← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Has the US allowed Israel to commit war crimes in Gaza? Secretary Blinken Exclusive
01:08:19
Loading summary
Transcript98 lines
- [00:03]
Christiane Amanpour
This is a Global Player original podcast. Guys, are you still with me? Do you hear me?
- [00:09]
Jamie Rubin
Yeah. And we heard all that.
- [00:11]
Christiane Amanpour
And you heard all my chatting.
- [00:13]
Jamie Rubin
All of it.
- [00:13]
Christiane Amanpour
Because I talk so loud. Yeah.
- [00:15]
Antony Blinken
All right.
- [00:16]
Christiane Amanpour
Tony is here. Put this in your left ear.
- [00:18]
Antony Blinken
Left ear. Very good.
- [00:20]
Christiane Amanpour
Try this and sit right here and make sure we're blocked. Well, okay.
- [00:25]
Jamie Rubin
Can you. Can you see me, Tony?
- [00:27]
Antony Blinken
I see you, Christian. And good to see you.
- [00:29]
Jamie Rubin
You, too. Thanks for doing this.
- [00:31]
Antony Blinken
Great to be with you. And this is a fun new twist on things.
- [00:40]
Jamie Rubin
So this episode we have the former Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, and he did make some news on what Iran would be prepared to do in a deal, at least what they were prepared to do before Israel started striking, and how that make and form the basis of a new nuclear deal with the United States. He was also very honest about some very pointed questions on what the US did and didn't do to stop the war in Gaza and the unbelievable suffering there and what an end to that war might look out. And then, of course, on Ukraine, it was him and President Biden, and of course, Jamie was there, who took on the job of defending Ukraine's sovereignty and its democratic independence as a state after the illegal invasion of Russia that has caused so much harm. And it's now into its fourth year. What might happen if. If Trump walks away? All of that to come. Fascinating conversation. Hello and welcome to the X Files with me, Christiane Amanpour and Jamie Rubin. I am a longtime correspondent for cnn and I host my own program now.
- [01:46]
Christiane Amanpour
And I'm Jamie Rubin, senior official in the State Department under President Clinton and President Biden.
- [01:54]
Jamie Rubin
So here he is, the former Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. He is our first guest on this podcast. And I have to say, Jamie, and I'll give you all the, you know, all the cred, it's because you persuaded him to do it. And I'm really pleased, although I'm not. But it's like one against two over there, two government officials against one journalist. But nonetheless, maybe it's a different kind of interview. Maybe it's a conversation and we can, you know, get some interesting things out that we might not have been able to do in other circumstances. So let's get started. Jamie, I don't know about you, but I really want to ask about Iran. There's all this, you know, in the atmosphere about whether there'll be more nuclear talks. Can I ask you first, Tony, if you don't mind me calling you that, do you think there will be another round of nuclear Talks between Iran and the United States.
- [02:43]
Antony Blinken
Well, first Christian, it's really wonderful to be with both of you. And if anyone can manage two of us, it's you. So I have full faith in that rangeland. Yes. And look on Iran. A few things I think are useful to say. One is that you've really got to go back a few years to when Obama had this agreement with Iran that put its nuclear program in a box. And there was a really good reason for doing that, because Iran without a nuclear weapon is bad enough in terms of the actions it's up to throughout the region. Leading state sponsor of terrorism proxies destabilizing country after country in the region, the threats it poses to the existence of Israel, et cetera. Iran with a nuclear weapon would act with even greater impunity in all of those areas. So making sure we could try to put that program in a box was critical for administration after administration. Obama actually did it. The agreement we reached with whatever imperfections it had bought us, 15 years. 15 years, during which time Iran, in terms of the fissile material it was producing, should it decide to break out of the agreement, it would take it a year or more to produce enough fissile material for a single nuclear weapon. When President Trump tore up that agreement and replaced it with nothing, the result was Iran started moving ahead and enriching its material even further, to the point where now, before the recent attack on its program, it was potentially from days to getting to that breakout point. In other words, it could have produced enough fissile material for a weapon within days. Now, the strike that President Trump took clearly set back the program. But here's the question by how much, for how long, and in what ways? And the challenge is this. We looked at military options and in fact, President Obama is the one who actually moved the massive ordinance penetrator, this so called mop, the bomb that was used. He's the one who really elevated that program. And Joe Biden, when he was president, perfected it and made sure that we tested it to make sure that it could, if necessary, be ready to go. But every analysis that we made that other administrations made suggested that if you use the military option against Iran, you might set them back by maybe two years, maybe less, during which time they could make the decision to proceed with their program, bury it even deeper underground, and decide at the same time to do something they hadn't decided to do, which was to actually make a weapon, something that explodes. You've got the fissile material, that's not enough You've also got to have a weapon. And by the best of our analysis, the Iranians had not made a decision to weaponize. Now, the danger is that they'll, they'll do that. They'll bury the program deeper underground. They'll decide to weaponize. Having said that, to finally come to your question. Look, I think Iran's in the weakest position it's been in memory. That means it's ripe for a deal. And I know that before the strikes that were taken, the Iranians were coming to the table and they had put some things on the table with the Europeans that I think could be the makings of a very good deal. And President Trump could get the so called better deal that he claimed he wanted when he tore up the original Obama agreement.
- [05:48]
Jamie Rubin
Jamie, you teased that out because I had spoken to the deputy foreign minister as the strikes were going on and he said, we thought we were on the way to a deal. And then they just obliterated diplomacy.
- [06:00]
Christiane Amanpour
So let's talk about what a deal could look like, because the challenge for Trump, Tony, I think you'd agree, is to marry the force that he was willing to use to real diplomacy. And if you don't get the diplomatic outcome, you don't get the solution we want. So I had heard rumors that the Iranians were willing to really scale back their enrichment to a very low level prior to the Israeli strikes, and that perhaps Netanyahu was fearful that a deal would be struck that he doesn't like because he doesn't want any deal. Their version is capitulation. Iran just gives everything up, which is never going to happen. So what are you hearing about what a deal might look like and why it would be worth pursuing?
- [06:42]
Antony Blinken
So what I heard from former European colleagues, people who are on the job now, is that the Iranians were prepared to come forward with a new deal that would have pushed the breakout time for the production of fissile material back to a year or more. To do that, that means that instead of enriching and sorry for all this technical stuff, but under the Obama deal, the Iranians could enrich their uranium to 3.67%. And with the centrifuges they had, the technology they had, that meant basically that the breakout time would be a year or more. They apparently agreed with the Europeans that they'd go back to a year or more breakout, and that meant enrichment at less than 1%. At about 0.7%. Yeah, 0.67% was what was at least theoretically on the table. Not only that, they had agreed to engage on ballistic missiles, something that was not part of the original deal. They had agreed to engage on the question of how you might mate a weapon to a missile to make sure that there were assurances against that. All these things at least were, as I understood it from European counterparts, on the table. They should be on the table again. So here I think President Trump has an opportunity, an opportunity to get that better deal that he claimed he wanted from the start. And again, I think that buys us a much better assurance, because if the Iranians decide to go ahead now, over the next couple of years, rebuild their program, bury it deeper so that it can't even be struck by something like the MOP and decide to weaponize, then we're actually in a worse position. If we get a deal, let's say it's 10 years, 15 years. Well, if they try to cheat on it, we'd see it and have time to respond. And have time to respond, because you'd have a long breakout time. If, on the contrary, the deal went forward, then finally it was expiring as the Obama deal would eventually expire. Well, it can be extended. Most arms control agreements are.
- [08:27]
Jamie Rubin
Okay, so this is really important because you've just said a few things that, no, nobody, none of us knew. And in fact, the opposite. Everybody thought that Iran was dragging its feet, was not coming to the table, and that's why this thing happened. Remember, President Trump said, I give them two months, and on the 61st day the bombing started. So what you're saying is that European colleagues had all this information, which seemed like a lot from the Iranians, given your previous experience. Did they share that with the United States? Did the president? Did the Secretary of State? Did the Israelis. Well, let's just keep it to the Americans for the moment. Did they know that?
- [09:07]
Antony Blinken
Look, I can't. I can't vouch for that. I don't. I don't know for sure. But I believe that the European counterparts who were aware of this had been talking directly to the Iranians, shared that information with the United States government. But again, I don't. I don't know at first hand. I can.
- [09:21]
Christiane Amanpour
Only from the newspapers. We know the British Foreign Minister came to Washington, met with the president, then went back to the Europeans. From our experience, it would be highly unlikely for the French and the British and the Germans or whomever to be talking to the Iranians and not sharing that with the Americans.
- [09:36]
Antony Blinken
It seems. Seems improbable.
- [09:38]
Christiane Amanpour
So let's get at one of the other hard parts of this the reason why the Biden administration couldn't make a deal. We had trouble, I think, answering the question of would Trump pull out again if he was president? And we couldn't obviously answer that to their satisfaction because he pulled out once before. He, of course, can answer that question by, you know, locking the Republicans in. I mean, I don't remember this because you were obviously running this, but wasn't that one of the problems that we had that Trump won't have?
- [10:07]
Antony Blinken
There was certainly a deficit of trust, having negotiated an agreement with President Obama, then having seen it torn up, even though at the time the Iranians were complying with it. Whatever one wants to say about them, there's plenty to be said about the Iranians when it comes to the nuclear deal. They were adhering to it. And that was not only the international inspectors who were telling us that. Our own intelligence told us that. So I think there was a trust deficit. Having said that, there's something else that's changed. And this is another reason why I think we're ripe for a deal in ways that we weren't, at least for the first couple of years, which is Iran is in its weakest position in a long time. And why is it in its weakest position? First, going back to the Biden administration, when Iran attacked Israel not once but twice, the United States, for the first time in history, actively participated in Israel's defense, got others to do the same. Not only was the Iranian attack repelled, but we also managed and helped manage what Israel did in response, such that it was able to take out almost all of its air defenses without at the same time escalating to a full blown war. And then of course, the Iranian proxies, Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, they've also suffered serious setbacks, largely as a result of what Israel has done. So this creates an opportunity, I think, for an agreement that hasn't been there in some years, and President Trump is the person to be able to get it done.
- [11:24]
Christiane Amanpour
Talk about the marrying of force and diplomacy, because that was my big lesson from the Clinton years. And we were able to do that in certain cases under Biden. But Trump and Netanyahu seem much better at the military side of the marrying force and diplomacy than the diplomatic side. So maybe will they come back to talking to the United States if they think we were using talks as a mask for attacking them? How do we get around that? This is where the Europeans could help. Right?
- [11:53]
Antony Blinken
Yeah. I think this again underscores the point that the military tool, the military option may be necessary, but it's almost never sufficient that unless it's followed by or married to diplomacy to get some kind of agreement, it's probably not going to get you an enduring result. And that's what we want, an enduring result. We don't want to have to go back to a situation of repeating this. And again, we may be in a situation where it's really hard to repeat, not easy to repeat. So take advantage of the fact that the program has been set back by some period of time, we don't know how long, use that time to try to negotiate something much longer, much more enduring, much more verifiable.
- [12:34]
Jamie Rubin
On that issue of setting back the program, the New York Times quotes a Pentagon spokesperson right now. And there's been a whole brouhaha right about how much they obliterated or didn't. This spokesman says the chief spokesman, Sean Purnell, said this week that he believed Iran's nuclear program had been pushed back, quote, probably closer to two years, as opposed to, you know, to what they called obliterate. And if that is true and if that assessment, that is less time, as you pointed out, than Obama had bought with the actual deal by far, by far to do all that, to push it back two years and then wonder what might happen, as you've just said, you know, will a program, could a program suddenly go further underground? Might they make the decision to actually become a nuclear weapons power? Are you confident that your ally Benjamin Netanyahu is on the same page as the United States or who is wagging the dog, which who's in charge here, as President Clinton apparently once said, does he know who the effing superpower is speaking about? Netanyahu?
- [13:42]
Antony Blinken
Well, Prime Minister Netanyahu has never been supportive of a deal of this nature, the Obama deal. I don't think he would be enthusiastic about a new deal, even if it.
- [13:53]
Christiane Amanpour
Achieved all the things, even if it.
- [13:54]
Antony Blinken
Achieved the objectives, if it allowed any enrichment by the Iranians. And keep in mind, the Iranians have invested decades in this program, billions and billions of dollars. There's a certain amount of national pride that actually brings, strangely enough, Iranians together, even those who dislike or despise the regime. So all of those factors have to be on your mind when you're trying to figure out what's the solution to this problem. And the answer that we have to come up with is one again, that gives us the greatest possible assurance that the Iranians are not going to wind up with a nuclear weapon. Every administration's agreed on that. Every president has agreed on that. The question has been what's the best way to get the job done?
- [14:31]
Christiane Amanpour
You know, I saw yesterday or the day recently, in the last week, an article which worries me. It's from John Bolton, and it suggests that the answer has got to be what they call the Libya option, which is where Libya gave up every single piece of equipment they contained that had weapons of mass destruction capability, they put it in a big storehouse, the US Was able to remove it, and that's what I would call capitulation. And that is maybe the only deal that you could imagine a Netanyahu agreeing. I mean, there's just no way. From what you know, do you agree that the Iranians will ever get to that level, especially considering what happened to Gaddafi?
- [15:13]
Antony Blinken
Well, I think yes. The lesson of Mr. Qaddafi's demise is not lost on the Iranians. And logically, at least, again, hard to know for sure, but logically, at least. The lesson learned from this most recent experience is countries that have a weapon are likely to be better protected and more immune to these kinds of attacks than countries that don't. Look at North Korea. So my concern is that that's what the Iranians conclude. They do make an effort to rebuild, to build back better, and then we wind up in a worse situation, maybe in a couple of years. And buying time is generally a good thing. But if you can buy more time, a lot more time, with an agreement in a way that gives you greater visibility, learns more about the program, and doesn't take away your military option, because at the end of the day, you can still use it, or if they cheat, you'll see it and you can use it.
- [16:06]
Christiane Amanpour
Before we go on to another subject, Christiane, I just have one more point.
- [16:09]
Antony Blinken
That I think will help.
- [16:10]
Christiane Amanpour
I know I have. I'm sitting right next to him is this analogy to North Korea. As I recall it, during the Clinton years, we had North Korea's nuclear program contained the plutonium side of it. Then we found out that they were secretly enriching uranium.
- [16:27]
Antony Blinken
Right.
- [16:27]
Christiane Amanpour
And instead of using that to add to the agreement and force that to be part of it, the Cheney Rumsfeld plan was, they're weak, they're going to fall. I remember Wendy Sherman used to say that they thought back then that the Kim family was on its last legs and if we just push them one more bit, they're going to collapse and then we can get rid of the whole thing. And I worry that that's exactly what people like Bolton and perhaps Netanyahu are thinking. Here that the regime is weak, they're on their last legs. If we just force capitulation on them, they'll collapse and we'll get the whole thing. And instead the North Koreans showed the danger because it was that policy that provok them into actually testing a nuclear weapon and becoming a de facto nuclear weapon state.
- [17:13]
Antony Blinken
Yeah, look, it could certainly play out that way. And with, with these regimes, of course, we'd all like to see a change and the Iranian people deserve a change, but no one knows these regimes are there until they're not. That could be tomorrow, that could be in 10 years. I don't think anyone has a good fix on that. And if you're premising your policy on that, then there's a pretty good likelihood that in the interim, a lot more bad things are going to happen. So let's work on what we can actually control, what we, or at least have some greater ability to control in terms of putting this program back in a box. And if on top of that, the Iranians are prepared to be engaged on other aspects, the threat that they pose, like missiles, that are a real concern to us, so much the better.
- [17:57]
Jamie Rubin
Just on the idea of changing regimes and what Jamie said about the, you know, the hardliners, I'll call them in the United States, who always think that they're going to topple if we just give them one more push, one more kick in the butt, you know that certainly the Israeli government, both the prime minister and others, called on the Iranian people to rise up under this, under this bombing. And they didn't for many reasons. One, you mentioned the nationalism and the patriotism when attacked from abroad. But two, now the regime that you all wanted to fall is undergoing a massive crackdown on people all across civil society unlike any that they've done before, according to Iran human rights organizations. They're going all over the country. They've got checkpoints, they're putting people in jail, they're speeding up executions. I mean, this has done so much harm to the people of Iran, who probably the majority of them are likely to want a change in the regime. And I just wonder what your, you know, your take on the tragedy at Evin Prison, which is a hellhole for prisoners, Many, many of them are political prisoners, some of them I know and I've interviewed. And they killed dozens and dozens of people, the Israelis, by striking it. You know, a former Mossad chief told me on the air, in order to liberate the prisoners. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. They killed people. And I Wonder what your commentary on that is, because those are the heart of the people who, who you would think would be the nucleus of any sort of anti government activity. And this wanton attack on a prison without evacuating the prison or being sure that you were gonna get just the gate. It's terrible what happened.
- [19:42]
Antony Blinken
Look, I think, at least from my perspective, you have to approach all of this with a certain amount of humility as well. And that humility goes to what we know, what we understand about internal Iranian dynamics, because we're not there. We haven't been there for decades. We don't have the same kind of visibility, the same kind of connections that other countries do that retain diplomatic relations with Iran. A lot of what we learn is secondhand, third hand. And so I'm always a bit loath to speak with any great conviction on these internal dynamics. For example, yes, the regime is detested by many, many, many Iranians. On the other hand, there remains a very significant conservative aspect of Iranian society. I couldn't give you a percentage, but maybe it's even as much as half that remains basically supportive. At least as best we can tell.
- [20:32]
Jamie Rubin
It'S less than that.
- [20:33]
Antony Blinken
Yeah, maybe it's less than that, but election polls, it's still not insignificant. So put it another way, Christiane. I think we have the power, Tony. They have the power. And of course, in any kind of autocratic system, it's incredibly difficult. But I think what you're saying just underscores the fact that one of the other things we have to keep front and center in mind is the plight of Iranians themselves under this regime. And as we're concerned, of course, with threats to our own security, with threats to the security of our allies and partners, we also have to be mindful of what life is like for the Iranian people who deserve so much more, deserve so much better. And given the extraordinary nature of that society, of that culture, of that country, could be extraordinary contributors to the world. That's what we have to hope for and work toward. But first things first. From the perspective of the United States, just looking at our interests, trying to get a grip on this nuclear program, trying to put it back in a box, that's job number one.
- [21:31]
Christiane Amanpour
Shall we take a break and then go to Gaza?
- [21:33]
Jamie Rubin
Yeah, we should talk about Gaza, because that also is obviously top of mind, not just for the policy people, but for people all over the world who is radicalized and in a way that hasn't been seen for many, many decades.
- [21:54]
Unknown Advertiser
Tired of spills and stains on your sofa? WashablesOfAs.com has your back featuring the Annabe Collection, the only designer sofa that's machine washable inside and out where designer quality meets budget friendly prices. That's right, sofa, so start at just $699. Enjoy a no risk experience with pet friendly stain resistant and changeable slipcovers made with performance fabrics. Experience cloud like comfort with high resilience foam that's hypoallergenic and never needs fluffing. The sturdy steel frame ensures longevity and the modular pieces can be rearranged anytime. Check out washablesofas.com and get up to 60% off your Anna Bay sofa backed by a 30 day satisfaction guarantee. If you're not absolutely in love, send it back for a full refund. No return shipping or restocking fees. Every penny back Upgrade now@washablesofas.com Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.
- [22:59]
Jamie Rubin
Okay, we're going to continue our conversation. We're moving from Iran to Gaza, which as I said, has radicalized ordinary people all over the world against Israel, against the United States in a way that's very, very harmful because of the incredible harm that's been done to the people of Gaza, the people of the west bank after what horror happened in Israel on October 7th. So back with former Secretary of State Antony Blinken and of course Jamie Rubin, who used to work for him and he's my ex husband. I want to come out of the box, Tony, don't laugh.
- [23:34]
Christiane Amanpour
It's a great combo.
- [23:36]
Jamie Rubin
It's a great combo. But I'm going to just lay it on you now. Very serious Israeli people, former government officials, intelligence officials, defense officials there, a solid group of important people in Israel are saying that their own government is committing war crimes in Gaza and ordering the idf, their military, to commit war crimes. That's from there. But I don't know whether you saw this. Your own spokesman, Matt Miller, who was your spokesperson at the, at the State Department, gave an interview to a rival organization to sky in which he said, I believed that Israel was committing war crimes. And then he said, well, I couldn't say that because I don't speak on my behalf, you know, when I'm serving the president of the United States. But now I can speak about it. So, Tony Blinken, would you agree from everything you've seen, everything you tried to stop and everything that happened just under your administration, not to mention what's happening now.
- [24:34]
Antony Blinken
Well, Chrisan, first let's step back for a second and recognize that there is deep extraordinary trauma on all sides, on the Israeli side, because of October 7th, the worst single day massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. And when I hear people say, yeah, that's a given, we understand, but no, it's not a given. And if you don't understand that, accept that, recognize that you're probably not going to get very far. And then, of course, virtually every day since October 7, the trauma, the suffering of innocent Palestinians in Gaza caught in the middle of this horrific crossfire that Hamas initiated, but that continues to this day well past a point where I think it has any utility for the Israelis and for their own security. So this has to be, I think, the most urgent priority, to get this to stop in a way that answers the security needs of Israelis, but critically answers the basic human needs of Palestinians. Now, this is the most horrific war that. One of the most direct wars that I've. That I've seen. And it was. It's been in many ways unique. And while we were in office, the Biden administration, one of the incredible challenges was dealing with an enemy in the case, in this case Hamas, that managed to bury itself beneath people, alongside them, on top of them, in hospitals, in mosques, in people's apartment buildings, you name it. But that never took away the responsibility of Israelis to make every possible effort not to harm civilians as they were dealing with the threat to their security. And in the context of that, and we said it at the time, there were no doubt individual acts, many of which were being investigated, need to be investigated, that might constitute a war crime. That's one thing. Looking at it systemically in terms of what the government was doing, its policies, that's another thing. But the bottom line is this. The Israelis said that their objectives in Gaza were to make sure first and foremost, that October 7th could never happen again. And to do that, they wanted to dismantle the military organization of Hamas, because that's what it was. It wasn't simply a terrorist group. It was also a military organization. It's that military organization that so successfully attacked Israel and innocent Israelis on October 7th. And it achieved that objective many, many months ago. In fact, about a year ago last summer. It also said that it wanted to get the leadership, those responsible for the attack on October 7th, starting with Mr. Sinwar. Well, it achieved that many, many months ago, nine or ten months ago now. And so in terms of its military and security objectives, those were accomplished a long time ago. The question now is if the Israelis are going to pull out, which they should, and I believe they must, ultimately from Gaza, what fills the vacuum because it's also understandable that they can't and won't simply leave a vacuum that Hamas could refill. We worked really closely together, Jamie and I, for many months on trying to help answer that question while President Biden was still in office. What would fill in in Gaza such that you'd have a transition to a Palestinian led Gaza, but a transition where in some fashion the security, the administration, the reconstruction of Gaza could proceed, allow the Israelis to get out, but make sure that Hamas didn't come back in. We left a lot of good work on the table for the new administration to pick up. And unfortunately, at least to date, it hasn't been able to do that. But that's what has to happen now. And that's the best way, the quickest way to end the suffering.
- [28:24]
Christiane Amanpour
Let's dig into that a little bit because it was a distinct privilege for me to be able to work on that with you. And I do think using colleagues who spoke to senior Israelis and senior Arabs, including Tony Blair and others, we did come up with a really good solution, which still strikes me as the only game in town. And as I recall, it was, we called it the Blinken Plan, but let's just call it a proposal to put in place an Arab force so that the Israelis would have confidence that Hamas couldn't rearm and rebuild through their borders. And maybe you could share a little bit with Christiane and the world about how close we came and how far along we were on the paper and what happened once the election went the other way and the players then no longer responded to us.
- [29:15]
Antony Blinken
Yeah, and look, I don't want to sugarcoat this and say any of this is easy, but the bottom line is this. We understood that again, there needed to be what people were referring to colloquially as a day after plan. For many, many, many months, the Israelis resisted even talking about it. But then they did finally get into the act and they started actually talking directly to the Emiratis about what that might look like. We were talking to them, we were talking to the Emirates, we were talking to all of the other Arabs, the Gulf states, Egypt, Jordan, etc. And there were real differences and we were trying to bridge those differences. But I think we got to a point where we were probably 85% or so of the way there. And the there is having transitional arrangements with Arabs and others playing a full part in security, in administration, in reconstruction, in partnership with Palestinians, and then ultimately handing over to Palestinians. Now, which Palestinians, there were differences there. Many of the Arabs believed that it needed to be the Palestinian Authority. Some of the Arabs believed that, yes, Palestinian Authority, better reformed Palestinian Authority because they were not confident that the PA could handle the job. And in fact, one of the things that I asked Jamie to do was to go meet with the Palestinian leadership to try to work through some of these questions. And the Israelis, of course, were extremely reluctant not to say opposed to anything that would hand off to the pa because for years, of course, they've been trying to keep the PA down so that they wouldn't have anyone to negotiate with to the realization of Palestinian state. So all of this was complicated, but we were pretty close and I believed that ultimately we could get over the finish line. The thing that would concentrate minds was when we got the ceasefire and the hostage deal, which we got at the very end because that built in a six week period during which agreements had to be reached to make that ceasefire enduring. And in other words, to figure out what the enduring day after plan was and that it would take getting to that point to really concentrate minds to overcome some of the remaining differences that we had. Unfortunately, when we got the ceasefire and hostage deal, it's not at all clear to me that the six weeks that we had were used in a way to really push the parties together to say, okay, we agree, here's what each of us is going to do, here's how we're going to make the ceasefire enduring. I think we're actually back to that point right now, six months later, so much suffering later, where we're hopefully going to get where we were trying to get at the end of the administration.
- [31:39]
Jamie Rubin
It's a really painful, painful situation. And as I said, it's radicalized people in families, in workplaces. When I say radicalized, it has really stirred emotions that we haven't seen perhaps since Vietnam, maybe during the Bosnia, but I don't think so. And in your administration there were at least 30,000 if not more people killed under the Biden administration in Gaza after the 1,200 people were killed and the 250 Israelis, of which there probably may be still 20 living hostages were taken. Now it's up close to 60,000. It's between 50 and 60,000. It's really, really a difficult and painful, painful situation for anybody to talk about. And the world hasn't been prepared to talk about it. Because they're concerned. Well, they have, but everybody's concern that if you are honest about it or if you try to get a real resolution, then somehow you're accused of being anti Israeli or anti Semitic or anti whatever it is, which I reject 1000% because you can object to a policy without having other motivations. But I want to ask you this because I interviewed you when you were getting that ceasefire back in January. It was the last day of the administration, just about. And I asked you if is there is the second part of it sorted? You've got a first phase and a second phase. And you said no. And it's clear to all observers that eventually Benjamin Netanyahu broke the ceasefire. And that's what the New York Times reports. That's what everybody reports. And, you know, you say individual acts of cases that should be, you know, investigated as war crimes. But you see writing about, you know, soldiers right now targeting and shooting to kill at people coming to get their food and basic necessities in that ridiculous thing that's been set up that doesn't work, you know, in the name of the United States and Israel to give people food. You've seen deliberate targeting of children and women who've. It's just unconscionable. I want to get back to Matt Miller. Basically, he was pushed on what you might think, on the frustrations you might have had with Mr. Biden over Gaza and Ukraine policy. So Mr. Miller hinted that there were tensions. He said in his interview, I'll probably wait and let the secretary speak for himself. But I will say, speaking generally, it's true about every senior official that they don't win every policy fight they enter into. And what you do is you make your best case to the president. He said that there were debates and we know about the back channel or whatever, the channel for dissent in the State Department. People quit. People wrote about why they were upset whether and when to cut off weapons to Israel. You saw us in the spring of 2024, stop the 2000 bomb shipments to Israel because we didn't believe they would use those in a way that was appropriate in Gaza. So that's your spokesman who never gave a hint of this and actually, I'm sure kind of criticized my hardline reporting. So I want to know, was there that kind of, did you have those frustrations? Could you have done more to stop what's now turned into, I mean, a slaughter?
- [34:47]
Antony Blinken
Look, Christian, I think there's a larger dynamic that you have to take into account, because what were we trying to do? We were trying to get to. We were talking about this in the context of Iran. It's a very different situation, but in a sense, the same principle. We were trying to get to an enduring solution that ended the horrific suffering of people on all sides, and especially in the. In all the days since October 7, Palestinians in Gaza, men, women and children, who didn't start the conflict and were powerless to end it and were suffering because of it. Grievously from day one, we insisted that the Israelis provide humanitarian assistance or allow humanitarian assistance to get to people who needed it. That was, as you know, an ongoing struggle, an ongoing debate. But every day of our, while we were in office, we pushed that, we pressed that. I don't believe there was any point at which there was a full embargo on that assistance, largely because we insisted that it go forward. Not very embargo if that happened under.
- [35:47]
Christiane Amanpour
Trump, there was such an embargo.
- [35:49]
Antony Blinken
So this was something that was very much front of mind. But here's the thing. We believe very strongly that the way to get this to stop again, in a way that answered Israel's security needs and that answered the human needs of Palestinians, was through this hostage and ceasefire agreement. But there were several impediments to getting there. Two of those impediments were Hamas's belief that if there was daylight, if there was division publicly between the United States and Israel, if that manifested itself as well as other countries in Israel, then it could sit, wait, bide its time and get the best possible deal way down the road. And so what was said, sometimes privately versus what was advertised publicly, yeah, could be very different, because we didn't want to play into this dynamic where Hamas was looking for these divisions as a way of extending what it was doing in Gaza. Similarly, Hamas believed that the cavalry was going to come to the rescue, that Hezbollah was going to jump in, that Iran was going to jump in. And it was vitally important to make sure that Israel had the means to deter further aggression from other parties, other fronts opening up. That was the best way to extend what was going on in Gaza. So when you're actually making these decisions, when you're thinking about what you're saying in private versus what you're stating in public, you have to keep all of that in mind if you want to get the result. Now, we should have probably had that, the ceasefire hostage deal many, many months before we did. And, in fact, it really, I think, got over the line a long time ago, way back in May, June, a year ago. That was the point at which President Biden went public and laid out that deal to the entire world. And then we went around the world and we got the entire world to sign onto it. And keep in mind the impediment to getting it at that point was Israel's refusal to guarantee that any ceasefire that was reached would be enduring. And Hamas refusal to accept an agreement that didn't have a guaranteed enduring ceasefire. Well, the framework that Biden put out had the six week period during which we'd have a full ceasefire. Aid would be surged in, hostages would get out, prisoners would be released, and we'd negotiate the details of an enduring solution. And when he put that out and the United nations security council voted 14 to nothing with one abstention, the Russians in favor of it, all of the Arabs came out in support of it. I went around the entire region and around the entire world, country after country came out for it. Hamas finally caved and accepted that framework. The idea that there'd be six weeks, no guarantee, although best efforts to get to an enduring ceasefire. And then we worked to implement it. And then events happened. Various people got killed, assassinated. At one point, the Hamas executed some of the hostages. And so getting over the finish line got derailed, got delayed for many months. But ultimately the deal that was reached at the very end of our administration was exactly what President Biden had put out back in May, June, and we'd rallied the world behind. So it's a really long way of saying that this is what we're immersed in every single day. And when you're immersed in it, and then you've got these questions of we have real differences with the Israelis, but are we going to be public about it and potentially derail the effort that we're making to get something enduring that will alleviate and relieve the suffering of people for the long term, not just for the short term? That was the calculation we had to make. Now, people may come back and say we did it wrong, and that'll be the judgment of history, but that's the way we were thinking about it.
- [39:27]
Jamie Rubin
Can I just ask you as an observer, I noticed, obviously, the President of the United States immediately got on a plane and went to Israel after this horrendous slaughter on October 7th. And he also, I noticed, warned Benjamin Netanyahu, do not do what we did after 9, 11. Do not seek the kind of vengeance and untrammeled revenge that has this unbelievable, devastating consequences, as that did in Iraq for the United States and now what's happened in Gaza for the Palestinians, and I believe eventually for Israel's security as well. You came to Israel and you said, I come not just as the Secretary of State, but also as a Jew, as a proud Jew. And of course, I stood up and sat up and took notice because I thought, okay, that's interesting. Now what? And so I want to know, because Benjamin Netanyahu spent a lot of his time while you were in office with the rather the Obama administration and everything coming and speaking against the president of the United States in front of Congress, in front of the U.N. that's what he did. He undermined you all, the United States, and you are and have been trying to not have daylight between him and the United States. So do you think that after all of this, these 20 months, and the US support for all of this, is Israel more secure, more safe, and or as has been written about just recently, is it secure yet isolated and potentially a pariah? And how is that helpful?
- [41:02]
Antony Blinken
Christiane it's both. But first, let me backtrack for a second. I'll come to that. But first, you have to be true to yourself. And when I was in Israel on the dozen times I was there, as well as so many of the countries in the region, a dozen times from October 7th on, I was there as a representative of the United States, as the secretary of state, as an American, but as a human being, of course, I'm very proud of my heritage. And of course, what happened on October 7 resonated in a personal way with me, not just a professional way, because in my own family history, I have, you know, relatives who were forced out of countries by pogroms and came to the United States, a late stepfather who was a Holocaust survivor who survived Auschwitz and Dachau and Majdanek and all these camps. His entire family was exterminated. And so the act, the Horrific act of October 7 brought a lot of that to the surface. And I thought it was important in that moment to connect in a personal way with so many people in Israel who were traumatized. But in so many ways, that day in the collective global consciousness has been almost erased by everything that followed. And I wish that those and I feel this so strongly because I also feel deeply the suffering of men, women and children in Gaza. I've met with families, American families, Palestinian Americans who lost their entire families, little girls and little boys. I have the pictures that I've still kept of one family. And so I have some sense of what they're going through. And there's no hierarchy of loss. There's no hierarchy. There's no difference between an Israeli child, a Palestinian child killed in this horror that Hamas initiated. But I wish as well that those who understandably have been so moved and motivated by everything that's happened since October 7th, if they'd spent just maybe 10% of their time calling on Hamas, demanding Hamas put down its arms, give up the hostages, stop what it's doing. Maybe if the world had done that, we'd also be in a different place. But to come to your question more specifically, look, I think what President Biden told Prime Minister Netanyahu from day one, exactly as you said, was exactly right. And there's a big difference between doing your best to eliminate the threat, such that what happened on October 7th couldn't be repeated, versus some futile and misguided campaign to try to eradicate all of Hamas that simply is not going to happen and will leave Israel holding the bag. We believe before the October 7, there were somewhere around 35 to 40,000 armed Hamas militants again organized militarily. And that military organization was dismantled by what Israel did, and it was dismantled more than a year ago. Now, Israel probably killed, it's very hard to know for sure, roughly half of those militants, so let's call it 20,000, maybe a bit more. We believe that Hamas managed to recruit almost as many new members as as had been killed. Now, these may be 15 year old kids, they may not be trained or experienced, but the point is they've helped replenish their ranks in this time. And so the idea of setting as your objective the elimination, the eradication of Hamas, I think, is profoundly wrong and misguided. The real question is, again, the one that was answered a while ago was making sure that they couldn't do it again. And I believe Israel achieved that objective. What does this mean? It means, absent finding a solution for Gaza that ends the violence, that ends the suffering, and a solution that allows Israel to leave and ensures that Hamas can't come back in the way that it was before. Then Israel will be left holding the bag. It will be responsible for an insurgency that goes on for a decade, and it will have to deal with that.
- [45:27]
Christiane Amanpour
And let me just try to, so we can move on to Ukraine, since we're running out of time. Look, we talked about Iran, we talked about Gaza, and there's a connection. The connection is that Israel's intelligence and military capabilities are extraordinary and they can do extraordinary things. But that doesn't mean they make the right decisions. Their intelligence failed them on October 7 because they had a political push to have all their troops in the west bank and not around Gaza. And that allowed Hamas to use a military assault on southern Israel. So Israel has great intelligence and military capabilities, but its leaders have to make the right use of those capabilities. They've Destroyed Hamas, they've probably destroyed the bulk of Hezbollah. They've damaged the Houthis, they've taken out the Iranian air defense, the Iranian ballistic missiles, damaged their nuclear program, damaged their economy. Now is the time to put that military success and lock it in for Israel's future. And the tragedy for this is that when Secretary Blinken was offering Bibi Netanyahu a chance to be the great leader he claims to want to be because he could have achieved a pullout from Gaza, achieved, allowed the United States to declare a path to a Palestinian state, he didn't even have to do it. Probably could have gotten Saudi recognition, which was the dream of Israel's founders, to have all of its neighbors recognize it in peace and security. That was on the table a year ago, once the Hamas defeat was clear last summer, and it's on the table now, now. But the United States can't make them do that. They're a country that, you know, for their own reasons are going to make their own decisions and their democracy is very vibrant. And at some point this is all going to come to fruition and they're going to be real discussions about who is responsible for what, when. But as good as they are militarily, if they don't use their brains to lock it in, then the answer to your question is going to be no. They're worse off because they've so damaged their reputation of Israel that the people that, that respected them, that loved them, that wanted to bring them into the international community as a full member of their part of the oecd. The first line of countries are going to shun them because of what they're doing in Gaza. And that would be the great tragedy that would almost vindicate Hamas. Instead, to kill Hamas ideology, you declare a Palestinian state. That's what Hamas is against. And Netanyahu missed that point. He claimed a Palestinian state is a victory for Hamas. He got it wrong. Hamas wants a one state solution with Israel wiped off the map. Getting to the Palestinian state, doing all the things that Secretary Blinken and President Biden got started, would bring him a historic role in the world. But he just doesn't seem to have the same capabilities to do that. Rather than just ordering the military and the intelligence community to do what they would have done with any prime minister, frankly.
- [48:27]
Antony Blinken
Yeah. The ultimate defeat of Hamas actually is the realization of the Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel. And as Jamie said, you go back through history every time this was coming close. Oslo, what happened after Oslo? Hamas perpetrated horrific terrorist attacks. The Arab Peace initiative in the early 2000s. What happened after that was announced? Hamas perpetrating horrific attacks precisely because it's the biggest opponent to a two state solution. So ultimately, it's realization that's the ultimate demise of Hamas. It takes away any political wind that it might have in its. Might have in its sails.
- [49:01]
Jamie Rubin
And look, I mean, you know, I don't want to keep on, but you can't deny that Prime Minister Netanyahu, as you guys have said, do not want that state, therefore have Never empowered the PA and weirdly have empowered Hamas before October 7th with the money they sent them. With the lack of intelligence.
- [49:17]
Christiane Amanpour
Yeah, he did it on purpose so that they wouldn't have a negotiating partner. He admitted it.
- [49:21]
Antony Blinken
But here's the thing, there really is, and I still believe this very, very strongly, maybe people will say naively, I believe the future, the future that Jamie described remains possible. Not only possible, but necessary and possible. Because the equation, the equation we were working on, and we did so much work to try to realize, and that work is there and ready to be picked up, is through this pathway of normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia. And that is, if you'll pardon the expression, the Holy Grail. For Israel, the work is all there. The agreements necessary between the United States and Saudi Arabia are there. Much of the work necessary for even the Palestinian pathway is there. But two things need to happen. Gaza has to be over and there has to be a credible pathway to a Palestinian state. Otherwise, Saudi Arabia, I believe, and mbs, the crown Prince cannot and will not move forward. But if that's there, then I believe that he wants to do it. Netanyahu remains very motivated to do it. And that is what fundamentally changes the future for Israel, for Palestinians, for Arabs, for all of the people in the region. And I believe we have to make every effort to work toward that goal.
- [50:39]
Jamie Rubin
And I just wonder if either President Trump or Netanyahu are willing to stare down in pursuit of this goal, the extreme right, who are busy. You've heard the Israeli Defense minister or reports anyway from the Israeli press wanting to herd all the Palestinians of Gaza into a camp in the south around Rafah. And you know what's happening on the west bank, that more people have been, more Palestinians have been chased out of their homes and villages in this post 10-7-period by the settlers, enabled by the IDF and the police than in the entire time.
- [51:10]
Christiane Amanpour
Right. And those decisions President Trump and his team are going to have to deal with. And we can only give them good advice now that we have the freedom.
- [51:18]
Antony Blinken
To comment at some point or another, you have to choose. And you can spend all of your time, and good politicians will do this, avoiding making choices. But there comes a point where you do have to choose.
- [51:30]
Jamie Rubin
Well, on that note, you have raised a brilliant place to stop and take a break because there's a huge choice to be made again by the United States and I guess by all Ukraine's allies, how to keep supporting it so that it can fend off the. The horrendous and obviously illegal invasion by Russia. We'll talk about that when we come back. So, everybody, welcome to former Secretary of State Antony Blinken. We're now continuing to get a little bit more out of him, I think, on Ukraine. Jamie?
- [52:12]
Christiane Amanpour
Yes. This is the big decision, I believe, facing the world. The Ukraine war, to me, is the largest of important event in my lifetime. The invasion of a large country by Russia that the United nations and everything we've done in the world was supposed to stop. I believe this will be one of Biden's positive legacies by keeping the alliance together in responding to Putin's war. But now there's a question whether Trump will squander the challenge that Putin faces. And I wonder in as compact a way as you can, Secretary Blinken, if you can address a couple of points. One, the dynamics that you faced, because I know you were the leading advocate for every single one of the key weapons systems that were put forward before the west, the tanks, the aircraft, the ATACMS missiles that you always thought we would get to that point. So let's do it as quickly as possible. But it wasn't easy for you. I know that because we were together. And, and I, I think if people understood the dynamics of what happens in, in a closed room between a Secretary of defense and a CIA director, a president and a Secretary of state, when they're deciding these hard questions, knowing that there are some big issues at stake, like the time that you guys faced the prospect of Putin using nuclear weapons. Those are big things that, you know, we mortals, you know, don't really know how to deal with. And you were there. And I think it would be great if you could share with, with Christian and the world, one, how hard it was to get all the weapons through. But two, what it was like to have that sword of Damocles in the biggest sense, hanging over your shoulder when Putin was threatening nuclear weapons.
- [53:51]
Antony Blinken
Yeah. So two things. First, again, put this in context. It's always important to do that. Why did we care? Why did it matter? Why does it still matter? So Profoundly to the United States and to many countries around the world. Not just because one larger country was bullying another, but because the aggression that Putin was committing was against not only Ukrainians, it was against the entire international system. Everything that countries around the world had come together after World War II to stand up so we wouldn't have another global conflagration. All of these rules, these norms, these understandings embedded in the United Nations Charter, the notion of sovereignty, of independence, of territorial integrity, that one big country can't simply go in, change the borders of another by force, dictate what it does. If we allowed that to go forward with impunity, then it would have been open season for would be aggressors everywhere. Starting, of course, with Putin himself, who probably would have continued in other places, but also in places far afield, including in the Indo Pacific, in Asia. Everyone was looking, everyone was trying to take lessons from what was going to happen or not happen. So it was incredibly important that we stand up, that the world stand up. And we did. Now, you also have to remember this. When you have the President of the United States, who's ultimately making these decisions, everyone around him, a cabinet secretary, an advisor, you name it, we all come in with our opinions, with our recommendations, with our proposals, but only one person ultimately makes the decision and bears responsibility for it, and that's the President. That is where the buck stops. And so I also believe strongly that my job was to give my best possible advice, but also to be incredibly respectful of the fact that only the President was the one who bore responsibility. And anyone kibitzing about it, whether inside the administration or in the media or among the expert class, you name it, that was one thing. The President solely bore that responsibility with.
- [55:43]
Christiane Amanpour
The nuclear sword of Damocles hanging over.
- [55:45]
Antony Blinken
His shoulder, as there's potentially, potentially that or certainly the potential for direct conflict with Russia, which of course, he wanted to avoid. So for President Biden going into this, it was do everything possible that we can to help Ukraine, to defend Ukraine, to put pressure on Russia, to keep the alliance together, to strengthen it. And each and every one of those things he did, but also try to make sure we're avoiding a direct conflict with Russia, which could lead to something truly horrific. That's what he was navigating. Now, in my mind, as we were going through this, I believed it was important to try to get the Ukrainians everything possible as quickly as possible. And as Jamie said, I had a pretty strong feeling that with most of these decisions, we were eventually going to get there. So let's be for what's going to happen and beef for it sooner rather than later. But again, if you have any kind of rational process, which we had and many previous administrations had, you have to make sure that everyone's around the table making these decisions so that you can see what's the second and third order consequence, what's something that I may not see from my vantage point that one of my colleagues will see. And in fairness to, let's just say the Pentagon, right, when we'd be talking about giving the Ukrainians a given weapon system that they wanted, whether it was, you know, an Abrams tank or an ATACM missile System or an F16. Patriots, patriots, you know, you had to answer not just the question, do we give it to them or not, but do they know how to use it? Can they maintain it? Can they repair it? Is it part of a coherent battle plan? And there are also questions about our own stockpiles occasionally that we had to, that we had to look at. But it's really important to be able to answer all of those questions. And you know, my job in part as someone who felt very strongly that we had to make sure Ukraine had everything it possibly could get in order to ward off this Russian aggression, was to make sure that we were answering those questions as quickly and as honestly as possible.
- [57:41]
Jamie Rubin
I have to ask you, because you might sound frivolous, but obviously you talk about the president and only he can make the decisions. So hand on your heart, was the president fine, all these books about his this and his that and his wandering off and his age and what it was doing to him and how it was revealed in that horrendous debate in June of last year on cnn. Are you confident? Were you confident?
- [58:07]
Antony Blinken
Yes. And that confidence comes from the fact that just as I just said, each and every one of these decisions, each and every one of these judgments, they were President Biden's, not mine. Not the Secretary of Defense, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the national Security advisor. We all gave our best advice. We all had vigorous discussions, debates, arguments. He was the one pressing each and every one of us to justify what we were advocating. He was the one who made the decisions and the judgments. And I think the best way to evaluate the President's so called fitness for office while he was president was to look at those decisions, to look at those judgments. Some people will agree with him, some people will disagree, but that's the record of the President upon which he should be evaluated.
- [58:51]
Christiane Amanpour
And Christiane, to get at your question another way, so I Observed this, obviously from afar, as one of your colleagues, eventually sitting down the hall from you. Very few people understand the way the dynamic is with the Secretary of State and the President. And I watched it with Madeleine and Bill Clinton. And, you know, we've never had a Secretary of State who was the single closest, longest term advisor to the President the way you were. And, you know, I watched you go off to the White House and come back from the White House. And with respect to this question of fitness for office, I mean, in the years I was there, I just never heard you say, oh, boy, the President lost it today. We couldn't make a decision that when you needed to call him, when I was at your house and he called you to decide on the Thaad missile system to go into Gaza at the last second on the Israelis are about to bomb Iran, all of these times, you never felt, I mean, tell me, I mean, I'd never heard you say it, that when it came to foreign affairs and the decisions, which he loved foreign affairs, his adrenaline would flow, he loved to talk about it, and he loved to make the hard decisions. You never told me that there was a problem.
- [59:54]
Antony Blinken
No, that's certainly what. What I saw, what I experienced, and that was the prism through which I was seeing this foreign policy, national security. And Christian, all I can tell you again is that every time we were in there talking to him, working through a problem, getting a decision, he was more than vigorously engaged. He put us to our paces. That's what it's about. Now, that's very different than the question, should he serve for a second term? Could he see doing this for another four years? Would he be in the necessary shape to do the job and to do it as effectively for another four years? Ultimately, he decided that he wasn't. That he couldn't feel confident about that. And that was the basis of his decision not to seek a second term.
- [60:36]
Jamie Rubin
I mean, it begs the question, do you think he should have done it earlier? And then you can answer this if you like. But the other thing I want to ask you is, you know, people who I've interviewed, like former Russian Foreign Minister, the former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the former French President Francois Hollande, all of whom dealt with Russia and Putin in various, you know, horrendous crises, they said the only thing Putin understands is strength. He kicks you, you punch him back in the nose and he'll get the message. So I guess my question is, do you think you punched him in the nose enough in supporting Ukraine?
- [61:05]
Christiane Amanpour
I want to answer this partially and then hand off to you because we're running out of time, Tony, and you can finish us. One of the most important meetings I attended with you was in Saudi Arabia with mbs, Mohammed bin Salman, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia. And all the foreign policy experts and the wisdom chattering classes always say, you know, do the Saudis and the Emiratis trust the president? And they use that as the ultimate guide of the credibility of our administrations. And they criticized Obama for no, and sometimes Trump for no, and sometimes Bush. Different ways. What he said to us that day, that because of America's behavior in Ukraine and with the Israelis, that he had made a long term decision that it was only the United States that could sustain support and that was worth being on your side. And he had given up this idea of flirting with China, given up this idea of playing around with the Russians, that it was America's strength on Ukraine and Gaza for all its flaws and all its faults and all the criticisms that what MBS concluded, he said he had told us this was his big lesson in the last two years. That's the answer to whether we were strong enough.
- [62:22]
Jamie Rubin
So I get what you're saying. That's a clear message from mbs. So the question then, Tony, is do you think Trump is going to sit by and let Russia win? And if so, what happens to the United States? Well, of course. What happens to Ukraine? Of course. And what happens to the U.S. yeah.
- [62:42]
Antony Blinken
Look, I'm deeply concerned about it precisely because of everything that we did with and for Ukraine, everything we did with and for our allies, everything we did to exert extraordinary pressure on Russia. And it's a little bit hard to understand exactly where the president is on this. Now he says one thing, he does or doesn't do another. From day one, we heard him putting the blame on Ukraine for somehow initiating the Russia's aggression against it, putting inordinate pressure on Zelensky to end it and no pressure on Putin. And that simply further emboldened Putin to keep going. And then we've seen these horrific attacks by Russia on Ukrainian cities, on Ukrainian civilians that continue. And that seems to have, and I'm glad of that at least to have gotten President Trump's attention and focus. And he does seem at least to express frustration with the fact that not only is Putin not engaging in good faith, he continues to double and triple down on this aggression against Ukraine and its people. And so we've had now back and forth over the last couple of weeks on have we stopped the flow of weapons to Ukraine weapons that were designated for Ukraine by President Biden. That's what we're talking about. The pause that was put in place was on weapons that had been put forward by President Biden, supported by the Congress, not things that President Trump has decided to do. Well, now, apparently, and we've seen the president apparently reverse his administration on that and wants to continue sending things to Ukraine.
- [64:11]
Christiane Amanpour
We'll have to see.
- [64:12]
Antony Blinken
We'll have to see if that actually happens. But here's what I believe strongly. The only way we're going to get to a settlement, the only way we're going to get at least to a ceasefire and one that can be enduring, one that won't simply allow Putin to bide his time, to rest, to refit and then reattack, is through making sure that the Ukrainians have the strongest possible hand, that Russia remains under the strongest possible pressure. There's lots that goes into that, but it means making sure that we get them weapons. And by the way, this has been extraordinarily beneficial, actually, to the United States. Virtually all of the money that has been allocated for this was spent in the United States, either producing these weapons or replenishing them. And that means good jobs. It means actually strengthening our own defense industrial base. So that's one second. Of course, the Ukrainians have been the ones doing the fighting, not Americans, not Europeans. And that's also a much better place to be in going forward. We should be able to find ways to make sure the Ukrainians have what they need. There's also about $300 billion of Russian frozen assets sitting in European banks. And we were able to tap into the interest to help the Ukrainians. I believe that the Europeans should agree to tap into the principle that's the best way to pay for what needs to happen.
- [65:22]
Jamie Rubin
And.
- [65:23]
Antony Blinken
And I hope and believe that European politicians, looking at the choice between having their taxpayers pay for more or having Russia pay for it, will make the obvious decision of what needs to happen. So I believe it's very much possible to get to a point where the Russians are actually under pressure. They don't want to continue this. The Ukrainians certainly don't want to continue this. And we can get to a just and durable settlement that preserves the integrity of Ukraine and allows it not only to survive, but to thrive as a democratic country.
- [65:49]
Jamie Rubin
What went through your heart and your mind when you saw Zelensky being humiliated in the White House? And it wasn't just a moment. It's a policy.
- [65:59]
Antony Blinken
Well, it's not a way to treat someone who has been leading his country through a terrible war of aggression committed against it, and someone who has stood up for the basic principles that we all believe in and have been working to support. But look, what really matters now is what are we going to do? Not only what are we saying, how are we dealing with people, what are we actually going to do so that not only can this war come to an end, but it can come to an end in the right way, in a way that's enduring, in a way that upholds the basic integrity of Ukraine. And I believe we have the capacity to do that because, look, for all that Ukraine has suffered, what Putin has inflicted on his own country and on Russia is beyond anyone's imagination. I think by most assessments, there have been something like a million Russian casualties that is killed and wounded in this war. He keeps throwing young Russians and not so young Russians into a meat grinder of his own making. Russia has been cut off from much of the world that it was deeply engaged in with 30 years. Obviously others have filled in, including China, and that's a problem. But it's much more isolated than it's been. Yes, it has a wartime economy that he's managed to move forward, but that's not something that can really be enduring. And so the suffering is real. I once had this conversation with my Russian counterpart. Tell me, how has a single Russian benefited from what you've done in this aggression?
- [67:33]
Christiane Amanpour
Did Lavrov have a smart answer for that?
- [67:35]
Antony Blinken
I'll save that for another day.
- [67:37]
Christiane Amanpour
Okay.
- [67:37]
Jamie Rubin
Oh, Tony, no, he teased. I was waiting for that because I really want to know what those people around Putin think. But hopefully you'll come back and save it for another day or for your book. Tony Blinken, former Secretary of State, thank you so much for being with us. It was really revealing.
- [67:55]
Antony Blinken
Thanks to the exes.
- [67:59]
Jamie Rubin
Well, Jamie, that was one heck of a conversation, and it was meaty. And he answered some pointed questions and he did some great explanation of policy that you teased out of him. Made some news on the Iran story, which I thought was fascinating about what Iran was prepared to do, at least before Israel started attacking them and the US In a new nuclear deal. We'll see if that still holds. So that is it for this episode of the X Files with me, Cristiana Manpour.
- [68:28]
Christiane Amanpour
And I'm Jamie. And that was our first guest. And we may have to have another one.
- [68:32]
Jamie Rubin
Yes, we might. Everybody, thank you for listening to the episode, wherever you get your podcasts, and of course, on Global Player and everywhere else. But also, thank you for watching on YouTube and we love your comments, so make sure they keep coming on YouTube and all over. Our bonus episode will be on Thursday and we'll be back again next week with another main episode. In the meantime, thank you all so much and goodbye X. Goodbye X.
- [69:04]
Christiane Amanpour
All right, we're trying to get our camera to say let us say goodbye here. Okay, there we go. Let's lean in.
- [69:11]
Jamie Rubin
No, it's just you now.
- [69:16]
Christiane Amanpour
This is a global player Original Podcast.
- [69:20]
Unknown Advertiser
Time for a sofa upgrade. Visit washablesofas.com and discover Annabe where designer style meets budget friendly prices with sofas starting at $699, Annabe brings you the ultimate in furniture innovation with a modular design that allows you to rearrange your space effortlessly. Perfect for both small and large spaces, Annabe is the only machine washable sofa inside and out. Say goodbye to stains and messes with links liquid and stain resistant fabrics that make cleaning easy. Liquid simply slides right off. Designed for custom comfort, our high resilience foam lets you choose between a sink in feel or a supportive memory foam blend. Plus our pet friendly stain resistant fabrics ensure your sofa stays beautiful for years. Don't compromise quality for price. Visit washablesofas.com to upgrade your living space today with no risk returns and a 30 day money back guarantee. Get up to 60% off plus free shipping and free returns. Shop now at washablesofas.com Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.