Former Sec. of State Blinken on the Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy

Summary

---

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Episode: Former Sec. of State Blinken on the Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy

Date: December 21, 2025
Host: Fareed Zakaria
Guests: Antony Blinken, Jessica Stern, David Miliband

---

Overview

This episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS delves into the first year of the Trump administration’s second term, focusing on changes in American foreign policy—including its new "regional power" strategy—and ramifications in Ukraine, Iran, and Gaza. Fareed discusses the global context, the administration’s shift away from internationalism, and interviews former Secretary of State Antony Blinken for an insider’s critique. Other featured discussions tackle the resilience of the Islamic State after recent terror attacks and the deepening humanitarian crises worldwide as international aid recedes.

---

Main Discussion: The Trump Administration’s Foreign Policy — Interview with Antony Blinken

The Shift in U.S. Foreign Policy Strategy

• [01:30–09:18] Fareed Zakaria’s Analysis
  • Zakaria critiques Trump’s new national security strategy, characterizing it as “Make America a regional power again.”
  • He warns against a narrow focus on the Western Hemisphere, arguing the U.S. economy and security depend on global engagement.
  • Points out the economic insignificance of Latin America (excluding Mexico/Canada) in comparison to the EU or Asia.
  • Draws historical parallels to the isolationism of the 1920s and 1930s, predicting chaos if the U.S. steps back from global leadership.
  • Quote:

    “What the Trump administration is proposing is not so different from what the isolationists proposed in the 1920s and 1930s.” [08:25 – Fareed Zakaria]

The Trump Doctrine and Its Dangers

• [09:19–11:32] Antony Blinken’s Response
  • Expresses concern the Trump approach abandons 80 years of "enlightened self-interest," where U.S. investment in global stability returned benefits—new markets, strong alliances, and deterrence.
  • Notes the Trump strategy moves the world toward dangerous great-power "spheres of influence," evocative of the 19th century.
  • Quote:

    “This 19th-century view of the world where great powers get to do what they want and everyone else has to suffer what they must is not a recipe for stability.” [10:39 – Antony Blinken]

---

Ukraine: Stalemate and Security Implications

• [11:32–14:44]
  • Blinken argues Russia’s aggression is about more than territory; it threatens the core principles of the international order.
  • Predicts a military stalemate: “The line on the ground, on the map is not going to move very much... The Russians have been inching out at horrific cost, just a little bit of territory.” [11:55 – Blinken]
  • Stresses the need for a reliable deterrent and security guarantees: U.S. credibility in defense commitments remains critical.
  • On Trump administration’s push for Ukrainian concessions:

    “It’s awfully hard to demand of the Ukrainians that they voluntarily give up more territory, that they reward the aggression that they've been on the receiving end of.” [13:29 – Blinken]

  • Doubts concessions will satisfy Putin, who ultimately wants to neutralize Ukraine as an independent state.

---

The Iran Strike: Did the Hardline Approach Work?

• [16:59–18:37]
  • Blinken reviews the U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.
  • He maintains that while the bombing may have set back Iran’s program for one to two years, the risk is Iran rebuilding out of reach underground, making future intervention harder.
  • Diplomacy under the JCPOA would have delayed the program longer and kept options open.
  • Quote:

    “If Iran made the decision to rebuild, but to rebuild deeper underground ... we'd wind up with an even worse problem.” [17:50 – Blinken]

---

Gaza and the Humanitarian Catastrophe

• [18:37–22:51]
  • Blinken expresses profound regret over the inability to end the Gaza conflict earlier or to alleviate suffering:

    “How can anyone starting with me, not wish profoundly that we could have brought an end to the conflict a lot sooner, that we could have alleviated more the suffering of people who were caught... in this horrific crossfire that Hamas initiated...” [18:58 – Blinken]

  • Details U.S. efforts: ultimately achieving a ceasefire and getting aid in, but slower than desired.
  • Explains competing imperatives: preventing another attack like October 7th, avoiding a wider war with Iran/Hezbollah, and maximizing humanitarian relief for Gaza's civilians.
  • Argues Hamas repeatedly pulled back from ceasefires when seeing discord between the U.S. and Israel, prolonging the war.
  • Admits the tragedy in Gaza is “historic,” but defends administration as working daily to reach a ceasefire and balance conflicting priorities.

---

Notable Quotes

• Fareed Zakaria, opening critique:

  “It seems absurd to limit the US to that perspective today, when America is an international behemoth with interests spanning the world.” [06:00]

• Antony Blinken, on the U.S. foreign policy legacy:

  “Enlightened self-interest was the way to go, that the success and strength of other countries could be our own… We've moved away from that.” [09:58]

• Antony Blinken, on Ukraine:

  “Putin’s not interested [in a fair peace]. He still thinks that he can get what he wants by force, and he's willing to sacrifice a tremendous amount to stick it out.” [13:48]

• Antony Blinken, on Gaza:

  “For the people of Gaza. There's no question that this was a tragedy of historic proportions. There's no question about that. But the question is what to do about it?” [21:02]

---

Segment: Islamic State Terror Post-Caliphate

Guest: Jessica Stern (Boston University)

• [24:22–27:59]
  • ISIS remains active globally, mainly via sophisticated digital propaganda targeting marginalized individuals in the West.
  • Largely outpaces Al Qaeda in recruitment and radicalization due to digital expertise and initial wealth from the territorial caliphate.
  • Lone wolf terrorists often have a history of personal or emotional trouble, not just ideological motivations.
  • Western counterterror resources have shifted to migration, leaving a readiness gap if attacks spike again.
  • Quote:

    “They're much more savvy than Al Qaeda ever was in terms of their propaganda and how they try to appeal to alienated people actually in the West.” [24:34 – Jessica Stern]

---

Segment: Global Humanitarian Crisis & U.S. Retreat

Guest: David Miliband (International Rescue Committee, IRC)

• [29:08–35:25]
  • Zakaria notes a record 61 global conflicts and drastic U.S. cuts to foreign aid (83% program cancellations under Trump 2.0).
  • Miliband reports a 50% global drop (to $12B) in humanitarian crisis response; “2 million clients” of IRC left without aid in one year.
  • Cites deadly outcomes: 50,000 civilians killed in conflict zones this year alone.
  • Rebuts accusations that NGOs enable dependency or siphon aid through waste; underscores efficient vaccine delivery and low overhead (12-13%).
  • Spotlights Sudan—now the world’s largest humanitarian crisis, with 30 million people dependent on aid, rampant rape and violence, famine, and diminishing international attention or funding.
  • Quote:

    “Sudan is an avatar for the modern global disorder.” [34:50 – David Miliband]

---

Closing Analysis: Venezuela, Cuba, and Regime Change

• [36:22–end]
  • Zakaria examines the Trump administration’s escalating crackdown on Venezuela, emphasizing Marco Rubio’s central role due to his anti-Castro leanings.
  • Explains Cuba’s strategic relationship with Venezuela and why U.S. attempts at regime change can destabilize both countries—and possibly unintentionally promote state collapse.
  • Warns: the past 25 years of regime change efforts (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) have often led to disorder, not democracy.

---

Key Timestamps

• [01:30] Zakaria’s opening monologue: Trump’s foreign policy direction
• [09:19] Interview with Antony Blinken begins
• [11:32] Ukraine stalemate and security discussion
• [13:28] Feasibility of Ukrainian concessions
• [16:59] The Iran nuclear strike: appraisal and fallout
• [18:37] Gaza: humanitarian catastrophe and U.S. role
• [22:54] Hanukkah shooting & ISIS—Jessica Stern interview
• [29:08] Humanitarian aid cuts—David Miliband interview
• [36:22] Venezuela, Cuba, and regime change

---

Memorable Moments

• Blinken’s candor about the Gaza crisis:
  “I'll probably think that for the rest of my days.” [19:10]
• Zakaria’s historical warning:
  “An America that looks mainly after its backyard will leave the world rudderless, unstable and chaotic. Let's hope we will not have to learn that lesson again.” [08:12]
• Miliband’s numbers on Sudan:
  “Thirty million people out of a total population of 45 million are dependent on humanitarian aid to survive… 21 million at the highest levels of food insecurity.” [33:55]

---

Conclusion

This well-rounded episode blends sharp critique, first-hand diplomatic insight, and ground-level humanitarian perspective. It warns of the risks associated with American withdrawal from global leadership, dissects the complexities of ongoing conflicts, and highlights areas of acute crisis exacerbated by strategic neglect and aid cuts.

For more: Fareed directs listeners to his Washington Post column and promises more coverage on ongoing crises around the globe.

Transcript

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

Meet the computer you can talk to.

[Commercial Announcer]

With Copilot on Windows.

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

Working, creating and collaborating is as easy as talking. Got writer's block?

[Commercial Announcer]

Share your screen with Copilot Vision to help spark inspiration and use Copilot voice.

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

To have a conversation and brainstorm ideas.

[Commercial Announcer]

Or maybe you need some tech help with Copilot Vision. Copilot sees what you see. Let Copilot talk you through step by step guidance so you can master new apps, games and skills faster.

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

Try [e-mail] copilot.

[Commercial Announcer]

Want to make a difference in your community, but not sure how? Go to GoFundMe.com right now and start a GoFundMe. Seriously. Your next fundraiser doesn't have to start in a school parking lot or a church basement. You can start a GoFundMe today in just minutes. Fundraise for yourself, a friend or family member or an organization. All that matters is that you care about them. GoFundMe is the trusted place to fundraise for what you care about. With no pressure to hit your fundraising goal, but tons of tools to help you reach it, you can confidently start fundraising right now. Whether it's creative, local or critical, your cause matters and there's a reason why GoFundMe is backed by millions and chosen by fundraisers everywhere. It works and it matters. GoFundMe helps you make a real difference. Start your GoFundMe today at GoFundMe.com that's GoFundMe.com G-O F U N D M E.com this is a commercial message brought to you by GoFundMe.

[Fareed Zakaria]

This is GPS, the global public Square. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria coming to you from New York. Today on the program year one of Trump 2.0, what has gone right and what has gone wrong? I will ask that question to Joe Biden's Secretary State, Anthony Blinken. Also, the horrific shooting during the Hanukkah celebrations at Australia's Bondi beach was inspired by Islamic State ideology, according to the Australian Prime Minister. I'll talk to an expert then. Sudan, the Palestinian territories, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Haiti. These are the places where people are most at risk in 2026, according to the International Rescue Committee. I'll talk to that organization's president, David Millerband, about how the drop in aid from America and others makes these desperate situations much, much worse. But first, here's my take. If there's a slogan that could be attached to the Trump administration's new national Security strategy. It's simple. Make America a regional power again. The document begins by lambasting decades of American foreign policy that saw America as a global hegemon, tending to its interests around the world, promoting globalism, embracing global institutions, and shouldering global burdens. Instead, we are told that the US should define its interests much more narrowly. While the NSS concedes a few interests in Europe and Asia, it says America's fundamental interest should be in its neighborhood, the Western Hemisphere, where it invokes the Monroe Doctrine and the Trump Corollary, which sounds a lot like the Roosevelt Corollary announced by President Teddy Roosevelt. Marco Rubio recently explained to Fox News that America first means first paying attention to the region. We live in the Western Hemisphere. You start with your own hemisphere where we live. It all sounds logical, but it isn't. The United States is the most powerful country in history, and that power has actually grown in the last three decades as its companies and technologies dominate the globe. It can't limit itself to what is going on in its own backyard or without massive consequences both for itself and the world. It's important to understand the era when President James Monroe declared his eponymous doctrine. In 1823, the United States was a small agricultural Republic of about 10 million people, with 24 states, mostly east of the Mississippi River. Its share of global GDP was 2.6%, about a tenth of what it is today. It had armed forces so small that it would not rank in the world's top 15 in number of military personnel. Monroe was recognizing the independence of several Latin American countries that had broken free of the Spanish and Portuguese empires and warning Europe's great powers not to intervene to recolonize them. He was advocating a doctrine of anti colonialism and anti interventionism. It seems absurd to limit the US to that perspective today, when America is an international behemoth with interests spanning the world. Prioritizing America's backyard makes Washington focus its attention on one of the least important areas of the world economically. The data shows this clearly. America's goods and services trade with all of Latin America besides Mexico amounts to around $450 billion in 2024. Its trade with the European Union was more than three times that number, at 1.5 trillion, and its trade with Asia was more than 2 trillion. Canada and Mexico do trade massively with the U.S. but those three economies are now so intertwined that they count in some ways as a single North American economy. When formulating the strategy of containment that won the Cold War, the diplomat George Kennan argued that there were five five centers of economic power in the world in those days the us, the uk, Germany and Western Europe, the Soviet Union, and finally Japan. Kennan thought that the US had to ensure that the other three non Soviet centers stayed friendly to Washington. Today, one would tweet that list, adding China and probably lumping Britain and Germany into a European whole. But the basic strategy would be the keep the major centers of economic power free. The NSS instead yokes American strategy to a peripheral part of the global economy. One caveat the NSS is a disjointed document, patching together sections that are seemingly written by different authors and frequently contradicts itself or espouses banalities. It notes President Trump's foreign policy is pragmatic without being pragmatist, realistic without being realistic, principled without being idealistic, muscular without being hawkish, and restrained without being dovish. Whatever that means. There are sections that seem more willing to play an international role, but the main thrust is, as I describe it, what the Trump administration is proposing is not so different from what the isolationists proposed in the 1920s and 1930s. Stay out of Europe's affairs and and crackdown on immigration Indeed. Then, as now, skepticism about American engagement with the world went hand in hand with anti immigration sentiment as nativists worried that these aliens would not be able to assimilate and enacted massive restrictions on immigration. The people, by the way, who were unassimilable then were the Irish, Italians, Southern Europeans and Jews, all people who seem to have assimilated quite nicely. The Trump NSS is obsessed with immigration as a national security threat and comes close to arguing that the gravest threat that the US Faces today is migration into its own country and migration into Europe, which it says poses the prospect of civilizational erasure. The global situation is much like the 1920s. The United States is the only country in the world with the capacity to keep the international system stable. Its withdrawal from the world will create power vacuums which other, less responsible powers will fill. Then America refused to shoulder its burden and the international system collapsed, leading to World War II. Today, there are many other stabilizing forces in the world, but an America that looks mainly after its backyard will leave the world rudderless, unstable and chaotic. Let's hope we will not have to learn that lesson again. Go to fareedzakharia.com for a link to my Washington Post column this week, and let's get started. For more on America's place in the world today, I am joined by Antony Blinken for an exclusive interview he, of course, served as Secretary of State under President Joe Biden. Welcome, Tony. Pleasure to have you on.

[Antony Blinken]

Great to be here.

[Fareed Zakaria]

So I know you're going to tell me that, you know, you don't like what's been happening under the Trump administration, but tell me, of all the things that have happened this year, what is the thing that you think is likely to leave the most lasting effect? What is the thing that you think will reverberate?

[Antony Blinken]

I think we've got two challenges with the administration's approach. One is the one that you just talked about, and it's in the national security strategy, and it reflects the worldview that they're bringing to what they're doing. You know, Freed, I worked on national Security strategy during the Clinton administration, during the Obama administration, during the Biden administration. We used to joke that rarely have so many worked so long on a document to be read by so few. This is maybe the one exception, and it's gotten a lot of attention. But this worldview that takes us away from what had been the animating principles of our foreign policy for 80 years, with lots of mistakes along the way, but a basic foundational premise that enlightened self interest was the way to go, that the success and strength of other countries could be our own, and that the investments that we made in that would redound positively to us, new markets for everything we wanted to sell, new partners to deal with all sorts of global challenges that no one country can deal with alone, new allies to deter aggression. We've moved away from that. And this tripolar world that the administration seems intent on establishing, the United States, Russia, China, with spheres of influence. I understand the motivation for it, but I worry very much where it leads. Because you're a student of history, so am I. We know in this 19th century view of the world where great powers get to do what they want and everyone else has to suffer what they must is not a recipe for stability, it's not a recipe for peace. The big powers in their spheres inevitably want more and the elbows get sharp and then they're keeping down. People in their own countries or people in countries within their sphere, people rebel against that, they push them down again. Conflict inevitably boils over.

[Fareed Zakaria]

What do you think happens in Ukraine? What is the most realistic outcome now?

[Antony Blinken]

So first, let's remember why it's so important to begin with. Because of course, none of us like to see a big country beating up on a smaller one. But this was always about more than that. The aggression that Russia committed against Ukraine was also an aggression against the very principles at the heart of the international system. Principles like you don't go and change the borders of a neighbor by force. You don't go and dictate the policies of another country. So now where are we? My own estimation is left to its own devices right now. The line on the ground, on the map is not going to move very much. The Russians have been inching out at horrific cost, just a little bit of territory. I think they've taken about another 1% of Ukraine over the last year at the cost of tens of thousands of lives, hundreds of thousands of wounded. The real issue, I think, if we're going to settle this, at least for some period of time, is making sure that there is a sufficient deterrent in place so that Russia doesn't simply rest and repeat at some point in the future security guarantees. What are we going to provide now? It's critical that the United States be a central part of that. I have to say. The credibility of America's word is something that people will think twice about. But that's important. Having forces on any line that is established so that it's a tripwire. And Russia can't simply go back in, providing for Ukraine's defense industry, making sure that we continue to provide intelligence and weapons, all of those things are critical.

[Fareed Zakaria]

When you look at what's going on in Ukraine on that border now, the Trump administration strategy does seem to be force the Ukrainians to make a bunch of concessions. Those concessions should be enough to mollify, placate the Russians, and at least we'll have a deal and we'll end this horrific fighting. Is that likely to work?

[Antony Blinken]

The short answer is no, for two reasons. One, it's awfully hard to tell the Ukrainians to demand of the Ukrainians that they voluntarily give up more territory, that they reward the aggression, that they've been on the receiving end of the since the initial invasion. Second, I actually don't think, absent really giving wholesale into what Russia wants, that it's going to satisfy Putin. And whenever we've seen the Ukrainians say, okay, we can get behind some of this, the ball's in Russia's court. Russia has not taken a swing at the ball. Putin's not interested. He still thinks that he can get what he wants by force, and he's willing to sacrifice a tremendous amount to stick it out.

[Fareed Zakaria]

What do you think he wants?

[Antony Blinken]

What does he want? In the first instance, he certainly wants all of the Donbass. In the second instance, he wants Ukraine. One way or another, he wants to neutralize it as an independent country. He wants to make sure that it's beholden to Russia in some form or fashion. That's the goal. Whether he can get that in one bite, maybe not. But that's the intent. That's why it's so critical that if there is even a timeout, a ceasefire, it's something that can endure because what's built into it says to Vladimir Putin, actually, I can't get away with doing this again.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Stay with us. Back in June, Tony Blinken wrote that Trump's strike on Iran was a mistake, but one he hoped would succeed. I'll ask the former secretary of state whether he still thinks it was a mistake and whether it did succeed.

[Commercial Announcer]

Want to make a difference in your community, but not sure how? Go to GoFundMe.com right now and start a GoFundMe. Seriously. Your next fundraiser doesn't have to start in a school parking lot or a church basement. You can start a GoFundMe today in just minutes. Fundraise for yourself, a friend or family member or an organization. All that matters is that you care about them. GoFundMe is the trusted place to fundraise for what you care about. With no pressure to hit your fundraising goal, but tons of tools to help you reach it, you can confidently start fundraising right now. Whether it's creative, local, or critical, your cause matters. And there's a reason why GoFundMe is backed by millions and chosen by fundraisers everywhere. It works and it matters. GoFundMe helps you make a real difference. Start your GoFundMe today at GoFundMe.com that's GoFundMe.com G-O F U-N-M E.com this is a commercial message brought to you by GoFundMe.

[Fareed Zakaria]

I'm Dr. Sanjay Gupta, host of the Chasing Life podcast. How do we tell stories with the.

[Commercial Announcer]

People we love in a way that.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Helps us connect instead of giving us a reason to disagree?

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

Why do me and my sister have.

[Antony Blinken]

Very different recounts of the same exact experience we have?

[Fareed Zakaria]

Dr. Signe Sheldon. She's an associate professor of psychology at McGill University who researches how our brains store memories.

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

Our memories are not stored as files. Memories are these flexible, dynamic recreations.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Listen to Chasing Life streaming now wherever you get your podcasts. And I'm back with more of my exclusive interview with the former US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken. Tony, you wrote an article where you said Trump's Iran strike was a mistake. I hope it succeeds. Would it be fair to say that it did succeed and that you were wrong to oppose it.

[Antony Blinken]

I think the jury's out. Yes, I very much want it to succeed because we, this is a problem we need to deal with. But again, press rewind for a second. Of course we had the nuclear agreement with Iran under, under Obama, and it put its nuclear program in a box. And in particular, it ensured that for some extended period of time, Iran would not have the ability to produce enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon without taking a lot of time to do it, a year or more. And if it chose to break the agreement and start making fissile material for a weapon, we'd see it and we'd be able to do something about it. And we bought at least a decade, probably 15 or 20 years. Different provisions of the agreement, as you know, lapsed. They could have been re extended, but.

[Fareed Zakaria]

The bombing has set back their program in a similar way.

[Antony Blinken]

Well, the reason I bring this up is we of course had the same thought or opportunity we wanted to deal with. We were determined to deal with the problem. And the question is, what's the best way to do it? The problem that we had with bombing the program was that yes, you could set it back and depending on your assessment, a year to two years. But if, and this is why I say the jury's still out, if Iran made the decision to rebuild, but to rebuild deeper underground places that we couldn't get to, we'd wind up with an even worse problem a couple of years down the road. The diplomatic agreement bought us 10, 15, 20 years and kept the option down the road to use force if we have to. So the jury's out because I don't think we know what Iran's going to do now. I'm hoping that it'll conclude, no, we shouldn't pursue this program, but I fear that in fact they will and at some point they'll rebuild and in a way that'll be more dangerous.

[Fareed Zakaria]

On the left, you have been criticized the Biden administration, but you personally about Gaza, about the catastrophic humanitarian situation and the sense of the Biden administration did not do enough to stop Israel. When you reflect on the issue, do you think that that criticism is right?

[Antony Blinken]

Look, let's start with the proposition that how can anyone starting with me, not wish profoundly that we could have brought an end to the conflict a lot sooner, that we could have alleviated more the suffering of people who were caught, young women, men, children, who were caught in this horrific crossfire that hamas initiated on October 7th. And I'll probably Think that for the rest of my days. But we had two things that I think are worth pointing out. One is, of course, to start where we finished. We did finish with a ceasefire. That's exactly what we handed over. We did finish with tens of thousands of trucks poised to go in. I wish we could have gotten it sooner, but a lot went into getting there, and that's at least what we handed off. Second, we had three big challenges that were sometimes in conflict. Make sure October 7th doesn't happen again, and so deal with Hamas capacity to perpetuate another massacre, a massacre of Jews not seen since the Holocaust. Second, and this is something that gets discounted. Avoid a larger war. I think one of the things that. That people forget is that we were right on the precipice, especially in the early days and early weeks of this being a much broader war, with Iran looking to get in, with Hezbollah looking to get in. The Houthis eventually did, but especially Iran and Hezbollah. And had that happened, had we not prevented that, had we not preserved Israel's deterrent so that it said to these groups and countries, don't do it, and put our own deterrent in place, we would have had a wider war, more death, more destruction, and it would have prolonged Gaza. And then third, of course, was looking out for the people who are caught in the middle, the people of Gaza who were caught in the middle. And I can tell you, Fareed, I work this every single day trying to.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Help, but it's hard to look at the devastation there, 90% of all buildings destroyed, and not think it was a failure. Well, failure just for the people of Gaza. I mean, they're living in a hellscape.

[Antony Blinken]

For the people of Gaza. There's no question that this was a tragedy of historic proportions. There's no question about that. But the question is what to do about it? What could have been done, what should have been done, and what did we do? And as I said, we had to juggle all these things. Now, we believe strongly that the quickest, most effective way to get to an end of the war was to get a ceasefire, to get a hostage agreement, to get a ceasefire. And that's what we worked on. But two things continuously kept pushing that off. One was Hamas's conviction that the cavalry was going to come to the rescue, that the Iranians, Hezbollah and others would get in until they were disabused of that notion, which didn't happen until, really, the summer and early fall of 2024, after the Iranians attacked Israel and were rebuffed Hezbollah also had its problems. They kept saying to themselves, and we know it from the information we had, we can pull back. We don't need to cut. We don't need to do a deal. The other thing that motivated Hamas, and we saw this in the information we had as well, was whenever they saw daylight emerging between Israel and its primary patrons, the United States, they would also say, we can pull back. So when there were ICC indictments in early 24 of Netanyahu and the defense minister, when a number of European countries recognized Palestine, this is early on in 2024, when differences between the United States and Israel over Rafah emerged more publicly, we saw it. They pulled back. So one of the challenges we had was the disconnect between what we were saying and pressing the Israelis on in private and what we were projecting publicly so that this gap didn't appear and that Hamas didn't walk away from the table and actually got to a deal.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Tony Blinken, always a pleasure.

[Antony Blinken]

Great to be with you.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Next on gps. The Hanukkah shooting at Bondi beach was inspired by Islamic State ideology, according to authorities. When we come back. Last Sunday, anti Semitism reared its ugly head once again, this time in Australia, where two gunmen opened fire at a Hanukkah event in Bondi beach, killing more than a dozen people and injuring many others. This was Australia's deadliest mass shooting in nearly 30 years. Australian authorities say that the alleged perpetrators of the attack were motivated by Islamic State ideology. Here to tell us what we need to know about ISIS around the world is Jessica Stern. She's a professor at Boston University and the author of the book the State of Terror. Jessica, welcome. Tell us, you know, why is it that we've noticed this occasionally over the last few years when you do have these kind of terror attacks? It does seem that the Islamic State inspires or radicalizes these people more so than Al Qaeda, which seems. Seems to have kind of disappeared. What is it about the. About ISIS and the Islamic State that seems to be more, you know, have kind of greater staying power?

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

ISIS was damaged severely with the attack in 2019 when the caliphate was defeated, but it persists, and it persists largely through its digital caliphate, which is very effective. So I think that's the main reason we're seeing that they're much more savvy than Al Qaeda ever was in terms of their propaganda and how they try to appeal to alienated people actually in the West.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And they were much richer, right, than Al Qaeda. I mean, this was a much bigger operation than Al Qaeda.

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

Ever was right. ISIS established what it called a caliphate. It was in Iraq and Syria. It fulfilled many of the functions of a state for a time, but it had a lot of money. It was trading in foreign currency. It was. And it had this aura of victory. It wanted to establish the caliphate immediately, whereas Al Qaeda had a longer term agenda. But the main reason it's much more effective at radicalizing people in the west is how sophisticated it is through its digital appeal.

[Fareed Zakaria]

So when you hear about some of these people, you've studied them extensively, who get radicalized. What's the profile? What is it that these people. Who are these people who kind of go on the Internet and, and sort of somehow at the end of that process, end up terrorists?

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

Well, they're not well adjusted, happy people. They are often people who are drawn to violence. A combination of personal as well as ostensibly political motives. When we've interviewed former terrorists, they often tell us former Western, especially lone actors, they often tell us that their personal grievances, their emotional distress, was at least as important as the ideals that a terrorist group claims to be promoting. So it's important to realize that the vast majority of people who are mentally ill or suicidal or deeply distressed, of course, do not become terrorists. But those people are quite overrepresented in our data.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Do you think that this reflects a kind of a rise, that we should be worried about a rising tide, or is this a kind of one off?

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

I don't think it's a one off. ISIS persists, and it's important for us to realize that it still is able to attract alienated people who are looking for purpose, dignity, significance. And unfortunately, the people in our government who are supposed to be monitoring this, many of them have been switched over to working on immigrants, migrants. And our government is largely hollowed out. We had a large number of people who are very sophisticated in their understanding of Western recruits to terrorist organizations, and many of them have left and some are now working on other things. I don't think we're ready for this.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Jessica Stern, always a pleasure to hear from you. Thank you.

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

Thank you.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Next on gps, what are the most dangerous places in the world to be a human being in 2026? I will speak with David Miliband, the International Rescue Committee's president, on just that topic when we come back.

[Commercial Announcer]

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. One of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know, know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Antony Blinken]

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's busy. Taxes and fees extra.

[Fareed Zakaria]

See mintmobile.com the holiday season is here.

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

And CNN Underscored is your VIP pass to unique gifts at the best prices. From expert recommendations to can't miss deals.

[Fareed Zakaria]

We we've wrapped it all up for you.

[Narrator/Commercial Voice]

Shop last minute gifting [e-mail] 61 that.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Is the number of conflicts around the world today, more than at any time since World War II. A quarter billion. That is the amount of people globally who need humanitarian aid, 83%. That is the proportion of USAID funded programs that were canceled by the Trump administration this year. Despite that urgency of need, it is not just the US Pulling back. Germany, France and the UK have also drastically reduced their foreign aid budgets. All of those numbers were from the International Rescue Committee's 2026 emergency watch list released this week. It highlights the country's at greatest risk of worsening crises in the coming year. Joining me now is the IRC's president and CEO, D. David Miliband. David, we all heard about the shutting down of USAID and the pulling back of all these programs. You guys operate in all these countries where you're trying to get humanitarian aid to people. What was the effect?

[David Miliband]

Well, overnight programs were closed programs for Sudanese refugees in South Sudan, health programs, closed programs for livelihoods in Niger in the more in west of Africa, closed education programs in Afghanistan, closed programs in Yemen closed. Overall, there's been a 50% reduction in the total spend on humanitarian crisis response down to about $12 billion in total this year, down from 25, 26 billion. And just for my own organization, 2 million clients have lost access to services, absolutely critical services. We continue to do services like services like health services for refugees, livelihood support to help farmers stay on the land and adapt to climate change, education programs, 300,000 boys and girls that we were going to educate in Afghanistan, not getting an education. And so while we continue to have programs with the US Government, we're seeing a general rise in disorder in the abuse and the trampling of the rights of civilians to get aid. In fact, 50,000 civilians have been killed in those conflicts this year. And our warning in the watch list is that this is A dangerous trend, not just for those on the receiving end of these cuts, but for the rest of us. Because all the evidence is, you know this very well. Crises that start in somewhere like Sudan, the largest humanitarian crisis in the world, they don't stay there.

[Fareed Zakaria]

You know that people like Elon Musk say that these organizations like yours are, you know, they're scams. They have lots of administrative costs. They, they create a kind of comfortable dynamic where in a sense, you don't want to solve these problems. Because, because part of the point of the organization is that it exists for these problems. What do you say about that?

[David Miliband]

Let me take you to East Africa. Zero dose children who have no vaccination at all. That's a lifelong sentence not to get a vaccination. We've delivered 21 million doses of vaccine to 2 million kids for $2.10 approximately, a shot. That is such an investment. But that's also value for money. That's not waste, that's not bureaucratic costs. That is 2 million kids who would have the life sentence of never getting vaccinated. Getting vaccinated.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And your administration costs are very low.

[David Miliband]

Well, yeah, I mean, if you, if you look at it, it's about 12 or 13% of the total is called administration. But remember, that includes it. Now we're proud to be spending 3% of our total budget. Our total budget is about $1.1 billion. We spend about 3% on it. Thank goodness we do. That makes us more efficient, not less efficient. So let's really take this on. As we know and as you demonstrated, 250 million people in humanitarian need around the world today. That means they depend on non governmental organizations and on the UN to survive because their own governments aren't able to support them. It's imperative, not just as a moral reason, but for strategic reasons to help those people.

[Fareed Zakaria]

What are the most troubled countries in the world? Where are people? I always think that we talk about countries, but what you're really saying is this is where people, just ordinary human beings, are most vulnerable. They are going to die, they're going to get sick, they're going to get malnourished.

[David Miliband]

Aid is life saving for people development. That's a bigger question for nations. Aid A, let's go to Sudan. It's the largest humanitarian crisis in the world today and the largest humanitarian crisis ever. 30 million people out of a total population of 45 million are dependent on humanitarian aids to survive. 21 million people at the highest levels of food insecurity. That means hunger and in some Cases, starvation, the fifth level, famine level conditions. I was there myself in September, in the east of the country, in the west of the country, in Darfur. Twenty years ago, everyone was talking about Darfur. Now it's very hard to get any attention to it. The crisis is three to four times worse, and the response is maybe one tenth of what it was. Out of Al Fasha. We're working for people who fled from al Fasha. There's 150,000 people gone missing. We don't know what's happened to those people. What we do know is satellites show blood stains underneath and next to piles of bodies in Al Fasher and women and girls coming out of that city, the capital of North Darfur, saying every single one of them has been raped on their way out of that crisis. So Sudan is an avatar for the modern global disorder. It's an avatar because it's a civil war in which all of the neighbors are backing one side or the other. It's an avatar because there's no end in sight. There's continued fighting in Kordofan. It's an avatar avatar because the rights of civilians to life, never mind to aid, are being denied. And finally, it's an avatar because the funding is being cut. It's only 35% funded. All of us should be thinking Sudan is a warning, not just a crisis.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Well, the IRC does extraordinary work, and you're doing it under very, very challenging circumstances. David Millerman, thank you for doing it.

[David Miliband]

Thank you.

[Fareed Zakaria]

Farida, what are the Trump administration's real goals in the escalating crackdown on Venezuela? It may be regime change there and somewhere else. I'll explain where that is next.

[Commercial Announcer]

Shopping is hard, right? But I found a better way. Stitch Fix online. Personal styling makes it easy. I just give my stylist my size, style and budget preferences. I order boxes when I want and how I want. No subscription required. I and he sends just for me, pieces, plus outfit recommendations and styling tips. I keep what works and send back the rest. It's so easy. Make style easy. Get started [e-mail] Spotify. That's stitchfix.com Spotify.

[Fareed Zakaria]

And now for the last look. In the Trump administration's escalating, puzzling, and possibly illegal crackdown on Venezuela, many see the fingerprints not necessarily of Trump himself, but of his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. Since Trump's first term, Rubio has devoted himself to trying to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. But why is Rubio amid much more pressing crises in the Middle east and Ukraine so interested in an isolated nation of fewer than 30 million people more than 1,000 miles south, south of Miami. As the New York Times reports, part of Rubio's interest in Venezuela is really about that country's closest ally in the region, Cuba. Rubio is the son of Cuban immigrants raised in hardline anti Castro Miami, and his ire for the Cuban regime is central to his political identity. He views Havana as a key player, propping up Maduro and Caracas as a key lifeline for the increasingly cash strapped island nation. Many Cuba hawks believe that toppling Venezuela's leadership would deliver a death blow to Cuba's as well. The two regimes have a mutual commitment to the other's survival. As the Cuba scholar Richard Feinberg noted in a 2020 essay, the two countries have had ties since the independent struggle of the 19th century. But ties deepened a century later. After political earth earthquake In Caracas in 1998, Venezuelans elected a charismatic left wing populist who raged against imperialism and corruption of the political elites. That man was Hugo Chavez. In Chavez, Cuba's Fidel Castro had both the acolyte and the regional champion he'd long sought. There was a deep personal affection between the two men, a father son dynamic. But the relationship was also pragmatic, particularly for Castro. After the fall of the Iron Curtain, the tiny island nation lost the roughly four and a half billion dollars in annual aid that used to come from the Soviet Union. Cuba needed cash badly and Venezuela had and still has vast reserves of oil. Chavez began selling heavily discounted oil to Cuba and by 2008 Cuba was receiving more than a half barrels per day from its ally. Cuba refined and sold the surplus to other markets. In return, Cuba sent Caracas its most valuable export. Medical professionals trained for free in Castro's regime. At one point, more than 20,000 Cuban doctors and other medical workers fanned out to the poorest neighborhoods in Venezuela, serving as many as 15 million Venezuelans. Venezuela's security apparatus is infiltrated by the Cuban government, though no one knows how many Cuban soldiers and spies remain in Venezuela, and Cuba hawks often inflate the figures. Many believe, however, that Cuban operatives are a linchpin to Maduro's survival. Take the failed revolt in Venezuela in 2019. In January of that year, the opposition leader Juan Guaido, amid massive anti government protests and after the previous year's sham elections, had declared himself acting president. Rubio, then a senator, was reportedly key in persuading Trump to back Guaido. In April of 2019, the 35 year old lawmaker tried to trigger an army uprising, but the military remained loyal to Maduro. The Trump administration believes that Cuban intelligence informed the Venezuelan dictator of the coup attempt and Cuban soldiers helped him co crush it. Today, Maduro has expanded the ranks of Cuban bodyguards in his personal security detail. As the New York Times reports, citing a person close to Venezuela's military, he sees Cuban military and intelligence personnel as incorruptible. Still, the Cuba Venezuela relationship has weakened. As William Leogrand and Peter Kornblue note in Foreign Policy, Venezuela is crippled by its own economic crisis and punishing sanctions. From the U.S. reuters reports that between January and November of this year, Caracas was only able to deliver 27,000 barrels of oil per day to Cuba, roughly a quarter of what it sent a decade ago. There are also fewer Cuban doctors and soldiers in the country than there were at the apex of the relationship. Perhaps that has led Rubio to be more daring, more ambitious in his approach to both countries. But he may underestimate the cost of success. As the Obama era Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told the New York Times, toppling Cuba's regime is unlikely to lead to democracy. On the contrary, he said, Cuba is far more likely to collapse and become a failed state. The same may be true of Venezuela with its many militias and factions. You'd think we'd Learned the lesson. 25 years of regime change have not gone so well in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and many, many other places. Thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. Happy holidays to all and I will see you next week.

[Commercial Announcer]

One of the biggest challenges of earning a degree as a military veteran is transitioning your goals and experiences to your next phase in life. National University gets it as a veteran founded Yellow Ribbon School. They offer post 911 GI bill acceptance, dedicated military support and advising services and credit for your military experience. That's why 30% of their students are military affiliated. NU education that serves those who served.

[Antony Blinken]

Bringing the New Year with Anderson Cooper and Andy Cohen.

[Commercial Announcer]

Welcome to Times Square.

[Antony Blinken]

We have a great show planned tonight.

[Commercial Announcer]

I thought you would have been been fired by now.

[Antony Blinken]

Eff it up everybody.

[Commercial Announcer]

New Year's Eve live coverage starts at.

[Antony Blinken]

8 on CNN and watch on the CNN app.