C (2:27)

Yeah, A little grim out there. It's, you know, I miss the days when we would come in the early Obama years and the UN still mattered and was exciting and idealistic. You know, it was kind of a golden age. Relative to now.

A (2:39)

Yeah, relative to now. All right, so we're gonna talk about Trump's UN speech and what other other big news there was out of New York. So week we're going to dig into Trump's plan to reinvade or reoccupy Afghanistan, maybe both. Specifically, Bagram Air Base seems like a great idea. We'll explain why the United States is providing a bank bailout to Argentina. That's America first for you, Ben, the latest on Russian efforts to mess with NATO. There's a bunch of immigration news, including changes to a visa program for high skill workers. And the Trump administration's totally incoherent argument for why it's okay to send people back to Syria. There's also the ongoing punishment of students who believe in Palestinian rights. And then we'll get into why the administration's literal war on drug cartels or alleged drug cartels may be coming to Mexico. Some big news about North Korea and nuclear weapons, the latest on President Macron and the first lady of France's lawsuit against a crazy American podcaster. And then some fun with cameo. And then, Ben, you just did our interview. What are folks gonna hear?

C (3:40)

Yeah, I talked to Rob Malley, who worked in several administrations, including Bill Clinton's administration, Barack Obama's administration with us, Joe Biden's administration on Middle east issues and Iran issues and Israel, Palestine issues. Rob has a new book out with Hussein Aga. Hussein was a negotiator for the Palestinians at Camp David. Rob was a negotiator for the United States. And it's really a history of the two state solution and why it failed. And it's also a memoir of their experiences, personal memoir of their experiences of that. And so we talk about what happened, what went wrong at Camp David, what happened, what went wrong in the Obama years, what Rob thinks of these efforts to recognize the state of Palestine that we've seen in recent days and what might be some options going forward that are more realistic than just repeating two state solution over and over again. So it's both history and present tense and future. So people should check it out.

A (4:34)

Excellent. I haven't read the full book yet. I have it actually next to my bed. But I've read the they did an excerpt for the New Yorker that was excellent. Really smart, really thoughtful. Beautifully written, by the way.

C (4:44)

So beautifully written book. Yeah, Tomorrow's Yesterday. People should check it out.

A (4:47)

All right, Ben, so President Trump addressed the UN General assembly on Tuesday. Per usual, it was like the tedious laundry list of bragging and lies and grievances and then just like a dose of bizarre bullshit, there was a sprinkling of kind of notable newsworthy stuff. Here's a flavor of what Ben and I were forced to endure so that you don't have to watch the full thing. Here's a clip.

B (5:08)

I ended seven wars, dealt with the leaders of each and every one of these countries, and never even received a phone call from the United nations offering to help in finalizing the deal. All I got from the United nations was an escalator that on the way up stopped right in the middle and then a teleprompter that didn't work. What is the purpose of the United Nations? For the most part, at least for now, all they seem to do is write a really strongly worded letter and then never follow that letter up. It's empty words. And empty words don't solve war. I've also been working relentlessly stopping the killing in Ukraine. China and India are the primary funders of the ongoing war by continuing to purchase Russian oil. But inexcusably, even NATO countries have not cut off much Russian energy and Russian energy products. Think of it, they're funding the war against themselves. Who the hell ever heard of that one? Not only is the UN not solving the problems it should too often, it's actually creating new problems for us to solve. The United nations is funding an assault on Western countries, we and their borders, immigration and the high cost of so called green renewable energy is destroying a large part of the free world and a large part of our planet.

A (6:40)

Okay, so just a little summary and I'll add some more stuff. He said he blames the UN for not attending peace talks that I would bet money they weren't invited to and actually didn't end the conflicts Trump is referencing in the first place. His position on Gaza and the creation of a Palestinian state is basically where Biden was in like October of 2023. So that's great, Ben. Trump says he learned only weeks ago that Europe is still buying Russian oil and gas, which is kind of crazy, if true, because this is not a secret. In fact, it's been quite controversial, as you heard there. He's blaming the UN for migration. Not the real answer, which is people are escaping wars or economic deprivation. He mocked anyone who cares about global warming. He said the concept of your carbon footprint is a hoax made up by evil people. So, Ben, I gotta say, man, like, I found watching this speech unbelievably depressing because it, it reminded me all of all like the big picture, long term challenges like climate change. That is, there's not even part of the US Political debate anymore because we're focused on like the outrage of the day, the suppression of free speech, the crackdown on anyone who is in the Democratic Party. But I don't know, man, what'd you make of this monstrosity? And any, like, kind of newsworthy events from today jump out of you?

C (7:50)

No, I mean, that's. And actually that, that kind of speaks to the fecklessness of Trump's foreign policy. Right? I mean, I will say I wrote eight of these, which I joked to you before, Tommy, that I don't take a ton of pride in that. I'm probably the only human being who wrote eight American president UNGA speeches. It's kind of like for those of you who watch BUL Durham, I used to say it was like Crash Davis, the Kevin Costner character, breaking the minor league home run record, you know, record that just nobody else cares about. But I make the point that, because I remember the tremendous care you put into, you know, not offending people and trying to appeal to different audiences and try to build support for U.S. leadership. And you'd always launch like several initiatives. You know, in the UN General assembly speech, you'd try to come with real proposals for ending wars. And none of that was in this speech. And I do think if you take the long term takeaways from the speech, one is that this is utterly embarrassing for the United States. You know, it's not just that, it's like a chuckle, chuckle. He said he ended seven wars. I don't even, I don't think he could list what those seven wars are. Nobody knows what he's talking about.

A (9:02)

I'm going to try to explain that in a second, but please keep going.

C (9:05)

Okay, well, because he also, the funny thing is he, he accuses the UN of only issuing statements and then not solving problems. Well, he's, you know, says he's trying to end the war in Ukraine.

A (9:14)

You know, Exactly.

C (9:15)

Killing. The killing has gotten worse. He's talk about projection. Like, he's the one who just demands that the war in Ukraine ends and it doesn't. Right. So he appears feckless, like you. I found the climate change piece incredibly depressing because we are so focused on these things. We may look back on this time as one of, you know, hastening ecological disaster. And I do think the world really, in the first Trump term, it was like, let's try to keep Paris together. Let's try to keep, you know, alliances together of other countries and US States can be a part of that. This is all now breaking down. And so I think the challenge for the kind of climate community is to figure out different ways of building support inside countries for clean energy transitions, different coalitions just kind of coming together at Climate Week at the UN or at cop, the, you know, annual summits. That's just not nearly enough. So I think this is kind of hopefully, like, hopefully kind of rock bottom and like a lot of other things, people to figure out a different way to kind of push up from rock bottom, from the climate paradigm that is, like, dominated the globe's approach to this for the last 20 years. It's something we should kind of continue to come back to on this pod. And then lastly, I think his, his kind of complete, you know, insulting of the UN is worth pausing on because, like, first of all, to defend the UN well, the UN doesn't quote, unquote work because the member states don't make it work.

A (10:43)

Exactly.

C (10:44)

The UN doesn't have an army. The UN doesn't have the UN Security Council of the United States. Russia and China don't agree on anything. Well, then you can't pass a Security Council resolution and have a plan to end a conflict. Right. If the US Is like, pulling out all of its funding for the UN is leaving all these bodies and all these other nationalists are kind of turning against multilateralism. Well, of course, it's not the fault of, like, the Secretary General of the United Nations. You know, it's like blaming the building of, of Congress for why Congress is dysfunctional. It's like. Right, yeah, it's the people inside of it. But I think we have to take seriously the fact that this paradigm also doesn't work. And there is going to, at some point have to be, and it's probably not going to be while Trump's president or maybe other countries will start to do without US a reconsideration about how this machinery of the international community works. I mean, at this rate, Tommy, like, I don't know if the US Is going to be allowed to host the United nations by the end of Trump's presidency. So insulting.

A (11:37)

You know, I know. I've been thinking that, too. It's like at some point when the systems are just. They aren't working and they haven't worked and they haven't solved a problem in years. Like, at what point do you just start over and try something new? But, Ben, like you, this claim that he is now making as part of his stump speech that he has ended seven wars has been driving me completely crazy, in part because I didn't even know what he was talking about. So I try to, like, dig into it and figure out, like, what he's saying he solved and just fact check it a little bit. So the first one he's claiming to have solved is Israel and Iran. And I think we all remember that the Trump administration did nothing to prevent Israel from bombing Iran for 12 days. Then we started bombing Iran. And yes, Trump pressured them to cut a ceasefire deal, but I don't think you get a Nobel Peace Prize for hitting pause on a war you are part of. And the conflict's far from over. The second is Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But on Monday, the president of the DRC said that the Trump mediated peace deal has not stopped or even calmed the fighting.

B (12:32)

And.

A (12:33)

And the M23, which is the key rebel group in the conflict, was not a party the agreement. So this is just total. The third is Thailand and Cambodia. You know, pressure from Trump might have gotten them to come together for a fragile ceasefire, but the underlying causes of that conflict are not resolved. And there was fighting between the Thai military and Cambodian villagers just last week. The fourth is India and Pakistan, which we've talked about a bunch in this show. Remember, the Indian government says Trump played no role in brokering that ceasefire and the two countries remain mortal enemies. So, again, problem not solved. The fifth one is really weird, Ben. He says it's about Egypt and Ethiopia, but, like, there. There was never a military conflict. Like, there is a diplomatic dispute over a hydroelectric dam that is a very big deal, but is still totally unresolved. So I just don't know what he's talking about there. Similarly, the sixth one is Kosovo and Serbia. Apparently that's a reference to some economic deal that the two countries signed back in 2020, but it's not a peace agreement. And finally, the seventh is Armenia and Azerbaijan, the two leaders of those countries visited the White House in August, but they didn't sign a peace deal. They signed, like, a commitment to try to reach a peace deal. And big picture, as we've discussed on the show, this happened because Azerbaijan routed Armenia in the war, and they're still occupying parts of Armenian territory. So this was, again, not like a. A conflict that he. He ended. It was a. A war where one side beat the shit out of the other. So there it is. Seven wars.

C (13:58)

So he ended none. I mean, you know, that's a very useful summary you have. I mean, literally, you know, the only war that he ended is one that he started with Iran. And you don't get credit if you bomb a country and then stop bombing them and saying, I ended the war. Right. Every other one of those conflicts was either not a war. Some of them are just still ongoing, and all of them still have, you know, the border dispute is not resolved, or, you know, so it's important to fact check this, though, because he repeats it so much, and you know, that all of his people, you know, just believe he ended seven wars. If you're a Fox News viewer, you just believe this. And often it's so, yeah, it's so ridiculous that Democrats don't take it up. The journalists are exhausted. But he repeats this so much that, like, and. And we should be clear. Nobody around the world believes this either. And if anything, they, you know, they have, you know, jokes about him saying that he ended the war between Azerbaijan and Albania, you know, when he was in the UK I mean, this is an absurd degree of vanity and narcissism. And I think what's scary about it is I think he believes he ended seven Force.

A (15:03)

You know, I do, too.

C (15:04)

Like, and the list is growing, and.

A (15:06)

He'S going back in time. He's like, I'm gonna get that 2020 thing we did with Kosovo. And I'll add that to my tally.

C (15:10)

Which was literally just an economic. Kosovo and Serbia have not been at war, you know, since the late 90s. They have a kind of a frozen kind of conflict in the sense that obviously Serbia doesn't kind of recognize Kosovo's independence, but. But even that deal didn't resolve any of the underlying political questions. It was just like some weird trade deal that Rick Grinnell, you know, probably profited off of. Right. So, yeah, this is totally bizarre.

A (15:34)

Yeah. And we'll get to a war he might restart in a second. But I just wanted to point out one last thing from Unga Ben, which is Trump had a meeting Tuesday with Javier Milei, the president of Argentina, where Trump weirdly endorsed Milei's reelection, I guess. And the endorsement came a day after Scott Bessant, the Treasury Secretary, offered Argentina a bank bailout. In the short version of how we got to point is, Milei put in place these incredibly tough austerity measures to get inflation down. That actually seems to have temporarily worked. I think our inflation went from like 300 to 30%. But it's also been brutally difficult on the people of Argentina, which is why Melee's party got crushed in local elections over the weekend in Buenos Aires. So those results, I think, made investors wonder if Malay can stay in office and follow through with this austerity agenda. And in response, the currency weekend in the stock market collapsed partially. And so that led Besant to like, make this public statement about giving them a bailout. So, Ben, I think we should, like, revisit the substance of the Javier Millay, like, kind of anarcho capitalist economic experiment in depth some other time with like an expert who can tell us what's happening down there. But, but like, I read this and I was like, come on, Democrats, you can't do something with this. Like, America first now means giving Argentina a bank bailout. We can't, we can't, we can't demagogue this just because this guy is nice to Trump at cpac. We're okay with this now?

C (16:57)

Yeah, I think it's really important when you think about how to kind of, you know, attack Trump's policies in his, you know, approach to the presidency. One way, and we've tried to do this on this podcast, is instead of just kind of projecting our own definitions of success or priorities onto Trump and saying he's not following them is actually to map what he promised his own supporters he would do against what he's doing. We've talked about, and we'll talk more on this podcast about he's not ending forever wars. If anything, he's starting new ones. That's a big line of attack I'd have if I were Democrats. But another is this is the opposite of America First. I did see Elizabeth Warren kind of attack Scott Besson, and then he wrote some like Bill Ackman length screed tweet in response. But the reality here is that, like, we are bailing out Argentina, but it's even worse than that. We're clearly only doing this because Javier Milei is like a buddy of Trump's. He's another right wing populist. He hangs out at Mar a Lago. He showed up at the Trump inauguration. He like has a chainsaw that Elon Musk, you know, took to cpac. How does it make you because we wouldn't be doing this if it was Brazil. Some of these countries down there he hates. So it again shows his whole foreign policy is based on basically supporting like minded right wing nationalist autocrats who kiss his ass. And, and how should Americans feel about you bailing out countries based on that? You know, I mean we also know he's kind of weaponizing the government for his own corruption purposes. But all this is a betrayal of his own message to his own voters. And so I do think that this is something that Democrats should be hitting hard. And anybody frankly who is disgusted by this.

A (18:40)

Yeah, I was glad to see Senator Warren jumped in on this and it was great that I think Besant wrote this op ed length response on Twitter like let's get as much attention on this issue as humanly possible. Like I don't think Naga voters want us to be bailing out Argentina and I'd love for them to know about it. This episode is sponsored by BetterHelp. Who do you go to to solve your life's problems? As I've stated before Reddit 4chan that's a good one. Pretty much exclusively. And yeah, no, I run up to random strangers on the street and just ask them any comments actually and GPTs betterhelp has been helping people find their match for over 10 years and have a 4.9 rating out of 1.7 million client session reviews. This is if you owe on an actual therapist. BetterHelp therapists work according to a strict code of conduct and are fully licensed in the US BetterHelp does the initial matching work for you so you can focus on your therapy goals. A short questionnaire helps identify your needs and preferences and their 10 plus years of experience and industry leading match fulfillment rate means they typically get it right the first time. If you aren't happy with your match, switch to a different therapist at any time from their tailored Rex. It's fully online and you can pause your subscription whenever you need to and switch therapists at any time at no extra cost. With over 30,000 therapists, BetterHelp is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 5 million people globally. It's also convenient you can join a session with a therapist at the click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your busy life. The world is terrifying, everything is terrible, seems to get worse every day. All you can really do is talk to someone about it. You might as well, you know, not bore a relative and talk to a therapist who can actually help you.

C (20:17)

Yeah, it's a good idea.

A (20:18)

How about that? As the largest online therapy provider in the world, BetterHelp can provide access to mental health professionals with a diverse variety of Expertise. Find the one with BetterHelp, our listeners get 10% off their first month at BetterHelp.com CrookedWorld that's BetterHelp H-E-L-P.com CrookedWorld if.

C (20:35)

You thought goldenly breaded McDonald's chicken couldn't.

A (20:38)

Get more golden, think colder because new sweet and smoky special edition gold sauce is here made for your chicken favorites at participating McDonald's for a limited time. Speaking of things I'd love for people to know about Ben Last week We recorded this YouTube exclusive exclusive where we I mean the idea initially was to explain why the biggest names in the MAGA media world like Tucker Carlson and Megyn Kelly were furious about Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's attempts to co opt the legacy of Charlie Kirk. And in that episode at the very end, we briefly discussed this bizarre comment that we just caught from Trump where he talked about wanting to reoccupy Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. So check out that episode of Pod Save the World on YouTube if you want to go down the rabbit hole in the Charlie Kirk conspiracy stuff because still kind of roiling MAGA world. But also please just subscribe to Pod Save the world on YouTube because we're putting out lots of additional content on big breaking news. But but back to this Bagram issue. So remember, Trump wanted to have it both ways when it came to Afghanistan, right? He wanted to be for ending the forever wars, but also attack Biden for actually doing it. So he focused on the decision to evacuate Bagram and also to leave military equipment in Afghanistan rather than bringing it home. Nevermind that his team like negotiated the deal in the first place. And for context, Bagram is this massive air base like 30 miles north of Kabul. It was originally built by the Soviets in the 50s and the US took it over after we invaded 911 and the US left Bagram a few weeks before the full withdrawal from Afghanistan. And then the Afghan army and the government was quickly toppled and it was disastrous. We all remember that. And according to the Wall Street Journal, Trump's interest in Bagram is thanks to this one random article by newly confirmed UN Ambassador Mike Waltz where he wrote, quote, bagram airfield remains our sole strategic key terrain in the backyards of three of Our four global competitors, China, Russia and Iran. We have no other options in the region. One of the reasons Trump keeps citing for wanting Bagram back is that the base is an hour away from a Chinese nuclear facility. He's talking about a place called Lop Noor, a site where China tests nuclear weapons but doesn't make them. And also, as the Economist noted, it's actually like 1200 miles away from Bagram. So it's an hour away if you're like in a fighter jet doing mock whatever, but not much else. Also, according to the Journal, the proximity doesn't have a lot of utility. Like, this Pentagon official said that we basically keep tabs on China's nukes with satellites and electronic intercepts. Like, didn't understand why you would want this base, but it does sound like some people in Trump's orbit want to reoccupy Bagram to have a drone base to hit ISIS k targets. However, the Taliban have been unequivocal about shutting that idea down. So cut to Saturday, when Trump posted this on Truth Social. Quote, if Afghanistan doesn't give Bagram Air Base back to those who built it, the United States of America, bad things are going to happen. And speaking to a reporter that same day, Trump said, if they don't do it, you're going to find out what I'm going to do. So, Ben, the only way I can interpret that is him suggesting or threatening that the US Military is going to re invade Afghanistan. An operation that would require tens of thousands of troops would cost us billions of dollars. And like, for the life of me, man, I just, I cannot understand why he is pushing this. Like, maybe it's a random article he read five years ago. But I, like, it's crazy. Like, what's your theory for this one?

C (23:59)

This is absolutely baffling and we should just say this horrible idea. Like, everything about this is crazy. My own theory, you know, as I think this through, a couple theories, right? One is Trump is always obsessed with, like, trying to kind of. If he thinks his predecessor did something that he can, like, undo. Like, like, so Joe Biden, you know, most people think that withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster. So I'm going to take back Bagram. Like, I don't, I don't know, you know, like, in the weird Trump psychology, maybe he thinks that this is a way of, like, showing up Biden or something. But look, this would be horrible for the people of Afghanistan to just kind of reintroduce, like, the US Military presence that ended up being so catastrophic there. It serves no purpose. I mean, if we start hitting ISIS K targets in Afghanistan, that's just like pure forever Warshit. Right? I mean, I thought that's what people didn't want anymore. Including MAGA people. As I was saying, like, especially MAGA people. Yeah, yeah. What is the political constituency in this country? There's not a political constituency in Afghanistan for this. Like, it's not going to be in Afghanistan. It's like, oh, please let the Americans come back, just have Bagram. There's not a political constituency in this country for this. His stated reason of, like, the Chinese nuclear weapons base is either stupid because we're not going like, spy on it from Bagram, or terrifying because, like, what are we going to bomb the Chinese nuclear. We started World War 3 with China. Like, it's not necessary as part of some, like, defense architecture. We have plenty of bases in Asia. Like, this is just. Just pure insanity. Now I, I'm sure the Taliban, it is core to the very being an identity of the Taliban to resist the presence of foreign forces on their soil. I wonder, you know, alluded to the fact that they've had talks. I mean, it may be that he's threatening them to kind of leave them no option but to say yes so that they can say to their own people, like, hey. And I, this is not just my idea. I talked to a couple people at Follow Us and they were just like everybody else guessing. But maybe like all these threats are to kind of give the Taliban a reason to say to their people, like, we got no choice. This guy's crazy. But that's the best I can come up with of why he's kind of dialing up the temperature in terms of what he might do too. It's like, not just the reoccupation. I also worry that what if he just bombs Bagram, you know, like, what if he's like, the Taliban won't give it back and so we just go back and we blow up Bagram. And so then he says, like, they can't have it. Right. Which would be horrible, you know, to do that to a country. And it's not the Taliban. There's people that live around there. Bagram's not in the middle of nowhere. Like, so I started to worry about that as well.

A (26:38)

It's also massive. It's 30 square miles. Like, that would be a huge operation.

C (26:42)

Yeah. And it's near. It's. It's near civilian. A lot of civilians, so. And by the way, the last thing I'd say about this is he said, give it back to people who built it. It's actually built by Russians, like, just in a sign of how many people who've, like, failed in Afghanistan. So just, I hope we move on from this because there's nothing. This is a zero percent idea. There's zero percent good about this idea. Like, hopefully we just move on from this because every scenario I can think of here is bad.

A (27:08)

Yeah, zero, zero upside to this idea. And also like, zero percent support for this idea among the American people.

C (27:15)

Nobody. Nobody.

A (27:16)

Like, yeah, please do a joint poll of 500Americans, 500 Afghans, see who is in support of reinvading Afghanistan. You're going to get a 0% response. Before we move on, Ben, I just want to mention one quick thing that I saw in Politico, which was apparently the Pentagon announced that reporters who cover the Defense Department will only be allowed to do so, like, kind of work out of the building if they promise to get their reporting, quote, approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified. Failure to abide by these rules may result in suspension or revocation of your building pass and loss of access. And we just want to mention this because this is the latest in a series of steps designed to make it harder for reporters to cover the Pentagon. And look, you and I have had our fair share of arguments and fights with the press corps about stories or like, you know, like, I've been on the phone begging reporters not to report on some piece of classified information. But this is a horrible idea in big picture. Like, if you are America first and you want to avoid foreign wars, you want a strong Pentagon press corps. And if you are America first because you hate corruption or don't want, you know, excess spending or wasteful spending by the Pentagon, you want a strong Pentagon press corps. Like, everything about this idea is terrible. And if you apply these rules to history, you would have had your credentials stripped for reporting on the Pentagon Papers and all the lies about Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs invasion, the torture at Abu Ghraib. Like, I just, this is, this is a massive attack on the First Amendment and would be damaging to literally every citizen of this country. End of speech.

C (28:50)

Yeah. And what we see is a convergence, I'd say, of three things that are very worrying for me. Like, quickly on this. Like, one is free speech, right? This is happening at the same time that we see the weaponization of the fcc, the threats of the Jimmy Kimmel stuff, the, you know, potential shutting down of, like, you know, left wing organizations like this is yet one more, you know, plank of free speech that is potentially being threatened. Second is this is designed. It's also tied to Trump only wanting information that validates hit the success of his efforts. Right. And so, yeah, if I was thinking about, like, what might have contributed to this, it's that leaked DIA report that was like, we did not obliterate the Iranian nuclear program. Actually, we only set it back a few months. Well, since then, we've, like, seen Trump fire the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. And now you're not even going to. Because that's the kind of thing that Pentagon reporters get their hands on. Right? Like, they hear that there's a report like that.

A (29:47)

Exactly.

C (29:48)

So the only version we're going to get of, like, the US Policies or US Military actions are just going to be pure propaganda stuff. Right? And that, to your point, that should be terrifying. And then the last piece of this is something that people are going to have to pay more attention to as the Trump administration goes on is the kind of shoveling out the door of contracts to people like Palantir, right, These, these defense tech firms that are like the new military industrial complex that might raise questions around, like, everything from the mass surveillance of, you know, the US Population to the, you know, development of artificial intelligence weapons. Right, that could be deployed here or abroad. Right? So we need smart people in that building and, and clearing them out, like you said, is going to leave us blind to that.

A (30:41)

Yeah, horrendous idea. Please don't do it. Don't sign these agreements, people. You don't. Well, you don't have to agree to their fucking bullshit. All right, let's switch gears here. We'll move a little faster through some of these. So in news, it will surprise no one. There was another instance of Russia violating NATO airspace on Friday when three Russian MiG31 jets entered Estonian airspace and remained there for about 12 minutes before NATO jets responded. That continues this pattern we've seen of Russia seeming to test NATO's defenses. And their response there was the recent Russian drone incursion into Poland, for example, that we covered on the show. On Monday, the UN Security Council met in New York for an emergency meeting. At the meeting, Russia called Estonia's claim empty and unfounded. They denied that the flights violated international law, and they said the whole situation was, quote, a continuation of a completely reckless pattern of escalating tensions and provoking a confrontational atmosphere. These guys are so good at doing the like, you know, opposite day statement. Mike Waltz, signal gate fame, made his first appearance as the US's new ambassador to the UN. At an emergency meeting, he said that the US and its allies will, quote, defend every inch of NATO territory. Trump was asked about this. He had a slightly different take when he was asked about the Russian airspace violations during a press event with President Zelensky of Ukraine. Here's what he had to say. Do you think that NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft if they enter their airspace?

B (31:59)

Yes, I do. Would you back them up?

A (32:01)

Would the United States help them out in some way?

B (32:03)

Depends on the circumstance. But, you know, we're very strong toward NATO.

A (32:07)

Sounds like Trump wants NATO to start a war with Russia, but he refused to say if we will help them win it. Kind of par for the course. We all watched them kind of dance around whether the United States would live up to its Article 5 obligations in the first term. And there's just more of that bullshit then.

C (32:23)

Yeah, I mean, first of all, this confirms, right? We talked early on, like, was this mistake by the Russians when their first drones went to Poland? Look, there's such a pattern now of Russian violations of NATO aerospace that it's very clear that this is a deliberate strategy by Russia and Vladimir Putin. You know, you don't have this many, you know, coincidental incursions in the NATO airspace. Why is Putin doing it? One reason may be to humiliate NATO. Right. It's not coincidental in my mind that all of this activity started shortly after that Alaska summit and the kind of collapse of the effort to end the war in Ukraine. This is Putin kind of rubbing it in everybody's face. You know, look, I can do whatever I want. I'll even come into NATO. You know, and I made no concession. I gave nothing up in any of these conversations we had. But it also allows them to test kind of, how will NATO respond? Like, how will NATO respond militarily? You know, how will NATO respond diplomatically? They just kind of want to see how that goes. And then the last thing is, you know, Mike Waltz, what he says is meaningless. Nobody believes the talking points. He says the question is Trump himself. And Trump is so all over the map, you know, from rolling out the red carpet in Alaska to threaten to shoot planes down, like, nobody believes anything. And that's when things get dangerous. Because if you don't have kind of predictability in these kind of superpowers, conflicts and relationships, that's when you get miscalculations. That's when you get people doing things that they didn't think the other side respond a certain way. So this is A dangerous situation that bears a lot of attention going forward.

A (33:50)

Yeah. There are also some reports today that Russian drones who had entered the airspace of Denmark and Norway. Trump was asked about that. He said he needed more information. Trump has also asked if he still trusts Putin. He said, ask me in a month. So, again, he's just, like, punting this thing forward two weeks more exhausting bullshit. Yeah. Okay, so there's been a lot of big immigration news that kind of got lost because of the Charlie Kirk assassination and the Jimmy Kimmel stuff last week. So we want to tick through some of it. On Friday, Trump announced that every new H1B visa, which are visas for workers who bring, quote, a body of highly specialized knowledge that are needed by some US employer, they will now cost $100,000 each, versus the roughly $10,000 that it previously cost. So these fees are paid by the employers. But. So the initial announcement, it caused a ton of confusion and panic at a bunch of companies in the US Especially tech companies, because it wasn't clear whether the new price tag was for all H1B visa holders or just new applicants. And the administration had to clarify over the weekend that it was the latter. But you had people like, you know, who had H1B visas who had left the country, who were, like, ordered to come back immediately because, like, their companies didn't know the status. It was a total mess. And the New York Times took a look at the reaction to this change in Silicon Valley, and the gist, Ben, is it's likely to be really challenging and potentially damaging for startups and small businesses, tech businesses that can't afford a bunch of new costs. But it'll likely work out just fine for, like, the metas of the world and other tech giants who can eat a $100,000 fee and not think twice about it or, you know, do it a couple thousand times before Last week, the H1B visa program was capped at 85,000 visas per year and was awarded by lottery. That was not enough H1B visas to meet the demand. And it was why tech companies wanted to see the process reformed. It seems like Trump's new plan is going to get rid of the lottery system and instead give preference to people with higher skills and higher incomes. I think the 85,000 cap is going to stay, but I guess we'll find out. Ben. I remember during the campaign when Trump told the gang from the all in podcast, a bunch of tech douches that anyone who his plan would be that anyone who graduated from college would get a green card and be able to stay in the country. I think they believed him at the time. Slightly different outcome here. We'll see how they feel about it, I guess.

C (36:05)

Yeah. We talked a couple of weeks ago about the danger of a massive brain drain from the United States in terms of not getting high skilled labor here, maybe not getting any labor here when they kicked out those Koreans and eventually of even some high skilled Americans leaving here. Because it's so crazy. This is such a self owned and a self defeating mood. I mean, from people I talk to, it's kind of creating chaos and it's just going to lead people to not come here. You know, the kind of people that you want to be developing new industries, whether it's artificial intelligence or quantum computing or just, you know, certain high skilled areas that are necessary for advanced manufacturing. Trump says he wants to bring back advanced manufacturing. I think what people miss is, you know, this facilitates often American jobs. Right. Because essentially if you have this kind of higher skill workforce, it can kind of create growth and create opportunities and create advanced manufacturing that then can bring in other Americans too. So I think watching the outflow of high skilled labor coming to this country, of foreign students who may not want to come to this country, of tourists who don't want to come to this country, all of this is going to put a meaningful dent in economic growth. It's going to cut the United States off from the world. It's going to make us fall behind on innovation because it's going to make places like China or the Gulf or Europe or other places be where the cutting edge stuff is happening. Because that's where there's a kind of convergence of talent. So this is, this is like one of the seemingly like, you know, secondary announcements that is kind of part of a bigger trend of the United States really setting back its own capacity over time for economic growth and innovation.

A (37:41)

Yeah. And for short term game. I mean also he rolled out a program where if you're really rich, you can pay a million dollars for a quote, gold card for US residency and then 2 million for a corporate gold card where companies can sponsor employees. But again, that's not about scale, it's about the money you can pay.

C (37:55)

And yeah, just to like rant about this for a second here, like we used to be the place where the strivers came. Like we wanted you to come here if you were scrappy, if you wanted to start a business, if you, you know, you wanted to live the American dream.

A (38:08)

Right.

C (38:09)

This is like, hey oligarch, come here and like, you know, Pay us a little money. Like, these are people that are already rich. Right, right. This isn't. This is not the striver, the strivers H1B visa. The fucking oligarch who's like, yeah, it'd be cool to have a visa. Here's $1 million for a gold card. Like, is some late stage capitalist dystopia where, like, we're going to have all the shitty people in the world who.

A (38:31)

Just, like kids, are the shitty people.

C (38:32)

In the world too.

A (38:33)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. And also, like, I think 71% of H1B visas in 2024 were went to people from India, and that's sort of what the historical percentage has been. So this is likely to be another irritant in the US India relationship that we've talked about. Also, Ben, where we're recording this, it's 2:54pm Pacific. I just saw an article come through Slack. I know we moved on from the Russia section where Trump apparently put out a truth social post after his meeting with Zelensky, saying, quote, after getting to know and fully understand the Ukraine, Russia military and economic situation and after seeing the economic trouble it is causing Russia, I think Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and win all of Ukraine back in its original form. So we are now, except for like, a totally maximalist position.

B (39:18)

Can we just.

A (39:19)

He also says he's going to provide weapons to. I will, I wish both countries well. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO, for NATO to do what they want with them. What is happening, man? I, I reinvading Afghanistan.

C (39:33)

You went exactly where I was gonna go. Like, we're reinviging Afghanistan. We have, like, the, you know, objectives for the Ukraine war that were like the hawkish people in the Atlantic magazine in 2022. Like, this is, this is what I mean by like, this kind of like, I know we're going to have some laundering happen here, Tommy, that this is the madman theory of diplomacy or something.

A (39:54)

Oh, definitely.

C (39:55)

Trump's predictability is strength. No, this is a guy who keeps getting humiliated by Putin and so he, like, veers back and forth like a crazy weather vein from capitulating to the guy in Alaska and saying, we'll accept the terms, where you get to annex all the territory to saying against all evidence that somehow Ukraine is going to win back Crimea. Right. I mean, that is like, that is no way to run a strategy nobody can plan against. Like, you're in a war here. You need to plan six months out, one month out, two years out. You're in a negotiation, you take positions, you stick to them and drive them at the negotiating table. This kind of like wildly veering back and forth like you're competing with your buddy Jeffrey Epstein for a piece of real estate in Florida is just not how you approach, like a major land war in Europe.

A (40:41)

Well, especially when you have to like, to provide material, like massive shipments of weapons that the Ukrainian military is going to need to fight. Like, this is insane. This is fucking crazy. Like, my honest reaction to this is I don't believe him. I think he's full of shit. And he thinks, I bet you he thinks, or he will suggest that he is doing the kind of madman theory stuff and this is just his way of like getting Putin's attention and getting leverage and getting him back to the negotiating table. But the Russians have showed over and over again that they just play Trump for time and then, as he said himself, tap him along. And I'm sure that's what will happen again, but I guess we'll find out in two weeks or whatever.

C (41:16)

Yeah, when it's something totally different. I mean, how many positions has this guy taken on the Ukraine war in the last seven months? And the only constant is Russian escalation. That's the only constant.

A (41:26)

That's exactly right. Okay, back to this immigration stuff. Ben. So also last week on Friday, the Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noemi announced she was terminating temporary protected status program for Syrians, giving them 60 days to self deport. This decision will impact about 6,000 Syrians in the US and around a thousand more who had pending applications. Ben, my head nearly exploded when I read this statement from the DHS spokesperson, Trisha McLaughlin. She said, quote, conditions in Syria no longer prevent their nationals from returning home.

C (41:56)

Right.

A (41:56)

But then in the next sentence, she said, quote, syria has been a hotbed of terrorism and extremism for nearly two decades, and it is contrary to our national interest to allow Syrians to remain in our country. So in one breath she is trying to argue that Syria is now safe, which is not true, but that Syrians in the US Are all a threat, which is just pure bigotry with no evidence to back it up. And she's talking about often, like, women, kids, totally innocent people. It's just outrageous. And so far, the Trump administration has taken a bunch of steps to end TPS for people from at least seven other countries. Venezuela, Afghanistan, Cameroon, Nepal, Haiti, Honduras and Nicaragua. There's various legal challenges that we won't get into, but, you know, it's clearly a pattern. I'm Just trying to send back anyone who's here legally. And then also, Ben, I noticed that it was pretty amazing to see that the Syrian president, Ahmed El Shara was at the UN. He was the first Syrian president to attend the UN in, I think, nearly 60 years. As we've discussed on the show, Shara was once the leader of a US designated terrorist group. But while he was in New York, he did an interview on stage with David Petraeus. Did you see this? The former head of the CIA.

C (43:02)

I actually watched it because it was so surreal. I thought it was an LSD or something. Yeah.

A (43:06)

So again, Petraeus was the commander of the forces in Iraq who captured and imprisoned Alshara for several years. What did you make of the event itself? I saw some quotes from it. I didn't watch the whole thing.

C (43:17)

I thought it was very powerful to see Alshara get off the plane and walk. As someone who, like, lived and failed as part of U.S. policy on the Syrian civil war, to see this guy come as a first Syrian president to set foot at UNGA in decades, I thought that was powerful. I think the fact that Dave Petraeus was the person selected to. Because I don't think Alshara made that decision. I mean, if I'm wrong. Yeah, let me know who sponsored the event. Do you know, I think it was like the Concordia. I just saw some signage that said like, Concordia or something. This is what's wrong with this whole circuit sometimes. Right. And this isn't even really like, just. I'm not trying to single out David Petraeus in particular, but it is so disrespectful to Syrians to like, Petraeus was not only the military commander in Iraq when, you know, Australia was imprisoned, but then he was also the CIA director under Obama when. Let's just say we had a Syria policy that didn't exactly work, you know, and. And so just please, like, find someone else. There's not a journalist that can do this because it just kind of reinforces that what's been really sad because Alshar is trying to say all the right things, but, like, everything has to be. The only way that Syria can come in the. In from the cold is entirely on our terms. Right. So we're trying to dictate some security agreement where he has to basically concede, like, literal territory to Israel, Right. That's been bombing him. You know, he's got to, like, sit there and like, you know, be interviewed by the guy that put him in prison in Iraq and, like, was kind of on, you know, different sides of the Syrian Civil war, you know, he's got to kind of kiss everybody's ass. And in the Middle east, like including the leaders of countries that again, you know, weren't exactly equating themselves with glory in the Syrian civil war. It's. And then lastly that it ties the asylum piece. Like, it makes it seem like Trump's decision, which we supported, to like lift sanctions on Syria was just so we could pretend like, oh, now it's normal and so we can start deporting people back there when in fact this country is still war ravaged, it's not anywhere near rebuilt. Like, if anybody had a legitimate asylum claim was Syrians. And so what should be like a celebratory moment in the beginning of series rebuilding is also just this kind of gross manifestation of like how power structures work, you know? Yeah.

A (45:47)

I mean, certainly is not safe. Right. There's been all. The. First of all, I think, I think Elshara said that Israel has bombed Syria like a thousand times in recent weeks or months.

C (45:55)

Yeah.

A (45:55)

Right. So there's clearly like active warfare in parts of the country. There's also a pretty discontinuing sectarian violence that's happening. There is clearly some sort of lingering ISIS contingent in parts of the country. So the idea that we're going to send a bunch, 6,000 people just back to Syria because Trump doesn't want him around anymore because DHS says it's safe there, it's complete bullshit. I imagine Petraeus was chosen because the message of the symbolism of two guys who fought each other now on stage together was perceived as powerful. I did notice that Petraeus said he was a fan of Alshara and talked about the trajectory from fighter to someone who's, you know, moving from combat to discourse. Right. So it's, it's a nice line, but I, I hear you. It is a little, it's a little weird. It also speaks to kind of like the securitized relationship with the entire region, which is.

C (46:42)

Exactly.

A (46:42)

A four star general is kind of in charge of the diplomacy with this guy.

C (46:45)

Yeah, like, and again, I'm not, you know, it's not. They agree with everything on Patreus, but this is not meant to single him out. It's more just like, look, if they were there to have like an oral history of the Iraq war or the Syrian civil War, like, like, fine, but, but, but better, why not have someone who could talk about the economic reconstruction to your point, not a general, not securitized, but like a business person or, you know, an entrepreneur or, you know, like, or civil society.

A (47:10)

Ambassador.

C (47:11)

Something that is about, like, rebuilding Syria, not about, like, oh, look at this. This is, you know, I mean, yeah, there's something about the imagery that's interesting, but. But it's also something about it. Just like, again, it's like, you know.

A (47:22)

It'S like a blobby wet dream. Like, let's just be honest with you. Yeah, right, exactly. Betray us with the new Syrian guy. Like, it's what, like, you know, it's what Face the Nation wishes they could have that booking every week for the rest of time. You know, it's like the. Very much the kind of. Speaking of Syria, on September 12, an immigration judge in Louisiana ordered that Palestinian rights activist Mahmoud Khalil must be deported to either Syria or Algeria. Folks probably remember Khalil as being one of the first people targeted by the Trump administration at the start of Trump's second term. His attorneys have already appealed to the New Jersey judge that ordered Khalil's release from ICE custody back in June in an attempt to block this new deportation order. This story is a little confusing for listeners for me, because there's two separate legal tracks. There's the federal court in New Jersey that looks at the constitutional issues. Then there's another immigration court looking at the issue in Louisiana where there's this immigration judge who is a member of the executive branch, not the judicial branch, and who is clearly just trying to force this guy out of the country. And they're kind of at loggerheads. And remember, Mahmoud Khalil is a legal permanent resident. He is married to an American citizen, and they have a son who was delivered while he was in ICE custody. And the Trump administration wouldn't let him out to be present for the birth of his son, who is also an American citizen. So this is someone with deep ties to the United States who loves the United States, and his sole crime in air quotes is talking about Palestinian rights. The Trump administration is now trying to manufacture a new pretext to deport him. Basically, they're saying there's, like, clerical errors on one of his applications. It's total bullshit, Ben. So this is just like, all a way of, I think, reminding listeners that what happened to Jimmy Kimmel was the latest assault on free speech, but it was hardly the first like this. This whole process started a lot earlier with these ongoing still attacks on people who. Whose crime was believing in Palestinian rights. Basically, yeah.

C (49:17)

And they're being relentless about it. They're not letting it go. And it's meant to chill speech going forward. It's meant to just get people out of the country. You make the important point, he's a legal permanent resident. So like the basis for just deporting someone based on speech should terrify people. And, and again it is a reminder that like this story didn't begin with Jimmy Kimmel. You know, like to take the oft use, you know, first they came for so and so like Jimmy Kimmel was like pretty far down the line of people they came for. And it's again this convergence of, of autocracy as relates to speech and immigration that is all about power, the ability to choose who gets to be in this country, who gets to be American, who gets access to America, what is constitutes American speech, you know, and that, that really should mobilize people.

A (50:04)

Yeah, Real quick update Ben on the escalator and teleprompter gate from the UN So there was some speculation that UN some heroic like almost sandwich throwing level UN staffer might have turned off the elevator when Trump was in it got him stuck in there. But now it says apparently the UN believes that someone from the President's party who is working like kind of advancing him inadvertently triggered the stop mechanism at the elevator. And this person at the UN Also said that the White House was operating the teleprompter for Trump. Of course they were. So when he threatened to fire that person, he threatened his fires on staff. But it's fun doing the show with you in real time and just updating. It's like one of those crazy days where there's like too many press avails and events and you're just kind of like trying to drink from a fire hose even on west coast time.

C (50:45)

Well, can I say one thing about this is like I wrote the speeches, right? And the, the teleprompter is wholly operated by the United States States government, by the White House, you know, communications office. And there is no UN piece there. I will tell you this because one time Barack Obama made edits so late in the morning of the speech that I sent it to the teleprompter as he was walking on stage. He made the same kind of comment that Trump did. Like, my speech isn't on the teleprompter I'm watching on television. Like literally my stomach came into my mouth.

A (51:20)

Yeah.

C (51:20)

And he started reading it and then all of a sudden the teleprompter came up. So this, I'm sure Trump will still blame the UN but it's a kind of a metaphor for blaming the UN for your own fuck ups. Right. Like we were saying before, like he's blaming the UN for its dysfunction when we're the reason it's dysfunctional. Now he's literally blaming the UN for our own teleprompter not working.

A (51:36)

All right, we're going to take a quick break, but before we do, I want to tell you that the Supreme Court's new term is off to the races and surprise, surprise, it is a mess. In October, the justices will decide if cops can storm your house without a warrant, if states can play games with black voters districts, and if free speech stops at your therapist's office door, and Crooked's Legal Podcast Trick Scrutiny is here to cut through all the chaos. With legal expertise and plenty of side eye, new episodes drop every Monday. Listen wherever you get your podcasts and watch on YouTube. Today's episode is sponsored by Strawberry Me. Let's be honest. Are you happy with your job? Like, really happy? The unfortunate fact is that a huge number of people can't say yes to that question. Far too many people are stuck in a job that they've outgrown, or one they never wanted in the first place. But still, they stick it out. And they give reasons like, well, what if the next move is even worse? Or I've already put years into this place. Or maybe the most common one. Isn't everyone kind of miserable at work? But there's difference between reasons for staying and excuses for not leaving. It's time to get unstuck. It's time for Strawberry Me. They match you with a certified career coach who helps you go from where you are to where you actually want to be. Your coach helps you clarify your goals, create a plan, build your confidence, and keeps you accountable along the way. So don't leave your career to chance. Take action and own your future. With a professional coach in your corner, go to Strawberry Me World to claim a special offer. That's Strawberry Me World cash flow crunch OnDeck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it, cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow, depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval. Okay, quick update on the Trumps the the war on the boats off of the coast of Venezuela. So we've Covered this a bunch of times. Now it's this merger of the war on drugs and the war on terror. The US Military announced they blew up another boat on Friday. They say it killed three alleged narco terrorists. But, like, the reason we just want to mention this quickly is, as we've said many times in the show, like, once you start this kind of, you know, war on drugs effort, it's hard to stop and it tends to escalate. Sure enough, last week, the Washington Post reported that earlier this year, the DEA pushed for military strikes on Mexican soil. That's alarming. And based on how J.D. vance and Donald Trump are now talking about these strikes, you have to wonder, or at least you have to believe, I think that they think it's good politics and are likely to keep escalating. Let's listen. And I was talking to Secretary Hegseth.

C (54:30)

And you know what he said?

A (54:31)

He said, you know what, Mr. Vice President, we don't see any of these drug boats coming into our country. They've completely stopped. And I said, I know why I would stop, too.

C (54:40)

Hell, I wouldn't go fishing. Right now in that area of the.

B (54:42)

World, there aren't too many boats that are traveling on, on the seas by Venezuela. They tend not to want to travel very quickly anymore. And we virtually stopped drugs coming into our country by sea. We call them the water drugs now. They're no bones. I wonder why.

A (55:01)

Yeah, there's no more drugs in the United States. And some hilarious jokes there about killing fishermen. So, Ben, I don't have a lot to do to say here that just, you know, it's not great when there's all this kind of dehumanizing language and joking about it. And then I bet Donald Trump is going to know that the DEA is pushing for airstrikes into Mexico. He's going to like the feedback he's getting for killing these cartel members. Like, I just, I think this is going to happen.

C (55:23)

And remember, these boats, these little speedboats, are like, like over a thousand miles away. They're not. None of these boats were, like, driving to the United States. Right. So what he's saying is, like, let's just check in our communities if all the drugs are gone. You know, I don't think that's happening. And, yeah, everybody, you know, the. The next step, I mean, this has been purely escalatory, is either going into Venezuela or going into Mexico. And either of those would be a massive escalation in violation of state sovereignty. Right now, one might start an actual war with Venezuela, the other would start a massive crisis with a friendly neighbor in Mexico. Either way, it's bad. And I really worry about where this is going because they're so gleeful in talking about it that they seem to want to keep doing it.

A (56:07)

Yeah, this is Stephen Miller's. Yeah, fantasy. All right, a couple of important updates for anyone who cares about events on the Korean peninsula and doesn't like nukes. South Korea's new president, Lee Jae Mung told the BBC that he would be open to a deal where North Korea agrees to freeze its production of nuclear weapons in exchange for some sort of limited sanctions relief. In other words, in the near term at least, South Korea has dropped the hard line demand for full denuclearization. Specifically, Lee said, quote, so long as we do not give up on the long term goal of denuclearization, I believe that there are clear benefits to having North Korea stop its nuclear and missile development. The question is whether we persist with fruitless attempts toward the ultimate goal or we set more realistic goals and achieve some of them, end quote. That is, I think, an expected but significant softening of South Korea's position on talks with North Korea. And those comments came right around Kim Jong Un's speech where he said that he is open to re engaging with Trump if the US Quote drops the absurd obsession with denuclearizing us and accepts reality. Kim also added, the world already knows full well what the United States does after it makes a country give up its nuclear weapons and disarms, end quote. Tough but fair hit there, Ben. So I'm kind of torn on this one, Ben. I like, I believe Kim Jong Un when he says North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons, at least not while his family is in charge. I doubt that any amount of additional sanctions will change his mind. That said, it's kind of hard to quantify the security value of a freeze on nuclear production versus denuclearization. Though it's worth noting that Lee said North Korea is producing 15 to 20 additional nuclear weapons per year. So you have to think at that scale. There's like a proliferation risk factoring into this. But I don't know. What did you make of this shift?

C (57:55)

Well, you know, it should be noted that Lee is from the, the more dovish party that tends to favor this type of engagement. And so this reflects that shift in his posture. I think the things to watch here are, look, it's kind of accepting of the reality that North Korea is not going to have nuclear weapons. But the question is, what do you ask for? And, and you could try to go deeper in terms of not just like some kind of freeze, but, you know, are there other steps that can be taken with either their nuclear or missile programs to at least kind of roll them back a little bit if you're going to be giving up things like sanctions relief? To me, there's also the question of, like, the future of the U. S. South Korea alliance. Is this a South Korean leader essentially saying, like, I can't really count on the Americans anyway. I gotta start to make deals with the North Koreans. I gotta start to talk to the Chinese. Like, I have to kind of watch that space because what's happening now is like, the US Is kind of absent. So therefore this is going to happen. You know, crystal ball here, Tommy. Like, some version of this happens, and then Trump adds it as number eight on the no doubt he's ended and demands a Nobel Peace Prize even though he will have done nothing. You know, so this is all about, like, the world, you know, getting a little more dangerous. Like, you know, we're normalizing the North Korean nuclear weapons program. We're probably South Korea no longer relying on the United States, but it's all going to be wrapped up in some facade of, like, Trump having a photo op with the north and South Korean leaders.

A (59:16)

Yeah. The most likely outcome is for some reason, the UF tariffs the shit out of South Korea, and then Trump cuts a big splashy deal with Kim Jong Un that gets them all kinds of sanction relief. And great headlines seem, well, in Trump's mind, global headlines. And then you're right, doesn't actually solve the problem of nuclear weapons and may.

C (59:36)

Incentivize, like a North Korean attack on South Korea three years, five years from now, you know, who knows? Yeah.

A (59:42)

Yeah. All right. Unfortunately, Ben, we must once again talk about Candace Owens on this show. For those who don't know, Candace Owens is a far right podcast host and MAGA media figure who I think is genuinely suffering some sort of psychotic break. Ever since Charlie Kirk's assassination, she's gone full Oliver Stone. She has implied that the Israelis killed Charlie Kirk. She's accused the government of doctoring Tyler Robinson's text messages. That's the shooter of Charlie Kirk. She did a thing today, I think, where she talked about, like, there were underground tunnels in the area where Charlie Kirk was shot and suggested the shooter could have, like, come out of some hatch door on the ground. Like, it was completely nuts. And of course, it's worth noting that, like, all of these conspiracy theories lead to more downloads and more revenue for her. And I checked the Apple charts today, Ben, and her show is at number five on the, on the charts Tuesday, so she's doing pretty good. But anyway, we are here to talk about Candace's battle with the President and First lady of France. So remember that Candace did an eight part podcast series on the claim that Brigitte Macron, the First lady of France, is a man? I should say it's not true. It's. It's a widely debunked conspiracy theory that was manufactured by some blogger in, in France a few years ago, but Candace wouldn't let it go. And then in response, a few weeks back, the Macron family decided to sue Candace Owens for defamation. And it sounds like they're playing to win. During a recent interview, the the Macron family lawyer said they are planning to present, quote, expert testimony that will come out that will be scientific in nature, end quote, and that they were prepared to prove, quote, both generically and specifically, end quote, that the allegations are false. I don't really know what that means, but the sentences made me uncomfortable. As we've discussed before, again, these allegations are nuts. Candace claims that Brigitte was actually born a man named Jean Michel Trogno. That guy is Brigitte's 80 year old older brother. He is still alive. He lives in northern France. The family all grew up together. They're well known in their community because the dad owned like a chocolate business that was pretty famous. Jean Michel was with Brigitte at the Emmanuel Macron's presidential inaugurations in 2017 and 2022. I think there's photographs to prove it. So it's just like it's all nuts. So, Ben, like the idea of a foreign head of state suing an American podcaster makes me uncomfortable on kind of First Amendment grounds, but there sure as hell seems to be some actual malice behind this one. So this could be a very, very expensive outcome for Candace Owens.

C (62:06)

Yeah, we're really through the looking glass on this one. I mean, the president of a hugely consequential ally is suing like a right wing conspiracy theorist podcaster kind of. You know, if you're making the, you know, a Netflix show about being alive in 2025, like this would have to be an episode. That's all I really have to add to this. It's crazy.

A (62:26)

Yeah.

C (62:26)

The only thing is, did you see the Macron got held up by Trump's motorcade for 30 minutes and had to call on the phone. He called Trump and is like, you're holding me up. I can't cross the street to get to, like, I think the French UN mission. And then they made him walk like 30 minutes around. So, you know, we're doing wonderful things for US country relations. He's taking. Oh, I guess the French don't like Macron either, so maybe it's actually helping U.S. french relations.

A (62:48)

Yeah, I think we misapproval ratings at 15%. Yeah, yeah, yeah, Finally. So neither Ben and I have watched this footage yet, but we're about to play for you a clip from the leader of the fastest growing political party in the United Kingdom. Let's watch. Well, hello, Mark, it's Nigel Farage here. Got a message for you from Brandon.

B (63:06)

And from me too.

A (63:07)

Brandon says happy birthday, you giant mistake.

B (63:11)

I hope you have a pog birthday.

A (63:13)

Remember, Brexit means Brexit.

B (63:17)

This is Nigel Farage wishing you a big chungus. Congratulations for being the top g skibidi alpha male.

A (63:24)

We all promise to hawk to you.

B (63:27)

On your bussy as it claps. And this message, James, is sponsored by Sam, Matthew Finn and Mo Lester.

A (63:36)

It's come to my attention that you.

B (63:38)

Have no riz and have been acting very skibidi lately.

C (63:42)

Now, it's a bit early in the.

A (63:43)

Day, so all I've got actually is coffee, but I hope you enjoy a.

C (63:49)

Few pints with the lads tonight. Up the ra.

A (63:53)

Happy birthday, Hugh Janus. I've heard you're a massive fan. Oh, my God, that was incredible. Okay, that was Nigel Farage, the leader of the Reform UK Party. He's quite possibly the next Prime Minister of the uk. Yeah, assuming the Labour Party doesn't stage an internal coup on Keir Starmer. So this hilarious story comes to us via the Wall Street Journal. They did a deep dive into why Farage has been blowing up on TikTok, and the reason is Ben. It turns out Nigel Farage is willing to say anything, as we learned there, if you give him 95 on cameo. Cameo is an app where you can pay like washed up current and former celebrities to make you videos. But what makes Farage different is just like his politics, he has no standards. He is willing to say anything. You might have caught him saying up the raw in that montage. That's a shout out to the ira. Probably not something he should be saying. Farage got on Cameo after he was fired from a radio show for comparing Black Lives Matter protesters to the Taliban. Can see why that got you fired. And now according to the Wall Street Journal, he makes over $180,000 off these videos. At least last year he did. But they also have the added benefit for him blown up on social media, blowing up on TikTok, especially with the gamer community who love it when he repeats their like, unintelligible gibberish slang like Skibidi and Hugh Janus. Well, that's not even gamer slang. That's just funny. Hawk Tua was going, I guess Nigel Farage. Yeah, I guess this is how you become Prime Minister. Like, this is the path.

C (65:20)

I mean, be better Britain. I mean, I have to say, look, I saw some takes on this that were like, this is shows if he has like authenticity and he shows up. But I'm all for politicians, like, having authenticity and showing up in creative spaces and being a little more casual and like, you know, whatever. But there have to be limits. Like, there needs to be like a dignity line that like, you don't get beyond. And like Nigel Farage is just goes so far beyond it. This is supposed to be the, like, society of like, you know, buttoned up people. I mean, I'm glad the Brits let their hair down. Congratulations, by the way, to the people that got him to say these things. Like, that's, that's objectively funny that you did that. But I mean, I just say, come be better Britain. If you guys can't beat this guy, like, you know, labor, whoever, Lib Dems, like, there's got to be someone better in your country to be the next Prime Minister than this kind of far right guy who will say any shit on cameo for £90 or whatever it is.

A (66:15)

Imagine, yeah, Winston Churchill. Like, we shall fight them on the beaches. We shall fight Hugh janus. He has 1800 reviews. You got a 4.96 rating. Overall, pretty damn good. But Michael, our producer, found one negative review from someone named Daniel Taylor who said didn't carry out the full request, which referred to bestiality, to be fair. So understandable, perhaps.

C (66:36)

Oh, so now we know the line.

A (66:38)

There's a line after all.

C (66:39)

The line is that bestiality.

A (66:40)

All right, yeah. Oh, my God. Thank you, Nigel. At least you make us laugh. All right, that's it for the news portion of the show. But stick around. You're gonna hear a great conversation Ben just had with Rob Malley about the Middle east peace process, the death of the two state solution, the lies we tell ourselves about the possibility of creating a Palestinian state, what failed in past negotiations. So a really, really fascinating guy and worth your time listening. So stick around for that pod. Save the World is brought to you by hims. Hims can't solve snoring or blanket stealing. But when it comes to performance, they got you covered. What do they mean?

C (67:23)

What do you mean by that?

A (67:24)

Take control of the sticks Personalized treatments made with proven ingredients prescribed by licensed providers. 100 online through HIMS, you can access personalized prescription treatment options for ED like hard mints, sex Rx plus climax control. If prescribed, HIMS offers access to ED treatment options ranging from Hardman's to trusted generics that cost 95% less than brand names. If prescribed, you shouldn't have to go out of your way to feel like yourself. Hims brings expert care straight to you with 100% online access to personalized treatments that put your goals first. This isn't one size fits all care that forgets you in the waiting room. It's your health and goals first with real medical providers making sure you get what you need to get results. Think of HIMS as your digital front door that gets you back to your old self with simple 100% online access to trusted treatments for ED and more all in one place. To get simple online access to personalized affordable care for ED, hair loss, weight loss and more, visit hims.comworld then himss.comworld for your free online visit hims.comworld actual price will depend on product and subscription plan. Feature Products include compounded drug products which the FDA does not approve or verify for safety, effectiveness or quality. Prescription required. See website for details, restrictions and important safety information. Cash Flow Crunch On Deck's Small Business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply today@ondeck.com funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank On Deck does not lend in North Dakota, all loans, an amount subject to lender approval.

C (69:13)

Okay, I'm very pleased to welcome my friend and former colleague Rob Malley to the podcast. You may remember that he was the special envoy for Iran under Joe Biden. I worked with him in the Obama administration when he had several roles including kind of overseeing our Middle east policy in the White House, including the Iran nuclear negotiations. But his experience goes back even further. Under Bill Clinton, Rob helped organize the Camp David Summit and now he is the co author along with Hussein Aga, who was also involved in negotiations on the Palestinian side of a new book, Tomorrow Is Yesterday. Life, Death and the Pursuit of Peace in Israel, Palestine, which came out last week. Rob, I just want to start by saying I read this book a few weeks ago. It's really an extraordinary combination of both a journey through the history of the two state solution, but also a very personal reflection from both you and Hussein Aga about how you, your roles and where this is all going. It's unusually honest for a memoir about this subject. So I just, you know, thanks for writing the book and I encourage people to pick it up, but with that intro. Rob, welcome to the podcast.

B (70:27)

Thanks so much for having me.

C (70:29)

All right, so I want to just, you know, one of the things that's so useful about this book is you kind of debunk certain things or you clarify certain things about what, why there has been no two state solution. So I want to start with a question about history and, and that's about the also accords, the peace effort that began in the early 90s and kind of reached a potential apex at the Camp David summit in 2000, where I think the conventional story in the United States is, you know, that somehow the Palestinians were rejectionists and they wouldn't accept a reasonable proposal. That's certainly the kind of narrative we hear. I want to play a clip that was making the rounds last year of Bill Clinton talking about that process while he was campaigning for Kamala Harris in Michigan. So let's play that clip.

B (71:19)

The only time Yasser Arafat didn't tell me the truth was when he promised me he was going to accept the peace deal that we had worked out, which would have given the Palestinians of state on 96% of the West bank and 4% of Israel. And they got to choose where the 4% of Israel was. So they would have the effect of the same land of all the West Bank. They would have a capital in East Jerusalem. They would have the. I can hardly talk about this. And, and they would have equal access all day, every day to the security towers that Israel maintained all through the west bank up to the golden hats. All this was offered, including, I will say it again, a capital in East Jerusalem and two of the four quadrants of the old City of Jerusalem confirmed by the Israeli Prime Minister Hood Barak and his cabinet. And they said no.

C (72:35)

So, Rob, in the book, you kind of offer slightly different version of history here. And this is not to kind of pick up argument Bill Clinton, but I think it is to kind of contextualize both what the offer was. It was made to the Palestinians and also the nature of the concessions that the Palestinians were making. Because I think the narrative is always about Israel making concessions and the Palestinians not making concessions. Tell us about your version of those events that you were part of, that you write about in the book.

B (73:06)

So it's interesting you start with that clip because Hussein and I had a long argument about how much we wanted to go back to Camp David. And I live in the U.S. he doesn't. And it was in the middle of this campaign, and I remember hearing Bill Clinton and also former First Lady Hillary Clinton speak about this and saying, the Palestinians were offered, and this was in response, remember, to the protest by young Americans in particular, who were appalled by the Biden administration's conduct or enabling of the war, Israel's war in Gaza. And a response that I was hearing both from the President and the first lady was Arafat was offered everything. The Palestinians said no. And sort of the subtext was they're to blame for the predicament that the Palestinians are in today. Which, first of all, I just thought from a moral point of view is a strange response to tell people who are enraged by the genocide and hearing somebody say, well, the Palestinians have a share of blame because of what they did in 2000. So that was part of the impetus to saying, if the two word response to what's happening is Camp David, we need to revisit it. But beyond that, I don't want to pick a bone with the former president. The Palestinians were never offered 100%, which is what he says. It was never 96% and 4% swapped. There was always the view that the Palestinians would get less than the entirety of the west bank. And never was it told to them that they could choose the parts of Israel. In fact, it was pretty clear that Israel would choose the parts of Israel that would be swapped. But the whole framing here, and that's what I find most interesting and what Hussein and I really focus on, the framing, an offer the Palestinians rejected, a generous offer. From the Palestinian perspective, they're not being offered anything. They're giving back. I'm just expressing it the way they see it. They're just being given back what was theirs. And that was stolen from them, they believe back in 1948 and 1967. But the framing, I think, explains a lot of what went wrong in Camp David. The position of the Israelis was, we won. We won in 1948, when you rejected our very existence. We won in 1967, we have won. And now we're being magnanimous and we're offering you a part of what we took over. But with all these restrictions, you won't have control over your borders. You don't have control over your airspace, you won't have the entirety of the territory. You won't have the entirety of East Jerusalem and the Palestinian position. You ask, why do they think that they made a concession? They believe they made their historic concession back in the late 1980s when Yasser Arafat accepted the principle of two states, a Palestinian state on the borders of 67, with capital in East Jerusalem and with the rights of the refugees undefined what that meant being respected. So they felt they had made this step. And then they come to Camp David where they're told, thank you for that compromise, for that concession, which the Israelis didn't even view as a concession, but just a recognition of reality. Now you're going to have to make a concession over and above that concession. And again, Arafat would tell Clinton, we've made our concession. We accepted the principle of land swaps, but it has to be the entirety. We need 100% of the land, and it needs, in his words, land of equal quantity and value. And again, we need all of East Jerusalem minus the Jewish settlements or neighborhoods. And we need the rights of the refugees, but also real sovereignty. And the clash at Camp David is really about to framings of what this conflict is about, which is why, at least in hindsight, Hussein and I look at it and say it was never going to work. In a way, it was sort of two parties talking past each other and the Americans speaking one language, but not the other.

C (76:37)

Yeah, I mean, you get at this issue of kind of competing narratives that are bigger than, you know, a real estate transaction, essentially. And I now want to ask you, you know, just to show, as our listeners know, we're willing to be a bit self critical on this podcast to look at the Obama years. When I look back at those years, and I even felt this at the time, you know, that Rob, you and I talked about it, but essentially we had two efforts at a quote, unquote, peace process. The first was in the first Obama term, George Mitchell and then some other people got involved. And we have kind of these talks that Hillary Clinton was participating in the, that went nowhere. And then John Kerry and you were involved in those, the John Kerry efforts to mediate something. And neither of them really got anywhere near as close as even Camp David did, when I look back on that. And I even felt this at the time, like it seemed like Netanyahu had no interest in actually making an agreement and Mahmoud Abbas had no capacity to make an agreement. You know, he's not Yasser Arafat. He didn't command the kind of legitimacy with the Palestinian people to do hard things. And so where I'm self critical is it sometimes felt like by putting the veneer of a peace process on this thing, we were acting like this problem was still on the road to some possibility of being solved. But actually that was totally in service of Israel because while that's happening, they're building more settlements and Bibi's moving the country to the right and they're, you know, launching multiple wars in Gaza. And you know, what do you make of those Obama years? Do you think that there was ever any possibility that those two efforts were to succeed? Was the problem in design or lack of leverage being brought to bear? Or was the problem just the idea that a so called peace process could yield the two state solutions?

B (78:41)

So there's a lot to unpack there. So first, I think you put your finger on a central theme, the theme of the book, theme of what I've been reflecting upon, which is that the peace process served as a instrument to perpetuate the status quo. And in many ways it served everyone's or the main leader's interest. It serves America's interest under Bill Clinton, under George W. Bush and under President Obama to say, look, we are doing something, we're trying to, which was a way to sort of forestall other efforts that were viewed as more inimical. The Palestinian civil disobedience or boycotts or sanctions or going to the international tribunals. The Americans could say, we have this, we're trying, so don't upset the apple cart and tell our public opinion or Arab leaders, look, we're trying so be on our side. I think it suited the Israelis as well. And there's many quotes from Israeli leaders saying this is a way to sort of keep this issue on low boil. And they continued doing, as you said, constructing settlements at a very rapid pace, even as they were talking in abstract about possible solution. And the Palestinian leadership, and here I speak of the Palestinian Authority, it serves its interest because it got money to keep the feclus and non representative Palestinian Authority afloat. And they could say as well to their people, we're moving because of this peace process. But so the status quo had its appeal for all three parties, not the peoples involved, but for the leadership. Now thinking about President Obama, and you know him far better than I do, but my sense was he knew all this, right? I mean, I think he knew and that's why he looked upon what John Kerry was doing with some admiration. How could you not admire somebody who was as committed, as passionate as anyone I've ever met, but also with a little bit of disillusionment or at least of cynicism, didn't think it was going to go anywhere. I think he rapidly concluded that, as you said, neither Netanyahu nor Abbas had either the will or the capacity, depending on who you're talking about, to get there. But, you know, yeah, sure, if John Kerry wants to keep doing it, why not? But then I remember, and I mentioned this in the book, that he at some point said two things that he said. One was, you know, this is never going to be solved if the parties. And I think he really meant Israel doesn't have to pay the price of the status quo. And why would Israel change anything when it had diplomatic protection, military protection, economic protection from the United States? Why change it and keep going with impunity when they didn't have the incentive? And I think that led the President to think that sometimes the best thing the US could do is take a step back and let the parties, again mainly Israel, live with the consequences of their decisions. Of course, the problem is we didn't really step back. And I think the President knew that we weren't going to really step back. It was during his administration that we signed a 10 year, $3.8 billion military assistance package for Israel and we vetoed Security Council resolutions other than the last one where we abstained. So I think it was one step in, one step out. And I think the President didn't. I think he knew the consequences of what he was doing, but he also didn't feel that here you'd be better placed. He didn't feel he had the political ability to take his own reasoning to its logical conclusion, which would be to make Israel face the consequences of a status quo and have to pay the consequences of the occupation. It's an extraordinary occupation in which the Palestinians are the ones who are in charge of security and the international community is in charge of financing and Israel gets the benefit of controlling the territory. That's pretty unique in history. And again, I think President Obama saw all of it, but just didn't feel like he could do what it would take to really create the incentives, the disincentives and the incentives to get the parties to move and to get Israel to understand that there'd be consequences if it continued down the road it was undertaken.

C (82:28)

Yeah, no, I think that's right. And if I were to add anything to that, in a strange way, we had such a big fight with Netanyahu over the Iran deal that we spent all the part, you know, political capital on that, you know, and it made it harder in a strange way. I mean, Netanyahu made that so costly at home that it made it, it was almost a shield against bringing more leverage to this one.

B (82:53)

But even before that, and again, I wasn't there. It was during the first term, but the whole fight over settlements, which the president seemed to embark in with a lot of energy. And then after a while, he saw his own members of Congress and the Democrat side who were turning against him. He saw that Netanyahu was not, not going to respond to the kind of pressures that he was under. And so that fight was lost. I think that set the tone for a lot that came after.

C (83:16)

I think you're right. Well, you know, you have this kind of history of the two state solution and obviously kind of identify why it's been a kind of almost a flawed construct for how to look at this conflict. But I do want to ask you about right now we're talking France recognized a Palestinian state yesterday. The uk, Australia and Canada recognized a Palestinian state a couple days ago. Their Democratic Party resolutions in both the House and Senate. What do you make of this? I mean, is this a value? I mean, it obviously doesn't even the people doing it acknowledge it doesn't create a Palestinian state. Do you think this is a distraction? Do you think it's useful? How do you look at as someone who spent decades of your life, what do you make of this?

B (84:05)

So it makes me feel a bit uncomfortable saying what I'm going to say because I respect certainly members of Congress, the Democrats who are pushing for this. I think a lot of countries in Europe, Spain in particular, are doing it with exactly the right intent, which is they want to break out of the current catastrophe that is Gaza. I have much less patience or sympathy for some of the motivations I see in others, which seems to be we're being lambasted at home and in the region because we haven't done anything to stop this genocide. And as one way of atoning for our guilt, we're going to do something that's less costly than putting real pressure on Israel. So we're going to recognize a Palestinian state, we're going to celebrate that as a major step towards peace. But I would ask them, and by the way, it's not the first time that people turn to state or to supporting two state solution for reasons that have little to do with the objective itself. President bush in the 2000s, when he did it in order to again atone for his problems having to do with the Iraq war in the region, he said, okay, now we're going to move towards the Palestinian, towards a two state solution or to mobilize support for his so called war on terror. President Biden, when he turned to it at the last minute of his presidency because it was his way to, to maybe get a Saudi, Israeli normalization or at a minimum, to show angry young Americans and people in the region, no, no, no, we do care about the Palestinians because we're on this, we're going to push for this irreversible pathway to Palestinian state. So it's not the first time that's used as a tool for other reasons. But I would ask those who are doing it, okay, what are you going to do the day after when day after recognition, the genocide continues, land grabs and settler violence continues in the west bank, nothing changes, Right? And the Israelis say not just Netanyahu, but the entire political class except for the Arab parties are against a Palestinian state and oppose it with all their might. Public opinion does. So what is it going to change? And my fear, again going back to the theme of the book, is that it's going to be used as a way to say for some European countries to say, we've done our part, we've now recognized the Palestinian state, now it's up to the Palestinians to show that they're worthy of it, which has always been the equation. You've got to reform the pa, you got to have, you got to make sure the education system is different, you have to dissolve Hamas, you have to make sure it never governs again. Now you pay because we've rewarded you with this recognition. And does it lead them to say, now that we've done that, we don't have to take some of the other steps, which would be more costly in terms of pressuring and sanctioning Israel. So my fear is that it's another case where people are going to be disillusioned, frustrated, because nothing's going to change and people don't have the and then what answer. Now my last comment is, if the French and others have a plan to get from here to that two state solution, which was not achieved under exponentially more auspicious circumstances, under Clinton, under Bush, under President Obama, much better circumstances and they failed and failed again, what's their plan now? Show it. I'm all ears. Because if they have a way to get over Israeli objections, to get over the facts on the ground to deal with the 700,000 Jewish settlers in the west bank and Jerusalem, to deal with the question of millions of Palestinian refugees, to deal with all the questions that bedeviled the quest for Tuesday's solution. What they've done by recognizing a state is not resolve the issue. They've restated it, said, yeah, we need a Palestinian state we haven't been able to get in the past. How are they going to get it now?

C (87:39)

Well, yeah, and so, I mean, last thing I want to ask you, and you're quite, you know, you have humility about you're not coming with the plan in this book. I mean, you're meant to. This is a memoir. This is also a history of the two state solution. But you do have some ideas at the end. But I guess the way I'd frame the question is, you know, like you and like the preponderance of people who know more about genocide and war crimes than us, I believe that what we're witnessing in Gaza amounts to genocide. It's not over yet. It feels like we're going to be in a situation where there's probably going to be at least a partial annexation of the west bank, there may be a full ethnic cleansing of the Gaza Strip, and it's going to be this strange situation where Israel will have the maximum amount of kind of, of raw power that it's ever had in terms of its dominion over this territory. And yet it's also going to have the lowest amount of moral standing that it's ever had. And in many ways it's becoming a pariah state in large, huge parts of the world, which is a new dynamic for this conflict. And in terms of where this goes, I mean, you float ideas that are old, ideas that I had actually not thought of in a long time. Right. Like confederation between Palestine and Jordan or even somehow instead of just maybe not like one state with equal rights, but almost separate states that occupy similar territory all the way to just kind of trying to negotiate coexistence. Right. How do you try to open up the optionality here for how this can improve after the absolute horror that we're witnessing now?

B (89:24)

Yeah, so I mean, it's a good question. And first, I'd say for people who are listening to us and who might read the book, this is not, we hope it's not going to be read as a sort of a give up, pessimistic, despairing book. In fact, what we say is some of the optimism or the pretend optimism of people who still clamor two state solution that's the kind of optimism that's lethal because it's a kind of optimism that we've lived with for decades and has led exactly to where we are today. So what we're saying is, is let's learn from history. We need to open up, as you say, open the aperture, go back to basics and try. And it's not us necessarily, it's really Israelis and Palestinians, but hopefully with help from others to rethink how are they going to resolve this conflict. And some of the ideas that have been sort of banished, like only the straitjacket has been the straitjacket or the two state solution. They're ideas that are rooted in the history of the two people. They're people who was talking about a binational state. Back at the beginning of the 20th century, Jews and Palestinians were talking about forms of living together through some kind of confederation. Of course, there's also much less repulsive ideas like ethnic cleansing and forced displacement. So all those ideas and annexation are there too. But in the past there were other people who had different ideas. As you say, I'm not, not a prophet. I don't know what they will be. I'm not even going to come up with a blueprint. But let's not pretend that the only solution is Tuesday's solution, which has not been a solution and which has perpetuated the status quo which led to October 7th and everything that happened since. So if it's not a solution, there has to be something else. And the parties in the past, Israelis and Palestinians got together, thought of creative ideas. I'm not talking about leaders, I'm talking about courageous thinkers on both sides, civil society. Maybe that will happen again. But to simply repeat, there's no solution other than the two state solution. If it's not a solution at all, then it leaves us with nothing. And there has to be. There have to be. I mean, I would hope that Israelis and Palestinians will find some way to coexist. In fact, I believe they will at some point. I may not be around to see it because the pathway they're on today is one of absolute, a nightmare, certainly a nightmare for Palestinians. I'm not sure, as you say, that an Israel that is isolated, that is going to be the victim of acts of violence because if Palestinians have nothing to lose, they're going to try to take it out on Israelis. That's inevitable. So the hope that, and we've tried to leave people in the book is a there are other ideas and it's time to resurface them, but also, and maybe it's a good way to say what it is, or at least to conclude on this, this part, there's a new generation of Americans, and my job now is to teach. And one thing I always ask my students is what has marked you? Where do you think you have your foreign policy conceptions from? You've written about the Blob. I think a lot of the people who we've served with, their experience comes from a certain way of looking at the world that they've inherited and they've replicated. But for me, I could say what marked me was the Vietnam War, which I lived through my parents, and they opposed it, and the Iraq War, which I opposed. Back in President Bush's Iraq War, I took from that a skepticism about the use of American power, about the problem, about always invoking US Credibility as the reason why we have to continue down a path. And I wonder what this generation of Americans that's grown up with Gaza as sort of their. What they see every day and the horrors of Gaza every day, what are they going to take out of it in terms of their vision, the role of the US in the world, the hypocrisy, the double standards, the vacuous moralism that is combined with either an ineffectiveness or complicity in a genocide. And so what will they be 10, 15, 20 years from now? The new Secretaries of state, national security advisor, and I take some solace, some hope, from the fact that they will have lived a period that is going to go down, I think, as a real dark period in our foreign policy, and they may try something different and something better.

C (93:35)

Well, yeah, look, that's a good note to end on because like you said, after periods of destruction, the aperture opens up again in terms of how you deal with things. And we can only hope. What we do know is that history doesn't end, you know, at any point, particularly in the Middle East. Right. I mean, we won't. You can come back on one day to talk about watching the Syrian president Al Shara land in New York for unga. I don't think we would have predicted that five or ten years ago.

B (94:05)

No. And we should also talk about, if it happens, the funeral of the Iran nuclear deal.

C (94:11)

Yeah, well.

B (94:14)

Yeah, some things that are better than expected, other things fall worse.

C (94:17)

Other things that are worse. But I hope people check out the book again. It's, it's, you know, reflects your thoughtfulness and depth of experience. Tomorrow is yesterday. Thanks so much, Rob, for joining us.

B (94:30)

Thank you, Ben. It was really good talking to you.

A (94:36)

Thanks again to Rob Malley for doing the show and we will talk to you next week. Pod Save the World is a Crooked Media production. Our senior producer is Ilona Minkowski. Our associate producer is Michael Goldsmith. Saul Rubin is helping out this summer. Our executive producers are me, Tommy Vitor and Ben Rhodes. The show is mixed and edited by Andrew Chadwick. Jordan Kanter is our audio engineer. Audio support by Kyle Seglin and Charlotte Landis. Thanks to our digital team, Ben Hefcote, Mia Kelman, William Jones, David Toles and Ryan Young. Matt de Groat is our head of production, Adrian Hills, our senior Vice President of news and politics. If you want to listen to Pod Save the World ad free and get access to exclusive podcasts, go to crooked.com friends to subscribe on Supercast, Substack, YouTube or Apple Podcasts. Don't forget to follow us at Crooked media on Instagram, TikTok and Twitter for more original content. Host takeovers and other community events. Plus, find Pod Save the world on YouTube for access to full episodes, bonus content and much more. And if, like us, you're opinionated, leave us a review. Our production staff is proudly unionized by the Writers Guild of America east did you know? 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving. Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving report. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teens safe. Sign up for Greenlight Infinity@Greenlight.com podcast Imagine relying on a dozen different software programs to run your business, none of which are connected, and each one more expensive and more complicated than the last.

C (96:27)

It can be pretty stressful.

A (96:29)

Now imagine Odoo. Odoo has all the programs you'll ever need and are all connected on one platform. Doesn't Odoo sound amazing? Let Odoo harmonize your business with simple, efficient software that can handle everything for a fraction of the price. Sign up today@odoo.com that's o d o o dot com.