Pod Save the World - Pour one out for the Iran deal

Episode Date: July 17, 2019

First, Tommy and Ben talk about Trump's new asylum rules, an Iran update, the global response to Trump's racism - including China seeming to echo him, Biden's foreign policy speech, German Chancellor Angela Merkel's health and legacy, a North Korea update and if a deranged conspiracy theorist will lead the US intelligence community. Then Tommy speaks Army veteran and US Senator Tammy Duckworth. 

Welcome back to POT Save the World. I'm Tommy Vitor. And Ben, Ben, it has been an awful week. What a week we've had. Our president is a horrible racist. We are going to talk about how those comments are being received globally, in one case, maybe echoed by a foreign official. We're going to talk about the new asylum rules and Iran update. Vice President Biden gave a big foreign policy speech. Anglum Merkel, a quick North Korea update.

And then the bigoted conspiracy theory nut being floated to run the nation's intelligence community. No, not Donald Trump, a guy named Fred Flights. So it really comes full circle at the end there, Ben. And then I speak with Army veteran and U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth about a whole host of interesting stuff. So do not skip that part. It is a great episode. Super quick housekeeping note about our L.A. show with the Greek theater on August 17th. So not only will be a live recording of Pod Save America, but we're going to be joined by Emmy Award winning journalist Jamel Hill with special performances by Amanda Seale's Best Coast and Jim James, as well as one more artist that we'll be announcing next week

that you will be very excited about. Again, the whole thing is a benefit. We're going to give the money to a bunch of organizations that are doing great work to fight to protect the vote across America. So if you're in the area, we'd love to see you. The show starts at 7.30. Okay, let's talk about the news. Ben, you want to start with these new asylum rules?

Yeah. So, okay, they announced these new asylum rules this week. It will functionally prevent any Central American from seeking asylum in the U.S. The new rule says that people from Honduras or El Salvador would have to apply for and be denied asylum in Guatemala or Mexico before you can apply in the U.S. before you can apply in the U.S. or putting a step between the asylum process step. Guatemalans would have to apply for and be denied asylum in Mexico before they can apply in the U.S. So it will pick up and change the asylum rules for people from other countries, but the vast majority of asylum seekers are coming from these northern tribal countries, so it's really going to harm them. Apparently, Guatemala and Mexico are just not on board with this plan at all.

We should also be clear that these countries have zero infrastructure to house or feed or otherwise deal with these asylum seekers. So to sum it up a bit, the U.S. is basically eliminating asylum for the Central Americans who are trying to seek it most often. We're angering the leaders of neighboring countries and potentially destabilizing them by trying to force countries with no infrastructure to take a flood of migrants. What did I miss? Well, a few things I'd add to that. One, this is likely to face legal challenges because there's a sense that this violates both existing U.S. and international laws around asylum, which establish a pretty clear procedure for someone to be able to come to the United States and declare their intent

to pursue asylum, and then the judge hears those cases. The second thing is, once again, this shows that Trump isn't really trying to solve the actual problem, right? So the reason why, I mean, let's be clear, people don't leave their homes and risk the lives of their children unless they face significant harm. I mean, you know, I have a daughter. She's here today, actually. She is. She's very quietly watching an iPad. She's calmly hanging out, watching a movie.

It's very impressive. Yeah, hopefully this holds. But, I mean, to be clear, you know, like take the man who drowned in the river. I mean, if you're going to swim across the river with your child, it's not just because you want a job. It's because whatever is happening back home is so terrible that you have no other recourse. You believe you have no other recourse. And what we've seen is the proliferation of violence in these Central American countries, a breakdown of governance, has led to this crisis of children coming to our borders, of families coming to our borders. be clear, this isn't like the migration we saw 10, 20 years ago, where it was mainly men

coming to try to work in the United States. These are families fleeing an intolerable situation. If Trump really wanted to deal with that, he would be trying to provide assistance to those Central American countries to deal with their security challenges, to deal with their governance challenges. And we've done that in the past in neighboring Colombia down in South America, where we dramatically improved the situation over a period of years because of our assistance. Instead, he's tried to both zero out the assistance to these countries while also putting in place these asylum rules. It shows he's not trying to actually solve the problem what is driving people to our borders. He's just trying to demagogue the issue.

It also speaks to basically the cruelty of denying these people any opportunity to petition to get into the United States. And we should also be clear, Tommy, like in the past, some of the populations who've come to the United States because they've been fleeing violence or risk of persecution, have become very successful immigrant communities in the United States. The Vietnamese, who we resettled here in enormous numbers at the conclusion of the Vietnam War, are now a thriving immigrant community. So we benefit as Americans, too, from providing a safe haven to people. That's been a part of who we are, a part of our immigration and foreign policy for decades, if not centuries.

And to just try to upend that to score some cruel political point against brown people, as part of your political strategy really speaks to the depravedity that we've sunk to here in the Trump years. Truly. And to be so cowardly and just to hide behind bureaucracy to make a whole bunch of new bureaucratic hurdles for people and be like, oh, we fix the glitch,

Milton, you know, you'll no longer get a paycheck. It's like office space if anyone's old enough to watch that. I mean, it's like, it is so cynical and so cruel and so far from addressing the actual challenge we face that I don't know. And, you know, the near term next phase of this migration crisis is Venezuela collapsing.

Yeah. The knots a little less near term, but not that far off term version is when climate change just radically changes your ability to feed yourself in all these countries. Yeah, it's a great point. And let's be clear, he's making all these situations worse. He's making the situation in Central America worse by cutting off the assistance. He's making the situation in Venezuela worse through the really aggressive use of sanctions. So he's driving more people to the United States.

And if you're really cynical, maybe that's what he wants. Maybe he doesn't actually want to solve the crisis at the border. Maybe he sees it as a convenient part of his politics heading into 2020, which is really kind of grotesque to consider. Yes. Speaking of politics in 2020, let's talk about Iran for a bit. On Sunday, Iran's president gave a speech where he said that Iran is willing to talk with the U.S. if we lift sanctions and get back into the Iran deal.

So we have a pathway to get back to square one, I guess. Yeah, yeah. Great. On a previous show, we had both talked about how stupid it was and self-defeating it was for the administration to sanction Iran. Iran's foreign minister, Javad Zarif. Well, the administration apparently now is backtracked. First, they gave him a visa that said he could attend meetings at the UN, and then they

fully backtracked and said they won't actually sanction him at all. So that's good. Pompeo has already spoken out about Iran's overturn and said he's skeptical of the potential talks. The Europeans are just pissed off and frustrated with everyone. They're scrambling to save the Iran deal by saying, on the record, the breaches that they have made so far in terms of their enrichment activity are not a big deal and can be reversed. that is accurate, but B.B. Netanyahu compared that response to appeasement of Nazis in the 30s. Yeah, his standard play. So he's being helpful as always. So, I mean, look, I guess it's better than shooting down drones and the war of words that followed. But time is running out to save this deal.

Yeah. And what it feels like is happening is Trump got to the brink of launching Bolton's war and he blinked as we saw. The Iranians, by the way, saw him blink. right? So now they know, okay, maybe this guy's not going to pull the trigger. And everybody's looking for a way out. And there was a way out, the Iran deal. It feels like now they might be prepared to entertain some kind of modest relief of the sanctions that they've reimposed in exchange for Iran potentially reversing this enrichment step. Yeah. What's amazing about this is it feels like what they might be headed towards if they actually sit down and talk to the Iranians, is something far less in the Iran deal, right? So basically an incremental step by the Iranians

in response to an incremental step from us without the kind of full and comprehensive infrastructure of the Iran deal in place, it speaks to kind of the insanity of their policy. And once again, the common thread here, it just feels like they want the domestic politics of looking like, oh, I got out of, you know, we had the news of the British ambassadors cable leaking

saying that they pulled out of the Iran deal because they wanted to spite Obama. as if we needed a leaked cable from the British ambassador to know that, right? So they're just kind of looking for some way to climb down here. The Europeans are frustrated because the way to climb down is the deal that was in place and that was working. And they'll probably settle for some half measure that they'll celebrate as some vindication of their policy when, in fact, it's not even as comprehensive as what was already in place. They are just creating all the wrong incentive structures, right?

I mean, the Iranians are watching North Korea, seeing them be bad actors and realizing that creates leverage for you to get concessions. By the way, Sunday, July 14th was the four-year anniversary of the Iran deal. So pour one out for the echo chamber. Yeah, I remember that day very well, hadn't slept in days and felt like we'd solved this problem. And, you know, actually, the funny thing about this, Tommy, is it should be pointed out that most of what Iran had to do for the Iran deal, they had to do at the beginning.

So, you know, destroying the core of their heavy water reactor, you know, pulling out centrifuges, shipping out stockpile. So like a lot of things, the situation improved dramatically. Iran's nuclear program, even with this enrichment step, as Europeans pointed out, is still far behind where it was on July 14, 2015. So it gives them this space to operate in without Iran being at the brink of having a nuclear weapon. So poor, we're not for the Iran deal. Thanks, Obama.

But, yeah, thanks, Obama. And here we are, again, Javad Zarif, the same guy who negotiated the Iran deal with us. And now they're signaling that they want to talk to the guy. you've got people who've been opponents of the Iran deal suggesting that the fact that Iran wants to talk to them is a vindication of their policy when in fact it shows that they recognize that quote unquote maximum pressure is not making Iran capitulate. So here we are. But it does show clearly Pompeo has the signal from Trump. I don't want to have a war. Yeah, right.

And that's good. I mean, you know, I don't want to say credit because we shouldn't be in this place in the first place. in the first place, but at least we're not where we are, as you said, when it looked like we're going to go to war over some drone. Yeah. And so I just want to note that just because we think Trump's Iran policy is stupid does mean we think the Iranian government is filled with good guys. And here's an example of why. Many of you listen to the episode we did with Friend of the Pod and former Washington Post-Theron Bureau Chief Jason Rezayan. He was held hostage by the Iranians for 544 days for no reason, none whatsoever. Everyone should read his book, Prisoner, which documents the

entire saga. It's fascinating. But apparently Iranian State TV is now airing a TV show called Gondo that attempts some revisionist history about Jason's detention. It portrays a fictionalized version of him as some sort of American super spy sent to Iran to take down the government, which of you know Jason is very funny. I have not watched this series, but the AP report on it says the show makes the Iranian foreign ministry look inept and thus by extension makes President Rouhani look inept because his team negotiated the deal. So it seems like this could be propaganda from the IRGC or the intelligence services against Jason, against more moderates in the government. But, you know, regardless, from imprisoning Jason to pouring money into the show to all the bad

things in between, like, these guys consistently make the dumbest strategic choices possible. Well, yeah, and, you know, I don't want to put words in Jason's mouth, but I talked to him a lot about this. And I think he would agree with the fact that it also shows that there are these competing power structures in the Iranian government, as you alluded to. So essentially, the hardliners the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the RGC, they never liked the Iran deal. They never liked any form of deeper engagement with the West. They saw what the foreign ministry was doing and negotiating the Iran deal as a threat. They saw Jason as a reporter who was seeking to kind of build bridges and demonstrated a different face of Iran to the rest of the world as a threat.

And this is a twofer for them because they get to, you know, get back on to their kind of fake hobby horse. Jason was somehow a spy. trying to undermine the Iranian government. They get to make their foreign ministry look feckless. I should add, that doesn't absolve the farm ministry either. Jason would be the first to say that the foreign ministry was kind of weak in not standing up to this kind of behavior and essentially implicitly going along with it. So yes, this speaks to the ugly side, one of the several ugly sides of the Iranian regime.

They're kind of hackish propaganda. Frankly, I think most Iranians are somewhat able to sort this out and recognize. what is propaganda and what is not. But at the same time, all that Trump has done is, you know, empowered those people because essentially they've said, C was wrong to try to think that we could engage the West. The right course to take is a hard line here. And that's where we appear to be stuck. Yeah. Okay. So our president is a gigantic, awful racist. Let's talk about him for a minute. I think a thing that's important for us to remember when these things happen is that U.S. political news is essentially global news by default, right? I mean, it's watched around the world.

So when our doddy old racist tweet something racist and stupid about four members of Congress, foreign leaders get asked about it. In the UK, Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson took the spineless GOP approach by condemning the tone of Trump's comments, but really refusing to call them racist. Now, Boris said some pretty racist things about Obama back in the day, so I don't particularly care about his take, but it was notable. Theresa May called Trump's comments completely unacceptable. In Canada, Justin Trudeau also didn't use the word racist, which is annoying. But he did say a Canadian is a Canadian as a Canadian and the diversity of our country is in fact one of our greatest strengths. So I think that's a pretty obvious rebuke. So I mean, I think it's interesting that

globally, Trump's people think that Trump's comments are awful, but most are still afraid to say exactly why because they don't want to risk his ire. But as always, I mean, Trump's comments are global news. They're setting an example for kids in every country around the world. And It's creating political challenges for leaders in every country around the world. It's creating political challenges for those leaders, but more than that, it's basically giving away any semblance of our moral authority, right? And any semblance of our democratic example around the world. You know, just to give you a few examples, I was just recently in Africa. And I talked to a bunch of, you know, African kind of leaders in civil society, entrepreneurs.

And, you know, they made the point, first of all, this comes after the whole shithole country thing, right? So if you're an African, you've been called a shithole country, and now you see him essentially making racist comments about people of color. And what some of these people said to me is, look, the Chinese are coming here to Africa, and they're spending money, and they're trying to move in here and become the key player in Africa and not the United States. And the advantage the United States used to have is we seemed to stand for something different from what China did. China just stood for spending money and trying to buy influence. the U.S. used to stand for some democratic values and human rights.

And even if we weren't perfect in our pursuit of those, at least we had the example of a place where you could make it no matter what you look like, right? And Trump has just given that away. And suddenly we're no different from China. We're just another big country that tries to throw our weight around. And if anything, we're worse. We've got an outwardly racist president who seems to not even care about African called chit-old countries, right, undermines our influence there.

have long-term repercussions for us there. Businesses will look to China. Foreign students will look to China. That's already happening, right? When we seek to, if we tried to hold China to account for putting a million people in concentration camps, for instance, you can bet that they'll be throwing back in our face the fact that we've got, you know, people,

and I don't want to say it's a direct analogy because it's far more widespread in China. But they're going to point to those camps at the border. And they're going to point to Trump's racist comments and say, who were you to lecture us on anything, right? And so countries like China who abuse human rights will throw all this stuff back on our face and say, we're not going to listen to you guys. And so the lack of the United States being able to be associated with certain values. And instead, the United States being associated with people living in depravedy in camps of the border and a racist

president, that has both strategic repercussions, right? Because it's alienating huge chunks the world that are important to us. And it's going to dramatically undercut any moral authority that we have left to try to advocate for these values. So here, I know, it looks like just another outrage. And you've got people talking about whether this is politically smart of him. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The kind of outrageous shift from instead of focusing on the racism, focusing on the potential political wisdom of the racism. It kills me. And yet we're losing the thing that made America distinct, like for the last 70 years, at least. least, if not more, right? The thing that separated us from other countries, we're supposed to

stand for something. And we're giving all that away. And I think we have to recognize, too, it's not necessarily going to come back even if we win the election right away, because people are looking at America and thinking, like, what did it happen here? How did these people elect this person, right? And why does he continue, you know, everywhere I go around the world, people say, why does he continue to have so much support there, right? Why don't you stand up to him more? And so to me, it just points to the stakes in this next election that he has to be beat. and there has to be a rebuke of this behavior if this behavior is validated. If the rest of the world sees Trump being a racist,

Trump putting people in camps, and then sees him reelected, they will probably permanently change their view of what the United States is. Yeah, I'm glad you raised the China example because it does seem that the Chinese have noticed that toxic racism and Twitter get paired a lot in the U.S. these days. I mean, so China's deputy chief of mission in Pakistan decided to tweet about this pathetic, ridiculous letter that got signed by 34 countries, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, that defended China's treatment of Muslims. Apparently, they missed the news of the millions of Muslims being tortured in these re-education camps. So this official, Li Zhen Zhu, tried to say that

letter was somehow a slap in the face of the U.S. and added, quote, if you're in Washington, D.C., you know the white never go to the SW Southwest area, because it's an area for the black and Latin. There's a saying, black in and white out, which means that as long as black family enters, white people will quit and price of the apartment will fall sharply. Wow. That led our former colleague Susan Rice to call him on Twitter a, quote, racist disgrace and shocking the ignorance. Susan does not mince words. Zoo ended up deleting the tweet, but Ben, I have to think that, you know, these officials are feeling emboldened by Trump's tone. And as you said, like, happy to throw these issues and racism in the United States back in our face. I mean, first of all, that never

would have happened three years ago. No. Right. Part of what's so infuriating that, is this guy knows in any normal administration, even if you were attacking the past administration of a different party with that kind of language, the current administration would call you up and be like, what the fuck are you doing? What are you doing? Instead, this guy's like, oh, maybe this is a way

to endear myself to the Trump people, right? You know, bashing, because he bashed back at Susan Rice and called her disgrace. It was like this kind of weird tit for tat. No, no, no, you're the disgrace. So, you know, the fact that they feel this impunity to like level these racist, grotesque charges about Washington. First of all, pretty fucking dumb way of talking about Washington, D.C., right?

Yeah. Because first of all... Totally wrong. Yeah, well, first of all, this guy was in D.C. 10 years ago. There was a black family that moved in the White House. I didn't see any of the, you know, rent values. Actually, the rent went up. Right? We had a black family right in the heart of D.C. and rent went up everywhere in D.C. If I remember it, Southwest D.C. is like one of the booming parts of the city. So put all that aside, the fact that he's just wrong. But the fact that this is the discourse now and that countries feel like that their diplomats can engage in this kind of behavior on Twitter and get into weird racist Twitter fights with people is just an absurd way of dealing with things. He's gunned in for a Fox News contributor post. Let's do a little 2020 news because that's more

hopeful. So last week, Vice President Biden gave a lengthy foreign policy speech. I thought the New Yorker summarized it well as lighter on details, heavier on framing, which is not a criticism, but it's sometimes the only way to make a global foreign policy speech clock in an under an hour, right? You got to make some choices. A lot of the speech was a call for us to get our own democracy and values in order. A quote that got picked up a lot was foreign policy's domestic policy and domestic policy was foreign policy. He called out Trump for coddling dictators, for hemorrhaging alliances.

One of the big new ideas he talked about was a global summit for democracy in the first year, which is an interesting idea. It sounds like he wants to reboot TPP and use that kind of a tool to deal with China on trade, but he didn't explicitly say so. Interestingly, Biden is not calling for the U.S. to bring all troops home from Afghanistan. He wants to leave a residual presence of some sort to focus on al-Qaeda and ISIS. As you remember well, Biden was deeply skeptical of sending additional troops to Afghanistan as far back as 2009. So it was notable.

I mean, it's probably what passes for being courageous or having the courage of your convictions to say something that will be unpopular in a primary, whether or not we agree with that. Mostly we don't. He also said we should end support for the war in Yemen. Ben, so this seemed like a return to a more traditional foreign policy to the Obama foreign policy. Not a ton of huge changes or ideas, but did anything jump out at you that I missed here? I do. I think this democracy piece ties directly back to what I was saying, right? I mean, because people have said this for a long time. Foreign policy is domestic policy, blah, blah.

That is actually much more true today. And he had a long section in the beginning where you said, essentially, if we want to once again be the leader in the world and we want to promote democracy, voting rights at home is. a part of that, right? Getting our democracy in order as a part of that, how we treat people coming here as a part of that. That is very true. Those are not just platitudes. It essentially, we are going to have to have a president who comes in and recognizes it in a very deliberate way that they need to show the world. We are restoring the power of our moral example. Because again, if we're not, then we're no different than Russia and China. We're just some other big country trying to throw our weight around. So I really like that Biden drew this direct connection between

investing in democracy at home and then said, I'm going to take that show on the road, and we're going to have this global summit on democracy, which again might have seemed like kind of a hokey thing to do in the past. That is badly needed right now. It's badly needed for us to plan a flag in the ground and say, there's a authoritarian trend around the world. You see it emanating from China. We've talked about all the creeps in Europe. And I think the U.S. taking it upon itself to say, we recognize we went down a pretty dark, path. We're fixing that here and we want to talk to you guys about how to fix this around the world was a smart thing to do. I think beyond that, I was a little surprised because, yeah, Biden was the

Afghan skeptic there. You know, and I don't agree. We've talked about this, I think, 20 years after the fact, it's time to get everybody out of Afghanistan. But I mean, if you're talking about just a residual counterterrorism force, that's at least different than saying, you know, we need to stay to convince the Taliban we're never going to leave and all the rest of it. So it is a moment. It's a more scale-back mission. And on TPP, I do give him the courage of his convictions. Like, if you want to get smart on China, that is the way to do it. If you want to have trade that can be embedded with progressive values, you can build from

TPP, which dealt with labor rights, that dealt with environmental protections. So, you know, I think it was a lot of return to Obama, but it was appropriately updated for the things that have happened in the ensuing three years. And that's why I think it was an effective approach. Yeah, I should say, I don't know that I heard him say TPP. He just sounded like creating a regional approach to dealing with the Chinese on trade. I just don't want to get a missive from Tony Blinken who is, you know, would actually probably be like the most polite, angry missive ever. But Tony would be incredibly polite.

It would be like a handwritten letter thanking you. Yes. And has incredibly, incredibly wonderful, warm man with very good hair. But yeah, if you're talking about a regional approach, you know, the TPP exists already. I mean, bear in mind, like a lot of things Obama did. it's still just like Paris continues without us, Iran deal in some ways continues us. The rest of the countries in TPP are in TPP and they're waiting for us. They're like, hey, if you want to come together with us to stand up to the Chinese and

open markets and trade, it's available to. So I think it was likely not in that direction, but they may have not wanted to plant that flag and pick that fight in the primary. Became a thing in the last primary between Bernie and Hillary Clinton. I mean, it's interesting to me that, you know, Biden clearly sees his experience as a strength in the foreign policy arena. it will be worth watching whether, you know, Bernie Sanders and others were joined her that, well, you voted for the war in Iraq, how should we trust your judgment now, whether, whether that

sticks or the more recent eight years of Biden's work under Obama sticks. But, you know, I think, I want to see everybody make a speech like this. I want to hear your worldview and they should do it sooner than later. Yeah, we've had Buttigieg. We've had Warren. We've had Sanders. I would really like to hear from Kamala Harris. You know, she's been on the Farm Relations Committee. this is an area where, you know, she's obviously been impressive of late on the campaign. So this is something where she could stake out a claim and show that she's, you know, ready to lead on the world stage like this. You know, with Biden, it's interesting.

I mean, as someone who, along with you, really helped make the argument against all the candidates who voted for the Iraq War, I think that's totally valid. I will say, having sat in the situation room, Joe Biden was as skeptical of military intervention as anybody in our administration. He was against the war in Libya. He was against the troop surge in Afghanistan. And he was kind of an outlier in that respect. Right.

So I actually do believe that Biden is instinctively less inclined to go to military intervention than people might think. That's a really good point. And that may be because, like, he's been around for a long time and he's seen these military interventions gone bad. I would actually say in general with Biden talking about his evolution. I mean, we've obviously seen this on. issues involving race and crime. Same thing here. I mean, it's fair to say he's evolved and he learned from that vote and what he learned from that vote and the ensuing war is, you know, to be skeptical of the value of these interventions. Yeah, good point. This is a weird story. So turning to Germany

for a minute, German Chancellor Angle Merkel has been seen, I don't know how to describe, but uncontrollably shaking. I think three public events now. Obviously, we are not doctors, we are not trying to diagnose her, but it makes me worried, understandably. And I was hoping you could talk about your experience working with Angela Merkel. I know you spent a lot of time with her personally, what you think her leadership means to Germany in the world right now, and what kind of leadership might come next? Well, look, I have a great affection for Angela Merkel. And look, part of this, I don't know, I'm not doctor. She's been Chancellor of Germany for 15 years, right? So the level of fatigue. And I write about this in my book. When we went to

see her after the election, she was kind of stricken, right, because she knew it was coming to Trump. And she indicated to Obama that she would have likely retired, you know, not sought another term as chancellor. She was ready to kind of pass the torch. But the combination of Brexit and then Trump getting elected made her think that she almost had an obligation to stick it out. because a lot of what Merkel's done in her tenure is try to hold together Europe, not just Germany, but Europe, and kind of a liberal order in the world, you know, helping to navigate through the financial crisis and the Greek debt crisis in Europe, taking in a million refugees to set an example that Europe can't turn its back on people and, frankly, to make amends for some of Germany's history, obviously, in doing so, you know, standing up to Russia and being a leader with us and imposing sanctions over their annexation of Crimea. a lot of her leadership has been anchored in, how do I hold the European Union together through these very tough times? I think if, and it remains an if, if Europe is able to weather these storms, people will look back at this period of time and think, Anglomerical was like the rock at the center of Europe at one of the most difficult times after World War II.

And her legacy will be, she is responsible in many ways for holding together the European project, never mind the fact that Germany's been very successful under her tenure. If she's gone, what we're seeing in Germany, it's very interesting. And we should probably do a deeper dive at this at some point in the pod. But German politics is very fluid right now. Yeah. It's been this talk of the rise of the far right. But there's also been a dramatic rise from the Green Party has actually passed the Social Democrats. So you have this fracturing of the political parties there. I think if she's removed, Germans have, you know, not just an election, but it's going to take them some time to sort it out in terms of where the balance of power is in that country. What does that mean? mean. That means that France, the balance of power in Europe probably shifts from, you know, Germany, which has been at the center of things for most of the last decade, to Macron and France kind of being more in the driver's seat in Europe, particularly with the Brits leaving, obviously. You think Macron can stick around that long? Well, we'll see what happens in the election, right? I mean, I think he's in a slightly stronger position than people might think just because there's no

obvious alternative to him, right? Because there's a little pen on the far right. And so, you know, Merkel leaving, which she said she's going to do anyway at some point. Right, like 21, 2021. Yeah, I think that will lead to a lot of instability in German politics. Her successor is not that popular. A lot of jockey among these parties, some strange coalition governments. I think Germany will be fine. I don't think it's going to know the way the far right.

That's still a relatively small portion of the politics there. But that means that Germany is no longer, again, this dominant player in Europe. And, you know, power shifts a bit probably to the French. and, you know, we'll see what other leaders emerge in Europe. Yeah, well, here's the hope, and Merkel is A-O-K. I hope she's okay, though, yeah. I mean, maybe it's just really hot. There's a lot of these events are, like, outdoors, standing for hours or some other head of state for some ceremonial thing.

It's when it happens a few times, though, you wonder if anything wrong with her. I, you know, again, I think very few politicians, Tommy, when we were there in other countries, were able to take politically on popular stands because they thought it was right. And she did it on all those three things, on keeping Greece in the Arizona. even though it costs German taxpayers, taking in all these refugees, standing up to Russia. She showed real principal leadership. Yeah, she really did. We stand Angela Merkel here.

A quick North Korea update. So literally no one will be shocked to learn that Trump's meeting at the DMZ with Kim Jong-un yielded no results. Today, the AP reports that North Korea suggested they may call off their suspension of nuclear and missile tests because of upcoming military drills between the U.S. and the South Koreans. As we've talked about before, North Korea has always hated these drills. now Trump has to decide if he's going to suspend them again, which would be giving a big chit to Kim Jong-un. But as we talked about with our friend Danny Russell, who's a Korea expert, these drills, this training, it's really important. And we would probably get to a place where no one in the Korean military or, you know, in the U.S. service members who were deployed to the region had really been trained in what to do if there was a North Korean invasion. So, you know, more great progress.

Well, let's keep him on, right? Like, since Trump had the first summit in Singapore, what have we seen? We've seen all this praise from him. We've seen this, quote-unquote, historic handshake at the DMZ. Meanwhile, they've built more nuclear weapons. They've tested some weapons. They're threatening to test some more weapons. They've extracted concessions with us on military exercises.

That doesn't show a lot of respect for Trump. No. You know, I mean, Trump is lavished respect on Kim Jong-un. Look at Kim Jong-un's action. First of all, Kim Jong-un never really. reciprocates. Have we seen, Trump always says he actually has beautiful letters. We've never seen the letters. We've never heard Kim say these things about Trump. And meanwhile, his actions seem to show no respect for Trump, right? If you look at the Iranians increasing their enrichment,

Kim Jong-un making these threats and continuing to build nuclear weapons, this isn't working. You know, this whole madman diplomacy, unpredictable, America first guy. So it's very important to remind ourselves that, like, you know, check the results here. The way these leaders act shows how much respect they have for Trump. Yeah. Interestingly, I noticed over the weekend, I think, our former colleague, former deputy CIA director and acting CIA director, Michael Morrell, wrote an op-ed about how a freeze-for-free proposal with North Korea, basically, where we would give them some sanctions really for them to freeze their program where they are now is a good path forward. Michael Morrell is no softy when it comes to North Korea or, you know,

the reality of threats generally. So I thought it was interesting to see him write that piece. think it is a good path forward. I just wish that we had started there in Singapore. So what's interesting is, unlike Iran, where we started this conversation, they're winding their way around back to like this fairly incremental deal when they came out saying that they were going to achieve denuclearization and get rid of these nuclear weapons. And three years later, lo and behold, you know, now they're trying to settle for half a loaf, which is where you begin negotiations, it's not where you end them. Yeah, they are not good at this. Okay. Last topic. Jonathan Swan from Axios reported that President Trump is considering replacing Dan Coates,

who's currently the director of national intelligence, the DNI, with a guy named Fred Flights. So Fred Flights was briefly the National Security Council Chief of Staff. He is permanently a conspiracy theory obsessed lunatic. For years, he worked with a total clown named Frank Gaffney at the Center for Security Policy. Gaffney and flights in their organization think that Islamists have infiltrated the U.S. government in a plot to take over the country. that is not a joke. They try to push the idea that there are these Sharia law no-go zones in Europe that most Muslims support violence against Americans.

It's like vile, bigoted Islamophobic stuff that is their favorite thing to churn out. It's hard to imagine a worst person to put at the DNI to run our intelligence agencies than a bigoted conspiracy theorist. They're supposed to oversee the intelligence community. They're supposed to call balls and strikes, give the president hard truths. hopefully this doesn't come to pass, but I read, it was one of those reports that I read that was floated for some personnel chains that actually like stopped me dead in my tracks when I really thought about how much of a disaster it would be.

If this actually happens, this would be one of the craziest appointments in American history. Like, let's be very clear. This is like if you went to Thanksgiving dinner and your uncle at the end of the table who would show up and talk about how the moon landing was faked, you know, was suddenly put in charge of all of the U.S. intelligence community. First of all, these people, everybody should Google, you know, the Frank Gaffney and Fred Flights. Scary girl. And this place that this kind of conspiracy theory factory that they work at.

Because, yes, on the one hand, it's cruel stuff, and it's even worse than we're saying. I mean, like the stuff about Muslims, the stuff about how, you know, Obama had a secret agenda to try to, like, impose Sharia law in the United States. There's an Islamist plot behind everything. or an Iranian plot or something else. It's mean-spirited, but it's also just kind of stupid. Yeah, very stupid. It's so dumb.

Like, it makes, like, Mike Flynn look like an intellectual, like, comparison. Right. Like, this is, like, the lunatic fringe of the lunatic fringe, right? Right, right. And if you put this guy in charge of the intelligence community, what kind of message does that send about what the U.S. intelligence community is and the credibility of our intelligence around the world, right? You depend upon the rest of the world to trust our word.

We talked about this. When we say that there were tankers that the Iranians allegedly set on fire in the Straits of Hormuz, if Fred Flights is the guy making that case, well, that guy said Iran is responsible for everything for the last decade. Nobody's going to buy it. Nobody's going to listen to that guy, right? And part of what we see is that he just kind of lavishes praise on Trump. He's got kind of like a Seb-Gorka like deification of Trump approach to things. like if that's a standard the rest of the world

will tune us out and how do you like to work in the intelligence community for that guy? Did you see if Seb Gorka try to pick a fight with some reporter in the Rose Garden

at that bizarre social media summit? That was the craziest thing. Could you imagine trying to fistfight somebody in the Rose Garden in the way of us? I mean, even in like year eight I felt like

beating up Mark Landler I felt lucky to even like walk into the Rose Garden even like the eighth year. I know. The idea that I'd walk over with like a faux British accent you know,

he didn't have to be have his Nazi pin on at the time. And he's like yelling at him like, you punk, you punk. And then there's like a bunch of like fascist white supremacist training like, barka, barka. There's like a lady with a Q&Odha hearing shouting down the reporter. This is the Rose Garden of the White House of the United States of America. Like what is happening here?

Like it's like the weirdest thing that happened when we were there was like the turkey pardon every year. Right? When like we like Obama had to sit out there and like pardon some turkey and make dumb jokes while Sasha and Malia looked the other direction. You know what it was honestly the worst thing. happened in the Rose Garden was when that goober from the Daily Collar shouted

at Obama. This reporter, for Tucker Carlson at the Daily Color, shouted at Obama at a press event. Yeah, and the funny thing about that is, I don't even think we, like, rescinded that guy's credentials. Like, that's how much we were open to a free press, right? Meanwhile, these guys are having like, like, WW mosh pits with white supremacists.

And, by the way, the best thing is he was trying to attack some guy for what's for Playboy. Like, the whole thing about it, like, everything about it. And every now and then, like, there's a moment that's not, that big a moment, but it like it perfectly captures, like, just the depraved you of the Trump years and what we're living through. The amount of, you're going to have to clean that place when that crop is gone is going

to be. I'm going to have to fumigate the place. And Gorka's put on some pounds, man. Like, it looked like you can barely get in that, like, triple-breasted suit he was wearing out. Gorka has parlayed six months of sitting in some EEOB office with no actual job and no security clearance doing nothing into a hell of a career. That's all I can say for him.

Because he's a joke. Any man who will go on Fox News and scream in some faux accent about Islam and Democrats, like, can get the red carpet rolled out from the White House and get all kinds of grifting opportunities out there. Like, it's not good. I highly recommend everyone at home Google's Seb Gorka in his weird leather vest, because that's one of my favorite photos. Okay, when we come back, my interview with U.S. Senator Tammy Duckworth.

On the line is Tammy Duckworth, an Army veteran in U.S. Senator from the great state of Illinois. Senator, thank you so much for making time today. Oh, it's so good to be on. Thank you. So, Senator, you recently accused the Trump administration of trying to manufacture a, quote, 21st century Gulf of Tonkin crisis that they can use to justify war with Iran. I happen to agree with you, but I also, you know, will stipulate that it's a serious allegation. What led you to believe this? And why do you decide to make those comments? Well, I think the evidence suggests and evidence when you look at it, it makes it clear that simultaneous to this administration ratcheting up its rhetoric and its posture about Iran and sort of

threatening military action, they also, at the same time, significantly pooped back on any diplomatic efforts and our participation in international agreements. And so on one hand, they say, well, you know, we reserve the right to attack Iran with our military forces if they attack our military or if they escalate their development of nuclear weapons. And then at the very same time, the president unilaterally pulls us out of the Iran nuclear agreement, which then leaves them free to escalate their nuclear weapon development. And he did that without any consent from the United States Senate. He just did it on his own. And then they put more troops into the Gulf. They put more troops into the area where

or they can become targets for Iranian attack or the attack of anybody who wants to sort of spark a conflict between the U.S. and Iran who might, you know, try to claim that they represent Iran when they don't. Yeah. You know, we were reportedly just a few hours away from Trump bombing a bunch of targets in Iran. Luckily, for the world, he blinked. Do you get the sense that this means we're out of the woods because he sincerely wants no part of another war? Are you still worry that we could be on the precipice of a conflict? I'm extremely worried that we're on the precipice of a conflict. And it's not necessarily hinging on President Trump. I think the problem we have is we have some hardliners who are advising the president. I think John Bolton in particular and also

Mr. Pompeo, they're both Iran hardliners. And they've said in the past, in a case of Mr. Bolton, for example, that we should be invading Iran, that we should be attacking Iran. And so I think the whole run up to that potential attack was really at the pushing or the, you know, the coronation of his advisors. And at the last minute, I think the president blink, because I don't think he's where his hardliners are. But he's listening to them and they're manipulating him into these positions where we could potentially be sending U.S. troops into a fight with the Iranian military.

Yeah, they are scary. I mean, so you're an influential U.S. senator. You've served in the military. You've worked in the Veterans Affairs Department. You're on the Armed Services Committee. does anyone at the White House reach out to you or the State Department reach out to you to talk to you about policy or try to convince you that they're doing the right thing? Not whatsoever. There has been no outreach. And as far as I know, none of my colleagues on the Democratic side have received any type of extensive outreach. I also am under the impression that many of my Republican colleagues have not been reached as well. But this president does things unilaterally. I mean, we ask four-star generals of all the relevant. commands, for example, if they were contacted prior to the president tweeting that we should be

pulling all U.S. troops out of Syria. And every single one, I said, no, first time I saw about it or learned about it was actually through on Twitter. You know, this president makes these decisions impulsively and without consultation of DOD or the legislative branch here with the Senate or the House. And this is just a pattern of how he impulsively careens from issue to issue. his presidency. Yeah. It's just such a staggering departure from what's normal, too. I mean, God help us when I was back in the Obama White House if he made some major military decision without calling Lindsey Graham or John McCain or other relevant members of the committee. It was just it was seen as something you had to do. Yes, it's something you should be doing. We're a co-eco-brancho

branch of government. Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution that said so. And the United States Senate, you know, Congress, the U.S. Congress has the sole authority to declare war, not the White House. Yes, the president can certainly defend if we come under attack and I fully support Article 2 and all of that. But frankly, he can't decide to go to war. And he certainly should not be laying out the conditions for war. He said, okay, well, if they attack U.S. troops, then we're going to attack. But then they send more U.S. troops into the region so that the, you know, Iran can target more U.S. troops. It just boggles the mind what they're trying to do. Yeah, it really does. you served in Iraq, you were wounded during your service in Iraq, and then more recently you visited Iraq to get an assessment of the situation there.

What was your big takeaway from that recent codel? And do you agree with the administration's claim that ISIS has been defeated in the region? So I do not agree with the administration's claim that ISIS has been defeated in the region. And in fact, what I saw and also what I was told and was reported to me by Iraqi leadership, Iraqi military. U.S. intelligence agencies, the CIA, those folks who are there, U.S. military leaders, allied military leaders, all said the same thing. ISIS is not defeated. They may no longer hold geographic territory, but they are acting very, very much at will. So, for example, they are able to move in and out of refugee camps. They still have resources. They, in fact, have been telling their fighters to turn themselves in and pretend to be civilian, on the battlefield so that they can go into the camps and rest and recuperate and get free medical

attention and get food and have a chance to regain their strength. They're also making payments, widows payments to the widows of their fighters who were killed. So they're going into these refugee camps and actually bringing in cash and making payments to the widows. So given those disconcerting data points, what do you think the U.S. force posture or diplomatic posture should be towards Iraq? Do we need troops in the region? Do we need more diplomatic presence? Like, what's your assessment? We need much more diplomatic presence in the region.

We need to engage in nation building in the sense of engaging our economies and our business leaders. Time and time again, when I talked to the Iraqis, they said, you know, we just need to get more investments. We want somebody to come in and help us develop our oil fields and our gas fields, for example. Iran actually sells natural gas to Iraq. Iraq has a huge natural gas deposit, but they are. actually are flaring it. What that means is that they're actually burning it. It's permanently lit and burning, and yet they're continuing to buy natural gas from Iran because they don't have the refineries in Iraq. And so they want U.S. businesses to come, and they want European

businesses to come and invest in their natural gas and their natural resources. They also need help with banking. There's no banking system in Iraq whatsoever. The best description of where we should be with our military and our civilian is efforts. Iraq. One of the generals there said to me, you know, the U.S. is the rebar and the concrete that's going to be used to rebuild Iraq. Without us, the concrete crumbles, but we don't need to be everything. I like that metaphor. That's a good one. You have also been a leader in calling out Congress for refusing to vote on new authorizations for the use of military force and all these places around the world. In a recent speech at the National Press Club, you said, quote,

enough of being more worried about political consequences than our troops in harm's way, end quote. How did that blunt assessment go over with your colleagues? And do you think we're making any progress towards getting those votes and reasserting Congress's role and waging war? Well, there are, this is an interesting alliance. This is where we actually have an alliance with some of the libertarians. Ran Paul is someone who consistently calls for us to have this vote in this discussion. And so it's bipartisan, this desire to step up and do our jobs and do what the Constitution, you know, tells us to do. And that is to be the checks and balances on the executive branch.

Unfortunately, most of my colleagues, including Democrats, would rather not have this conversation. Those who are up for re-election don't want to be seen as voting, you know, against a war, if there is a war or for a war. You know, it's, but it's not a vote for or against war. And that's the message I try to tell them. It's about us setting out the rules and the conditions by which U.S. military forces should be employed. And I think that our troops deserve that. We shouldn't be sending them off into harm's way when they don't know what the left and the right boundaries are for their actions. And they don't know that they don't have the full-throated support of the United States Senate and the United States Congress.

Yeah, I mean, it's incredibly frustrating. Speaking of oversight, I mean, the Senator Armed Services Committee this morning, I believe, held a confirmation hearing for Mark Esper, who was President Trump's nominee for Secretary of Defense. I'm curious what you make of him. He's the latest in a parade of lobbyists who seem to get, you know, marched into that building. How concerned are members of the committee about the many, many vacancies at the Department of Defense right now? And what do you make of this nomination? Well, let me just start off because I want to seek into this. I did ask him directly at the nomination here. this morning, whether he felt that 2001 and 2002 AUMFs that are in existence right now authorizes the Department of Defense or the United States to go to war with Iran. And he answered

no. Oh, great. Yeah, he was great. He said, and he also said that Congress, and only Congress has the authority to declare war. Now, he did mention Article 2, that, you know, the president can certainly defend the nation if we are under attack, and I support that. But it was really refreshing to finally have someone say, no. The 2000 and 2002 AMF does not. authorize us to conduct war against Iran, that if they want to do that, they must come back and get a new authorization. Someone tell Mike Pompeo, right? Yeah.

And apparently he's got a good relationship with Mike Pompeo, so hopefully they'll talk to each other. So that's really good. You know, they're real concerns with all the open position across government. We actually had a meeting of the Armed Services Committee, a bipartisan one, where unanimously all of us, Democrats and Republicans, express a deep, deep concern for. the many, many positions that are right now either open or being occupied by acting secretaries and assistant secretaries under secretaries. Now, that said, President Trump has actually said that he

likes leaving these positions open because if he only has individuals who are acting in these positions all across government, not just DOD, they don't have to be Senate confirmed. So he doesn't have to run these people by us. And again, you know, he's taking away the checks and balances that are supposed to be in the system. Yeah, it is so frustrating. You mentioned with all these acting nominees. I mean, President Trump's previous Secretary of Defense, Patrick Shanahan, was there on an acting basis until his nomination imploded after some pretty ugly reports about domestic violence. I'm just wondering how you imagine it's possible that an incident like that could have been missed during the Trump administration's

vetting process. And how worried are you about the constant lack of leadership and churn at DOD? I mean, this this acting nature of the people in these jobs seems like a problem to me. Well, the acting nature means that they can't actually make any binding long-term decisions or they shouldn't, and they don't. And so you don't see any progress being made. You don't see any significant changes to the culture that needs to be made, whether it's sexual assault and military or other issues. So when you're acting, you're just a placeholder,

and you don't really have the full-throated authority to really make significant changes and really to lead the organization the way you should. That's a problem, especially with something as important as the Department of Defense, not just for our country, but for global security. We're the leader of the free world. We need to be at 100% capability, and frankly, we're not there right now. And let me just say one thing about former acting secretary Shanahan. Yes, the vetting obviously is flawed.

The White House has put up many, many candidates where it seems like they've not done the background checks or done a true background check. I almost feel like if you walk into the White House and the president thinks you look like Hollywood Central casting for whatever job he wants you in, or if you've got business connections or you're a finance, big money guy, then the president's like, yeah, you got the job,

and they don't bother to vet. But Mr. Shanahan's issue, it's a real family tragedy on his part, the allegations deal with abuse between his son and his wife and him trying to, you know, bring some sort of end to that. So I don't want people to think that, I don't know, I guess what I'm just saying is that this is a family tragedy and we should remember that that's what it is in this case. And that he himself was the victim of abuse, alleged abuse

in this whole situation. So that said, it should have been vetted and, you know, he should not have been put in a position where his family potentially was being brought into the spotlight the way it is if it was this tragic. And in fact, he withdrew because he didn't want to put his family through the pain of this all over again. Yeah, it was incredibly messy. Last question I would like to ask you. And, you know, it's such a nice departure talking about all this substance and policy and wonky stuff. But I have to ask you about President Trump tweeting and just saying these vile, racist things about Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Iana Presley, Rashida Tilibe, Alexander Ocasio Cortez. I was curious what your response was.

when you saw those tweets and what you make of the widespread refusal among Republicans to call these obviously racist comments racist? Well, these comments are racist and shame on my colleagues for not speaking up and calling them racist and shame on them for not calling President Trump out on this. But I'm not surprised. This is exactly what President Trump is, right? He's been a racist since when he was a candidate. But frankly, this is nothing new for the Republican Party.

I don't know if you recall, but when I was running in 2016, my opponent who supposedly was a moderate Republican congressman when we got into a discussion on a debate about, you know, I talked about whether or not we should have a discussion on the use of military force. And I said, you know, it's the same military families who serve over and over again. And I mentioned that

my family has been here since the revolution and that I'm a daughter of the American Revolution. And my opponent at the time looked at me and said, well, I didn't know your family came all the way from Thailand to fight for George Washington. It was a very racist comment where he belittled my upbringing. Well, yes, you know, on my father's side, I'm a daughter of

American Revolution. There's been a duckworth in uniform through every period of conflict in this nation's history going back to the French and Indian Wars before the revolution. But all of that, as far as he was concerned, was negated by the fact that my mother is Asian. And so this is unfortunately consistent with what is acceptable behavior within the modern Republican Party, which, by the way, is not where the Republican Party has been in the past. I just can't believe that my colleagues are remaining silent on this and shame on them. Yeah, it is truly depressing and infuriating to see. Senator Duckworth, thank you so much for doing the show and for your service in the military and so the great state of Illinois. It is truly an honor to talk with you. And,

you know, you fill a seat that has got a pretty cool history. Barack Obama, Paul Simon, some extraordinary people sat in your desk at the Senate. So it's very cool for me to get to talk with you. Yes. Thank you so much for having me on. That's it for POTS of the World. Ben, great to see you as always. Good to see you. Ella. Very chill and great. To be clear, she's He's been wearing headphones and watching Octanauts on our iPad, and so he's not listened to a word of, I'd say the word. How is Octanuts? So I recommend it.

Okay. I have learned, one of the things you realize when you have kids, a little parent corner here, is, like, you learn things from these shows that are designed for, like, five-year-olds. Like, this whole show is about, like, little creatures who go underwater and, like, save sea creatures. But then they teach you all about these sea creatures. Oh, that's cool. So like Ella is constantly Like we'll see some like kind of fish in the aquarium And she'll like know more about the fish than I do

Because of this show which she's watching right now Nice what were they watching when we were all over your house the other night It wasn't frozen but it felt sort of frozen adjacent Yeah well there's a whole frozen adjacent industry now So I mean like the hierarchy Like frozen is the absolute top Moana is like a kind of a 1A Legitimately great film

I think they're watching Spirit which is Yes that's what I was So it sees like Three girls in like the Prairie, the American West, like riding horses and solving problems. It's good. It's good. You know, it's good. You know what?

I have to say, this has been a great antidote to the Trump years, right? Yes. Because all of these children's programming, they're all like infused with values. They all like embrace diversity. They're all about like education and women's empowerment. And so like oddly enough, if I need maturity in today's. culture in America, I get more maturity out of like spirit and octanauts and Moana than I do from anything else that I can access to at the rest of the day, right? Yeah. So I, you know,

I mean, I know when you guys are a kid plan. Something to look forward to you. Yeah, send you forward to. Thank you all for tuning in. Talk to you next week.