it. people like this nutcase and Trump and all the rest of it. Yeah, no kidding. This guy is clearly a bad actor, but Trump is all in on Bolsonaro.

I mean, he's, he tweeted his congratulations and said the USA is with you, which we are not. He said, you know, Bolsonaro loves him back. They're following our lead and moving Brazil's embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. They're pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord. Pompeo went down to the inauguration and lavished Bolsonaro with praise. So, like, again, like, obviously we have to work with countries that we don't agree with and flawed partners. Obama went to Saudi Arabia four times, so, you know, that was not ideal for him. But, like, how would you recommend handling someone like Bolsonaro?

Well, you know, I think, first of all, Trump is kind of setting an example for these guys, you know. So, you know, clearly they're taking a page at Trump's book and some of the things they're doing. I mean, certainly moving to embassy Jerusalem, but also, you know, the rhetoric around fake news and how he's kind of cracked out on, you know, know, the NGO sector, you know, it harkens to what Trump is doing. You know, I think if we were in office, we expressed concern both diplomatically but also publicly. I think, you know, you make it pretty clear that you're going to work with other countries to raise those concerns and to make them feel like they're going to be isolated if they go down a particular authoritarian path.

There's certain things that Brazil wants to the United States, more investment in commercial relations. And in fact, Trump is kind of dangling those things. You know, we'd be pulling them back if he was kind of rolling back protections for LGBT peoples and the other thing. So I don't see Trump actually doing much with him in terms of like bilateral operations. I think it's more the example he's setting that, you know, he attached political opponents and railed against fake news and cracked down adversaries.

that's creating this kind of environment of impunity for these other leaders to follow suit. When the U.S. is usually the country that tries to stop that from happening, not the country that encourages it to happen. Yeah. It's an important story to watch a disconcerting trajectory. It does, like, I don't want to compare places, but it does seem like it's a pattern we've seen before, which is the previous government was massively corrupt. You have multiple heads of state going to jail or being indicted,

and then that leads to this, like, populist anger. and the emergence of someone like Bolsonaro who can just say whatever the hell he wants, lie with impunity, and get elected on the back of it. And often, you know, right-wing populism has been able to take advantage of those, and I think that's a lesson for progressives, you know, that we need to be able to,

and they're national, and not, you know, not the United States, but to be able to speak to people's sense of grievance in some of these societies about corruption without, you know, offering up hard turns to the right. Yeah. Last issue we want to talk about is one of the first bills moving through Congress is the Strengthening America's Security in the Middle East Act. It's got a bunch of pieces. It's actually a couple bills cobbled together. It outlines security assistance to Israel, security

cooperation with Jordan, some more sanctions authorities to use in Syria. And then more controversially, there's language in there that is designed to counter the boycott divestment and sanctions movement against Israel. We've talked about BDS before. Essentially, the bill would give legal cover to states and local governments that divest from or prohibit investment in companies that support the BDS movement. So correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like a BDS movement to stop the BDS movement. The ACLU and critics like them say it's unconstitutional. Bernie Sanders and Diane Feinstein called the bill a threat to free speech, but a bunch of lawmakers supported APAC supports it. What do you make of this bill, both the substance and the timing of the legislation?

Well, I mean, the timing is the obvious point, which is in a government shutdown, you know, real political crisis in this country, the idea that the number one thing that the U.S.N. is doing is addressing BDS is a huge part of what's wrong with our politics. You know, I mean, that's just not the number one issue. Even if you post BBS, the idea that that would come before reopening the government is insane. And then even after reopening the government, that that would come before. or any health care, education, infrastructure. So it does speak to, there's no explanation for why that would be the first bill other than pretty narrow political interest. Again, even if you oppose BDS. The second point is, and look, do you not talk about this? This is a good example where, if you're trying to find them ground, I personally don't support BDS.

But I also think this bill goes way too far. and people who've taken a look at it, and people have taken a look at similar efforts in states, say it goes beyond kind of expressing opposition to BDS, you know, to potentially imposing real penalties on people just for articulating their view about what should be Israeli policy and the settlement. And, again, you shouldn't criminalize speech that you disagree with. you should respond to it with better speech. I actually thought that with the conservative view of free speech on some issues. You know, if you're so confident that you're right about this argument, then have the argument. You don't have to, like, you know, potentially criminalized people expressing their views about BDS.

I think in the long run that's bad for Israel. You see this cynical approach by people like Marco Rubio, Tommy. I did. I did. What did you think about his tweet where he's, like, insinuating that Democrats or, you know, lying and they're for BBS, and then he's insinuating that people who are any semi to call them out on it. I mean, that's the danger.

It's just kind of political hackery around support for Israel. Yeah, he's a lying jackass. I mean, he professed to know what was said in a Democratic caucus meeting, and Chris Murphy, the U.S. senator from Connecticut quickly called him out on his bullshit and said, I hope your staffer posted this because you're embarrassing yourself, you lying hack, Marco. I'm summarizing. He didn't say all of those things. but it was implied, I think.

But yeah, I mean, like, the other thing I would say about this bill is, you know, there's some things in politics like you kind of end up hanging a lantern on a problem. Like, I realize that there is some momentum behind BDS, but this, to me, feels to be such an overreaction that it might actually increase awareness and attention and maybe support because the idea of criminalizing speech, I think, is going to bother people across the spectrum. I mean, this just seems like a very odd piece of legislation to me. You are 100% right. Like, this bill is going to piss people off because of its timing and because of how far it goes. And frankly, that's me far more to make people, you know,

look at BDS than is going to prevent it. Yeah. And again, this is the problem that this kind of rightward swing of the politics of support for Israel have taken in recent years with with BB and Israel, and frankly, you know, A-PAC, often pushing these types of approaches. It's in the long run, it's actually not good for Israel. Yeah. Because, again, it makes it look like it's some right-wing partisan initiative to support Israel and to demonize those who might oppose certain Israeli government policies. Yeah.

And that, if you polarize support for Israel, instead of having it be something that there's a bipartisan about the long run, that's not good for the U.S. Israel relationship. Yeah, that is not good. Ben, it is 527 a.m. in Singapore as we wrap this. So I just want to say thank you for making time on your crazy layover. Good luck in Burma. That's a cool trip.

I can't wait to talk all about it when you get back. So everybody stay tuned for that. We can't tell you more details, but it will be interesting, I think. Yeah, awesome. And, yeah, good to talk to you, Tommy Tsar. I'm in like a transit lounge, like Edward Snow. Nodan and the Moscow airport. It's one of these kind of strange pieces of international real estate.

Hey, thank you, Ben, with me. Did the trick. All right, man. Travel safe. Talk to you soon. All right. See you, buddy. Thank you again to Congresswoman, Alyssa Slotkin, for joining the show.

And thanks to Ben for dialing in during his layover. And sorry to the guy next to him who's just trying to catch some sleep in the lounge, but Ben wouldn't shut up about sanctions. Have a great week, everybody. Talk to you next week.