← Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Christiane Amanpour Presents: The Ex Files
Q&A: Trump's plunging ratings, Vance vs Rubio & Israel without Bibi?
00:28:25
Loading summary
Transcript35 lines
- [00:03]
A
This is a Global Player original podcast.
- [00:05]
B
Well, this is squarely the West's fault, and it's squarely in the hands of the United States and Israel, and they need to fix it for the good of the rest of the world. People call me Pollyanna for still believing in a negotiated end settlement for peace. And I'm saying, dudes, if it isn't that, you're going to be in a terrible state of war and attack for a long, long time to come.
- [00:26]
A
The Democrats wanted a winner, and I think that's what they're going to want this time, a winner.
- [00:31]
B
We're good. But domestic US Politics, that is the election of Trump, over and again has befuddled us. Hello, everybody, and welcome to the bonus Q and A episode of the X Files with me, Cristiana Monpour in London
- [00:49]
A
and Jamie Rubin in New York.
- [00:52]
B
Okay, great. So let's get started. This is where we answer your questions, and we love to hear from you. So let's get right into it.
- [00:59]
A
First question, Greg, on email. Do you think we will reach a point with the Iran war where the rest of the world, particularly European nations and or China, start to directly apply major pressure on Trump and his administration to reach some kind of more lasting resolution?
- [01:16]
B
Well, I think you should have a stab at it, given that it's very bizarre. The last 48 hours, as we're recording, went from escalation, including some hot missile firing or drone firing, to now Trump saying he's pausing his Operation Freedom in the Straits of Hormuz. Take it away.
- [01:33]
A
I do believe that both sides don't want to go back to war. I do believe that the signals coming out of Washington in the last 48 hours are quite encouraging if you want this war to end. I do believe that the rest of the world is putting pressure on the administration in the subtle ways that they can without infuriating the White House. And I, and I think that if I understand it correctly, at the request of Pakistan, he stood down on some of the enforcement of the ships that were trying to get out. And I'm under the impression that the administration is trying to basically do what people have suggested they may do for a long time, try to find a way to declare victory, to say they've achieved their objectives, and to try to find a short form of negotiation, a one pager they're talking about now, according to one of the reports, that would essentially find a minimum solution for the nuclear issue, which would then open up the Strait of Hormuz. I'm not saying this is going to happen tomorrow. But I'm saying that all the signals are that the President doesn't want to go back to war. The Iranians don't want to go back to war. The Strait of Hormuzes their power. They don't want to negotiate the nuclear issue under threat in having gone through this war and survived, to an extent, the war. And so they will negotiate the nuclear issue. They may give some concessions, diluting some of the enrichment, perhaps moving some of it, perhaps repeating that they don't want to make nuclear weapons. And that will open the door for the President to declare victory, that he solved the nuclear problem. He's always been able to do that based on the bombing that he did several months ago where he said that he eliminated the threat.
- [03:40]
B
You mean the June 12day war? He could have done it right there.
- [03:43]
A
He could have, but he didn't. And he got led down a path that I don't think the administration is now comfortable with. They can say they've reduced Iran's capabilities. They can say they've reduced their navy, their conventional, their missiles, all of those things. And then the trick is that the rest of the world is suffering from the Strait of Hormuz being closed. The rest of the world is going to place pressure on the administration. He is going to go to China. China wants the Strait of Hormuz opened, but they don't want to be seen as pressuring Iran. They want this thing resolved, I suspect, without seeming like they're pulling America's chestnuts out of the fire.
- [04:31]
B
I actually think that this is very linked to the trip to China. I don't think Trump wanted to go and sit opposite Xi Jinping, a major world leader right now, who seems to be holding a lot of cards and sitting there in the sort of smug satisfaction of being the adult in the room. Obviously needs to make deals with him. Why would she give anything? And we still don't know if he will when this is going on, because Xi sees this as a big mistake and sees that the United States, in his view, has been somewhat checkmated. So I do think that this is time to that. And even, even this latest, I don't know what it's called Operation Epic. Well, Epic Fury, somebody asked, is it actually Operation Colossal Blunder? And then Operation Freedom, which was meant to be trying to lead and escort ships out of straits, has achieved very, very little, maybe a couple of ships while there are thousands in play. So I think it's an impossible job anyway. The Iranians are going back to their, you know, their tactics of 40 years ago, when the Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz was in play, during the Tanker War, during the Iran Iraq war. And both sides I agree with, you need to declare some kind of victory and, and move on. So I think definitely that's what's happening. And you can even see from the White House they're beginning majorly spin that they're done and they've won. Right. Mandis on YouTube. I'm South African and I've heard agriculture economists predict massive increases in food prices in for example, Zambia and other African nations. This is likely to lead to the movement of millions of people within Sub Saharan Africa as a result, all because of the war in the Middle East. Is anybody talking about the potential for displacement, conflict and other major consequences for the world as a result of this war? Well, it is a good question because as ever, unfortunately Africa is undercovered by mainstream media in the West. And the last, you know, quite frightening statistic that we heard, and I'm, I'm, I can't pull it out of my head, but it's a very reputable international ngo. It's either the ICRC or some UN body said that this war, even if it ends now, and this was two weeks ago, is going to turf 30 million people at least back into poverty or for the first time into poverty. And that's just right now. So this is having very, very unpredicted and long term or unappreciated and long term results, not just in the rising fuel prices, but in food prices because of the scarcity now of much needed fertilizer. And that's needed kind of right now, the season is now and in a few months to actually make sure that crops and therefore food are available. So this is a big issue, particularly for Africa, as Mandis points out. And I agree not enough people are talking about it publicly, but I do hope that, that this will be taken into account because the last time we saw this kind of food shock was during the initial days of the invasion by Russia of Ukraine. Ukraine being the breadbasket of the world, particularly the, the Southern hemisphere and they suffering a lot. And at that time Putin was able to spin it as Ukraine's fault or the West's fault. Well, this is squarely the West's fault and it's squarely in the hands of the United States and, and they need to fix it for the good of the rest of the world.
- [07:57]
A
I think you're absolutely right. The knock on effects of this war across the world have not been given enough Attention, nor, I'm sorry to say, is it a matter of high concern to my administration. Normally, as America, as a leader of the world, we would take into account the views of Asians and Africans and Europeans who were suffering from this war, whether it's fuel prices, fertilizer prices, airlines are cutting back so workers can't travel around, get jobs done. The fuel has affected small businesses all over the world. So there's been amazing knock on effects. It doesn't get the attention it deserves. I've read some about it. I'm sure you've read some about it. And it's, it's a tragedy that, that America as a country that used to care and was the largest donor to, you know, provide food, medicine and assistance to the African countries, is no longer seeing itself in that role. And that's a shame, but that's just a reality right now.
- [09:05]
B
But also that compounded with the destruction of usaid, is just adding injury upon injury upon injury. And the question was, would it lead to mass movement and displacement or even conflict? Honestly, no option is off the table. It is very possible that there can be eventually, if it gets really bad, there will always be, you know, some kind of conflict over scarce resources, particularly when they are. Food are the basic elements of survival. So we'll see. And displacement is already, because of climate change and other such things, a massive issue, a massive issue in the west and not enough emphasis even before this war is put on, essentially the push factors, you know, try to keep people in their own countries and give them a decent quality of life. And their quality of life is being seriously more compromised now with this war and what we've spoken about with fuel and food prices and dislocation and disruptions. All right, Jamie, do you want to read the next one?
- [10:04]
A
Yes, I do, Marianne. I live in the uk. He's asking this on email. And what worries me about Trump is not so much him as an individual, but that so many millions of Americans voted him in. Do you worry that even when Trump eventually goes, those people will remain with the same attitudes and that they will elect more candidates like him? Let me start on that as an American.
- [10:27]
B
Yes, you should.
- [10:28]
A
I've said this before, I'll say it again. I've been surprised at so many Americans being willing to vote for a president, given all the obvious facts about him that we know. It's been a matter of trouble to me. In the first term, at least, he had a series of advisors that were considered serious men who tried to ameliorate or modify some of his instincts, this administration, the second Trump two. That hasn't been true. I do think his coalition is not what it was. And I do think that Trump is a unique figure in American politics. For whatever reason, American politics has always had a soft spot for populists, for people who gather, you know, a populist mentality. And there was a lot of anger in our country after the long Years of the 2008 economics Economic crisis and the feeling that the elites were getting an advantage. Why they ended up voting for an elitist, I don't know, considering that elites are the biggest beneficiaries of this administration in large respect. So far. I know so far. So I don't believe that Trump is a phenomenon that will easily translate down the line. He will have changed the Republican Party. He will have changed who the Republican Party is because he's forced them to change views on everything from free trade to the use of military power. Although now he seems to have switched back a little bit to the use of military power. But Vance and Rubio, his two potential successors, are going to fight this out. I don't think anyone will have the same charisma as Donald Trump has, for better or worse, the same ability to change the subject, to keep, keep the attention on himself, to be, you know, inoculated from any criticism or mistakes. I don't believe that other candidates will have that same power. I think we'll know a lot more about what the questioner asks after these midterm elections and we see what happens to the Republican Party despite Trump leading it. There's been a lot of signs that the Democratic Party is set for some, you know, wins around the country, but I don't think we can really answer it well until after November.
- [12:58]
B
I agree. I mean, look, people are pointing out that this primary situation in Indiana shows that Trump still holds huge sway over his base. All the Republican candidates for the primaries that he backed are winning. So that's important. And I think you're right. What does that mean? In the midterm elections, which are incredibly important, Trump's popularity is really sinking. I think we discussed, or somebody else somehow we discussed this week that on the economy, his popularity or approval is somewhere around 21%. Now, that is catastrophic for a man who actually won based on what people think about his approach to the economy. So they are hurting. And in America, as, as the famous, you know, James Carville, Democratic strategist, said all those decades ago, it is the economy stupid, and it remains the economy stupid. There will be people who really dislike his breaking of a promise of non intervention, no more forever wars, et cetera, which is probably why he's hurrying to try to wrap this one up. I still think the jury is out. I think that he's under a huge amount of influence from the Israeli government, from certain donors who believe that now is the time to cripple Iran and who knows whether he will declare victory and go home. So we'll see. But I think the people of the United States have shown certainly in the last round of off year elections that they are not pleased with what his 2.0 has done for them and they voted for Democratic candidates in the off year elections just in the last November. So we'll see. And the question really is will there be another one like him? You say, and you're right, he's a unique character. I just been reading and I'm glad this writer is in the uk. He might, he might have read himself Simon Cooper in the FT this weekend or a couple of weekends ago talking about radicalized leaders and he names Trump and Putin as radicalized leaders. People who operate in their own echo chamber, who operate based on their base and the support they get from their base, who operate now using religious iconography like Trump does, Putin has for a long time and who use violence. I mean Putin uses violence I E Wars. Trump is now using violence I E Wars and for him it's a breach of the trust that he had with, with the people when he ran. So we will see and it's going to be interesting to see how these, these individuals who are single handedly, according to Simon and his analysis, now making decisions on war and peace which affect the whole global economy, whereas it used to be. And Jamie, you know this, it was more of a committee, a consensus, wasn't the President decided to go to war. He talked to a lot of the stakeholders, not inside and also outside allies, the UN process, etc. This president does not do that. So I do think we will have to see what happens and who will be able to follow him in a 2028 election and who will be chosen. The money now is on Rubio but hey, two years is a long time to go from now and we will see. So this is Christiane, very similar to me. Would you please talk about the competition between JD Vance and Marco Rubio to be the next Republican presidential candidate and how confident are you that California Governor Gavin Newsom will be the Democr candidate? So I'm going to take it first because we just were talking about it. It was not unnoticed that Marco Rubio took to the podium in the White House. He is obviously national security adviser as well. He has an office. Apparently he spends more time in the White House than at the State Department. But nonetheless, he went in front of the cameras to talk about the latest that is President Trump moving away from Operation Freedom and saying that we have some new offers from the Iranians that we want to consider and talking about the trip to China. So, so everybody has been saying that Marco Rubio is much more overtly with President Trump on this issue, also on Venezuela, on Cuba, on all this kind of intervention, the classic neocon. Whereas J.D. vance is not. However, I think the jury is still out. If this thing goes completely pear shaped, JD Vance will be able to say, see, I told you I was never for this war. So I don't know. I think it's way too early. And as for Gavin Newsom, I honestly can't weigh in on that because again, it's way too early. He definitely wants it. He's meeting the Fox News Republicans where they live. He's fighting back like, for like. But others are saying even Kamala Harris hasn't ruled out, you know, a run for president, whereas the Democrats say she should be actually considering a run for the governor of California. So I think there's a lot of confusion and questions still as to who will be the candidates in 28. What do you think, Jamie?
- [17:55]
A
Well, political analysis has never been my strongest suit. As you know, I've got long before
- [18:03]
B
I'll get it different than policy analysis. People, we're good on policy, but domestic US Politics, the election of Trump over and again has befuddled us.
- [18:13]
A
It has. And the only thing I can really say about the Democratic side, where I know it better, is that governors tend to make better presidents. And there are a lot of great governors out there. There are governors, you know, from Illinois, there are governors from Maryland. There are governors from all over the country, Pennsylvania, California. Governors make great presidents because they understand the executive function, they understand how to negotiate with legislatures, and they understand in our system the importance of getting things done because governors can get things done. And so I tend, as a rule to find governors to be attractive candidates, whether that's Governor Newsom or one of these many other governors that people are talking about. I don't know. Governor Newsom, as you said, clearly wants it. He's clearly showing. He's written a book. He's trying to mix it up with the president, mix it up with, with the Fox voters, have his own podcast. All of those things so, you know, we'll see. It's very, very, very early.
- [19:30]
B
It is.
- [19:31]
A
And, you know, people didn't think that Joe Biden was going to be the nominee at the end, and he was chosen because I believe the voters decided they wanted someone to beat Donald Trump back in 2020. And I think the Democrats have shown through this Virginia redistricting that they really, really want to play hardball this time.
- [19:59]
B
But, you know, one of the courts has, has, has suspended that vote for the moment. I don't know what the latest is.
- [20:06]
A
All of the redistricting is going to be played out in the courts. The point I'm only making is that it was an unusual thing for the Democrats to be as aggressive as they were to, to say, we're going to fight fire with fire. That's what I believe will happen in this fall and in the 2028 elections. Democrats, much like back when I started in politics in 1992, after long 12 years of Republican rule, the Democrats wanted a winner. And I think that's what they're going to want this time. A winner?
- [20:38]
B
Yeah. Who is a winner? So, look, Jamie, this is kind of related. Obviously, the next one is linked. Andrew, on Blue sky, what do you think a U.S. foreign policy policy under J.D. vance would look like?
- [20:49]
A
Well, if you believe everything he said up till now, until this war, you know, it's going to be a scaling back of America's role in the world, a unwillingness to use force to solve problems, a desire to see Europeans change and take care of their own problems. I'm not entirely clear about what he thinks about China. I'd like to think that any president would understand the threat from China that we all face, because China is zooming ahead on technology, on arms, arms, on nuclear weapons. They are becoming, you know, a peer competitor, it's called, and they are really spending enormous amounts of money to do that. I'd like to think that any president would realize that our advantage over China is to have allies. Unfortunately, Mr. Vance, Vice President Vance has not seen the building of alliances as part of his job. Neither has the President. I hope that changes. I think Marco Rubio seems to understand the value of alliances more. And I hope and expect that by the time, you know, this is all played out, that we will understand that our alliances is what makes us strong and that we won't have done too much damage to them.
- [22:09]
B
I hope so, too. And one can never forget Marco. Not Marco. JD Vance coming to Europe and berating his allies at the Munich Security Conference a couple of years ago and then taking part in the the deriding of Volodymyr Zelenskyy, ally president of Ukraine under an illegal aggression in the White House. So I'm hoping that, that as you say, that the value of alliances and some kind of world order will translate to anybody seeking the presidency of the United States. Otherwise, I do think, Jamie, it will be a moment of the United States losing its footing as the dominant power in the world. I really do. And I think Trump will be treated to quite a spectacle when he goes to China, I'm sure will I assume she will greet him with all the flourishes of a rising superpower. And that will be, you know, quite revealing and sobering. Let us ask the final question, Sylvie on Instagram. Do you want to ask that? I think I asked Andrew, yes.
- [23:11]
A
And I'll give it a whirl. What are your predictions for what will happen in Israel's elections this October? Well, this is a subject of interest to me. I've been talking to a lot of people about it. Look, I think the leading politicians in Israel outside of the so called base of BIBI Netanyahu, the 25% that are committed to him, really, really want to see a change and that's why there's a coalition developing between Lapid and Bennett, two prominent politicians not from the precisely the same side of the fence, but determined to see a coalition develop. Also Eisencot, a former general, Yair Eisenkot I believe is his first name, and he may eventually join their coalition. I think there's a strong feeling that after October 7th and all that's happened and all the internal wrangling and all of the, you know, roiling and damage done inside Israeli politics, that it's time for new leadership. And I think there's obviously a strong percentage who want that and whether these three can get together, whether some other formulation will come together. The Israeli political system is so complicated, it's very hard to see how it all works out. Yeah. But I, I have to say I'm, I'm hopeful that it's time for new leadership in Israel that can help the region come to grips with the chaos that has been wrought by the fact that Israel is so good at its military intelligence operations, but not so good at putting those military intelligence successes together with diplomacy that achieves results that are long term benefit to Israel. And so I'm hoping that some of these other leaders, leaders may be able to make that case.
- [25:17]
B
And yes, and, and talking about Naftali Bennett and Yay Lapid, they've both put out statements or at least Bennett did, basically saying, you know, and maybe this can be just put down to election campaigning or whatever, but they don't talk about, about a Palestinian state. Quite the reverse. You know, what's going on on the west bank, stealth annexation with all the horrors that go with it. And they are not willing to come out right now before the election and say they agree with the Palestinian state. And the others on Bibi side are basically still talking about wanting to occupy great tranches of other countries territory in order to make a security zone. So this battle certainly for Israel's projection of power and security outside is very, very strong right now. And what will happen, we don't know, will it be a constant mowing the lawn group of leaders who take big Israel and just constantly committed to permanent war in the name of security. And then as you say, inside many, many people are fighting. People I've spoken to like Holocaust survivor Colette Avital, who's a, you know, human rights and democracy activist, you know, and she's a former Knesset member. They are committed to a two state solution, believing that this is the only way Israel gets a much more permanent and sure future of security. So we'll see. I think it's, it's very important. Don't forget, as you were saying, it's very difficult to know who's going to win. Last time Netanyahu did not win, but he was able to cobble together this coalition of extremists that has landed us where we are now regarding the Israeli leadership. Okay. And by the way, when I say two state solution, I need, if anybody had any doubts that I'm not talking about Hamas being the Palestinian interlocutors. I'm talking about the, the recognized Palestinian Authority who recognizes Israel, who's in the Oslo peace process and have, you know, made the moves towards being.
- [27:10]
A
I think we all knew that.
- [27:12]
B
I hope so because you never know, people get all bent out of shape. People call me Pollyanna for still believing in a negotiated end, settlement for peace. And I'm saying dudes, if it isn't that you're going to be, you know, in a terrible state of war and attack from.
- [27:27]
A
People said that about Ireland as well. Yeah, yeah. Nobody wants to see that doesn't happen.
- [27:31]
B
Exactly, exactly. Right. On that very happy and hopeful note, thank you all for listening to this Q A bonus episode of the X Files. If you have questions for us, of course, that you want us to answer, don't forget you can contact us via email or on our socials find us Handle is at amanpourpod or email us amanpoolpodlobal.com and our next episode is out on Tuesday. Remember, you can always listen for free on Global Player. And don't forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel so that you can see everything that is at. Christiana Monore presents the X File. Sorry I had to read where it is, but that's where it is and you can see all our episodes there. Okay, bye. Bye from London for now.
- [28:13]
A
Bye from New York. This has been a Global Player original production.