The Bulwark Podcast - Arash Azizi and Jodi Kantor: Iran Has the Leverage

Episode Date: May 6, 2026

The regime in Tehran is not as fractured as is commonly portrayed, and it is also pragmatic enough to see the economic opportunities that would follow from a deal with an eager-to-please-the-markets Donald Trump. But the contours of a potential agreement look like a win for Iran—not for the U.S., which has spent billions a day, lost military personnel and assets, and handed Iran new-found leverage over the global economy. Also, in this season of commencement, Jodi has advice for new college grads on how to navigate the tough employment market and a digitized hiring process. Plus, the Supreme Court's embrace of the shadow docket and John Roberts' pivotal role in the shift, what it's like to listen to Harvey Weinstein mansplain, moneyed Iranians apocalypsemaxxing, and examining Zionism through the prism of the nationalism movement at the time of Israel's founding.The Times’s Jodi Kantor and The Atlantic’s Arash Azizi join Tim Miller. show notes Arash on Iran mostly wanting a deal Jodi's new book, "How to Start: Discovering Your Life's Work" Arash's book, "What Iranians Want: Women, Life, Freedom" Arash on Zionism and the nationalism movement Jodi and Adam Liptak on the birth of the shadow docket at SCOTUS Tickets for our Bulwark Live shows in San Diego on 5/20 and in LA on 5/21: TheBulwark.com/Events Learn a new Language and get up to 60% off  your subscription at Babbel.com/BULWARK

Hello and welcome to the Borg podcast. I'm your host, Tim Miller. We have a gargantuan mega double pod today. In segment two, it is Jody Cantor of the New York Times. She's got a new bookout with Life Advice for College Grads. We also talked about some news. And, you know, it's a long one today. But I'm telling you, make it to the end of the pod because it is a really moving discussion with Jody about her career and life advice for the college grad in your life. So do stick around for that. One more reminder. We got shows coming up in San Diego and Los Angeles. May 20th, downtown San Diego, May 21st, downtown L.A. Tickets are on sale. Thebork.com slash events. I've got fun stuff planned.

I threw out the idea of a T-shirt cannon yesterday. No promises. But you know where my head's at, all right? We're going to do a show for you guys. So please come hanging out with us in Southern California. But first up, I've been wanting to get this guy on for a while to educate us on what's happening in Iran and the view from Iran. He's a writer and historian.

He's a lecturer at Yale and contributing writer at The Atlantic. His books include What Iranians Want, Women, Life and Freedom. He's an upcoming book as well on Israel and Iran. It's Arash Aziz. How you doing, man? I've been wanting to do this for a while. Great. Great to be with you.

Thanks for coming. We have a ton of news to talk about, and then I want to do a little big picture stuff on Iran as well. But first, for listeners, viewers, who have not had the pleasure of following you on X or at the Atlantic, Could you give people a little first date? You know, what's your backstory? Just tell us about yourself a little bit. So my name is Arash. I'm from Iran.

I've been out of Iran now for about 18 years, but, you know, I'm from there originally. Yeah, I'm a historian and I write about Middle East politics. And you're living in New Haven now? I live in New York. I commute to New Haven to teach at the end. Okay. Okay, smart. I was going to say, you've come to America.

I don't want you to have to suffer Connecticut full-time. Hey, Connecticut has many little delights here and there, but yes. I want to go through the state of play, and it's going to take a second, so bear with me, because a lot has happened since yesterday's podcast and get your kind of reaction to where we are now. Last night, Trump pleaded that based on the request of Pakistan and other countries and the tremendous military success we've had during the campaign in Iran, we have mutually agreed that while the blockade will remain in full force and effect, Freedom will be paused. So Project Freedom lasted about 24 hours. That was the project to get some boats out of

the Persian Gulf into the strait. An Iranian official told Jeremy Scahill that that post was riddled with falsehoods and Project Freedom failed completely. Taznim, which I guess you can tell me if this is right, but I guess the IRGC's preferred outlet described the deal as Trump backtracking and said he was lying to cover up his failure. Pakistan said both sides are closer to starting a negotiation process that could last many months. And then this morning, the Axios is reporting for like the 70 second time in 60 days that U.S. negotiators say there's a deal right around the corner. The supposed one-page agreement is a phased rollback of naval restrictions during the negotiations, sanctions relief for Iran, a long-term freeze on Iranian uranium enrichment, and maybe Iran agrees to remove its stockpile

of uranium. Sayyad Mirandi, who's an Iranian professor, tweeted that Axis is a tool for the White House of the Iranian Republic is prepared to launch a major attack before Trump's visit to China. Other reports out of Iran kind of indicating that maybe they are interested in some kind of deal. If that clarifies things at all, that is what the both sides are saying about the deal. What is your sense for kind of where things are at? Yeah, you know, I know there can be a bit of a fog of war and, you know, Marandi, you know, he's a bit of a clown. So he says this thing, you know, that that's not to be taken seriously.

Look, I mean, the set of play is it's somewhat clear, despite all the fog, which is that both sides are quite reluctant to return to full war, right? Which is why even though we've had the skirmishes the last few days, they haven't really gone full on and they've went out of their way not to do it. I mean, Iran at the end of the day attacked UA repeatedly and yet the U.S. said the Swiss war is in place. And at the same time, U.S. attacked Iranian both sunk, you know, a few and Iranians. basically said it didn't happen. It also said we didn't attack UAE, which was kind of crazy. So they don't want to return to full war. And they do want a deal.

It's just a matter of that they're basically trying to hold out as a form of brinksmanship. They're trying to hold out as much as they can to get the best kind of deal that they can. And, you know, Axis keeps reporting this stuff. But it is basically true. I mean, there are these messages being exchanged. Now, the estimate of how close you are to a deal, It's just like when you put an offer on a house, you know, in Broch-Kinsk, right? You think it's very close.

So it's a bit of what you feel about it, right? So that's a bit subjective. But the offers are serious. The negotiations are serious. And the contours are pretty much the same, like what access reported. The contours have always been quite the same. Suspension of enrichment, you know, Iran getting some sanctions relief, war ending the straight opening.

So I guess my question for you is, like, while the contours of the deal that you know, we've allegedly been close to for weeks now, have remained the same. I guess I'm interested in your perspective on, you know, how Iran sees their leverage in the moment. You know, you have the other news item from this morning is about Iran launching this Persian Gulf Strait Authority, they call it, which is ships must email the authority, fill out forms, and then pay a toll, and then they'll get permission to pass through the Strait of Hormuz. And so at this point, you know, it seems like that. So control of the straight and having financial opportunities is, you know, a key for Iran as far as dragging this thing out, making sure they'll have that control.

At least that's my perspective. What do you think is their POV on what is needed to move this forward? So their leverage is what they've been able to do to the straight and to the global market. But their leverage is that they think Trump is reluctant to return to the war and it considers it sort of unpopular war, which it is. And their leverage is that they can make energy infrastructure in the region unsafe. They can sort of cause havoc there. That's the kind of leverage that they see they have.

I was talking on yesterday's pod about the guys at FDD, which has been this advocacy group that's for overthrowing the Iranian regime. and now has one of their members as part of the negotiation team, they were basically saying, you know, in eight to nine weeks, the Iranian economy will collapse, you know, if the blockade continues.

And so I do think that is kind of the big question here, which is like from the Iranian perspective, how long can they hold out and like what are they trying to get out of it, you know, with regards to using that leverage in the street? They can hold out a lot longer. It depends on how we define holding out. that, you know, Iranian economy is terribly hurt now.

More than one million jobs have been lost. Things are terrible. They're getting forced by the day. There are logistical problems in tons of sectors. But that doesn't mean economy will collapse. One of my favorite things about all of this is that we all use these different terms, like the weakening of the regime, you know, the collapse of economy. What does it really mean?

If it means that people go out and there is no bread to get and they'll die out of hunger, no, that's not going to happen, right? It runs a country of 90 million. It has tons of borders of different countries. It has different sort of resourcefulness methods. It would be able to keep something going on for nine years, just nine months. I mean, you know, and whatever blockade you have, the longer it holds, the more cracks go find. The blockade has been terrible, but is it terrible enough that something magically will happen and the whole place collapses?

That's not going to happen. Now, is it enough that they put so much pressure on the powers that be that they'll either turn on each other or give unprecedented compromises or, you know, those things are possible, but also not so easy to achieve and by nature unpredictable, which is why, you know, it's very interesting. President Trump talked like he's found some genius methods. It's like if he just comes and attacks everybody and kills all the leaders and put this, okay, they'll all capitulate. You know, if governance and a statehood and warfare were so simple, everybody would have, everybody has big planes, and they would just start it. But it's not so simple precisely because it involves all these little details and unpredictable consequences. The Iranian regime will not capitulate so easily, and the economy will not collapse to the point of it, you know, the country becoming unlivable suddenly. I don't want to put you in the position of being a, you know, petroleum engineering expert.

That's not your background. But I just, from the people you follow, just on that, on the discrete question, of, like, it seems like the blockade strategy is premised on this notion that the Iranian's oil infrastructure, you know, that whatever, the rigs will continue to get filled up to such a, you know, and there won't be any room left, and then the rigs will get ruined. And then, you know, future ability to export the oil and make money will be hampered. And like, that is really the pressure point. I, you know, I've seen mixed reports on the extent to which that is true. Like, what is your sense on that question?

I mean, I've read widely. on different experts talking about this, and my assessment is that it's basically overplayed. Yes, it is a problem if you can't expere oil, but it's overplayed. It's not in this way

that it will be like an immediate game changer. These are problems that Iranians had thought about before. It's not like they had never predicted this could happen, right? And they're not as stupid. I mean, you know, they're very resourceful people. So they've thought of different ways

of dealing with this. a lot of this analysis and sort of advocacy in DC is always based on, you know, desired outcomes, which, you know, leads into sort of optimistic analysis from their side, optimistic. And that's one example. It's not going to be an overnight game changer. They'll find ways around it. What about this question of whether there is major disagreements within the Iranian regime, and that makes it hard to negotiate?

You wrote about this, like some of the conventional wisdom in America, American press has been, you know, that there are multiple factions, that there's a more hardline, IRGC faction and a more amenable negotiating team and that even if they come to a deal, maybe they can't actually come to consensus. You poured a little bit of cold water on that theory in the Atlantic recently. Like, what's your sense in the state of play inside Iran among the leadership? My big free design office, or my counter is that, yes, there is in fighting. There's certainly some infighting. There is this hardcore. ideologues who are opposed to people like Marandi actually speak for them, right?

They say no negotiation with the U.S., and we should go to the fight, and, you know, we should fight them. The clarifying fact is that even most powerful people in the regime, powerful factions of the regime, don't belong to these hardliners. Because if the Revolutionary Guard, the IRC, which to be clear are basically the country, I mean, they're running most of the economy, much of the security, you know, much of the politics, they really are the regime in many ways. Although with the caveat that they're not one thing,

they're kind of decentralized themselves. But if they really took this hardline attitude, that would be just the attitude of the regime. But it's kind of actually the flip side, i.e., these hardliners are a minority. And the regime's main bodies are actually pretty cohesive. So this myth of, or we don't know who to make a deal with,

is not really true. Because they've been pretty impressive, we manned together. And what are some of the evidence I have for this, right? We should always ask people for evidence, by the way, because there's all these analysis always, and you ask, okay, how do we know this? And it goes to one leaked from one outlet, right? Okay, but what is my solid analysis? Taslim, for example, which we know is run by the agency, has attacked the hardliners.

I've had front-on attacked the hardliners. And we saw there was a sort of a letter in the parliament, 261 MP signed it in support of the negotiating team. And the hardliners didn't sign it. Some hardliners didn't sign it. Yes, there is in fighting, but there is significant regime cohesion for their own interest. They realize that if they have too much in fighting, they'll collapse. So they're banded together. And the hardliners are a minority.

And you know why they're a minority? Because their positions are ridiculously unrealistic, basically. You know, it's like, oh, fight America, fight Israel. I mean, they're not doing the fighting, actually, right? So they do give speeches and they mobilize people on the streets. That's the kind of thing they do. But they're not the one actually doing the fighting. So they have unrealistic fighting proposals.

And just for clarity, when you're talking about the hardliners in that context, we're talking about the hardliners in the negotiations, people saying don't negotiate with America, continue the war. Like, obviously the folks that are less hardline in the negotiation context at the IRGC are still extremely hardline when it comes to internal politics, you know, like how to manage the country, et cetera. It's not like they're moderate and domestic. It used to be the Iranian political inside the Iranian regime.

They were reformists. They are. They exist, but they're incredibly marginalized. Reformists who are Democrats, but they're democratizers. They believe in democracy. They want Iran to democratize, and that's why they've lost, right? Then there are centrists who don't want democracy. I call them centrist.

Moderates is a attempt they use themselves, actually. But they are west-facing. They want deals with the West and all that. So these IRC guys that we're talking about are neither of these. or neither reformist nor centuries. What they are is basically pragmatists. It's a pragmatism born out of the actual church because they understand, okay, we can't fight

and destroy the United States. You can write articles about doing that, but it can't actually do it, right? So as a result, we need to negotiate, obviously, we need to get a deal. But an important point also, on domestic issues, a lot of them are also, what I would say, liberalizers, not in a political sense,

but in the religious sense, i.e., they understand that you can't enforce, you know, the most important part of it is mandatory hijab, the mandatory vailing. They understand you can't enforce it. They kind of know you have to give up on the whole Islamist puritan society. So they are authoritarian can be pretty brutal,

but they are amenable to deals with the West and to social liberalization. I mean, I say they, you know, Bahr-Galib of the Speaker of the Parliament, an old IRGC guy, is an embodiment of this attitude. you. He's right now

the kind of of a strongest man in Iran. Speaking of that question, since the parliament speaker is the strongest

man in Iran, it's because I guess the new Ayatollah Khamini, do we know what his status is? I mean,

it appears that he's medically unwell, basically. Like, he's not doing so well. But here's,

here's what I think about the state of the play. I think the way it works at this point is that he is basically not being hands-on.

He lets Aliboff and the National Security Council run things. And for very, important things, including this deal, they'll probably want to go get his signature. But he probably is amenable from what I understand to giving the signature.

And look, I'm a cautious guy, by which I mean, there's a lot of people who say a lot of things. That's why I say, you know, you should ask them, how do you know? Like, there are all these articles about Moshtaba is more hardline than his father or whatever. How do you know? Like, what's the evidence? This is someone who's never spoken publicly. What we know is complaints of different people who've been victim of the security services. who believed they were in contact with Moshaba.

That's basically the entirety of what we know Moshabab before he became leader is that, right? Is that they arrest people and they're like, the security forces took me and I know Moshabah green lit it. But what I do know, based on speaking also to folks inside Iran, which I do, I mean folks in the security apparatus and regime, is that he clearly is giving some leeway to Kahlivov

and others in the National Security Council to do their thing. So that's my assessment at the moment. that, you know, we don't know a lot about him, but he's not hands on. Even if he wanted to, I don't think he could force, you know, force a decision on these guys who are actually running things from his little hospital bed. It would take a long time for him to, like, become a supreme leader that actually is running things if he ever gets to do so. And I think he might never actually be able to.

One in five Americans have learned a new language on their bucket list. If that's you, make 2026 the year you finally check it off with Babel, the language app that makes grammar fun. and is actually worth your time. Learning language with Babel is all about small steps, big wins in progress. You can actually track and feel their bite-sized lessons fit easily into your daily routine and are all so easy to remember. Just 10 minutes a day is enough to start seeing real results. I've been starting to use it in between ordering dinner at the restaurant and receiving dinner with my daughter. We're doing French together. We're playing the games. That's fun. We were

just doing it last night as a matter of fact. And she was enjoying it so much. She did it the whole way home. You know, so I have to listen to the dings and dons instead of listening to LCD sound system, whatever I wanted to listen to. But that's good. That's what's called learning. It's enrichment. And it's parenting. And it's fun. So it's working out for me.

However you learn best by speaking, listening, reading, or writing, Babel adapts to your style and keeps you motivated with personalized learning plans, real-time feedback and progress tracking, make fast-lasting progress with Babel, the science-backed language learning app that actually works. Here's a special limited time deal for our listeners. right now get 60% off your Babbel subscription at babble.com forward slash bulwark. Get up to 60% off at babble.com forward slash bulwark spelled B-A-B-B-B-E-L dot com forward slash bulwark rules and restrictions may apply. So you talk about how you talk to people inside Iran. You wrote maybe a month ago now in the Atlantic about how you were talking to folks inside that internet access is totally shut down by the regime right now.

There are some people that said to you that there was. There were fears, I believe, one of the headlines or subheadlines was don't leave us with Mostaba, this notion that there was a little bit of excitement that the regime was being overthrown, like distrust of the Americans, but maybe excitement that the regime was being overthrown. And then, you know, as things developed, kind of a fear that they're going to be left with Moshtaba in charge of the regime essentially intact. What does this state of play now? Like, can you talk to people inside Iran? Do people still feel the way that they did when you wrote that a month ago?

Like, what are you hearing from insider on? It's possible to talk to people inside around. I mean, there's a total internet shutdown, but there are phones. People get around. Internet shutdown somehow. Then there are these domestic apps, which are unsafe because they're controlled by the regime. But it is possible to talk to people who won't mind basically being monitored, frankly, which is a surprisingly high number of people.

Yes, there were some people who had this, what I understand, to be naive idea that the war will, you know, collapse the regime. You know, when you say FD or others, President Trump himself, figures in Iran opposition, they all say this to people. People will believe them. You know, they turn on the TV. They're like, all these most powerful people in the world tell them the regime is going to collapse and you're going to be free. So they'll believe it. So many people did believe it. And they quickly soured basically because they saw it's not happening. Right now, honestly, I think people are dealing more than anything with this gaping economic, catastrophe. I mean, can you imagine you're anything in Iran today? Unless you actually just have

money, you know, if you're a minority who's just rich. And I know people like that, they're living their life. They don't actually, you know, they have crazy parties because the idea is like apocalypse like maxing, right? They're like, there might be a war, everything might get destroyed. We might as well have fun. Wait, wait, hold on. I'm sorry. You said that there are rich people in Iran, that there's a notion going around of apocalypse maxing, where we might as well just have orgies and parties. Basically, I mean, they're like, you know, they're like, things are shit and there might be another war. We might all die. You know, we might as well have fun what it lasts.

So if you're rich enough to, and even if you're not rich enough, some people, yeah, people are trying to live their lives. I think what people really forget about, like Iran and others is that these are people who are just trying to live their lives. They're not trying to have a geopolitical analysis. They're not, you know, like the rest of us, like most of their lives, they just want to live their lives. But look, for anybody who has to work for a living or run a business, I mean, can you imagine how terrible things are? There's no internet. People don't have money. You can't plan for anything. Like, you know, it's very hard to plan for anything. How can you plan for something for two months when you don't know, will there be peace? Will there be war? Will there be co-ops? And Iranians have been living like this for a long time now. I mean, for years. And then there was already electricity cuts.

You know, there's serious energy costs, right? So, you know, I talk to people who do tons of different things. I mean, I talk to someone who, like, sells kind of semi-luxury coffee in Iran, like not at a coffee shop level, but the beans and stuff, you know. Well, this is his business, but it might sound ridiculous. It's like who looks for luxury coffee in the midst of a war. But this is how he works, and he has many workers. This is their only job.

They have to be laid off. You know, what can they do? Imagine someone has planned their wedding. Can they get married now, thinking they might not have money to survive? So it's a society in limbo and in this terrible feeling that they don't control their fate, and they're in the midst of a crashing economy. Honestly, so it's beyond politics, really. It's a terrible feeling that they have.

And this, to me, kind of does tie to the geopolitics of the negotiations because, and obviously there's going to be a ton of corruption in the regime and who knows how much money gets back to the people. But it feels, you tell me if I'm wrong, but it feels to me that among the Iranian leadership, they sense that maybe there's an economic opportunity out of this, right? And that they end up with more control out of the strait than they thought, more sanctions relief than they would have imagined

because Trump wants to get out of this so bad. And that like anything else, you know, a lot of this comes down to money. Yeah, I mean, that's why they're negotiating. That's why they negotiate with Trump from the beginning. Let's not forget. Trump's second term, the Iranian regime negotiated him pretty willingly. Even though Khomeini gave the speech

the same, we won't negotiate, they immediately after negotiated with him. Iranian final minister wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post and called Trump a man of peace. He started writing the Trumpish tweets in which he attacked Tim Biden and praised Trump effectively. And this is the same Trump who had killed Iran's top general

four years before that. So obviously there are many who taught Trump is an opportunity and they could use it. Yeah, and there are many who are interested in the economic opportunities that a reopening could bring. You know, it's a mix of a carrot and a stick, is that the carrot can be huge. You know, you can have huge economic benefits, but they also understand the alternative is this continued economic ruination that I spoke about. The question is if they're bold enough to pursue it and to get a deal and if the other side is flexible enough. But I always say this is a thing that we need to remember.

United States will be fine. If he deals with Iran, if it doesn't deal with Iran, it will fine. It's the United States. I mean, it has tons of other issues and problems, but it's not like whether it has ties with Iran or not. It's like a central big issue for it. But this is Iran's life really depends on. This is the historic moment for Iran.

One of the most historic moments in 2,500 years of Iranian history, right? It's how it could come out, crawl out of this. And on one side, It could become a country that is integrated into the region, economically doing much better. It would be the biggest economic sort of frontier since the fall of the Soviet Union if it opens up. That's one vision. And I'm not even talking about democracy, but just economic opening. The other vision is failed a state, civil war, you know, ruined economy.

I mean, these are two extremes, and often it could be something in the middle. So Iranians really need some bold reasoning, and they shouldn't only think about, oh, well, Trump didn't give us all we want or not. The stakes are really high. And if you know something about Iran in history, stakes have often been high when Iran has been faced, you know, in the first World War and the Second World War, you know, through which Iran was invaded, and then other sort of grand moment,

the Cold War. And the Iranian leaders often have been risen up to the occasion to try to safeguard Iran's sovereignty. And that's really what we need right now. And unfortunately, I'm not sure the level of U.S. during Tehran is up to the task. Why? I mean, besides the obvious, but expand on that.

There are two answers. For so long under Ayatollah Khomeini, he was Iran's leader from 1989 until he was killed earlier this year. You know, he read Iran to this ideological Islamist vision. You know, Khomeini, I always tell my students, the best way to think about him

is not like Islamist fundamentalist, it's like hippies in the 60s. You know, he was this revolutionary ideologue who came out with his very austere vision and he held power, and he held on to it. And he was also, it was a worst mix of things, revolutionary rigid, but very tactically cautious

and almost cowardly. So he wouldn't make big decisions. He held on for this grand vision that would never come true. So he really brought it on to the bad place. That's one reason. The number two reason is that there are, even though I said, you know,

the regime does have some cohesion, but there are different sort of factions with their own military and economic interests, and they really need to come together and make some bold sort of decisions and that's not always easy to make. I am still somewhat very cautiously optimistic that this will happen. I think at the end of the tunnel, we will have American-Iranian normalization.

We will have Iran's return to the global economy. We will have Iran's regional integration. I think that's still the most likely outcome. Not to think about this in stupid American action movie terms or, you know, school yard bully fighting terms. But if that happens, it's basically a win for Iran in the process. It's a win for both sides. It's a win for both sides.

Is it? Is it? I mean, if the Iranian regime is still in charge and they have economic, more economic opportunity, and they're tolling the straight, in what way is that a win for Trump? We ended up hurting our own economy, losing military and meritorial for nothing. Yeah, exactly. So it's not a win in terms of the war reaching its goals. Got it.

But it is what Trump said back in 2017 when he first. took office. He wanted to negotiate with the regime and get a deal like this. I think the war was a huge mistake, frankly, by any, and I think it would be hard in the future for it to be seen differently. And, you know, we knew all of this thing. It's like, you know, it's not like nobody had thought of going to war with Iran before, right? Everything that resulted from the war is exactly what everybody, I mean, if you talk to Obama era officials or Biden and other officials. I mean, they knew exactly these things that happens is exactly what they thought

would happen, right? That's why they didn't do it. It's an interesting insight when you just think about the negotiations that are going to be ongoing, like just this huge gap, as you said, between for America, like this is basically meaningless. Like Trump's ego is involved in this and the ego of the negotiators are involved, like for the broader contours of what happens in the future of America, this matters basically zero.

And it is one of the biggest moments in the history of Iran. Right? And it's like that gap, I think it's like you think about it through that prism. I think that tells you a lot about where the leverage is and what the structure of the negotiation is. Yeah. I mean, you know, it's kind of the how it works in superpowers. Although it's also true that. So, you know, Trump has made it a big issue for himself.

Well, he has sort of some face saving to do. then the global economy is hurt and that in France of America but when you really think about it I mean the gas prices are up yes it hurts the pockets but you know it's like I don't know if you even if you checked your retirement account

was going down a little bit but then it's okay right people find a way to stabilize these things whereas in Iran we're really talking about you know entire destruction and as I said there is a danger of Iran become a failed estate if this continues long enough just because I said the regime can stay charge, doesn't mean the other option is not on table.

Not to mention that Trump might go toward that crazy options that he talks about and really do destroy important parts of Iran and civic infrastructure, which will take years to make a rebuild. Our goal on the show is not only to keep you informed like Arash was doing today, but also engaged. One way to engage in your community is to support the teachers who are supporting students in their classrooms every day. The sad truth is that many schools like the resources to make sure our kids reach their full potential. That's where our friends at Donors Choose come in. Donors choose is a

national nonprofit that makes it easy for anyone to donate directly to a classroom. You can give any amount and once the teacher's request meets its fundraising goal, donors choose purchases the supplies and sends them directly to that classroom. I was just looking into this the other day. Actually, one of my buddies brothers is a teacher in California and had another. thrown up some requests for their classroom, onto donors choose, some technology requests. And I was surprised by how easy it was. Makes you feel good inside.

Makes you feel good if you sign up using the bulwark code, you know, so people know that our community's out there doing the deal. So I recommend it. It's a good, nutritious little project. And you get to kind of see the kids. That's fun. For a limited time, your gift will be matched to help students and teachers who need our support, go to DonorsChoose.org slash the Bullwork to find a classroom near you

and have your gift matched today. Two more big picture questions for you, and they're really big, so feel free to give me the long sermon if you want. But as I mentioned back to your book on what Iranians want, you hear all of the propaganda in the West about this. You know, you'll listen to what Marco Rubio says. And it's like, there's no bigger gap in anywhere in the world between what the people want and what the regime wants. And, you know, you hear, you know, the opposite version of that case being made by Islamists, etc. What is your sense?

Like, for listeners who, like, really have no, don't know anybody from Iran, you know, don't have any context. And they're all, they're getting this information mediated through other people who have political interests. Like, what's your sense? And obviously, it's a huge country, 90 million people. But, like, at the broadest level, like, what the answer is to the question of your book. I think I can answer it.

And hopefully people. who follow my work will see that I'm usually a clear-eyed guy. I say what I think it is. I don't say what I would like it to be. It would be a very different world if it was what I like it to be. And there really is a huge gap. So I don't think Rubio is wrong there in some. There is a really huge gap between people and the regime. I think most people really despise so much about the regime. And, you know, the reasons for this are actually not that hard to fatten. So the Islamic Republic since 1979, tried first of all to bring about an Islamist Puritan society. in which everybody is good Muslims

and observes all rules of Islamana. And let me tell you this, there's no way this would ever work anywhere, it has never worked ever in history. If you try to force anything down people's throats for so long, you will have a reaction against it. Even if it's your most fervent belief, whatever it is that you love, right?

You know, like if you love rock music, if someone forces you to wear a rock music t-shirt every day and listen to it every night, you're not going to like it. Right? So that's basically what has happened in Iran, that people hate this kind of imposition. So that's one big gap. The other big gap is that basically the Islam Republic has told people, have your standards of living fall, be in international isolation, be poorer in favor of Iran fighting some

global fight against Israel and America. No country in the world will take that deal. Nobody will take that deal, right? All these most fervent, like, anti-Israel, anti-American folks here who love praising Iran, they wouldn't want to pay a personal price out of that. You know, what personal price would they give? Will they accept like a 300% paycott for the next year? Because that's what Iranians have had to go through, right?

So because of this, there is indeed a huge gap. They basically, they're faced with a regime that has been trying to repress them, is super corrupt on its own terms, brought them international isolation, declining economy. I know to put the cherry on top, Iranians are kind of a very patriotic people. And this regime doesn't even sort of, and he has now understood and tries to speak more

in the language of Iranian nationalism, but it has made them involved in an issue like Israel, Palestine, for example, that is not a core Iranian national issue. It would be actually very different if it was a regime that was involved in nationalist adventurism. Iranians could see, and this is also hard for outsiders to leave, you know, Iranians had no clue about the Israeli and Palestinian conflict.

Like, if you ask people, you know, I'm an expert on this issue, I'm a Middle East politics guy. I'm always amazed. I talk to young Iranians, even though the regime every day has talked about Palestine for so long. They don't know anything. Like, they don't know what's the difference between 1967, 1948. They don't know because this is not a topic that they felt close to. And by the way, that's how it's very funny. people on the American left understand that about America, right?

They understand very well why many Americans are like, we don't want to be involved in Iran or the Middle East. But they somehow can't understand that Iranians, well, they feel the same about Palestine and Israel, which is thousands of kilometers away. It's not related to them. And it has cost them a lot. So this confrontation with Israel and the United States has cost them a lot.

So there is indeed a very huge gap for reasons that I said. And yes, Iranians are very diverse. There is a very hardcore regime supporter that exists, 10, 15%, that really support the regime and they're the ones who come out. But the vast majority of Iranians are sick of these conditions, but they want what they call themselves a normal life, right? Yeah, just one follow up on that. Like, what would the Iranian nationalist version of it look like?

Like, what would their concerns be? I mean, that's a very good question, and it can have different visions. But I would say, if you look at long sorts of Iranian history, right, what is Iran's story? Iran's a story is that it's one of the only countries in the world to never have been colonized. But it's very strategically isolated, by which I mean, Iran is a country in a region full of either Arabs, Turks, or Sunni Muslims. And Iran is neither of this, right? It's a Shia majority country.

It has a mixed population. It has its own sort of civilization. So I think Iranian foreign policy would safeguard Iran's independence and basically be non-aligned. It would not take sides in between the European Eritrea, between Israel and Palestine. between China and the United States. And historically, that's what all Iranian governments have done. You know, the Shah, unlike the popular imagination is that he was the U.S. lackey,

if you read the actual foreign policy experts on Iran, they call it de facto non-alignment. So yes, he was on the side of the U.S. in the Cold War, but he was remarkably independent and, you know, had relationship with Soviet Union, had relationship with China, had relationship with tons of countries in Africa. So Iran needs to be guardedly,

sort of independent and non-aligned. And look what Islam Republic has done. Iran supported Russia against Ukraine. You know, Iran regarded Israel's destruction as its goal. Iran adopted this crazy anti-Americanism and death to America. I mean, they're just very bad for Iranian national interest. You mentioned the Israel-Palestine conflict. The last thing I wanted to ask you about,

and I'll link to the article if folks want to read the whole thing, but I did just want to pick your brain briefly about something you wrote a while ago that I thought was interesting called Understander. understanding Zionism. And you're just like speaking as somebody from the left who also understands the Middle East region

who thinks that there's like kind of a misunderstanding of Zionism. And you put a frame on it that I thought was kind of worth people exploring and reflecting on. So I just was wondering if you could just talk about that briefly.

Yeah. I mean, Zionism, I think, is often misunderstood or seen as very exceptional of and it isn't. You know, in the 19th century and then early in 20th century, nationalism was a very common movement.

And the basic idea of nationalism was that a people needs to have some sort of a sovereignty in its homeland. Now, nationalism had different versions. A democratic version would say, yes, we'll form a country called Poland, where Poles live, but there are tons of non-Poles live there. Doesn't mean we're going to expel them.

We'll give them equal citizenship. But the language will be Polish, this would be a Polish country, but everybody will have equal democratic rights. It didn't work out so bad in practice. There was a second Polish Republic, for example, but 50% of its population, I think, were non-Polish, but many of them did have many rights. But then there were tensions and others.

So Zionism, of course, was the idea, well, what would the Jewish people do? Because they're not majority anywhere. So if they are to have a place in this nationalist framework, they need to move somewhere and build their own country. And that's what they did in Palestine, I know there was a long issue of how they did. Obviously, they faced a lot of resistance of the Palestinian Arab majority.

But at the end of the day, they reached a sort of numerical number, like they reached a numerical strength that was enough to form a state. And the United Nations gave them mandate to form a state and they formed a state. So I guess what I think about Zionism is, first of all, a couple of things. Historically, it's interesting to see how pragmatic it had been as a movement that was able to adopt a very different circumstances. circumstances, working within the international law, right, at different periods. That's why it was so important for it to get a mandate from the UN, right?

And work to bring that mandate. It didn't come magically, right? It worked very hard at it. The same was not true of the other side, for example. You know, the Arab Palestinians basically said F the UN. You know, we don't care what the UN is, right? Which is fine enough. You can say, you know, you don't believe in it, but it is going to have material consequences for you.

So I think this pragmatism is lost. And also, as I said, the unexceptionalness in a way. So yes, it is exceptional in a way that, you know, there was large settlement and migration, which is not exactly a unique. It has existed in other cases. But the point is that it's a national movement for Jewish people, given a very unique history that they've had. And that means they'll continue to have this claim and mistake for having a Jewish state in Palestine.

To want to have a Jewish state, A, it does not mean a, state that is Jewish supremacist and that non-Jews should have no rights. In theory, this doesn't mean that. Now, sometimes in practice it has meant that, and I think critics are right to point that out. You know, this does not make it, as I said, outside the bounds of modern history, makes it very much a big part of it. And if you want to understand that, you know, you should view this history and then you'll see that Zionism. Basically, my one line is every nationalism, right, has different versions. If you regard every form of nationalism

or ethno nationalism as of incarnate, I think it's kind of a superfluous world in a way because nationalism has ethnic in it. If you consider every form of it as fascism and exclusion and supremacy, you miss out this diversity that has been their real life experience of nationalism. What is your sense for how

you know, kind of the region ends up reacting to Israel and once the dust settles in Iran? in the years to come. I do think that there was kind of this moment where with the Abraham Accords, a lot of people felt like, you know,

maybe things would settle down. And it's possible that kind of backlash to that is what brought about October 7th. And I think that obviously there's a lot of hard feelings in the Middle East about the way that Israel's conducted that war. At the same time, at like the leadership level of, you know, UAE, Qatar,

some of these other places, maybe more moderating sense of what, their relationship should be. What do you expect for what's to come? Israel is pretty isolated regionally. So UAE is an exception in a way that works with it. And UAE itself is kind of isolated from other countries in some way. And also on this sort of a street level, not just in the Middle East, but around the world, Israel has lost a lot of credibility and sympathy because of the way it has conducted in Gaza. And look, the reality of the matter is this, that Israel also continues to occupy this Palestinian territories.

It continues to have no plan to give any sort of rights or sovereignty or citizenship to the people living there and continues to have this really hubristic attitude toward most countries in the region. So Saudi Arabia says, look, yes, historically Arab countries wanted Israel to get destroyed and not be there and all that. But we gave this up in 2002. And we told you, if you end the occupation, we'll give you full recognition. And we brought all Arab countries to say this to you.

And in fact, we brought all Muslim countries, including Iran, signed on the dot. Although Iran didn't really practice in reality, but it signed on the thought of the Organization of Islamic Countries' endorsement of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. So I think countries like Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and others have this attitude toward Israel that, look, you're pueristic, you know, you occupy different countries in the region, you act. And Israel has really, I mean, look at the way Israel has acted to Turkey, actually. It's a good example of being sort of a crazy hubrisic policy. Turkey has done so much for Israel. Turkey is still, throughout this war and everything, keeps delivering oil to Israel. Turkish intelligence forces have worked closely with Mossad to dispelled so many things against it.

But because politics is now done on Instagram and Twitter all the time, Israeli leaders talk about Erdogan and Turkey as if this is like some crazy Islamist state like that it's trying to destroy Israel every day. It's just not true. So why would you, and if you look at Israeli history, it was anything but it was the exact opposite. Israeli diplomats, you know, they would go talk to a country which had said 80% anti-Israel things, 20% moderate things. They would latch on those 20% things and also thank you and they'll try to expand ties on that. From that, you've gone to a place where Israel is, you know, impervious to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, to others.

So I think it's a very concerning situation and that has potential. with kind of there is also nationalist radicalization in Israel as potential for further clashes. I am hopeful, though, that the next government in Israel, after Netanyahu, it would be more focused on Israel. It would try to sort of put an end to Netanyahu and in sort of pragmatic grasping of its own national interest will try to make pragmatic dealings with different regimes in the region.

And there I think it's entirely possible, you know, to get to some sort of a peaceful settlement of major. state conflicts. And for Israel, finally, you know, it would be the real fulfillment of design history in a way. For Israel to become a country, define its borders, recognized by other countries in the region. Israel has never been a better place to bring that about. But it needs to do something about the occupation of Palestine. He needs to do something in fact that the state of of Palestine is recognized now with most countries in the world. And it needs to do something, you know, you can win arguments on Twitter against people. But you can never convince and

a community and everybody else, that there are going to be seven, eight million people over whom you're going to rule and you're going to give them no rights. And that's just because it's defensive and you're going to do it for 200 years because this is the only way you can, you know, no self-respecting Arab country is going to be convinced of that in the long run. And, you know, even the UAE wouldn't be convinced of that. I mean, you know, they'll ignore it for a while, but it's not like they're going to actually endorse it. So they're going to need to do something that will bring you about a lasting solution. I really appreciate this, Arash.

This is very helpful and educational. I hope the listeners do as well. And let's check in again soon, all right, man. Of course. Thank you so much. We'd love to be back. Thank you. Thanks so much to Arash.

Up next, Jody Cantor. Don't miss it. All right, I'm delighted to welcome a Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter at the New York Times of 2017. She broke the story of decades of sexual abuse allegations against the Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein, which helped ignite the Me Too movement. Now she's the author of the new book, How to Start Discovering Your Life's Work.

It's Jody Cantor. What's up, Jody? Thanks for having me, Tim. Happy to do it. I'm excited to get into the life advice. I've been begging people in the mailbag to send me life advice questions, and I don't get as many as I want. I don't know why. I feel like that you would, that would be the natural person to come to for life advice, but I guess I would think that.

And so now your book is giving us an excuse to explore it together. So we'll do that. I'm glad. I'm glad to give you the excuse. Okay, we'll do a little news first, though. In addition to writing the book, you know, you have a day job of the New York Times. You've been covering the Supreme Court. We talked about one of your stories yesterday with Wilson Murray, and that was these memos about the shadow docket.

And I said to once I was like, it seems like the shadow doctor to me is kind of, in a way, there's this parallel with the filibuster. Where it was like this tool that was used kind of in emergency situations from time to time. And then all of a sudden, over time, it started to use more and more. And then all of a sudden it was like used all the time. constantly. And you cite like this moment in a 2016 when this kind of started and do you have the documentation to back it up. To talk about like that story and why why that matters. Sure. So what's really unusual about this story is that Adam Liptack and I obtained 16 pages of the justice's private correspondence, like not something like the Dobbs League, which was an opinion that was

meant to eventually become public. This is stuff that we weren't supposed to see for generations. And we published this in the New York Times. And it's a momentous set of papers because it allows us to see the kind of pivotal moment when the Shatter Docket was born. I mean, it evolved over many years, but this was a signal moment because it happened during the Obama years. It was a 2016 case. the court halted President Obama's signature climate initiative, and they leaped in front of the D.C. circuit, which was supposed to hear the case. And so what you get to see in these papers is the justices behind the scenes kind of backing their way into a new way of doing business. They're having an argument about whether it's okay for the court to do this or not. and the Democratic appointees very much object to it.

They're very concerned. The Republican appointees want to go ahead. And the chief justice is really the person who leaps out from the memos and is the sort of most indelible character in the drama. And it's interesting because, you know, Roberts does have a reputation as being more of an institutionalist and he's, you know, picked his fights. You know, he hasn't been as much as a firebrand as like Alito and Thomas, thinking about the Bush nominees or appointees, rather. So I think it's kind of important insight into how the court has moved so much more aggressively to push a bunch of stuff that has given Trump more powers and taken away powers from Obama, as you mentioned, like under his urging, basically, like even though his public posture isn't,

you know, doesn't maybe reflect that as much. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, as you say, the chief justice we see in public, like speaks in kind of magisterial tones and has cultivated a reputation for being conservative, but very cautious and even-handed. And you get a different chief justice in these papers. He's pushing really hard for the court to do something really fast to go to a place that's never gone before. And when his colleagues raised serious objections, you know, they say, I'm worried about this.

This is weird. This is a regular. We've never done this before. He's pretty dismissive. And he says, you know, we just have to do it because this regulation. is so expensive. And then, you know, the other striking thing is the contrast between what the court put out publicly, which is like almost nothing.

Like these, some of these shadow-docket opinions are not really opinions. They're just orders. They're like a paragraph or two. They contain no legal reasoning. And then in the memos, you get to see what the justices were really thinking. The timing on this, you know, I think a lot of times the court wants to make it seem like, You know, they consider things in due time. You know, the decisions come up when they come up.

And I think this is particularly relevant now as you look at this, you know, Voting Rights Act case, which is, you know, had they held it to the end of the session, as they often do in big cases like this, like there wouldn't have been time for Louisiana and these other states to do stuff. And I do think that there is kind of a parallel there between, like, what you were seeing in those memos and the shadow document like what we saw this week. I mean, you know, I'm sitting here in the, a New York Times conference room talking to you. And I have to tell you, the Times has really

expanded and built out our Supreme Court coverage. We now have a five-person team, including our editor, Adam Lipdack, Roz Helderman is the editor, Anne Maramel, Abby Van Sicle. And the reason we're doing it... I didn't know Roz was there. Tell her I said, what's up? I will. I've worked for a year. I definitely well. Part of the reason we're doing it, Tim, is that we don't know the answer to really basic questions about the Supreme Court, right? Like, how partisan or the justices? Like, as you just asked, how do they judge the timing in these cases? Is there any, you know, political calculation to it? Who's really doing the work? The clerks or the justices? How do they age in these jobs? What does it mean to have power for 20 or 30 years at a time with basically no accountability? What are their

relationships like to one another. There's a lot of debate about the Supreme Court now, but it's hard to have a really good debate about an institution that is so secretive. And so we are trying to bring just some basic facts about the place to light. You mentioned kind of about Roberts now, the way that he's different behind the scenes on his public perception. She also wrote recently about Amy Coney Barrett. And she's been such an Interesting character on the course, right? And she gets nominated and the rhetoric about her from progressive opponents was like, basically, this is Handmaid's Tale type situation with Amy Coney Barrett.

And now that she's got on the court and she's had a couple of decisions that were, went against what Trump wanted and now you have the MAGA folks, a lot of really nasty stuff about her out there from the MAGA right. What did you make of her when you were writing that profile? Oh, that she is a much more. complex figure than anybody gave her credit for. And that kind of both the right and the left got her a little bit wrong. As you say, when she was appointed, there were a lot of caricatures of her.

But I think the caricatures were both on the right and the left. It's almost like people saw a woman with seven children and decided they knew what that meant. You know, the right thought she was going to be the savior who was going to complete the 50-year-old mission of the conservative legal movement, and the left villainized her, as you say. And she has turned out to be, I think a year after writing that story, I think it's still fair to say, she feels like the most independent of the Republican appointed justices, maybe with a tie with the chief justice. But she has shown some willingness to vote with the liberals, not on the big cases, generally on the smaller ones, but there are a lot of signs she's trying to stride her own path to some degree

as a jurist and, you know, truly wants a reputation as trusted and independent. I don't want you to give anything away of your reporting, but like how much are they all hiding from you? Like, are you, do you have any access to? Oh, I don't know. Well, to answer that accurately would be to be God and to know everything, which I am. This is what I think. I think the justices are used to being in control of the narrative about them because they ultimately decide what is in oral arguments and what is in opinions. So they might say that they're like the most transparent branch of government, but they control how much we see. And so this reporting is meant to challenge that just like in the

the classic spirit of journalists' scrutinizing power. And it is coming at a time when they really are surrounded and under pressure as never before. I mean, the security threats to the justices, the fact that even Justice Barrett's relatives were targeted last year means that Supreme Court justices have lost some of the anonymity that they used to enjoy in Washington and beyond. I'm going to ask you to be God. Can I ask you? Why don't we know who leaked the Dom's decision? Yes. It feels like we should know. I don't agree with you. Like, as an investigative reporter, what I would tell you is that it was very hard for investigators to find out. I don't know if we'll ever know. I mean, I don't want to. You don't think that person bragged about it? You don't think they bragged about it. Tim, I don't know. I don't know that it's established that the political reporters knew who their source was.

They could have gotten that opinion in a brown paper envelope in the mail. I don't think they've spoken about it, which is not surprising. I don't like mysteries. Well, I mean, the reason I think it's a substantive question and the reason I think you're right to raise it is that we can never forget that somebody tried to interfere with one of the most important Supreme Court decisions of our time. Like, look, I have put, you know, as we just discussed, private material from the justices into the paper, but that was after the decision was made. So Politico had newsworthy information.

They were right to publish, of course. But there was clearly somebody who wanted to have some effect on something. thing, right? Even if it was a bank shot, they were thinking or hoping that maybe they could impact one of the other justices. Correct. If we, or maybe they're just in here. If we want our Supreme Court to be independent of interference, you're, you're asking a fair and salient question. Well, let me, just whisper it to me if you think you know afterwards. Okay. Okay. I'll meet you. I'll meet you. I'll meet you in the ladies bathroom, Tim, and I'll tell you everything. I can't do that anymore in the Trump era, so it can't be the ladies' bathroom.

I'm going to get in trouble. As I mentioned, you're at the Harvey Weinstein stories of me too and it led to one of the more delightful parts of your book, which I want to mention to get to next. But first, I'm just, at the biggest picture, just wondering how you would kind of analyze the state of play now with regards to Me Too issues versus in 2017. Because in some ways, it felt like there was this moment where everybody felt like there was all this progress was going to happen and it was about time, thank God. And then this other moment happened where they're like, it's over. We're fucked. It's like, worse. than before now, you know, particularly after Trump got elected again. And, you know, in the last

month or two, we've seen a couple of congressmen go down over, you know, Me Too related issues. And and so I don't know, there's, I wonder if maybe the pendulum is swinging back towards the middle. I don't know. What do you think? I don't think it's a pendulum, but like, that's not my analogy, because I don't think that's quite how social change happens. But what I will tell you is that those obits for the Me Too movement were premature. You know, and I'm a reporter. I'm not an activist or a booster for the movement. But if you just look at the facts, what you see is that women are still coming forward.

They're coming forward about what happened in Congress. They're coming forward with allegations against Caesar Chavez. It's like an incredible story reported by my colleagues here at the paper, right? like a real stunner that this guy who was regarded as a civil rights icon all these years treated women this way. You've got Giselle Pelico in France with her head held high coming through this nightmare ordeal by being very public and refusing to accept any shame. So I do think I think the Me Too movement has been politicized. It was very even-handed at first. You know, there was Harvey Weinstein and Bill O'Reilly and Roy Moore, right?

It didn't feel like team Republican or team Democrat. It felt like team concerned for women for a little while there. That's changed. Obviously, we have a huge backlash led by the president of the United States. But as long as women keep coming forward, which they are, then I think the conversation continues. I think also, by the way, it's very interesting to me that as we look at the controversy in Congress at this moment, we're talking about one Republican and one Democrat, which says to me the learning from this reporting was that this behavior exists everywhere, right? Like this was kind of the stunning power of it. Every society, every political persuasion, every economic strata, every culture, every sport, every religion, every country. Why do these problems? seem to exist everywhere. And so I think it, it's obviously unfortunate to hear these allegations from Congress, but I think it's sort of fitting of like, oh yeah, one Republican, one Democrat.

Like, okay, like, yes, this is, this is a problem for everybody. Can I ask, what is your theory of how social chains works, not as an activist, but as an observer? Oh, just that it's really messy. And, like, there are private reckoning that are really important that we never see, right? Like, one of the most important things that happened during Me Too were long contemplative conversations that people had outside of the public glare that I think had a nuance and depth to them that sometimes the more public discussions don't capture. I think there were a lot of things that people were confused about. So yeah, I don't think social change is like a pendulum that moves from one side to the other. It's like a complicated, organic, ever-changing

thing. Part of the book that I referenced was you said that when you're speaking to younger, women in particular, you're asked a lot about how you managed the trauma of like having to like live in report

and obsess over and know everything about these disgusting men and these things that they did. And one of your responses was that well, that's true. That was challenging. But the day you get to confront Harvey Weinstein is the best day in the office ever. And so I want to hear a little bit about the way that you got to confront Harvey Weinstein. Is that okay?

Oh, totally. Oh, my God. Of course. Okay. So it's October of 2017. Megan Toey and I have been working on the Weinstein investigation. We've got 25 years worth of allegations ready to go. But as you know, Tim, it is critical to be fair to everybody with a story like this,

including even Harvey Weinstein, who was doing crazy stuff, like not only threatening the New York Times, but he hired this Israeli firm comprised of ex-intelligence agents to try to spy and dupe, me and others. So even to someone treating you that horribly, you have to be like very fair. And it's really, these are serious charges. You have to give somebody real time to respond. So we have a big debate about how much time we're going to give him because we don't want him to take advantage of us or cause any funny business. And we finally do it over the phone. And we scripted it out beforehand. And I read him most of the allegations that we were preparing to publish. And he hired like a huge PR and legal team.

And, you know, when you're being read that, like your job is so obviously to stay quiet. Like your lawyers are like, whatever you do, don't. And Weinstein just could not help himself. He responded a lot in the moment. He responded like even more in his official statements. You know, as a reporter, you get statements, right? Like when you're writing something bad about somebody, they give you a statement. The statement he gave us is, I really have to say, a classic of the genre, because he referenced like his bar mitzvah and Jay-Z.

and there was like contrition, but also denial. And it was all mixed up with Weinstein's like statements to us personally. He lectured Megan and I a lot about journalism in the course of this confrontation. You know, it's like going from like threatening us to telling us how much he loves the New York Times and can't live without it. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. So anyway, it was a very dramatic scene. But, you know, even with all. of that, like, drama going on in his response, what you're listening for as a reporter is,

does he have any substantive challenge to our reporting? Like, Megan and I are sitting there saying, we've got really powerful material here. We believe it. There's a lot of evidence. It seems really well-founded. But let's listen out for any problems, right? Like, let's listen out for anything in his response that causes us to rethink or want to check something we've reported. And there was nothing. It's something really perfect about a man being told about all the ways in which he's abused women and done all of these horrific things to women. Then taking that moment to lecture two female journalists about journalists.

Oh, yeah. We were mansplained. And we were, we were, we were, we were absolutely mansplained. I'll take that into account, Harvey. Yeah, exactly. And I'll tell you another amazing thing about that confrontation is we had reported that his people had told his own company that over the years he had had eight to 12 settlements to cover up allegations of sexual abuse.

And what's amazing is they didn't have an exact number, like eight to 12. Like that's a big difference. Like did you? like, did you forget four of those women? Did you not keep a list? Can you not remember? Like, how many are there really? There were two Lawrence. Do you count them? Exactly. Exactly. All right. Well, that's nice that you have those moments in your career, you know, to be able to reflect on. Oh, I mean, they took, look, I mean, here's the thing, Tim. Like, Megan and I had been journalists for a long time by the time we did that. But those moments took everything we already believed about journalism and, like, underlined them three times and put

three exclamation marks next to them because the number of brave sources who really helped us was so small and yet they created dialogue and change all over the world. It was it was an honor and an amazing thing to be a part of. I love it. Okay, to the rest of the book. Again, it's called How to Start Discovering Your Life's Work. I guess I was going to hear you talk about why you wrote the book, maybe through the context of the Baldwin quote you use as the epigraphic. It's one that I like. It's one that I like. So it goes like this. I'll read it really quick. One has to look on oneself as the custodian of a quantity and equality oneself, which is absolutely unique in the world because it has never been here before and will never be here again. Why the book and why is that the frame for it?

So the reason I chose that quote is that young people are being told essentially by this employment market, many young people are being told that they're disposable or interchangeable. and that they're not needed. And this quote is all about the fact that every human being has unique value and something to contribute. I mean, since you read the book, you know, this book is, it's not a book I expected to write. It started about a year ago when Columbia, at like, the peak of its chaos, invites me to give the undergraduate commencement address, which was a huge honor, but also like kind of a bad offer. You had to be like, can I do 2029? Are you available? Are you open in 2020? My college friends, my college friends grew very protective. They were like, call in sick. Don't do it. You know, like you're going to get booed. But something in me was like,

give me those kids. Because I really loved Columbia. It was transformational in my life. And I couldn't stand the thought of seeing this place that's supposed to stand for light and discussion and exchange, becoming so toxic. So I zoomed with the students beforehand because I wanted to read the room, and they lay down a serious challenge, Tim. They were like, we're done with talking about Gaza, Israel, President Trump, like our own university administration. We don't want you to talk about that. They said we chose you because of your career, and we want you to answer the question, how in this crazy environment are we supposed to find and start our life's work? And that struck me as an incredible question and one that is totally generational.

Like I have spoken at college campuses all over this country and young people are asking that at the elite schools, the humble schools, and everywhere in between. We have never been in an employment market quite. like the one we're in now. It is really tough out there. And I think that there's this sense of like discovering your life's work, I think is also like relevant to this, right? Because it's not just, oh, it's hard for me to find a job.

It's kind of like it's hard for me to know what career will exist even, right? Especially when you like think about the AI disruption. And, you know, a lot of folks, like there was, you know, when we're, when I was coming out of college, like, it's always hard to get the first job. But there's kind of a sense of, okay, well, I know what industry I want to work in. I want to work in politics. I'm going to go to the job and then we'll figure it out. You'll go up the chain.

And like that is that is more opaque now than it's been like in a really long time. Well, I'll tell you another change that really matters. Listen, do we know what AI is going to do to entry level work? No, I think it's too early. Like we can't see the whole thing yet. Do we know what it's doing to hiring? Yes. trying to get a job, as you said, has always been hard, anxiety provoking. It is now very lonely

because the hiring process has been digitized. And so, like, when you and I were seeking jobs, when we were younger, it was a social experience filled with handshakes and coffees and meetings and interviews. This is now a digitally mediated experience in which, like, truly, like, if you have, If anyone listening has never spoken to anyone who has done an AI interview in which you are interviewed by AI and not by a human being, I would really recommend you sit down and listen to somebody's personal story because it's so different than it used to be. And listen, these tools are very efficient. They're very powerful. but the young people I've talked to find them dehumanizing and discouraging. Because there's no recruiter saying like, listen, Tim, we don't have a spot for you right now. But it was amazing to meet you.

And I loved your answer about, you know, the pineapple store you started when you were 14. And I'm going to call you when I see the next opening. And it gets in your head. It's crazy making, honestly. It's crazy making. You sent out 300 resumes. Nobody's replying to you. You've talked to three people.

Nobody's replying. That's why the word I just keep coming back to is lonely. Young people are saying, can somebody just give me some feedback on my application? Can somebody tell me if this job even really exists or if it's a ghost listing that is just staying up on this portal? So, you know, my answer to this in the book and, like in life is that, we need to bring young people all the help we can. And also that, you know, we could spend like the next hour, Tim. We could do a super extended. We could do the longest version of this podcast ever discussing like all the negatives to this employment environment. But it's not that helpful because young people already know the negatives. The interesting question is, what are they supposed to actually do? Like, what does it look like to have a positive and productive? response to what's going on. You talk about how, and I think this is about the job search, but it's about more than that, which is, you're right about how the culture is swinging

towards cynicism and fear. And it's broader than that. And I've talked about young people not wanting to have kids also because they're scared of, and part of that's economic, a part of that is just scared about what the world is going to look like. And part of it is, like we have the dumb phones that are telling us the worst thing that's happening everywhere in the world and every minute of the day. And so talk about it. about that, like what your advice was for combating that culture. Oh my God. I mean, the entire book is, but there's one paragraph I want to read you because this is like, look, if you don't read this book, fine, but I want, I want you to have this one paragraph if you are listening to this and have

either ours trying to start or have a young person in your life who's trying to start. Do not give up before you even start. Frustration and disappointment are certain. Failure as possible. But if you abdicate the search for satisfaction now, you will put it further out of reach. Resist the urge to arm yourself with uninformed cynicism. Masking is oh so wise pragmatism. It's really just good old fear of rejection. We do not yet know what the world will offer you. You know, Tim, I don't know about you, but I fell down the rabbit hole of watching all the videos from the astronauts who recently went to the moon. And it was because, like, it was the most positive display of work I had seen in the culture for a long time. It was so refreshing and inspiring. And, like, imagine if those people gave up

before they started, right? Imagine if they just said, like, you know, most people don't get to become astronauts and it's really hard and, you know, I'm fearful that I might fail. You know, I get I guess that things are really bad out there, but I'm not, I don't want young people to give up. I want to see what they can extract from the workplace, despite it all. Yeah, masking your fear and concerns of cynicism is something that I have experience with. So I know about this and I have cynicism and it's like, man, it's sad to have somebody in your middle age that is, you know, so cynical that they don't believe they have a chance. And I'm trying to pull those people out.

but it's like really depressing when you talk to a 22-year-olds. He's so cynical about everything. Did 22-year-old Tim Miller ever think you'd be hosting a podcast like this? No, no. And this goes to one of the things, one of my favorite piece of advice you have, which is relax about coherence. Yeah. And this was the advice I give all the time,

which is like, if you asked me at any point in my life, what would you be doing five years from now? I was wrong at every juncture, I think. Maybe you could find, like, I guess, the period between like 2011. and 16. You could have found a year where I was right. So who was 22 year old Tim Miller?

I was a campaign junkie. And I loved doing campaigns. And I also liked smoking pot. And so that was mostly me at 22. And I went and joined a random campaign. I went to Delaware. And I was in the closet. And I had no idea what I was going to do. And like that guy

I think about this all the time. The guy in that very first campaign I ran, I was his body man. His name was Judge Bill and it was an unexpectedly close campaign and so I got sent there after I graduated and like he almost won and if he won I was closeted we're gonna get real personal now and I was like kind of dating a girl's like really the one time I ever dated a girl

and I was like had he won I might have there's a whole different life I could have left where I was like the advisor to the governor and in the and in a straight relationship in the closet going I don't know going down to Larry Craig path who the hell knows what had and I would have been in

Delaware. I would have been a Wilmington man. So, you know, or Dover, I guess. So, you know, it's just like, all of that changed and like it changed so much. And then obviously Trump changed my life so much. And, you know, the advice I gave, I was speaking to a class recently. And I was like, you know, it was one of these elite schools. And I mean, I was a striver. And I was like, you know, at 28, I looked around the Republican operative class. And I was like, okay, these four people are my competitors for being the press secretary for the next Republican president. Like, I know who they are, and we're all competing for the same jobs, and we're all going to pick different presidential campaigns. If I, mine win, I'm going to be the one in the White House.

And it's like, none of us won. All, like, one of them, I think, is working for a car dealership now. It's like, it's like, it's like, fucking Caroline Levitt is the, you know, Sarah Huckabee got that job, because Donald Trump wants, it's like, you don't know the future. Like, you can't, it's not, and it's, it's not like the 1950s where you go up the, up the ladder at your same. company, you know, like my grandpa. No, and not like that. No, and also, like, you don't know the future and many of us have experienced the passage of, you know, the last few decades as like a degradation, you know, whether it's climate

or other stuff, a time of, you know, gun violence, things getting worse. But in my life, I have experienced some pretty profound come from behind victories and recoveries and reversals that I think have made me pretty optimistic. And, you know, I've just been in a couple of profound life situations where it looked like all was lost. And then there was recovery, healing, and victory. And so I want young people to know that that's possible. Like we were talking about, like, how to social change happen? Is it a pendulum?

No, it's like something much more complicated, right? And, you know, is it foreordained that, like, the country's in decline? and that everything's going to fall apart and we're all headed for collapse. I don't think so. Yeah, I know. And it's different in every industry. Like, I assume a lot of folks,

if they're young and listening to those are interested in politics. And I just think to your advice of that, relax about coherence, try different things, do different things. You're talking about your friend that I wrote the book and had no background in this and you never would have expected it.

Like, that is not the advice that you get a lot of times. From, you know, the- No, this is meant to be a counter to the conventional wisdom. But, you know, one thing I love about your background, ground and tell me if my hypothesis about this is right. But a political campaign is such a great early job, right? Because it's high, it's high stimulation. Like my, for anyone lucky enough to have a choice of a first job now, which not everybody does, I think you want to be learning instead, like, and not just earning. You know, what is this job going to teach you? And I think the great first

jobs are very high stimulation. And the bad ones are the boring ones. Like prestigious but boring is kind of a deadly category. Like don't go work in an art gallery where nobody's going to come in all day. You're not going to learn anything. Yeah, no. This is where our advice is so aligned. I was in a a speaking to a class of political strivers a couple months ago. And, you know, my advice for them was like, your path is zigzaggy, try different stuff. Like, you know, go apply for jobs that aren't applied, like write very short emails, annoy people, bug them. I was like, go work for random campaigns. I go move to the middle of the country and go for a job that's not as competitive

and like where you'll get to do a bunch of stuff. And, you know, I was giving all this advice. And afterwards, I had a mole in the class who told me that like the TA came back in and was like, now that advice is a little unconventional compared to what you want. If you want to become a chief of staff on the hill. I don't know, man. I was like, you can be a chief of staff on the hill anytime. You can come back around to that stuff.

So I do think that that is important. And I don't know, is it a little too Pollyanna, though? Have you had feedback from people that are like, that sounds great? Like, I should go try and do something whimsical and high energy. But like, I can't even get anybody to return my call. To be honest, I don't want it to be about Pollyanna. I want it to be about fight because the only way these young people are going to have satisfying, fulfilling work lives. is if they fight for their ambitions and dreams.

Because the environment is so negative, I think you do have to take yourself and your happiness and your potential very seriously right now. So it's not about saying, you know, oh, yeah, man, everything's going to be all right. Like, look, I'm a reporter. And also, I reported some of the worst things about the workplace.

Like Harvey Weinstein, like definitely one of the worst bosses of all time. I also reported a lot about like why technological change can be so shattering and dislocating in the workplace. But all of that convinced me that there is a way. Listen, this is a time of struggle. This is a time of struggle. It's always been a life stage of struggle. It's worse now. But you can struggle bad.

or struggle well, right? You can get depressed and stay home and watch Netflix and not make any progress, or you can meet people and try things and force yourself and test yourself and consider options you've never considered before. And I think there is a better and a worse way to deal with this environment, and I want people to choose the better way. What do you say to people who say, you know, okay, like that sounds great. It's so hard to get a job. I found this job. I found this It is a boring job. It's not a high-engager job, but it was a job, and I needed a job, and it doesn't feel like it's my life's work. What do I do? How do I find meaning and fulfillment? I think there's a difference between the person who says that, who's like, listen, I'm taking this job because I need to earn a buck. Like, this is a survival strategy versus, and like, how could we ever, you know, tell that person they're wrong? Like, you know, I would never want to question that person's financial decisions. But I, like, I, think there's another kind of person who does that who says, I am giving up on work as a source of fulfillment or happiness. There are a lot of people, young people, just the way, like you were talking

a few minutes ago about kids who kind of give up on the possibility of family happiness. There are a lot of people who are giving up on the idea of work happiness. They're foreclosing the idea of the workplace as a source of satisfaction. And my worry is that by doing that, they're going to put it further out of reach. And, you know, the problem is that work is how we spend our time. And there may be people out there who are living happy, fulfilled lives, despite being utterly miserable at work. But I have never met anybody like that. Have you? One just came to mind, but they're few and far between, I'd say. Yeah, they're few and far between.

They're few and far between. Look, I'm a kid from Staten Island. If you ever told me I would be sitting here doing this work, having this conversation with you, I never would have believed you. Last thing, you gave a cute mentorship story about Michael Kinsley. And, you know, people should read the whole book, but I was, I don't know, I was getting in my feelings reading it. And so I figured it would be a nice way to end for you to share what happened with Michael Kinsey. The old timers will remember him, a long time editor of Slate New Republic, a bunch of places. So Mike was, Mike is and was a singular figure in journalism, kind of matchless columnist on the page,

but also this electric television host who helped create a genre and, was so witty and so fast. And I came to work for him in 1998 when Slate, which, you know, we now, there's the current slate, but Baby Slate was a startup owned by Microsoft, invented by Michael Kinsley, and it had one goal, which was to figure out what journalism meant on the web. And it was an incredible place to start work because, There was like very little hierarchy. Young people had a lot of opportunity. It was an environment that was both playful and serious.

And Mike really encouraged experimentation. So he was so encouraging of young people that like a couple months into me working there, he tried to give me a big promotion. And I was living in D.C. at the time. But the promotion was in Seattle at the Microsoft Mothership. And I was super excited because I had dropped out of law school and kind of like belly flopped my way into journalism. And, you know, oh, my God, a promotion and more money and validation and the boss's approval. It was completely irresistible.

So I jump out on a plane to Seattle. I'd never been there before. You know, when you smell the Seattle air for the first time, you're like, oh, like this is how air is supposed to smell, right? Like this, like freshness, it's incredible. So the deal is almost done. having lunch the last day in the Microsoft cafeteria and I'm 24 years old at the time. And Mike says to be, okay, like, let's go forward. But before we do, I want to ask, is there anyone or anything keeping you on the East Coast?

And I said, oh, I have a boyfriend. And then I added, but Mike, I'm a big feminist. And I don't believe in staying anywhere or moving anywhere for a boy. before the age of 25, and I'm 24. So I'm taking the job and I'm leaving the guy and I'm coming to Seattle. And Mike, to his credit, didn't laugh at me, but he said, is there a chance that you might marry this guy? And I said, yeah, there's a chance. And he said, I am revoking the job offer.

He said, I will not be responsible for breaking up what might turn into a happy marriage. he said Jody, he was like maybe 48 or 50 at the time. He said, Jody, I've been very successful, but I have been single my whole life. He actually was on the cusp of meeting somebody great marrying her. But he said, for people like you and me, there are always going to be work opportunities, but finding someone to love is the hardest thing. So I did not take the job in Seattle. Mike Kinsley kept me from breaking up with the guy who's now my husband and we have a 20-year-olds and we have a 10-year-old.

And, you know, foregoing that promotion cost me nothing. And taking that job in Seattle would have cost me everything. We'll end it there. It's almost all bad news on the Bullwark podcast and Downer. So I wanted to end with a little cotton candy, you know? A little kind of a little lifetime network. A little lifetime network. But you know, what's interesting to him is that like what he did was probably illegal. And it's all and it's also what made him a great boss. Amazing. Jody Cantor. Everybody, it's, it's graduation season. So it's a good time to buy this book for the graduate in your life. How to start discovering your life's work. Appreciate it very much. Come back and see me again soon. Great to be with you. Thank you for having me.

You can tell about how long this was, how much I enjoyed that pod. So I hope you enjoyed it as much as I did. Thanks so much to Arash Azizi and Jodi Cantor. We've got a new guest coming up tomorrow that I'm also excited for. So we'll see you all then. Peace. Shadows are falling and I'm running out of breath. Keep me in your heart for a while. If I leave you, it doesn't mean I love you any less. Keep me in your heart for a while.

The Borg podcast is brought to you. thanks to the work of lead producer Katie Cooper, Associate producer Anseley Skipper, and with video editing by Katie Lutz, and audio engineering and editing by Jason Brown.