Dan Senor (4:38)

And he was really funny. But don't misunderstand, my friend continues. I still hate Trump.

Mark Halpern (4:44)

He's a despicable man, and I can't abide that. It must be that I somehow, deep inside feel I am somehow in. In danger of being like him.

Dan Senor (4:53)

I mean, civilization can't work on his moral compass.

Mark Halpern (4:56)

Yet it can't work without him knocking the needle.

Dan Senor (4:59)

Cockeyed, my friend concludes, too much to process here. My friend is grappling with what a.

Mark Halpern (5:05)

Lot of people on the left are.

Dan Senor (5:06)

Grappling with, which is maybe, just maybe.

Mark Halpern (5:09)

Trump is the only president who could make this deal. Joe Biden tried to make it and couldn't, although he says he laid the groundwork for it. Half the country says what Trump has done happened by divine intervention. The other half calls it a Ponzi scheme or just dumb luck.

Dan Senor (5:23)

But try to strip away the theater and what you find is not luck or bluster.

Mark Halpern (5:28)

As a student to Donald Trump, who's done a lot of reporting this week, I can tell you that this happened because Donald Trump has the skills. I'm going to talk to you about seven of them.

Dan Senor (5:39)

Seven tricks of Trump's trade that his enemies either mock or dismiss. They have for years, even as these very instincts just did what was unthinkable. Redrawing the map of the Middle East. I call it the Apprentice Abraham Accords edition, the sequel.

Mark Halpern (5:55)

Except this time, the guy who got.

Dan Senor (5:57)

Fired was not Gary Busey, it was Hamas. It's very easy to miss these Trump's rules of the road because Trump himself can be a distraction on this trip. On Monday, first in Israel, then in.

Mark Halpern (6:09)

Egypt, he amped up what I call.

Dan Senor (6:11)

His Don Rickles nightclub act. He says things that literally no other president in American history has said or would say. It's a shtick that distracts because it's got insults, it's got misdirection, it's got asides, it's got stream of consciousness. Here is just some of the stuff Trump said that I think distracted, folks.

Donald Trump (6:30)

Mr. President, why don't you give him a pardon?

Mark Halpern (6:37)

Give him a pardon. Come on.

Donald Trump (6:43)

But I happen to like this gentleman right over here. And it just seems to make so much sense, you know, whether we like it or not, this has been one of the greatest wartime presidents. This has been one of the greatest wartime presidents. And cigars and champagne. Who the hell cares about that? We had a very weak administration. Worst president in the history of our country by far. And Barack Obama was not far behind.

Morton H. Halperin (7:14)

By the way.

Donald Trump (7:18)

During the campaign against crooked Hillary Clinton. Have you heard of that Henry Kissinger who doesn't leak? Okay, Henry is a big leaker.

Morton H. Halperin (7:29)

He leaked.

Donald Trump (7:30)

All right, enough controversy for the day.

Morton H. Halperin (7:32)

Right?

Donald Trump (7:33)

So popular. You are a very popular man. You know why? Because you know how to win.

Mark Halpern (7:38)

All right? So that showman, that funny guy, he distracts. He gets people to not focus on all the things he did. And another reason why I think people have not focused on how Trump got this accomplished, at least not yet, is because the administration are not telling the story of what happened. Marco Rubio keeps saying, believe me, there's a lot of stuff behind the scenes here. It hasn't been revealed. Trump was his usual boastful self on Monday, but he also was generously crediting his team, particularly Rubio, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner. But again, not giving specifics about how this was pulled off. And they've kept quiet about all the detailed conversations and the tactical moves Trump himself made to bring this about. Someday maybe we'll know, but we don't yet. With limited knowledge of the details, though, any close student of Trump can tell you what happened here, at least the broad outlines. Because whether you love Trump or loathe them, there's a pattern here. There are things Trump did that I call the maven of Mar A Lago 101. The artistry behind this very significant pact For Trump, this deal is from the past. Being prologue, it's a reminder that in this term, Trump is combining a lifetime of understanding of how to do deals with the experience he's got knowing how to be president, knowing some of these world leaders. He's married up the tactics that he's always used now with a strategic vision he simply didn't have, along with the relationships in his first term. So here are seven Trump talents that I think contributed to this deal, based on talking to people around Trump who've explained to me both over the years, in the context of this deal, how it got done. First is Trump's use of unconventional envoy. Steve Witkoff, the man who was at the center of this deal, with the help from Jared Kushner. He's a developer, a real estate developer known for turning neglected buildings into luxury addresses. Trump made him point person on this, as he has on Russia and other things. And Washington did what it does in such cases. It laughed. People from national, from the Foreign Service, people from the Council on Foreign Relations, they saw this thing, appointment as a punchline, not a pipeline to peace. Trump's genius is that he understands that power. It doesn't travel anymore through official corridors. That's from the past. It flows through private channels, over golf lunches, whispered phone calls between folks who can close a deal and then brag about it. If they want the State Department, they want long memos. What Trump wants and what he wanted in this case was a guy who could seal the deal at CIPRIANI without checking his notes, without consulting his predecessors. There was no predecessor for Steve Witkoff. Trump chose him to do this in a different way. Who knew that the road to Jerusalem and Tel Aviv ran through Palm beach and the Carlisle Hotel rather than through Foggy Bottom? Trump ignored the experts in this case because he sees expertise as an obstacle course built by people who've never finished anything. Trump prefers dealmakers who don't flinch when the bill arrives. People call that amateurism. That's not how Trump sees it. Trump sees this as doing stuff differently with someone he trusts. And it got the job done all right. Second, Trump is fine blurring business and diplomacy. His critics call it corruption. What his supporters call it is synergy. Either way, whatever your view of provided leverage, in this case, Trump treats the globe like it's a zone mixed use real estate project. For him, it's not a conflict of interest, it's a warning. The business model can work. It greases the skids for diplomacy. He put a real estate developer in charge of the Middle East. Trump again. He doesn't see a conflict there. For him, it's vertical and horizontal integration all at the same time. Capitalism and statecraft for Trump, they go together. They both rely on perception, persuasion, interconnectedness, and the ever present threat of walking away from a deal. Trump's philosophy is they want something from us, find out what it is and give them something that looks like the deal. People call that the art of the deal. For Trump, I call it the art of illusion. Diplomats offer promises. What Trump offers is projects of mutual interest. It's foreign policy with bottle service and the check. For Trump, it's always in someone else's currency. He's managed to turn the accusation that he's too transactional, he's too connected to business, and to prove in this case that he's effective. Because sometimes being transactional is how you get a transaction done, even if it's diplomacy. All. All right. Third, Trump is a great reader of people. He reads ego the way a normal president would read a briefing book. The Middle east is famous for being a region built on pride, on dynasty, and on the concept of face. Trump is fluent in all three of those areas. He doesn't want to read reports from the State Department. He wants to read the room. That's partly why he often will show up, as he did this week, in person. He looks at the body language. He looks at the facial expressions. He sees what the leaders he needs something from needs from him. Whether it's a photo with him, whether somebody wants to be called a visionary in public who needs to feel a foot taller in a photo op by positioning themselves. If your posture says needy, you're already for Trump in the second paragraph of the press release. He wants people who are aggressive like him. The people he singled out this week at the event in Egypt were the ones who have been so aggressive. Maybe they're aggressive for peace. Maybe they want some sort of license to build a business. Trump treats geopolitics like casting a movie or a TV show. He's always willing to find the guy who's willing to play himself. And this confounds the Beltway. They think reliance on understanding human nature is about manipulation. For Trump, it's geopolitical literacy. Every meeting for him is like a first date, and he never forgets who blinks first. Trump went to Egypt to read the room and sealed the deal. All right. Fourth, Trump is not afraid of criticism. It's a huge superpower for him. It's a huge ability to navigate what he's gone through. There's no one in modern American life who's been mocked, more impeached, indicted, lampooned. And yet Trump just keeps going.

Morton H. Halperin (13:53)

His.

Mark Halpern (13:53)

His secret is not denial, it's digestion. He takes the criticism and he metabolizes it and he moves on. He turns contempt into currency and outrage into oxygen. He's the only person in public life who can trend for the wrong reason and then turn it into market research. He's been called every name and every language and he just keeps going. Every insult to him is like a protein shake. It fuels him for the next time he's dealing with the press or. Or dealing with an adversary. He wakes up every morning, scans the coverage and thinks, huh, they're still talking about me. That means I'm still winning. That is the alchemy that his enemies have never understood. They think Trump is thin skinned. He's not. He's Teflon. He takes their rage and it turns it into an aura around him. When they condemn him, it gives him the shape he needs. He becomes what he's always wanted to be, what he is, even as President of the United States, a rebel outsider battling the club he's been denied entry to and now, paradoxically, is the head of all right. Number five. Trump is a master of tactical ambiguity. He saw it in full, sharp relief in this case. He knows that clarity is overrated, whether you're playing poker or trying to strike a deal like this. His power lies in leaving ambiguity, never letting anyone know quite exactly what's Real what's pretend, what he'll do, what he won't do. He speaks in superlatives. They're so expansive, they become like force fields because they create a lack of.

Dan Senor (15:25)

Certainty in the minds of the others. Every time Trump says something is historic, the diplomats say, well, in what sense? And he says, yeah, in the best sense. He treats strategy like he treats an.

Mark Halpern (15:36)

NDA, never fully disclosed.

Dan Senor (15:38)

And when you can't predict what Trump's.

Mark Halpern (15:40)

Going to do, you're forced to accommodate him.

Dan Senor (15:43)

Other people look at this, particularly traditionalists.

Mark Halpern (15:45)

And say, well, that's chaos for Trump.

Dan Senor (15:47)

That's not. It's leverage with extra hairspray. Traditional diplomats, they crave predictability. Trump does not measure credibility by consistency. Trump measures it by confusion. How much confusion can he sow to create his own deterrence, his own incentives.

Mark Halpern (16:05)

For people he wants?

Dan Senor (16:06)

Trump's mantra is, let them think I might do it. That's what gets them to call me back. In this case, that's what happened. Trump created. Even the Europeans, who had been so hostile for Israel, all of a sudden wanted to be part of this. They flew to Egypt to stand on stage with Trump, who understands what Madison Avenue has always understood. Mystery cells, the Saudis, the Israelis, even the Qataris. They learn that when Trump is involved, the game is played on his board, not on theirs.

Mark Halpern (16:35)

And.

Dan Senor (16:35)

And they all showed up because they couldn't know what would happen if they didn't. All right, six. Trump is a master of timing and of spectacle. His critics say he cares too much about showmanship. Well, they're right. He does care a lot about it. But Trump knows the show is the thing. He understands, whether it's politics or entertainment. The two have merged now. Stagecraft is statecraft. In the age of social media, the headline is what writes history, at least in the short term. So when Trump unveiled the deal, he made sure the lighting was perfect, the backdrop was biblical, the applause instant and sustained. He wasn't trying to choreograph some sort of policy rollout. He was trying to create a scene. You saw that in the Knesset in Israel. You saw it in the subsequent stop in Egypt. The Middle east, they have had decades where there's been massive daylight between enemies. Trump wanted to create a golden hour where everybody stood together. He knows that if he can make the world stop and pay attention in their scrolling, Constant Scrolling for 12 seconds, you've already negotiated half the deal. What the establishment still does not grasp is that people aren't going to remember the details. They're going to remember the images. Trump being applauded in the Knesset, Trump being surrounded by world leaders, all standing there while he was master of ceremonies. And in Egypt, Trump grasps that winning the news cycle can mean you win the century. He's turned diplomacy into theater, and his critics have to sit by as unwilling ticket holders watching the show. Finally, related to controlling the narrative. Trump knows you got to frame the story before the facts settle. Because if you frame the story, you get to decide what the facts actually are. Every president now tries to control the narrative, every politician. Trump is the narrative. He has been for 10 years and he knows it. He doesn't wait for historians. He dictates the chirons for the TV show. He understands that if you define the story before anybody else can, you own the interpretation. Trump believes forever. We'll see if that sustains. But certainly for now, by the time any of the analysts start to ask, wait, what did Trump actually accomplish? Here he is already posting on Truth Social, saying it's the deal of a lifetime, or at least of the millennium. Trump doesn't just shape the narrative, he trademarks it and makes it his own. He treats his perception creation like intellectual property. He knows, again, people aren't going to remember the details. What they're going to remember is how did they feel about it and the world. Even a lot of Trump's critics, even my friend who sent me that note, they felt great about it. It's not shallow. This is now the media physics that every effective politician has to deal with, and Trump does it better than anyone. When you control emotion, you control reality. Trump doesn't measure success by the technical language in a treaty or what protocols are drafted and then ratified. Trump measures it by on camera airtime. Who gets the first word, who gets the last word? What does the photograph look like that defines the moment? Trump is not interested in playing for some stuffy archives. He's playing for the collective memory on video. Yes, it is brash. It's shameless. It's allergic to nuance, perhaps allergic to humility. But the man who was once mocked for thinking diplomacy was just another deal to be made now knows how to make these deals better than he did in the first term. Where everyone else has failed, particularly Donald Trump, will tell you his predecessor, Joe Biden, Trump is able to get it done as he did in this case. He may not be sitting up late reading State Department cables, but Trump understands how to separate signal and noise. He may not speak in detailed policy prescriptions, but he understands the grammar and cadence of power. He's really the first president since Ronald Reagan to fully grasp the foreign policy. On the big stage like this week, it's 80% theater, 10% luck and 10% pretending you meant to do something you did by accident. He's turned the presidency this week into a kind of a postmodern stagecraft. It's a blend of a reality show and real politic. The applause lines matter as much as anything else and more than the annex in any sort of formal agreement. For all the chaos Trump is sowing, he's just reminded the world again that diplomacy, like show business, is about who gets the first applause line and how sustained the applause is. For now, this deal could fall apart. But for now, it's an extraordinary accomplishment that Trump got done along with help from his advisors. Not by accident, the applause lines and the applause belong to him. He is a student, not so much of people like Kissinger and George Kennan. Trump is a student of himself, perfecting the what he's done from his first term to get to this point, taking a lifetime of tactics and strategy that he's learned in business, in running for president and being for president, and now applying it on the world stage with a bunch of leaders who stand by and hang on his every word. The final irony of all this is all of these other leaders, they've studied history. Trump has now rewritten it with one of his beloved Sharpies. He has made, as he has said, an extraordinary deal. Didn't happen by accident.

Mark Halpern (22:00)

You don't have to love Trump, as my friend had proved to me in the note he sent, to appreciate that.

Dan Senor (22:06)

Trump's abilities match the moment.

Mark Halpern (22:09)

His predecessors didn't do it, he did.

Dan Senor (22:11)

And that wasn't an accident.

Mark Halpern (22:13)

All right, tell me what you think of today's report. Send me an email nextup halpernmail.com always can find this program on social media, on X, on Instagram, on TikTok. Handle is @nextup halperin. And don't forget, of course, watch us on YouTube if you're not listening to us as a podcast, it's YouTube.com nextup halperin and next up here, the great Dan Senior, my friend, the host of the Call Me Back podcast and an expert on how Israel and the United States interact.

Dan Senor (22:43)

That's next up.

Mark Halpern (22:46)

Everybody. Let me tell you about an organization. It's called the Vapor Technology Association. It's a group started nearly a decade ago to protect the rights of Americans who choose alternatives to smoking. And it's about the small businesses who have made a living with this technology. They support science based policies and the rights of adults to make healthier choices. Did you know that many family owned vape shops and manufacturers across the country are now under attack thanks to what are outdated Biden era regulations that threatened to wipe out an entire industry? The Vapor Technology association, also known as vta, says businesses are being destroyed and people are losing their jobs. But the VTA says President Trump has a clear opportunity now to change all this and to protect American's right to make their own choices. Also to defend small businesses and restore a free and fair marketplace. Head over now to VaporTechnology.org to learn more about the group and why they are leading the charge to support American innovation. And if their mission appeals to you, consider becoming a member when you get to the website. Again, that's vapor technology.org and tell them you heard about it here on NextUp. Next up and joining me now, Dan, senior host of the Call Me Back podcast, a longtime student of US Politics, Israeli politics, international politics, with all embedded in the word politics, and one of the few people who actually understands both, like Bibi Netanyahu. He understands Israel and the United States. And he is a friend of Israel, a friend of the United States and a friend of mine and couldn't be happier to have him here on this August moment in history. Dan, thanks for being here.

Dan Senor (24:30)

Great to be with you. Mark, Citizen of the United States, I should be clear.

Mark Halpern (24:33)

Yeah, you're a citizen of the United States and a friend. Also raised your children to be New York jets fans, which shows your capacity for enduring optimism even in the face.

Dan Senor (24:46)

Or lack of parenting judgment. But this is not a, this is not a, like a parenting show. So.

Mark Halpern (24:51)

Yeah, well, it could, it could be someday. I want to have you and the boys on and talk about your relationship with the jets because I think it's dysfunctional. But not today. So, you know, I was thinking about what I want to talk to you about and I listened to you on Scott Galloway's podcast and everything he asked you was super interesting. That there's like, there's like 150 angles to this. There's just both, both what has happened over the last two years about the deal, about the next steps, about implications for Israel, for the US they're really like 150 things which we won't cover in our time here. So I, I want to focus on the thing that you and Scott barely touched on, which, which is becoming just a huge fascination of mine, which is how the Israeli people, so smart, so sophisticated, so savvy with a prime minister who understands American public opinion. If I were running for president, I'd hire Bibi as my pollster. I mean, he just, he understands America. How Israel allowed themselves to lose control of American public opinion, which is, I think is as anti Israel as it's ever been. People can attribute it to anti Semitism, they can attribute it to the war and the unpopularity of, of Israel's conduct, but it still makes no sense to me. So I want to talk about how it happened and then what the solutions are. And of course, there's this now famous memo from Charlie Kirk in which he laid out as well as I've seen anyone do. Here's what needs to be done. And Charlie's thesis, which I share, is a lot of. It's just about basic blocking and tackling. It's just about the basics of Israel fail to devote sufficient expertise and effort to, to trying to push back on lies. Because I know what you think. Because I know and I know it's true. Almost everything that Israel's hung around their neck is false. Not everything. Some of the things they did, including sometimes killing innocent people, they should be held accountable. Happens in war as happens in war. And it is a true fact, as I know you know and say is more than I do. They fight the war with one hand tied behind their back because they know that if they are not the most careful combatants ever, they will pay a price. So, yeah, that's my big prelude. How did this happen? How did we come, forget Israel? How did the United States, the left and the right and many other people, how did we go from Israel being our best friend to public opinion polling that every time it comes out, I do a double take. How unpopular Israel is in the United States now, how did that happen?

Dan Senor (27:21)

So, so I want to, I want to break this apart because I, I think that the, the public opinion challenges Israel faces on the right are not nearly as alarming or stark in the US As Israel faces on the left. I really, I think people are, I'm not saying I'm not concerned by what's happening on the right in the US but it's, I think there's an overreaction to it. By the way, there's an overreaction among Israelis I speak to, to what's happening on the right here. I think part of the problem with, with Israeli officials who are following public opinion here on the right is that they're, they, they get their information about the US Politics largely online. So if you follow the debate online on the right, those, those on the Right. With the biggest megaphones are, are saying things that, while, again, are noteworthy, are not necessarily reflective of where the GOP primary electorate, public opinion is. I'll give you a very specific example. A friend of mine is doing polling right now for Republican candidates, statewide candidates in New Hampshire, Minnesota and South Carolina. And he has put a few questions over the last few months. So three very different states, three very different, you know, electorates. He's put a series of questions about Israel in each of those races in each of his surveys, and he says, yeah, public opinion among GOP primary voters in these three states have dipped a little bit, but it's nothing like you would think if you watch, you know, if you follow all this online, that he says, still the GOP primary electorate is still overwhelmingly pro Israel. And to compare it to what's happening on the left here, it's like, you know, in one case you have a cold, in the other case you have terminal cancer. And you say, isn't it a shame that everybody's sick? It's like they're two different worlds. Okay, So I just, I just, I think it's important to.

Mark Halpern (29:10)

Well, yeah, but I agree with your.

Dan Senor (29:13)

Central premise, by the way.

Mark Halpern (29:15)

But, but, but let me just say we'll stay with the right and then we can talk about the left, if you want, or just the overall situation. And I want to move relatively quickly to what you think the solutions are, because, yeah, I don't want to, I don't want to blame you and Netanyahu exclusively, but I'm not being sarcastic when I say I think you both need to do some soul searching here because you both, you both are so sophisticated about these issues, and it is on your watch. And you know, you know I love you. I'm not, I'm not holding you fully accountable. But, but I want, you need to have done more because, because you're, you're able to do it. So on the right, you're right, the numbers aren't as bad. But, and, but the reason why people in Israel respond to the, the onlineness of it is because those people have tens of thousands of audience. So it's the, they're the loudest and the angriest and they represent the interesting story because of change, but it's not an insignificant number of people, and their influence over members of Congress is not insignificant. So you're right, it's not, it's not the same on the right and the left. But, but, but any friend of Israel has to be alarmed at the level of influence anti Semitic, anti Israel voices have on the right, I believe. Yeah.

Dan Senor (30:22)

So I will say again, I want to get to your central question. I do want to also say the issue on the right, to the extent it's a problem, I do think is more of a function of a, of a, of changing views on the right about U.S. foreign policy and the U.S. role. U.S. role in the world.

Dan Senor (30:35)

Role in the world.

Dan Senor (30:36)

Whereas on the left, I do think there's something, I'm going to say it, something much more anti Semitic going on. Whereas on the right, where we have seen a dip, it's not clear to me that it's actually motivated by the same thing.

Mark Halpern (30:47)

But look, let me just take a step back. I'm just, I'm just, I'm just, just interrupt for that to, just to say there are plenty of prominent voices on the right who say things that are cast as anti Semitic. So I, I agree with you. It's mostly about, I think it's important.

Dan Senor (30:58)

To draw a distinction even within those voices. Some of them are expressing are, are using anti Semitic dog whistles and others are actually talking about a. What they're really talking about is a restrained role for us, for, I agree, resources in the world. And it sometimes gets blasted as anti Semitic. So I just want to. Anyways, this is a Talmudic debate we could have, but I do think these distinctions are important. Now I want to talk about how we got here. I'm going to point to a few factors. All right? One is Israel historically has always been bad about telling its story. It's always been bad about strategic communications. And it's partly because throughout its history it has, it has always been in some kind of form of war fighting mode. And when you're on constantly in war fighting mode trying to talk to them, as I have and others about communications and telling their story, they treat it like the less important thing they'll get to when they have time. It's like, it's like, you know, trying to talk to someone about their cholesterol in the middle of a knife fight. It's like, yeah, yeah, I know I got to deal with my cholesterol. I'll get it checked. But I'm being stabbed right now. So let me just win the knife fight and then I'll deal with communications. So they've, they've never dealt with, they've never dealt with building the real infrastructure in the country. What do I mean by infrastructure? Really investing in it. Like the fact that. Sorry, I can hear my dog. The fact that there are so many Israeli Ambassadors around the world who are in capitals of countries where these ambassadors don't speak the language of that country is mind blowing to me. Let's just start with like the basics. They don't have people who can communicate. That's a big problem. Then the other point which I think is, is key here, and I'm gonna get to Netanyahu very specifically in a moment, is the Israeli government is dealing with two different audiences. We tend to focus on the audience here. The audience in the west, which rallied behind Israel by and large, immediately after October 7th. Right. Because they saw Israel as this, the victim, as the David in the story, not the Goliath, as the underdog. And there was this moment in many circles of rallying to Israel. And that changed the moment Israel went into Gaza and started fighting back. Like it changed like that. Now what the Israelis will say is the audience we really care about is not the audience in the west, it's in the Middle East. And if we just, if, if our only image is we were attacked, we were massacred, we're the victim, we're the charity case, then we are roadkill. We will be roadkill in the region. And as ugly as what we have been, what you've been seeing on TikTok screens and on television screens in the west, as ugly as you may find that in the Middle east, it's not a problem for us. To the contrary, it shows that, you know, we, we, we respond and don't mess around with us.

Mark Halpern (33:59)

Yeah.

Dan Senor (33:59)

And we project military might and military strength and we are a power in the region. So there is this inherent tension among Israeli officials about what message is more important when they're in the middle of a war. And I think many of them are far less sensitive to the demonization because they believe the only way to, to mollify the demonization is to, is to come off as, as weak in the victim. And I think they argue that it hurts them in the region. Okay. Lastly, as it relates to Netanyahu, he has had a theory of the case for a number of years. The theory of his case was Israel needs economic might, which it has developed over the last couple decades. I've written about this, about the startup scene, the innovation economy that, that gave them extraordinary economic resources, created enormous wealth. They're one of the countries that has grown the fastest in terms of per capita GDP really of any country in the, in the oecd. A B once you get the economic might, that helps fund the military capabilities which Israel has. And the combination of the economic might and the military might gives you geopolitical power. And the reality is everyone in the region, in the world, as much as they will finger wag at you, will always respect the military and the economic power. And that's what gives you real diplomatic power. And you are positioning yourself from a position of strength. And that is ultimately, for instance, what Netanyahu thinks got them the Abraham Accords and, and that's what got them on a path to, to normalization with Saudi Arabia, which I, I still think is on track, that these countries that normalized with Israel wanted to piggyback onto Israel's strength, not like, you know, sign up for Israel's weakness. So Netanyahu's entire approach while he's been Prime Minister before October 7th is project strength. Be strong, be a regional economic superpower, be a global technology superpower, and, and be a military and intelligence juggernaut. And that's when folks will rally to you. Now, in the middle of your war fighting, it's going to make people uncomfortable in the west for some time, but then the war fighting will stop and it stopped yesterday. And then people, then memories will recede, people will forget about it and they won't focus as much on the ugliness of war fighting and Israel will kind of return to some, some state it was at, before October 7th. Possibly, you could argue even better given the success of the operation against Iran and the pager attack, which Netanyahu would argue gives Israel this, this image of strength that, that various players will rally to. So that's right. That's how the Israelis would explain how they got in this jam and how they'll get out of it. The one, the one amendment I would make to it talking to you is, is, and Charlie talked about this and you're talking about this. All that is fine. But it's not inconsistent with getting the basics done. And the basics are, I think this summer, Mark, things really turned. I mean, things were turning for a while. But this summer, Israel was hit with three horrendous stories. Each of one was a lie. Story one was that Israel was committing a genocide. It wasn't. Story two was Israel had orchestrated some mass famine, that there was mass starvation in, in Gaza. Not true. And three, that Israel was intentionally targeting journalists that it knew were journalists and had no ties with Hamas. Also not true. And the 1, 2, 3 of those stories in the summer I think were the effect of those were horrendous for Israel over here. And everything I just said before I got to this point doesn't mean that Israel could not have, in a very systematic way, been confronting those three story lines to actually explain how and why the famine story is a lie. Is it defensive? Of course it's defensive. To go explain why you're not starving people. But you still got to do it. You still have to have a resource center that releases, like, the basic facts and does press briefings and explains what's actually going on and how humanitarian aid is being distributed in Gaza and what's, you know, and what's actually going on. And Israel is just doing none of it. And so the reality is, it's not that complicated. What I'm talking about the basics. The basics are not that complicated.

Mark Halpern (38:22)

Yeah. And Charlie laid out the basics, too. And doing the basics, as you just said, it's not compatible with saying we want to be seen as the crazy people who will bite the head off of rats to defend our country, and we want to be seen as an economic power. And the cost of those three stories, because again, I know, I know your view. Those stories are false. They're just false. But they're treated in the west and in the United States as true. And they allow the enemies of Israel, the opponents of American role. And of course, the hilarity is there's no. There was no American role. It wasn't like we were putting boots on the ground. Right. And, and, and people who are anti Semitic. It allows all those people to say Israel's bad because they're genocidal famine causers who kill innocent reporters. Right. So how could it be. And again, I'm not asking rhetorically smart people who can execute things like the pager thing, who have a prime minister who literally is as media savvy as anyone who's ever led a country, except maybe Trump. And I think actually Bibi is more media savvy than Ethan Trump. Don't tell Trump I said that. But I think he is who completely understands not just American public opinion, but the importance of it. And also every war, it's the same thing. Sympathy for three weeks. And then at about three weeks in, all of a sudden, every day, Israel is fighting on its back foot with Congress, with the New York Times, with cnn, and American public opinion, this time worse than it's ever been, because they're not doing the basics. So how could the Israeli government not do the basics? Because there is a cost to not doing the basics. And it put pressure on Bibi at times from Trump himself who said, you got to end this thing.

Dan Senor (40:04)

Yeah. So a few things. One, Israel was not ready for the, for the international media onslaught it was, it faced over the course of basically two years because not in a million years did it think would be fighting a war, let alone a two year war. This is the longest war in Israel's history. And you know, David Ben Gurion famously argued that Israel's military was very well resourced and organized to fight decisive, short wars, but it was never developed, built, resourced to fight really long wars and especially wars on its own, on its own borders. The most significant war in Israel's history since before October 7th was the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which was considered a massive setback, massive surprise. And we, you know, historians talk about it like it was like this turning point for Israel. It was 19 days. The Yom Kippur War was 19 days, which Israel, which Israel ultimately turned around and won. And so Ben Gurion basically said, I mean, he could, I mean, I imagine what Ben Gurion would be thinking, Israel's George Washington, if you were to watch this war. Two years. What are you guys thinking about two years? The IDF can't handle two years. But the hidden truth of what he said is not just that the IDF isn't prepared for two years of war, that when Israel's fighting a war for two years, all sorts of anti Semitic conspiracy theories are going to come out of the woodwork. And Israel, in terms of telling its story and engaging in communications, is not prepared to, to, to contend with something like that for so long. So that I just think Israel is not built for it. And then it was not their capabilities were not built for it and they didn't anticipate October 7th and the two year war that would follow. So it wasn't like, you know, they were developing these capabilities. So then the war happens and then they got to build the airplane while they're in the air, right? Then they're like fighting the war and they've got to develop the communications capability. And as I said earlier, the communication capability was just never important enough relative to the next battle. They have to fight the next day, the next week, the next operation, the next. I mean they're just, they're fighting the seven front war. And the communications piece is very hard to build in real time. I think though, after this war, and obviously we're only a day into the ceasefire, there's going to be serious thinking inside Israel about how to not get themselves in this jam in the future again. And there has got to be some kind of basic capability set up to deal with basic communications in English.

Mark Halpern (42:37)

Well, you say there will be. I mean, again is not a surprise. This exact dynamic we've seen, it was worse this time. And of course the war was two years. But who's in charge of setting it up? Is Bibi got to set it up? Are you going to set it up? Who's going to set it up?

Dan Senor (42:52)

Who's going to set it up so.

Mark Halpern (42:53)

It doesn't happen again?

Dan Senor (42:54)

So there's a, there's a tension here now. We're getting into like the, the what makes these things complicated within the Israeli bureaucracy. So there's two, there's two functions here that would have a role. One is the Prime Minister's office. And the Prime Minister's office is basically, you know, Netanyahu and Dermer have kind of gripped all. Relate all, all international communications, not just in this war, but previously. And then there's the IDF spokesperson's office whose job it is to communicate with the Israeli public and internationally about just basic operational matters in the war. And the. There's a tension between the two because the IDF spokesperson's office believes their mandate is to just do basic reporting of communication, basic dissemination on just basic what's happening. You know, these four soldiers were killed today. We accidentally hit this hospital today. You know, just the basic. Whereas, whereas it's not strategic, it's just kind of very tactical operational reporting. And the Prime Minister's office is thinking more about brought like the intersection of military, diplomatic, political objectives, both domestically and internationally and shaping a communications message around that. And who, who has the microphone while trying to explain Israel's war fighting in those moments. And there's a real tension. It's not like the prime minister can. The Prime Minister's office can overrule the IDF spokesperson's office. The IDF spokesperson refers. So there's look. And now can all this be addressed? Yes, but it's not like Bibi presses a button and it gets addressed. It's got to be addressed. There's got to be like real reforms and like who reports to who. How does the bureaucracy. It's not, it's not as simple as someone just, you know, hey, you were doing it this way, do it that way. It's going to require major infrastructure, bureaucratic reforms.

Mark Halpern (44:40)

Yeah, I hope they do it. Let's talk about the left, the young people on the left. One of their values that they preach is tolerance, understanding, acceptance. And yet they seem to make an exception for Israel. I'm not sure how much of it's anti Semitism. I'm always reluctant to use the word Unless there's proof that somebody's actually anti Semitic but are anti Israel and they are pro Palestinian and in some cases seemingly pro Hamas. So if you had 50 million bucks to try to educate people on the young people on the American left, what would you spend it on? How does that project get taken care of? Because left unattended, I think you continue to have a lot of hostility towards Israel on the left in the United States.

Dan Senor (45:26)

Well, I'll tell you what the reality is and whether or not this is, this is the, the, the content of an actual media campaign. What I try to explain to people on the left is that Israel is the most successful liberal democracy in the world, that has lived its democracy and its pluralism in the context of the most extreme pressure of any country in the world, external pressure in terms of war fighting, you can't point to me another democracy in the world that has held to its democratic ideals and protected minority rights, including for the large percentage of Israel's population, that is Israeli Arab, that has fought a seven front war against enemies that are literally not just trying to wipe it off the map, but every single Israeli lives within a few miles. And I'm not exaggerating here, not within a few miles of someone that wakes up every day thinking about killing them. That's how most Israelis live. So living under that kind of, whether trying to kill them by stabbing them to death or launching a nuclear bomb from Fordo or wherever, every Israeli wakes up knowing that. And the fact that Israel has dealt with that kind of pressure and that kind of threat and still maintained its democracy, however imperfect, is an extraordinary accomplishment. And point to me one other organization or one other society that you, the left in the US are championing and cheering for, that has any kind of record of sterling, not to mention record of accomplishment as it relates to democracy, pluralism, protecting minority rights. Is it, is it Hezbollah in southern Lebanon? Is it Hamas? Is it even the Palestinian Authority?

Mark Halpern (47:17)

What trumps that point of view for the American left, who is hostile to Israel, what trumps that point of view?

Dan Senor (47:23)

Well, this is a huge problem. What I'm about to say they have. I mean this is, this is. Mark, if you are, if we are taking them as though they're operating in good faith on their, their, these intellectual arguments, which I think some are and some aren't. So let's just focus on the ones there. They, the. Unfortunately, so many on the left in the United States have been miseducated to believe that Israel is a settler colonialist enterprise, that it actually has no Legitimacy. So I don't care, Israel, that you're building this democracy. I don't care that you're a democracy under extreme pressure. You're, you're, you shouldn't even be there. And so these organizations that are fighting against you, even though I may find them, you know, loathsome, Hamas, Hezbollah, others, they're responding to a settler colonial enterprise that has. That is in their land, quote, unquote. So they're imperfect, too. I mean, again, I'm not. I'm giving you their. What I think would be their argument. And that is just preposterous. Like, meaning, like, this is just. What do you deal with a whole generation or some subset of a whole generation that has been completely miseducated to honestly believe that the existence of Israel is a settler colonial enterprise that needs to be unwound. Because the implication of Israel being unwound is there are some 10 million Israelis that go.

Mark Halpern (48:51)

Where?

Dan Senor (48:51)

Where do they go? Like, they tend to. Those on the left tend to talk about Israel as though it's an idea.

Mark Halpern (48:57)

Right?

Dan Senor (48:57)

They talk about. They don't talk. They talk about Israel, but they also talk about Zionism. They like talking about Israel in the context of an ism, as though it's an idea. It's like something we're in a dorm room still debating. We don't do this about any country in the world. You know, a friend of mine once said, it's like having a conversation about Israel. Like, are you, do you believe in Zionism? Are you a Zionist? Is like, like a couple before they have a baby, debating whether or not they think parenthood is a good idea. Do they want to have children? And at some point they have a kid, and if someone said to them, are you pro parenthood or against parenthood? You'd be like, it's a ridiculous conversation. I have a kid here. This is very practical to me. There are 10 million Israelis living in this country. If you are anti Zionist, these 10 million Israelis go where? And so it's just a. There's a level of education for those who are operating in good faith. Again, I think there's a whole bunch that aren't, but there are. For those who are operating in good faith, there's a whole level of education about the history, the history of the region, the history of Israel that I don't know how we're going to invest in that. That's what scares the hell out of me.

Mark Halpern (50:05)

Yes. All right, I'm going to raise one of my other 120 topics just as.

Dan Senor (50:08)

We close here 150.

Mark Halpern (50:09)

You had 150, but it's a big one. But we'll do it briefly. So we had Sadat, who ahead of his time saw past ancient enmities and said, I going to make peace with Israel. Right? He wasn't. He wasn't. He wasn't of the moment, but he was back then. And then since Sadat, we've had different people, King of Jordan, a few others who seem to be able to say, I want a modern country, I don't want my country constantly at war with Israel hating Israel's, you know, not, not great. But now you've got all these leaders, right now I can't get a handle on any of them. Are any of them taking risks for peace or is it all just real politic with Trump saying we hate Iran, whatever. Like, do you see anybody in the region who's actually like Sadat, like in their willingness to, to risk and in the case of that, die in order to do the right thing to say peace in the neighborhood, get along with Jews, get along with Israel.

Dan Senor (51:07)

So what's interesting about every example you just provided, and I'll add one more, okay, so if you look at Sadat in the Camp David accords, in the Israel Egypt peace agreement that followed in 79, if you look at King Hussein and Israel doing a peace deal in the mid-90s, if you look at the Abraham Accords in 2020, none of these peace agreements address the Palestinian issue, right? So none of them. I mean, Sadat came the closest where there was a plan, this multi year plan for path towards some kind of Palestinian autonomy. But it didn't really, it was more of like a roadmap than an actual like enforceable plan. So the question I think you're really asking, because we know Arab leaders can make peace with Israel now, we've seen a lot of them do it stretching from Sadat all the way through to the Abraham Accords and King Hussein and Jordan in between. And all these agreements have held, by the way, which is kind of amazing, right? When you think about it, with all the tensions, every single, the Abraham Accords, for all the blowback in the region against Israel's conduct during the war, none of the Abraham Accords countries have pulled out. There's still Bahraini and Emirati embassies in Tel Aviv. So I think the real question is will any of these leaders, do some engage in some kind of normalization Israel that delivers something meaningful for the Palestinians? And I remain skeptical that they will do that because to do that to do that is to say who will enforce what could look like a path to statehood for the Palestinians, say Gazan Palestinians. Certainly the IDF cannot be on the ground implementing it. So it will have to be young men in uniform from those countries, from Egypt, from Saudi Arabia, from the Emirates, and I don't believe.

Mark Halpern (52:51)

But also maybe some from outside the region, which is good.

Dan Senor (52:54)

Well, I think we're going to see and I think we're going to see that in the very, the early stages of the implementation of this. I think you are going to see some from outside the region. But in the long run, if you want to see a path to a Palestinian state, you, you, the. They're going to have to be Arab forces who can really deal with Hamas in Gaza. And I'm skeptical that any of these governments will want to see their young men getting killed by Hamas in Gaza.

Mark Halpern (53:18)

So my hope is that Hamas is defanged and so they're not going to kill anybody.

Dan Senor (53:24)

And who's going to do the defanging?

Mark Halpern (53:26)

But maybe they defame neutrally. Yeah.

Dan Senor (53:29)

Well, to me, a real question of the 20 point plan is who's going to disarm Hamas? Because Hamas is saying they're not going to be disarmed and Israel's not going to do it. So who's doing it?

Mark Halpern (53:38)

Maybe they just, they just won't have a constituency. They'll have to get jobs at the Trump hotel. We'll see. Dan, 123 left to go. You'll come back, tell everybody where they can listen to your podcast.

Dan Senor (53:49)

Call Me Back is the podcast and it's available anywhere you listen to podcasts.

Mark Halpern (53:56)

And how often does it come out?

Dan Senor (53:58)

Twice a week, Mondays and Thursdays usually. This week has been funky because there's been so much news. So we're not on a normal schedule, but we typically release episodes on Mondays and Thursdays and then on Friday we have for our subscribers. I encourage people to become subscribers on the inside Call Me Back feed, which you can subscribe to@arc media.org and on Fridays, we have a third episode.

Mark Halpern (54:21)

Got it. All right, Dan, grateful to you for making time. And I'll say without fear of being contradicted. The ability to understand both Israel and the United States is a rare gift and you're generous to share it with us.

Dan Senor (54:32)

Thank you, Mark. Appreciate it.

Mark Halpern (54:34)

All right, next up, we're going to talk more broadly about where this agreement leads the United States and its role in the world. And our guest is a former senior government official who also is my dad, Morton Alpern Dr. Halperin joins us in minute a minute. That's next up. Don't go away. If you're 64 or older, this is important. The Department of Justice recently sued three major Medicare brokers for claiming they were unbiased while allegedly pushing people into plans that got them the biggest kickbacks. It's true. So many insurance agents, they just can't be trusted. And you can't necessarily rely on government resources either. That's why I want to tell you about something called Chapter. Chapter was started by people who went through this exact thing personally after their own parents were pushed into the wrong Medicare plan by an agent focused more on commissions than on care. Chapter's mission is very simple, to give every American the honest, straightforward Medicare advice that they deserve. And here's what makes them different. They're the only Medicare advisor that compares every plan all across the country, not just a handful of that saves. Their clients get this, an average of $1,100 every year. There's no reason not to call. It's quick, it's easy, and they can review your options in under 20 minutes. If you're already in the right plan, they'll let you know that. But if there's a better plan, they will tell you and help you make the switch. This could be the most important call you make this year. Dial £250 and say chapter Medicare to get the peace of mind you deserve. Again, that's £250 and say Chapter Medicare. It's Cybersecurity Awareness Month and LifeLock is here with tips to help protect your identity. Use strong passwords, set up multi factor authentication and report phishing scams. And for comprehensive identity protection, Lifelock is your best choice. LifeLock alerts you to suspicious uses of your personal information and also fixes identity theft, guaranteed or your money back. Stay smart, stay safe and stay protected. With a 30 day free trial at lifelock.com Special offer terms apply. Next up, joining me now a longtime Washington fixture, a man who served in the Pentagon, State Department and the National Security Council staff under three different presidents, all at senior levels dealing with globe challenges. My dad, Dr. Morton H. Halperin, served in the Johnson, Nixon and Clinton administrations and also as a presidential appointment under Barack Obama. Dad, welcome back.

Morton H. Halperin (57:05)

Thank you. It's a pleasure to be here.

Mark Halpern (57:07)

All right, good. What are your general thoughts about how to rate the accomplishment for the United States and the world of this peace deal? Is it too tentative to know what are your just sort of general thoughts about how significant it is?

Morton H. Halperin (57:25)

Yeah, I think it is too tentative to know there are two possible ways it could go. One is as many of these previous efforts are made by other US Leaders, that is, it ends the immediate crisis, but doesn't then do anything to solve the long run problem. And after a while you drift back into this situation being pretty much the way it was before the war started. If I had a guess, I would guess that's where this, this will go. Although there obviously is some chance that it will lead to some broader agreement.

Mark Halpern (58:03)

So if President Trump were watching this and he said, Dr. Halperin, you seem like a smart guy, how can we head that off? One thing which may be different, it's in the 20 point plan, is a peacekeeping force made up of Arab and I think European or, or Asian forces that will be on the ground. We haven't seen that before. Right. So if that happens, that could be different.

Morton H. Halperin (58:28)

If it happens, yeah. Very skeptical. It's very hard to put together a peacekeeping force, especially doing it outside the UN which is this seems to be because you have to deal with all the issues of who's in charge, who gives orders, whether people can turn down orders. I ran peacekeeping in the Pentagon at the beginning of the Clinton administration. So I've dealt with many of these issues and a lot of them have to do with whether troops can opt out of an order that they get from a general or a senior officer of another country. Those are very hard, they're very complicated issues and they mean that countries are going to be very reluctant to put in forces until all of those and many other issues are settled. It's, I think, a good step forward that the agreement has to Senate. It isn't clear to me who's agreed to what's in this agreement. And it's an American initiative.

Dan Senor (59:25)

Right.

Mark Halpern (59:26)

And they've been kind of opaque about it. But as you suggest, if you're, if you're an Indonesian soldier and you're patrolling the streets of Gaza city and some 13 year old, you know, shoots a slingshot at you and you shoot him. It raises all sorts of issues because as you said, it's not NATO, it's not the U.N. it's some new entity that's putting this, ostensibly standing this force up. And your experience in peacekeeping suggests that it's going to be difficult for any country to agree to that until their troops are their soldiers or whatever branch they're from, have some understanding about the rules of engagement, their legal authority. Right.

Morton H. Halperin (60:02)

And even then, we've discovered even in the UN situations that troops often have secret instructions not to fire unless they're ordered to do it by their own government. And you don't really find that out until there's a crisis. So there are many, many steps in the way of actually having a peacekeeping force. It's obviously a desirable solution, but it doesn't solve the problem of who's running Gaza. I mean, the peacekeeping force would interfere, presumably, if there was some kind of a crisis or a riot or a breakdown of law and order. But day to day, who's running the country, the territory is a different question. And they don't seem to me to have any. Made any real progress on that.

Mark Halpern (60:55)

Well, they might have made secret progress. Right, because there's all sorts of allusions to things in the deal that haven't been made public. We know Tony Blair, who's a relatively able guy with a lot of experience in the region, seems to be potentially at least in line to run it. But now we're talking about nation building. And if there's anything that's maybe as complicated as peacekeeping, it's nation building. And I think one of the insights the president's had that I think the previous administration was not as. As thoughtful about was Gaza's destroyed, right? There's no infrastructure. There's no, there's no way for people to live there, and it needs to be rebuilt. And, and so, yeah, so, but, but the president says he's a builder. Blair, you know, understands these issues. So what, what are, what are. What would be your advice to them if they, if they plan to have an international force? The president makes reference this all the time. Rich Arab countries paying to knock down the stuff that needs to be knocked down and start to build sensibly. But what are the. How do you do it?

Morton H. Halperin (61:58)

Well, I don't think anybody's going to do that until we know who owns Gaza. I mean, is it part of Israel? Is it part of a Palestinian state which doesn't exist, which means it's under the Palestinian Authority or under some new Palestinian entity or under none of those things. And if it's under none of those things, it isn't clear who has the legal right to do it. I mean, is Israel, because it conquered it, have the legal right to turn it over? Does this group of nations really want to work under a designation from Israel? And if not, it's not clear who gives them that. Normally it would be the UN and the Security Council could, if there was no veto, create an institution under the Security Council. That's the only way I know that People would think it was not illegal to create this.

Mark Halpern (62:47)

But if President Trump says the Board of peace owns Gaza and we're going to return it to the people of Gaza, the Palestinians under some authority with a small a, when, when it's rebuilt, who's, who's going to stop them, is the UN going to sue him in the international court to say the board of views.

Morton H. Halperin (63:06)

But countries are going to be reluctant to put troops in, not knowing who's ultimately, whose orders do they ultimately obey?

Mark Halpern (63:12)

The board. They made the board, the Board of peace.

Morton H. Halperin (63:15)

Yeah, but that's not a legal entity. And it doesn't. I be very doubtful that countries would put in troops under this thing that was created out of whole cloth.

Mark Halpern (63:31)

Right. And it sounds like what you're saying, which I agree with, although I'm less skeptical about it than you are, that unless there's an international force on the ground that's accompanied by a parallel governing authority that's got credibility and not being challenged, it's going to be very difficult to even deal with Gaza, let alone the wider issues about peace and stability.

Morton H. Halperin (63:52)

Right, right. And with the question of who has sovereignty in Gaza, I just don't think you can ignore that.

Mark Halpern (64:01)

So if President Trump hired you and said, I'm making you special envoy for peacekeeping, which, which as you said you dealt with in the government and special envoy for government legitimacy, which is an issue you know a lot about, what would you do? What steps would you take to try to enact the exact things we're talking about peace, international peacekeeping force. And you go to the U.N. i.

Morton H. Halperin (64:22)

Go to the Security Council. Yeah.

Mark Halpern (64:25)

Wouldn't that be blocked by somebody there?

Morton H. Halperin (64:27)

Well, the only people have a veto. I mean, further, Britain and France will not block it. The United States will not block it. I think the president has a relationship with Russia that they would not block it. It's not clear to me that the Chinese win. Only those five countries have a veto. But I would certainly say that's the path of least resistance and the one that gets you a clearly legal institution.

Mark Halpern (64:53)

What would you ask the UN for like a two year lease?

Morton H. Halperin (64:56)

No, the UN would create a trusteeship in effect, as it did for Kosovo, for example, after the United States bombed Kosovo and the Serbs got out, which is not, you know, it's the closest analogy I think there is. The Security Council passed the resolution, which the Russians did not veto and the Chinese did not veto, and was adopted by sufficient vote of the Security Council, which put Kosovo under the control of the Security Council. And then the Security Council in effect, designated the United States to create a military force which reported to the Security Council through the Secretary General. Well, okay, let's stop him.

Mark Halpern (65:40)

Okay, but if the President said to you, I don't want to go to the U.N. it's a, it's a commie organization and, or, or there's word that it would be vetoed, how, how would you try to do it if you couldn't go to the U.N.

Morton H. Halperin (65:53)

Not clear. It's not clear to me that you have anything that has, gets some legal authority.

Mark Halpern (66:00)

Well, but, but, but it's extra legal authority. And he just goes to countries, he just goes to the countries who are in the room in Egypt this week and say, I, I need, I need 5,000 forces, put them on the ground and they do it.

Morton H. Halperin (66:12)

I just don't think they will.

Mark Halpern (66:15)

Okay, let's talk about China and Russia. Russia first. Zelensky is coming back to the U.S. what, what do you see in terms of Trump's abilities or Witkoff's abilities or momentum? What do you see, if anything, in what's happened in the Middle east this week that might speak to the possibility of getting Russia to the negotiating table?

Morton H. Halperin (66:38)

Well, I think the Russians have discovered that the President is serious and can be very effective. And I think that he's now, the President is now making clear that we may begin to do the critical thing, which is to let the Ukrainians use US Made weapons which can bomb targets all over this Russia. And I think, my guess is Putin now thinks that's more likely than he did a week or two ago. And that's the key to this. I think Trump needs to push the Russians and say that is going to happen. And if you have any doubt about it, call my buff and you'll see that it's going to happen.

Mark Halpern (67:20)

And then is that threatening to Putin because of the symbolism or because he could lose the war over it or something else?

Morton H. Halperin (67:27)

No, I think because he could lose. Well, he could lose his control of the country. I think, you know, the Russian population is going to be very unhappy if they start, you know, incurring sufficient civilian damage. And the danger is that the United States and NATO continue to up that and in fact, call president for Putin's bluff. Because what Putin did at the beginning of the war was basically to say, if you do anything like that, we will threaten the use of nuclear weapons weapons.

Mark Halpern (67:59)

Right.

Morton H. Halperin (68:00)

And I think it's become clear that nobody really took that seriously. And I think nobody would take it seriously.

Mark Halpern (68:06)

Well, the Biden administration seemed to take it carefully Seriously, because it seemed to animate a lot of their decision making. So there's three, at least three types of, of targets that could be hit. One would be energy, which they're already doing. Not, not the, with the long range missiles, but they're hitting that other ways. One would be military targets or symbolic targets, hitting some, you know, office building at night so only the cleaning crew gets killed. But then the other would be what you suggested, which is inflicting civilian damage.

Morton H. Halperin (68:34)

What the Russians are doing to Ukraine.

Mark Halpern (68:37)

No, of course I'm not. I'm saying it would be, it'd be morally out of bounds, but it would be an escalation. But are you saying that inflicting civilian damage with American missiles is, is, is the tactically right thing to do or. I don't know if it'd be tactical or strategic. But that's, but that's what's necessary to send a message to Putin that he loses support domestically. By killing civilians?

Morton H. Halperin (68:58)

No, no, I don't think you bomb civilians, you bomb military targets, but ones which have a substantial number of people in them. Air bases, but maybe, maybe factories where you warn them in advance that this factory is going to be attacked. It's producing weapons that are being used in Ukraine and you just warn them of that. There are many things you do, but it's never legal or appropriate, in my view, to talk civilians.

Mark Halpern (69:33)

Understood. Let's get into another area of your expertise, which is missile defense. Would Putin have any way to stop American ballistic long range missiles if the Ukrainians had them from hitting their targets? Does he have any, any, you know, equivalent of, of a Iron Dome technology?

Morton H. Halperin (69:52)

I, I really have not looked at that carefully in some years. I do not think so. But this, this would be long range missiles only in the sense that they're long enough to reach Moscow. They're not intercontinental Borsic missiles of the kind that.

Mark Halpern (70:06)

Yeah, well, they don't, they don't need to be because they're, they're contiguous countries. So they don't need to be that long range.

Morton H. Halperin (70:12)

I mean, but that's, I think that's the only defense against missiles that the Russians have is against us.

Mark Halpern (70:20)

Right.

Morton H. Halperin (70:21)

Missiles from the United States.

Mark Halpern (70:23)

And those missiles that we're talking about, are they, are they super destructive? Like, are they, are they super weapons in the sense of they're not, they're not just going to cause like a fire, but they're going to destroy like a whole neighborhood?

Morton H. Halperin (70:34)

No, I don't think so. I don't think they are super weapons.

Dan Senor (70:37)

Yeah. Okay.

Mark Halpern (70:38)

Okay, let's talk about China. Are the. How would you think Premier Xi looks at the events in the Middle east as it relates to the ongoing tensions? Largely economic. Right now, that's where the focus is on the tariffs and the rare earth minerals. But. But the conflict with China is geopolitical. It involves concerns about Taiwan, Chinese spheres of influence militarily in the region. How do you think the Chinese would look at the events of the Middle east and. And impact, if at all, their view of the fight with Trump in the U.S.

Morton H. Halperin (71:13)

I think they must view it with some concern. The President has shown that he's prepared to do dangerous things. I think maybe the attack on the Iranian nuclear capability, I would guess, trouble the Chinese more than anything else and sent a signal of that Trump was prepared to do things that other presidents have not been willing to do. And so my guess is they're concerned about that.

Mark Halpern (71:43)

Right. Do you think that it meaningfully changes the ability of the President of the United States to have leverage over China, or. Too soon to say that.

Morton H. Halperin (71:52)

I think it's too soon to say that, and I doubt whether it would be substantial leverage. The Chinese leverage is in the rare earth minerals and in the growing concern that they could actually win a conventional war and capture Taiwan. And that is, I think, in my view, maybe the most serious strategic issue that the United States faces.

Mark Halpern (72:17)

Yeah. All right. I want to ask you something I talked about earlier in the program, which is the President's reliance in Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner on two people who have no, you know, formal national security or diplomatic experience. Witkoff in particular. I mean, Jared served and dealt with Abraham Accords in the first term. But Steve Witkoff's a real estate developer, and his credential is he's friends with Trump. He's not. Maybe he's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. I don't know that he's not. But he's obviously not a career diplomat. Do you, as someone who's been involved in national security for your whole career, who is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, do you look at the use of amateurs in this successful, very high level enterprise as an aberration? Do you look at it as a sign that perhaps experts in foreign policy aren't necessarily all they're cracked up to be? What lesson do you draw from that?

Morton H. Halperin (73:06)

Yeah, I would think the lesson is that successful diplomats who conduct these kind of high level negotiations have to do with individual qualities, not with their training as diplomats and not with their lack of training as Diplomats. There are some people like Henry Kissinger. Henry Kissinger was not a trained diplomat. He was a Harvard professor. He had never been in the government in his life before he became the national security adviser and never conducted serious negotiations. And so he started dealing with the Russians and then with the Chinese at the beginning of the Nixon administration and, of course, did Middle east negotiations comparable to what Trump has done. Kissinger is, I think, the only other diplomat who's did at the time.

Mark Halpern (73:55)

Because you were working with Kissinger, both at Harvard and then in the government, were people in the foreign policy establishment disdainful of him and said, this is just some Harvard professor. Why is he. Why is he being allowed to do all this stuff?

Morton H. Halperin (74:07)

Well, they. They were concerned about it because they thought the White House shouldn't negotiate, the State. The State Department should negotiate. Whether they had particular concerns about Kissinger, I'm just not sure. Probably some of them did. But my point is that it's not clear that training makes a difference. The good diplomats have skills to know when to use threats, to know when to leave, to know when to storm out. And so it's not surprising that Trump was able to find people that he trusted who turned out to be effective diplomats.

Mark Halpern (74:45)

Yeah, when one of the jobs you had, you worked with Madeleine Albright when she was Secretary of State and you traveled around the world, and she was dealing with a lot of world leaders, foreign ministers and heads of government who she'd known for a long time. And Trump now. Trump now in a second term, is dealing with people who he does know.

Morton H. Halperin (75:04)

How.

Mark Halpern (75:04)

How significant is it to have those personal relationships to. To try to leverage and try to negotiate the kind of help Trump clearly got, even though they haven't been open about it from these world leaders?

Morton H. Halperin (75:16)

Oh, I think it's very important, and it's hard to measure it, and it's often not visible. But whether you have a relationship, whether you trust the person, and a lot of that is personal, it's also about the country, but a lot of it is personal. So I think Trump has now made it clear that he's. When he says things, he's serious about them. And I think that will, you know, give him credit as he moves. Tries to move forward with this. There are still many obstacles in the way, but he's got, I think, that advantage that people now understand that he's serious.

Mark Halpern (75:56)

Right. All right, last question. Which is. Which is a complex one because it involves media and what was done and the opaqueness of the deal. Normally, Trump does not get a lot of Credit which he would tell you from the press that doesn't like him and are skeptical of him. This seems very tentative. As we've discussed, there's a lot that can go wrong. It could literally not just. It could only. Not just not lead to a wider peace in the region and a solution for Gaza. The war could start back up, right? Hamas could do all sorts of things. So why are people giving him so much credit in the media? Why are all these other countries. Is it, is it just relief that, that there's at least the possibility that the war is over? What's the, what's the, what's the disconnect there?

Morton H. Halperin (76:42)

I'm, I'm very skeptical of the phrase the war is over, because the question is, what war? I mean, certainly not.

Mark Halpern (76:50)

Well, the siege, the siege of Gaza City is over.

Morton H. Halperin (76:54)

Right? But, but it, it's been over seven times, and it's not clear that this is any more than that. I mean, I think that there is a serious chance that all this is, is finding a way to square the circle of the US The Israelis saying we won't have a ceasefire until Hamas is gone from Gaza and Hamas saying we won't release the hostages unless there is a ceasefire. And that's the dilemma we often have, we often had at the end of Middle east wars. How do you stop them? How do you exchange prisoners or hostages without having a further settlement? And so what you do is you pretend you have a broader settlement, but nobody really expects it to happen. And my view is that that's most likely what happens here. The, the Hamas does not start bombing, attacking, firing rockets at Israel again. Israel keeps some troops in Gaza, but not very many. And gradually the thing starts to look more and more like it was before the events of two years ago.

Mark Halpern (78:13)

So, so, so the conditions that. The four things that I would watch to see if your pessimism, which is understandable, is warranted. One is, where are the Israeli forces? You know, they're supposed to withdraw to some line that hasn't been laid out. But what are they doing on the ground in Gaza? Two is, who's governing Gaza and are they restoring some sort of civic, civil, civil governance? Three is, are there peacekeepers on the ground, as we've discussed, and are they operating? And then is. Is the country being rebuilt? Right? Is there, is there any kind of economic activity?

Morton H. Halperin (78:46)

Is the first, Is this group doing the second thing? You won Hamas?

Mark Halpern (78:52)

It can't be.

Morton H. Halperin (78:53)

Well, my understanding is that traffic cops who stood up and as soon as the hostages were released were Hamas and that they were directing traffic and that it's. It's not clear who's going to stop them. When you say it can't be Hamas.

Mark Halpern (79:12)

Tony Blair is going to check their id and if it says check their resumes, and if it says on LinkedIn that they worked on Hamas, they're not going to be traffic cops.

Morton H. Halperin (79:20)

Tony Blair is not. Not going to be there picking, picking the traffic cops. And it's. And if the, if the Israelis come back, then you'll. Then this.

Mark Halpern (79:31)

Well, if Israelis come back, the thing's over. I mean, then there's. Then there wasn't a real deal, but it did get the hostages out. So it's not nothing.

Morton H. Halperin (79:39)

No, no, I think that's right. I think what has been accomplished so far is getting the hostages out, having a ceasefire and letting aid, humanitarian aid, go in is an enormous accomplishment. And if nothing else happens, I think the President's entitled to great credit for that. I think it is a substantial step to get back to that situation. That's all we've been able to do, you know, since Israel was created. And to get more, I think will be very hard. But, but it's certainly not going to start with a force coming in, directing traffic, because who's going to send their troops in there with Hamas, there with it? Not disarmed.

Mark Halpern (80:28)

Brave Indonesians.

Morton H. Halperin (80:30)

Um, you know, if you look at the history of the UN getting peacekeeping forces to get countries to agree to send peacekeeping forces, they are very reluctant to do it. They are very reluctant to put their soldiers in a situation where they can be killed in the defense of some international principle rather than from their own government. Well, very delicate.

Mark Halpern (80:54)

I know you are. Let's see if this time's different. And let's see if the presence of 200Americans, which has been announced, downplayed, said they won't be in Gaza, says we already have forces there. But let's see if some sort of symbolic American presence, the skill of Witkoff and Kushner and the magic of Tony Blair can defy the historical record that you've laid out. We'll see. Dad, thanks. Thanks for making time. Dr. Morton H. Halperin, his skeptic, informed by history. Dad, thanks.

Morton H. Halperin (81:23)

My pleasure.

Mark Halpern (81:25)

All right, thanks everybody. That's it for today's show. We'll be back on Thursday with an all brand new episode. Make sure you subscribe and download. Next up, wherever you get your podcast, Watch us on YouTube where you should like and subscribe as well. Be here always Tuesdays and Thursdays. If you want to know what's coming up. Next up. Thanks for watching.