← Bloomberg Talks
Bloomberg Talks
Former US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder Talks Peace Negotiation & President Trump
00:09:37
Loading summary
Transcript17 lines
- [00:01]
IBM Representative
The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across hr, IT and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks, and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM,
- [00:33]
Ivo Daalder
Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts, Radio News
- [00:37]
Bloomberg Host
Want to add the voice of Ivo Daalder? I was delighted to hear that the former ambassador to NATO was joining us today. This brings us back to the Obama administration, now senior fellow at the Harvard Belfer Center. Mr. Ambassador, welcome back to Bloomberg TV and Radio. I'm deeply curious to hear your thoughts today as the President drops this additional 10 days on the ultimatum. Do you think this is an opportunity to let talks breathe or to actually prompt them to begin?
- [01:07]
Ivo Daalder
Yes and yes. Also on putting more escalation options into the hopper. The problem here seems to be that the president is kind of losing the thread about what it is that we're trying to achieve here. Why did we go to war in the first place? All the focus is now on opening up the Strait of Hormuz. Of course, the Strait of Hormuz was open on February 28 when the bombing started. It was a consequence of the bombing, was a foreseeable consequence of the bombing. But somehow the President and his advisors didn't do the planning and didn't take into account the need to ensure that the strait was going to be open. So we're in a new ball game and we're trying to figure out a way. The president is trying to figure out a way to get out of it. And it is through some negotiated solution because other than occupying Iran and taking over the government and having a government that is more conducive to American persuasion, it's got to be a deal. Some deal has to be struck in which Iran agrees to no longer threaten shipping through the strait. And right now the tables seem to be turned to some extent where Iran holds, to use the President's favorite phrase, the cards. Iran is the one that is keeping the strait closed. It is opening it up for those who are willing to pay it sufficient amount of money or its friends. But it's keeping the straight closed to those it doesn't like. President is running out of options to figure out how to do this militarily threatening, in my view, in order to see if we can get a deal that at least achieves some of the objectives that were set when we started the bombing campaign back four weeks ago now.
- [02:56]
Bloomberg Host
Yeah, but this isn't a surprise, though, right? Ambassador, isn't this in every, every model that the Pentagon has ever had about a potential conflict with Iran? The first thing they would do is close the strait. Everyone in the energy market knew this, right?
- [03:09]
Ivo Daalder
Yeah, it's not a surprise, but apparently it was a surprise for the President of the United States who decided to engage in a second bombing campaign. Remember, he already did so in June of 2025 when he said he obliterated the nuclear program. He did so without paying attention. He was warned about this. I think it's reporting in the New York Times by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Dan Kaine, who said that this is a possible. And he said, oh, I'm not worried about that. Our military, your military, we're so good, we can take care of what we see. Here is a president, and this happens to other presidents. It happened to George W. Bush after Afghanistan. It's happened before. They become enamored with the military tool. Our military is extraordinary. It's the best military in the world. It can do things that no other military can do, but it can't do everything through military force. And we know that from Afghanistan. We know that from Vietnam, we know it from Iraq. But somehow, because Venezuela, the bombing campaign against Iran in June went so well, the president assumed that we could just change the regime with a bit of bombing and things would be fine. Well, turned out that as, as military strategists like to say, the enemy has a vote. And in this case, the vote was to close the Strait of Hormuz and they didn't prepare for it.
- [04:30]
Bloomberg Host
The enemy has a vote and Iran is not Venezuela. Ambassador, I want to ask you about NATO, its potential involvement or lack thereof. This is something the President certainly been talking about a lot of as recently as yesterday in the Cabinet meeting. Listen to what Donald Trump said.
- [04:44]
Ivo Daalder
One thing, we're very disappointed. I'll say it publicly, we're very disappointed with NATO because NATO has done absolutely nothing. And I've always said, 25 years ago, I mean, I was somebody that wasn't a politician, but I was always involved in politics and I understood politics. I said 25 years ago that NATO is a paper tiger.
- [05:04]
Bloomberg Host
But more importantly, that will come to
- [05:07]
Ivo Daalder
their rescue, but they will never come to ours.
- [05:10]
Bloomberg Host
The President has called NATO a paper tiger there. He has called NATO cowards for not joining him in the strait. NATO is talking as well, though. We just heard from The Chancellor of Germany, again, Chancellor Mayor, is saying the US And Israel have no strategy in the war on Iran and says German contribution in resolving the crisis is an option. Interestingly here, as Marco Rubio urges maximum partner contributions from G7 nations over Iran. Distill this for US Ambassador to the point where the Chancellor is compelled to speak like this publicly. What is the conversation between the White House and our NATO allies right now?
- [05:51]
Ivo Daalder
Well, I'm not sure there's much of a conversation other than perhaps Marco Rubio talking to his G7 counterparts in Paris. I mean, let me make two points. Number one, 25 years ago, the United States was attacked by Al Qaeda. And for the first only time, NATO, at the behest of not of the United States but of its allies, invoked Article 5, which is the collective defense provision of the North Atlantic Treaty, saying that an armed attack against one shall be regarded as an armed attack against all. Not only did they invoke Article 5, they deployed massive amounts, tens of thousands of troops to Afghanistan. Our allies lost well over a thousand troops in a war. So for the President of the United States to say today that NATO doesn't do anything for the United States, that NATO is never there for us, when in fact the 25 years he invokes was the time frame in which NATO did that is is frankly obscene. And it is regarded by Europeans as obscene because they lost troops to defend the United States and the United States security interest, not because they thought it was important for their security, but they thought it was important for America's security. And that's what allies do. Number two, NATO is a defensive alliance. It responds to an armed attack on it. There is no armed attack on NATO. The only attack that occurred was an Israeli US Attack on Iran, which many, in fact, I would say most Europeans regard as illegal under international law, unnecessary given that the diplomacy was still a possibility and reckless in ignoring the outcome that could have happened. And I think Chancellor Merz is expressing that. So under those circumstances, to say that this was, quote, a test for NATO or second, that NATO is a paper tiger, is never willing to do anything is frankly beside the point. It's not going to work and it's not going to lead NATO countries to deploy the forces. Now, if hostilities have ended, there probably is going to be a European contribution to helping to keep the strait open or even to open it. After all, NATO, European countries have capabilities the United States no longer has, like minesweepers. And finally, just to point out, NATO bases in Germany, in other countries are being used every single day to facilitate the ability of the United States to conduct this war without NATO, without Europe, the United States couldn't be doing what it's doing today.
- [08:23]
Bloomberg Host
Well, what would happen if every NATO nation with a ship showed up when the President initially asked them to in advance of, of the strikes? Would that have made the difference? The President says you need volume, you need scale to reopen the strait. If we showed up with all of our NATO allies, would the strait be open?
- [08:40]
Ivo Daalder
Ambassador? Well, if we hadn't bombed, the strait would be open. And I think that's the fundamental point. The strait was open, it was closed because of the bombing. I think if there had been consultations with the European nations, as indeed there was prior to the Iraq war, deep consultations, although Europe was divided, NATO was divided, that we might have come up with a strategy to say how do we put maximum pressure on Iran to achieve what we want to achieve, which is an Iran that does not have nuclear weapons, which by the way, it doesn't and it hasn't had nuclear weapons, in part because of negotiations, in part because of sanctions, in part because of pressure, but certainly because of diplomacy that it reduces its ballistic missile inventory and that it cuts its support for proxies. We could have had a joint strategy. That's not what the President of the United States did. He worked it out with the Israeli government, ignored pleas, and from the Gulf allies who said, do not do this because it is going to affect our security, as indeed it has. And he, he failed to even talk to our major allies, both in Asia and in Europe. So as a result, the Europeans and the Asian allies said we're suffering the consequences for a decision we had no input in, and now you're asking us to solve it.
- [09:56]
Bloomberg Host
With the diplomat's perspective, Ivo Dahlia, the former US Ambassador to NATO and the Obama Administration Senior Fellow, Harvard Belfer Center Mr. Ambassador, it's always great to compare notes and we appreciate your insights.
- [10:08]
IBM Representative
The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across hr, IT and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slashed repetitive tasks and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the lets create smarter business.
- [10:36]
My Policy Advocate Narrator
IBM, Here's a paradox. We buy insurance for peace of mind. Yet the very policies we trust can deliver the biggest financial shocks. Across America, millions of claims are denied every year, not because people did anything wrong, but because policies quietly excluded the things that happened. The psychology of trust tells us we assume the contract is fair. But in insurance, the information gap is massive. The insurer knows every detail of what's covered. The policyholder rarely does. That's where my policy advocate comes in. For just 27 cents a day, their platform reads your policies and shows you in plain language where you're vulnerable. They're not selling insurance. They don't do that. It's about transparency, giving ordinary people the same understanding insurance companies have had for decades. Because when you know what's really in your policy, you can plan, protect, and avoid surprises. Before you trust your policy to protect you, let my policy advocate tell you what it really says. Visit mypolicyadvocate.com today. Peace of mind starts with knowing the truth. Mypolicyadvocate.com.