Pod Save Our National Security with Tommy Vietor

Summary

---

SpyTalk Podcast: “Pod Save Our National Security with Tommy Vietor”

Date: May 29, 2026
Host(s): Jeff Stein, Michael Isikoff, Karen Greenberg
Guest: Tommy Vietor (Pod Save America/Pod Save the World co-host, former Obama White House National Security spokesperson)

---

Episode Overview

This episode dives deep into the evolving challenges of US national security and the struggle for Democrats to define a compelling, forward-looking foreign policy. The hosts are joined by Tommy Vietor to discuss how the Democratic Party can meaningfully re-engage voters on foreign policy, lessons learned from past administrations, persistent “forever wars,” the US-Israel relationship, Iran, Cuba, China, and more. The discussion is rich with frank assessments, generational and ideological divides, and searching questions about the direction of American leadership in the world.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Recent Intelligence Scandals and Administrative Vulnerabilities

[02:09 - 05:48]

• The hosts open by mocking the case of David Rush, a former CIA officer arrested for stashing $40 million in gold bars, supposedly for "work expenses." They note that he passed polygraph tests despite the obvious ruse, leading to a discussion about flaws and vulnerabilities in US intelligence vetting processes.
  • Jeff Stein: “It shows that mistakes can be made and may still be going on.” [05:43]
  • Implication: Even top clearance systems can be circumvented by skilled insiders—a perpetual national security risk.

2. Weaponizing "Domestic Terrorism" and Its Consequences

[05:49 - 10:20]

• Discussion of Cash Patel’s firing of a senior analyst for nuanced findings about the 2017 congressional baseball shooting—a case now retroactively branded as “domestic terrorism” for political reasons.
  • Hosts and Karen Greenberg argue that “domestic terrorism” is being dangerously stretched to cover all political disorder, diluting its coherence and weaponizing it against opponents.
  • Karen Greenberg: “This is a long slow slide… now… domestic terrorism is used for anybody who does and we’re worried about who also says something that criticizes the government, the made-up antifa threat… headed in a bad direction.” [07:44]
  • Raises fundamental questions about whether the US should adopt a “domestic terrorism” law, and the legal ambiguity of the term.

3. China’s Expanding Influence & US Soft Power Decline

[10:38 - 13:07]

• China’s global reach into policing, law enforcement, and training programs is highlighted as an underappreciated strategic threat.
  • Jeff Stein: “China is training police forces in many developing countries… including on counterterrorism, riot control, and border control for at least 138 countries.” [11:09]
  • The US has dialed back its own soft power tools (like USAID), leaving a vacuum filled by Beijing.

---

In-Depth Interview with Tommy Vietor

[14:42 - 61:26]

4. Reimagining Democratic Foreign Policy

Intro & Branding Challenge
[14:42 - 16:56]

• Vietor is asked whether he’s trying to lead a movement for a new Democratic foreign policy.
  • Tommy Vietor (wryly): “Hey, I’ll take it.” [14:58]
  • Pushes back on being an ideological leader, and criticizes the bipartisan “Blob” mentality—over-reliance on military solutions and counterproductive sanctions.

On Military Overreach & Sanctions
[15:35]

• Vietor: “People just want to get back to something a little more common sense, less militaristic and more focused on core US interests and not… the new Don Road doctrine where we are apparently the emperor of the Western hemisphere.” [15:35]

Branding the Democrats on Foreign Policy
[16:44 - 18:21]

• The Israel issue, Ukraine, and the challenge of connecting with voters are discussed.
  • Vietor: “Most people, when you learn that the US has provided Israel with over $300 billion in aid… they think that’s kind of bonkers.” [17:11]
  • Argues for rebalancing the US-Israel relationship and applying aid with conditions around human rights.

Debate: Israel, Two-State Solution, and Political Reality
[18:21 - 22:36]

• Michael Isikoff presses on the complexity of implementing Van Hollen's call for practical recognition of Palestine.
  • Vietor: “The two-state solution is bullshit and it’s been dead for decades… politicians in America say they support [it] in lieu of actually doing something.” [20:27]
  • Vietor: “The status quo is terrible… What’s an alternative view?” [21:11]

Changing Public and Party Attitudes
[22:36 - 24:36]

• Vietor: “Anyone under 40 has only grown up with Bibi Netanyahu as the prime minister of Israel… there’s an enormous amount of cynicism towards that relationship.” [22:43]
• Notes a generational and ideological shift, with both party bases drifting from establishment orthodoxy.

On Including Fringe and Outrageous Viewpoints
[24:36 - 26:00]

• Discusses Jon Favreau’s interview with Hasan Piker, whose incendiary statements (“Hamas is a thousand times better than Israel… 9/11 was deserved”) prompt debate about acceptable boundaries in liberal foreign policy discourse.
  • Vietor: “He is a part of the Democratic Party foreign policy debate… I totally disagree with him… But… I think Hasan is speaking to how people feel.” [24:36 - 26:00]

---

5. Progressive Movement and Future Voices in Foreign Policy

[26:00 - 29:52]

• Karen Greenberg asks how to bring new, progressive voices to prominence.
  • Vietor: Cites younger House members (e.g., Maxwell Frost, Sarah Jacobs, Yasmine Ansari) as hopeful examples.
  • Concerned about the loss of diplomatic capacity due to institutional cuts.
  • “Building back the Foreign Service is going to have to be a huge priority of the next administration.” [28:44]

6. Linking National Security to Everyday American Concerns

[29:52 - 31:59]

• Vietor: Americans “inherently know the US hasn't gotten a lot of value out of the post 9/11 wars.”
  • $8 trillion cost cited (Brown University) and a call for a conversation about the lost opportunity costs.
  • Trump was able to harness anti-war sentiment effectively, even if he didn’t follow through.

7. Leadership, Iran, and Trump’s Policies

[31:59 - 38:05]

• Debate over Iran: What if a deal on the Strait of Hormuz cannot be reached?
  • Vietor: “There is no next step… What the hell is Tom Friedman talking about? …The only option is a deal.” [34:16]
  • Claims Trump will have to accept the same kind of deal as the Obama administration, or worse, politically harming himself.
• On risks of nuclear escalation:
  • Vietor: “I do worry about [Trump ordering a nuclear strike]… Of course I think they [the military] would follow orders… There’s a lot of purging going on.” [36:48]

---

8. International Coordination & America’s Reputation

[39:18 - 41:01]

• Progressives lack the cross-border coordination that characterizes the global right (e.g., CPAC’s international expansion).
  • “There should be more of that… There’s just not really that much of it that I’m aware [of].” [39:18]

9. Cuba: What Now?

[42:09 - 48:01]

• Obama’s opening to Cuba is contrasted with Trump’s re-escalation and new sanctions, leading to mass deprivation.

  • Vietor: “We are starving an island to death… what we are doing to that island is evil.” [44:48]
  • Argues for ending the failed embargo, restoring travel and commercial ties, and letting political reform happen organically.

• On the instability of American foreign policy:

  • Vietor: “We look like a basket case to the world right now… We look like a completely unstable, unreliable ally.” [46:12]

10. Limits of Executive Power and the Need for Congressional Oversight

[48:01 - 49:11]

• Advocates for Congress reclaiming authority over war powers, revising AUMF, strengthening the War Powers Act.
  • “We have to find a way that just creates more friction on presidents before they put service members into hostilities.” [48:20]

11. Messaging, American Identity, and Foreign Policy Vision

[49:11 - 52:13]

• Asked for a new “ask not” rallying cry, Vietor believes Americans need “an optimistic, hopeful vision of the future… makes them feel good about America and the story of America, even while recognizing its imperfections.” [49:55]
  • Parallel drawn between 1960 Cold War anxiety and current sense of threat from Iran and China.

12. Ukraine & Russia Policy

[52:19 - 55:03]

• Vietor: Stresses ongoing US intelligence and technological support for Ukraine should continue, praises the Biden approach but notes the lack of a diplomatic track for resolution.
  • Critiques Trump’s “diplomatic” overtures as unserious and self-dealing.

13. Democratic Accountability and Internal Critique

[56:29 - 60:37]

• Karen Greenberg raises the importance of Democrats owning up to past mistakes.

  • Vietor: “We constantly talk about mistakes we made… It’s a very important thing, in my view.” [57:17]
  • Not all party leaders are receptive—“there’s a lot of muscle memory and scar tissue from post-9/11 political fights.” [58:17]

• On the future of Democratic foreign policy leadership:

  • Vietor: “President Biden made a series of catastrophic mistakes… Jake [Sullivan] was obviously an important part of that team… I understand people who say we need new voices.” [59:21]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Passing Polygraphs

  • Jeff Stein: “He passed the so-called lie detector or polygraph tests, showing once again that these things can be beaten by a skilled, dedicated liar.” [02:42]

• On US Aid to Israel

  • Tommy Vietor: “Israel’s a rich country. They probably don't need $3.3 billion a year from US. US military sales should not come with no strings attached…” [17:40]

• On the Two-State Solution

  • Tommy Vietor: “The two-state solution is bullshit and it’s been dead for decades… politicians in America say they support [it] in lieu of actually doing something.” [20:27]

• Blunt on Iran and Trump

  • Tommy Vietor: “The only option is a deal. The problem is Trump’s ego. He’s going to need to eat some shit and have some FDD in the right wing…” [34:29]

• Nuclear Concerns

  • Jeff Stein: “…this emotionally bent president, who runs totally on the fumes of his ego, will try to reach for a nuclear weapon as a way to solve this issue. Does that worry you?” [35:47]
  • Vietor: "There’s a lot of purging going on… is there a 5% chance? Absolutely." [37:35]

• On Americans’ Desire for Optimism

  • Tommy Vietor: “What Americans want to hear is an optimistic, hopeful vision… not just sounding hopeless or bleak or running down the country.” [49:55]

---

Key Timestamps

• 02:09 — CIA gold scandal and polygraph critique
• 05:49 — “Domestic terrorism” definition and weaponization debate
• 11:28 — China’s global policing programs; US soft power
• 14:42 — Tommy Vietor joins the show
• 15:35 — Critique of bipartisan foreign policy “Blob”
• 17:11 — Israel’s military aid examined
• 20:27 — Two-state solution called “bullshit”
• 24:36 — Hasan Piker interview controversy
• 28:44 — Rebuilding diplomatic institutions, new voices
• 31:43 — Linking forever wars to domestic voter issues
• 34:16 — Options on Iran: war or deal
• 36:48 — Nuclear escalation fears under Trump
• 44:48 — US policy toward Cuba as “evil”
• 48:01 — Need for Congressional reassertion over foreign wars
• 49:55 — On American optimism and narrative
• 52:19 — Ukraine strategy and failure of diplomatic track
• 57:17 — On learning from Democratic foreign policy mistakes

---

Conclusion

This dynamic episode probes the cracks in America’s national security bureaucracy, the dangers of ill-defined and weaponized terminology, and the profound struggle both major parties face in crafting a future-looking foreign policy that resonates with—and protects—the American public. Tommy Vietor emerges as a voice for more pragmatic, less militarized Democratic engagement, highlighting the need for fresh leadership, openness to critique, and a rejuvenated vision that connects security to everyday American life.

---

Transcript

[Jeff Stein]

I'm Brian Caram and I've spent decades covering politics.

[Tommy Vietor]

Now I'm taking you behind the scenes,

[Jeff Stein]

one interview at a time.

[Michael Isikoff]

Join us as each week Brian confronts

[Tommy Vietor]

the issues that matter, posing the questions you wish you could ask. No filter, no agenda, just the truth.

[Jeff Stein]

We're not here for sound bites. We're here for substance. Join me, Brian Caram, every week as we cut through the noise and get straight to it.

[Michael Isikoff]

This is Just Ask the Question where

[Jeff Stein]

curiosity will lead us to the facts.

[Tommy Vietor]

Subscribe now on your favorite podcast platform and remember, when you want answers, all you have to do is just ask the question.

[Grainger Ad Voice]

When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the

[Karen Greenberg]

way you want, like all the way.

[Grainger Ad Voice]

Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha chings from every channel

[Karen Greenberg]

right in one spot.

[Grainger Ad Voice]

And turn real time reporting into big time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today. Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Tommy Vietor]

MSW.

[Grainger Ad Voice]

Spy Talk, a podcast at the intersection of intelligence, foreign policy, national security and military operations.

[Jeff Stein]

Hi there, I'm Jeff Stein.

[Michael Isikoff]

I'm Michael Isogoff.

[Karen Greenberg]

And I'm Karen Greenberg.

[Jeff Stein]

Well, there's plenty to worry about in our sector of the national security world, per usual. But first there came news yesterday that really made me laugh. And that is the story of David Rush, a former senior CIA officer with a top secret clearance who has been arrested on charges of secretly stashing $40 million worth of gold bars in his home that he said he needed for, quote, work related expenses. Now one thing that really caught my eye in that story, that was that he passed the so called lie detector or polygraph tests showing once again that these things can be beaten by a skilled, dedicated liar.

[Michael Isikoff]

Aldrich Ames, I think. Beth Scanner was on CNN last night and said after she looked at the court papers on this that she concluded the guy was a pathological liar because that's the only way. The only way you could pass a polygraph that you're a. Yeah, you can't

[Jeff Stein]

do that if you're timid. You have to be a skilled liar like Alder James, almost a criminal mind. Reminds me is that movie, 2002 movie with Leonard DiCaprio and Tom Hanks, you know, the guy who reinvented himself in a million ways. But you know, they just, they didn't double check his academic credentials, they didn't double check his military record.

[Michael Isikoff]

Yes. Until he was getting ready to retire when they apparently caught it. But you know, the mind boggling thing to me is he says he got this as work related expenses. So now he's a covert op. So understand, you know, you in that business you have to pay people for information. You have to induce them in many different ways. But 303 gold bars worth $40 million plus $2 million in cash. Like is there some accounting system at the CIA for covert ops?

[Jeff Stein]

Yeah, there is, there's some accounting system for gold bars. But here's the thing. I asked, I queried some of my covert action veteran friends and they said not likely for espionage for kind of obvious reasons. If you, if you've, you know, suborned a secretary in the IRGC to, to, you know, as a spy for us, for example, you're not going to pay them in gold bars and so on, you have to do that in very unobtrusive ways. It would not draw attention. One of my former CIA friends said it was mostly involved in a criminal kind of enterprise. Either infiltrating a criminal enterprise like narcotics and so on, or being a criminal yourself and wanting to get involved in a criminal exercise.

[Karen Greenberg]

But a lot of questions but Jeff, what's your ultimate takeaway from this? I mean that, oh, this was a fluke. Oh my goodness. We need to review. I mean we really need to think about this in terms of the larger a system.

[Michael Isikoff]

What are your main look? I like everybody is at the file expense account at various times and somebody reviews them. I'm just trying to imagine what the expense account system was. And they're seeing, you know, millions of gold bars.

[Karen Greenberg]

Mistakes were made. It's in the past.

[Jeff Stein]

No mistakes are just shows that mistakes can be made and may still be

[Michael Isikoff]

going on are still being made.

[Jeff Stein]

I mean who knows whether we will find some co conspirators. And of course these, these, these charges against them which are quite minor really right now. They could be, there could be supplemental charges coming in as the investigation proceeds. But boy, you know, it's just slovenly administration. Let's put it that way. Anyway, let's move on. Cash Patel back in the news fires another senior official for flimsy reasons. It seems to me a senior analyst who wrote the report on the shootout at the Republican baseball game a few years ago and she investigated and wrote it up as you know, a one off another crazy guy who as she put it, was committing suicide by cop. It was not an incident of domestic terrorism, but of course because it was directed to Republicans and Cash Patel and Trump are on this campaign to root out everything, you know she's getting fired because she wrote it wasn't domestic terrorism. And you know they're on the war path to, to label anybody, any liberal group, any, any group or individual opposed to Trump as, as well, I gotta

[Michael Isikoff]

say it me as domestic terrorism. The guy was there with a political motive to shoot and kill Republican congressmen. If that's not.

[Jeff Stein]

Not a domestic terrorist.

[Michael Isikoff]

It's not a domestic terrorist.

[Jeff Stein]

No, it's a one off these self starters.

[Michael Isikoff]

What do you mean?

[Jeff Stein]

We've had guests on in the past. I'm so talking about these being the, being the greatest threat, security threat in America is these one off guys who are not terrorists, but we label them

[Michael Isikoff]

terrorism all the time. In fact, the FBI ended up labeling this domestic.

[Jeff Stein]

What kind of road do you go

[Karen Greenberg]

down when you guys. Because this is exactly one of the really dire things that's happened since 911 which is making way common and diluting the word terrorist and what it means. Does it mean belonging to a cell? Does it mean having international ties? We've debated this in Congress and in the White House now for more than two decades. And what happens now is that domestic terrorism is used for anybody who does and we're worried about who also says something that criticizes the government, the made up antifa threat. So this is a long slow slide that's been happening for a long time and without any kind of ability to stop it, it sinks. And we've talked about this before on the show. It's headed in a bad direction.

[Jeff Stein]

Yeah, we've had experts on the show talking about this. If you start turning these nutballs in like the guy who shot up the correspondence dinner and so on and the guy who showed up with a gun outside the White House gate last week and you start calling them domestic terrorists, you're saying all Americans are potential terrorists. I mean if you can't differentiate the difference between Al Qaeda and opponents of Trump, then then you've lost your whole entire.

[Michael Isikoff]

Wait, wait, wait. It's not an opponent of Trump, it's a guy who went to a baseball game with the intention of shooting and kill, killing Republican congressmen. Suicide by political motive. That's a political motive. We define terrorism as acts of violence in furtherance of a political end. Yes, I'm sorry, I shouldn't pass the test.

[Karen Greenberg]

But the real question is, what does this mean legally? Does it. You know, you could call them whatever you want, but do you prosecute them for terrorism? Which, you know, how are you going to do that? Are you going to. What do you mean?

[Michael Isikoff]

We have laws.

[Karen Greenberg]

We have laws that you can prosecute for certain kinds of material support, etcetera, Et cetera. Much of it is based on sort of older structures that had to do with international ties, et cetera, et cetera, group affiliation, swearing allegiance, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. But the fact is that we've so expanded this category that when it happens, even when it looks like terrorism, we have to really rethink about the fact that we have not defined the term. You think you've defined it, and that's fine. And it is there in some laws here and there, but we have a very opaque, large, large, vast use of the word terrorism that we are not using.

[Michael Isikoff]

Well, this gets to the question is, should we have a domestic terrorism law?

[Karen Greenberg]

Yes. And the answer is no. We could. Yeah. And we have an answer. So we don't even have to say that. The answer is,

[Jeff Stein]

I'm with you, Karen, and you're. You're voted off the island.

[Michael Isikoff]

All right, not for the first time.

[Jeff Stein]

What else? China. China, China. You know, we have the Trump summit, during which he got played like a mouse by a cat in the form of Xi Jinping, it seems to me. And he sort of, you know, dismissed the idea that of Chinese espionage was massive espionage directed at the United States. And now there's word that China is training this. Listen to this. China is training police forces in many developing countries. Since 2000, it has held nearly 900 training sessions, including on counterterrorism, riot control, and border control for at least 138 countries. Now, this seems to me a strategic threat to the United States. Karen, you're leaning in on that?

[Karen Greenberg]

Well, I just think if you understand how the Chinese have decided to deal with the world at large over the past two decades, and you look at Belt and Road, which basically was helping build infrastructure, developing ties with communities, et cetera, et cetera, it's not surprising that this would be one step more. It's a question of where can we become valuable and in some cases invaluable to other communities, peoples, countries and at the same time, and I don't think this should be minimized, create a sort of bonds and ties that will be important in the future depending on what the political circumstances turn out to be.

[Jeff Stein]

It's a soft power issue.

[Karen Greenberg]

Yeah.

[Jeff Stein]

You know, and we've wiped out, eliminated literally the US Agency for International Development which used to be running these police training programs and so on. We're on our back heel on this Ebola crisis because of that cash. Patel has been firing counterintelligence agents because they got on the wrong side regarding some Trump investigation and so on. What a message. Let's move on to our guest Tommy Veeder, who was a White House national security spokesman and special assistant to President Barack Obama. He went on to become a co founder of Crooked Media with fellow veterans of President Obama's speechwriting team, Jon Favreau and John Lovett. And he co hosts the wildly popular Pod Save America, Pod Save the World and other pods. He also co authored the New York Times bestseller Democracy Or Else was Favreau and Lovett. The book addresses the central question, how do you get involved in the political process and make a real difference without losing hope or your sense of self? It breaks down the process into actionable steps from basic voter education to running for office. And so we're bringing Tommy on to talk about how to re engage Democratic voters on foreign policy and national security issues. And without further ado, let's do that right now.

[Grainger Ad Voice]

Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail. Filters ready to clog H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail. Filters ready to clog H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.

[Jeff Stein]

Tommy viter, welcome to SpyTalk. What a pleasure to have you here. Now you're leading a movement to develop a new foreign policy for Democrats. Oh no.

[Karen Greenberg]

Am I?

[Jeff Stein]

Well, that's what the, that's why we're having you on.

[Tommy Vietor]

Hey, I'll take it. I'll lead that movement.

[Jeff Stein]

Well, would I be wrong to assume what that really means is getting back to the old traditional foreign policies that served us pretty well since 1945? Strong support for NATO countering China. What about the so called forever wars which President Obama inherited and continued in Iraq and Afghanistan? Then there's the Iranian porcupine. So what's going to be new about your policies and how to get Democrats energized and motivated to develop a new foreign policy?

[Tommy Vietor]

Well, I mean, look, I think first of all, thank you for having me. I would in no way describe myself as someone who is trying to lead a new foreign policy consensus or push some new dogma or set of ideas. I think I'm someone who worked in the Obama administration, saw a lot of things in D.C. that were broken, that were some, many of them were partisan, many of them were bipartisan problems. There's sort of a, you know, Ben Rhodes famously called them the Blob. It is this, you know, kind of permanent class of foreign policy thinking that often leads to using the US Military to solve diplomatic problems, for example, I think has led to an over reliance on, on sanctions even when the end goal of those sanctions somehow never gets accomplished. But we are crushing the economies and you know, populations of countries like Cuba, for example. I think people just want to get back to something a little more common sense, less militaristic and more focused on core US Interests and not, you know, whatever Trump is doing now. The new Don Road doctrine where we are apparently the emperor of the Western hemisphere.

[Jeff Stein]

Democrats have a pretty bad brand. It's widely reported. So how do you reformulate these ideas to catch the electorate's interest?

[Tommy Vietor]

Well, I mean, look, I think the idea that, you know, the part that's most animating the Democratic Party right now is US Foreign policy towards Israel. It's the war in Gaza, it's the war in Ukraine. And I think in many ways that should be the easiest. I mean, I think you're just trying to right size the US Israeli relationship and make it more in line with the US Relationship with say France or any other country in the world. I think most people, when you learn that the US has provided Israel with over $300 billion in aid, mostly military aid since 1946. They think that's kind of bonkers. As you all know, one of the second highest or third highest recipients is Egypt. And most of that money is contingent on making peace with Israel. So that's a lot of dough. And then on top of that, you have all kinds of additional emergency funding for programs like the Iron Dome. You have, you know, you direct US Military action in defense of Israel in the war with Iran. And then there's all this diplomatic support for the Israeli government. And I think what people are just saying is, hey, Israel's a rich country. They probably don't need $3.3 billion a year from US US military sales should not come with no strings attached, should not be given to units that commit human rights violations or to annex the west bank or just, you know, providing blanket cover at the UN Even when it's in contravention of US Policy. So those are the sorts of things I think Democrats are talking about.

[Michael Isikoff]

Well, let me, you know, Tommy, you say that was. This is the easy part. And you know, I haven't. Senator Van Hollen had this quite provocative op ed in the New York Times the other day, which your Pod Save the World co host Ben Rhodes provingly tweeted to the world. And I gotta say, when he actually laid out what the Democratic policy should be, it was a lot more complicated and problematic than I think you're presenting and most people have thought. He writes, democrats should pursue a last gas effort to salvage two state solution. If that fails, the United States will have to consider other options to secure equal political and legal rights for all. And he goes on to say the next Democratic president should recognize the state of Palestine that is subject to clear benchmarks, including free and fair elections, unless and until a different agreement is reached, the United States should treat Gaza and the west bank, including East Jerusalem, as part of Palestine. Now, is that what you have in mind? And you guys, Ben Rhodes, the rest of you have in mind. And if so, I'm just trying to imagine how exactly that would work. What government in Palestine would the United States be dealing with? And if the Israelis refused to evacuate the west bank, who's going to expel the Israeli army, not to mention 700,000 Israeli settlers?

[Tommy Vietor]

So I read the op ed too. I mean, I'm not going to say that I've sort of ascribed to all of Senator Van Hollen's views or have dug through all the specifics of his proposal, but I think he is more in line with where most of the American People are on foreign policy than, you know, look, I think so answer,

[Michael Isikoff]

but answer my question. How does this work in actual practicality? Who are you going to deal with? I mean, Hamas in Gaza.

[Tommy Vietor]

I mean, let me just like, let me just step back. I think what people are getting at is the two state solution is bullshit and it's de and it's been dead for decades. And it's a thing politicians in America say they support in lieu of actually doing something. We say, oh yeah, well, the two sides need to talk and everyone knows there's no chance in hell that's going to happen. BB Netanyahu brags about his efforts to kill off a two state solution. And that was before October 7th, which hardened populations in both areas. So I think people are trying to say, okay, the status quo is terrible. Agree the status quo is driving terrorist attacks and Hamas and violence against Israelis and killing Israelis. And the two. And the status quo is leading to life being hell on earth for the Palestinian people, especially people in Gaza. So what's an alternative view? I think what Senator Van Hollen is talking about is being realistic and using a carrot and a stick approach when it comes to Israel and not doing what Joe Biden did and what Donald Trump did, which is give a blank check to everything Bibi Netanyahu wants, no matter how many kids he massacres with the bombs, we are giving to him and put in, not put any pressure on their side to make concessions. And a two state solution is going to require concessions. A one state solution or recognitions of a Palestinian state is going to require concessions. Why can't we talk honestly about that?

[Michael Isikoff]

Well, yeah, but I mean, the question is who's going to make those concessions and under what terms?

[Tommy Vietor]

I mean, so you're just conceding the west bank is going to be Israeli? Like I realize it'd be hard to expel those settlers.

[Michael Isikoff]

Not at all. But I'm just saying I just want to see how you get from where you want to go to there. And I don't see it.

[Tommy Vietor]

I mean, I don't see it either. It's really hard. It's brutally difficult.

[Jeff Stein]

Yeah, I'd like to step back, I think, before we get to how do you implement, you know, recognizing Palestine? I mean, how do you get, I mean, if Social Security is the third rail of American politics, you know, Israel is the fourth rail right next to the third rail. How do you get, I think is more to what you're, you're doing. How do you get to people even talk about these issues in A in a way that some, some energetic and innovative policy discussions can even occur.

[Tommy Vietor]

I think that Israel and these policy issues used to be a third rail and it used to be a thing in D.C. where you had to, you know, play within the 40 yard lines or else you'd never advance to get another job. The American people, since the war in Gaza started, have moved in a very different direction. Anyone under 40 has only grown up with Bibi Netanyahu as the prime minister of Israel. They have seen him come to the US to undercut a Democratic president and his efforts to make peace with Iran. They have seen his repeated bombing of Gaza and the overreach there. And so there's an enormous amount of cynicism towards that relationship. And I think you're starting to see people wake up to that. I think like the Democratic Party, the establishment, the elected officials have moved unbelievably quickly when it comes to conditioning aid to Israel, possibly cutting off military sales or support, but they're still not where the base of the party is. And I also think disconcertingly you're also seeing the far right of the Republican Party moving to this place quickly, but with some messaging from some really dark places, you know, some like neo Nazi fringe people like Nick Fuentes. And I think to the point you're getting at is when we don't have an honest conversation about the realities on the ground, the leaders involved, and when people get told, you know, it's anti Semitic to, to single out Israel or criticize the country, you know, like under the IHRA definition of anti Semitism, that's when you push that conversation to these fringes and you elevate those voices. Those are the things that concern me.

[Michael Isikoff]

Well, speaking of fringes, your other, one of your other co hosts, Jon Favreau, did a long interview with Hassan Piker recently, Hasan Piker, who said that Hamas is a thousand times better than Israel and 911 and America deserved 9 11. Is that a voice and a perspective that should be part of the Democratic Party debate on foreign policy?

[Tommy Vietor]

He is a part of the Democratic Party foreign policy debate. And so I think we should work with the world as it is, not some sanitized version that we might want it to be. I don't. Hasan has apologized and walked back the US deserved 911 point. I think what he was trying to talk about is the concept of blowback, which is something you all know very well, which is that foreign policy decisions can lead to the growth of groups like Al Qaeda, which can lead to horrible things. I Don't think that's blaming the United States to say that. I totally disagree with him that. That Hamas is a thousand times better than the idf. I think he was trying to make a point in a, you know, like, hyperbolic way about the death toll when you total it up. Again, I think Hamas is a horrible organization. I think they have done more harm to the Palestinian people in Gaza than almost anyone. And what I would want to do would be to empower the Palestinian Authority and other groups to, you know, have a more serious diplomatic conversation. But I think what Hasan is speaking to is what I was talking about earlier, which is like the. Just the outrage people feel. Waking up in the morning for the last several years and seeing the IDF bombing a camp in Gaza or killing another kid, that is radicalizing for people. And I think Hasan is speaking to how people feel.

[Karen Greenberg]

So one of the things that you focus on in a number of ways is educating the American public, educating politicians, both. Right. Like, what would be viable both in terms of policy and practice, but also what would be viable in terms of what we're going to get people to vote for. And so what I'm interested in that, Lane, is there's been a lot of talk about the Democratic Party moving to more progressive international, global policy. Can you just talk to us a little bit about how you see what that progressive movement is. Is. And it doesn't have to be just in the context of Israel.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, I mean, I think. I think a lot of it is frustration with just decades of endless war and using the United States military to solve diplomatic problems. And this is where, like, hand up. I worked in the Obama administration, and I think we made this mistake, too. And I think that there's a long tail from some of those mistakes. I mean, look at. Look at the war in Libya in the way that the outcome there has spilled out through into Northern Africa and parts of the Sahel and, you know, like, it led to a series of coups. You know, so, like, those are the sorts of things I think people are worried about. I think one thing that I think drives a lot of people crazy is that diplomatic deals seem to get more scrutiny in pushback than wars.

[Karen Greenberg]

Right.

[Tommy Vietor]

Like, the JCPOA was nitpicked to death. Even Democrats that I like and respect still start every sentence about the jcpoa, talking about its flaws and its limitations and this and that. We need to talk about the world as it is in the alternative, which is this catastrophic war that we're watching right now, where, you know, maybe the best case Outcome for Trump is a JCPO like deal at the end. But like, look what we went through to get there. So it's talking about those kinds of things. It's talking about another, a renewed focus on human rights, for example. At the very least, just sort of like not being this kind of maligned force at times in the world.

[Karen Greenberg]

Yeah. Has there. Has there. Just to follow up a little bit on that. Because in order to have new ideas and not people who will nitpick the JCPOA to death to give you an example and you focus on this. You do need new voices. So I'm just wondering how you think about finding the younger voices who are in or out of politics. They could be policy people, experts at one way or another, working at something tank. Or do you think about, wait a minute, we need new voices. We need to think about who are the leaders of the future. Who's gonna be the Wendy Sherman of the next generation. What's happening in that area when it

[Tommy Vietor]

comes to finding the next Wendy Sherman? I think that's going to be really challenging because of all the cuts to the State Department and all the pushing out of all these brilliant career foreign service officers who are just, you know, demoralized and had their remits cut. You know, they were pushed out in the first Trump administration. They're getting pushed out again. So building back the Foreign Service is going to have to be a huge priority of the next administration. You're also going to have to build back some new iteration of usaid. You know, look at what's happening now with this Ebola outbreak and the harm it's doing to our ability to provide, you know, health services, screening, you know, intelligence on where it's spreading. I mean, right. It's a catastrophic disaster. And there will be some thinking there. I do think there are some young, progressive, really impressive voices on foreign policy in Congress right now that people can look to for leaderships. One like Yasmine Ansari, Maxwell Frost down in Florida. Like there's a bunch of young, smart, progressive thinker Sarah Jacobs is doing a lot of great work trying to put pressure on the UAE over its role in funding the civil war in Sudan. I think the voices are there. The question is just like, how do you get them heard and elevated?

[Jeff Stein]

You're an expert on communications. You're a leading expert on communications. So, you know, as is often said, elections are what people vote on their bellies or their stomachs, you know, their well being and so on. How do you make a connection between. You're also A national security guy. So how do you make this connection to voters between national security disasters or these forever wars and their, and people's well being? Is there a way to, is there a road into that?

[Tommy Vietor]

You see, I mean, I think at the moment you drive them to any gas station and you point up.

[Michael Isikoff]

Right.

[Tommy Vietor]

I mean, that part is sort of is being made clear right now to people. I think that people inherently know that the US hasn't gotten a lot of value out of the post 911 wars. You know, I mean, again, I, I say this with humility. Like is, is the threat from Al Qaeda or isis diminished since 2009? I don't think so. I think it's metastasized and spread and is, is a more complicated question. So I think people are furious about the, the price tag. I mean, what does Brown University say? The price tag has been all in like $8 trillion from the post 911 wars. When you consider the veterans benefits and things, I think it's a conversation like imagine if we had spent that money elsewhere. Now, Donald Trump, I think really effectively harnessed that sentiment. He ran. He did. He ran on not making these mistakes. He hired people like Tulsi Gabbard, whose reason for being was preventing the next regime change war. And then he completely went against his campaign promises. So I think that will be a potent message for someone both in the Democratic Party, but also in the Republican Party. You know, you could see someone like Tucker Carlson running a fully isolationist campaign.

[Jeff Stein]

Do you see anyone at the national level that, that fits your ideal for the kind of candidate who can grasp the national imagination for the Democrats on these issues?

[Tommy Vietor]

I mean, I think Van Hollen's shown some really impressive leadership. You mentioned him earlier. I think Jon Ossoff down in Georgia is doing an excellent job, I think, talking about complicated foreign policy interests, but also connecting it to your own life. And talking about corruption in the way autocrats fuel autocratic movements through corruption. I think he's been really impressive. So there's a bunch of folks out there in the party. It's just, it's not clear at all who's going to decide to run in 2028 and kind of get that megaphone.

[Jeff Stein]

Not clear at all.

[Michael Isikoff]

So let's, let's talk about Iran a little bit. I think, you know, we can all agree that whatever Donald Trump had in mind when he started this war, it's led to a much more hardline regime in Tehran led by the irgc. Now, I watched your Pod Save the World show the other day. You were talking about where we are today. And I should point out that, you know, this is Thursday. Axios is reporting yet again, deal has been reached but hasn't been signed. So let's put that aside for the

[Jeff Stein]

memorandum to make a deal. Yeah, I mean, what, whatever, non starter.

[Michael Isikoff]

But I mean the fact is the straits, the Strait of Hormuz is still closed. Oil isn't getting through. This is causing catastrophic consequences around the world. And I heard you say it's horrible that people in Asia are starving as a result of what's going on in the Strait. So let's just say that the IRGC and Trump don't reach a deal on opening up the strait and this continues. At which point what is the, what is the alternative? I mean, and you know, there are those including Tom Friedman who said we need an international armada militarily to go in and clean up the strait because otherwise the ROGC has the entire world hostage to, you know, on the oil. What?

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah.

[Michael Isikoff]

If there is no deal, what is the next step there?

[Tommy Vietor]

There is no next step. There is no international armada. What the hell is Tom Friedman talking about? We have the biggest navy in the world. Do you think the Chinese are going to help out with.

[Michael Isikoff]

Okay, so unilaterally should we go?

[Jeff Stein]

Every war game we have played on

[Karen Greenberg]

this,

[Tommy Vietor]

Mike, the only option is a deal. The problem is Trump's ego. He's going to need to eat some shit and have some FDD in the right wing.

[Michael Isikoff]

Well, he's going to have to do that anyway.

[Tommy Vietor]

That is the only option. That is the only option he can. He is going to have to cut a deal with Iran that he could have had without a war and be told that his deal was potentially the same or weaker than Obama's and boo hoo to him if his political standing takes a hit. But that's the only option on the table. And if I was Iran, what I would do is I would, I would trade over the so called nuclear dust. It's highly enriched uranium by the way. It's not dust. And make that the thing that I give up in return for some sort of sanctions relief or unfrozen assets and some sort of JCPO like agreement to limit enrichment. That will have all the problems that people whine about today in terms of the sunset provisions and this and that. And it doesn't include ballistic missiles and it doesn't include support for proxies. But that's the problem with living in a reality based community. We have to sort of operate in that framework.

[Jeff Stein]

Right.

[Tommy Vietor]

And like that. That's sort of why the nitpicking of the JCPOA drives me crazy, because people act like Iran. There was some deal on the table where they would have given up their nukes, their ballistic missiles, and their support for proxy groups when that was just never, ever, ever going to happen. And Trump is now like, he's touched the stove and he's getting burned and he's going to just have to eat it politically one way or the other.

[Jeff Stein]

More than burned, he's maneuvered us into a strategic defeat. A fifth rate power has boxed the most, the world's strongest military into a box. And the question is how we get out. I worry that this emotionally bent president, who runs totally on the fumes of his ego, will try to reach for a nuclear weapon as a way to solve this issue. Does that worry you? And how do you think the, the chain of command on nuclear weapons would react if the president, like Nixon, like Nixon's aides, were worried about him starting, you know, nuclear war? Do you worry about the chain of command under Trump that would actually allow him to drop a nuclear weapon of any size on Iran?

[Tommy Vietor]

I do worry about that. I mean, one of the reasons I worried about it was because all of a sudden Tucker Carlson started talking about this question a lot. His suggestion that Trump's rhetoric was kind of trying to pave the way for some sort of nuclear use.

[Jeff Stein]

That's what I heard, too.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah. And so I think there, there is this. I, of course, I think they would follow orders. I mean, I think that's what the military does. And they have purged.

[Michael Isikoff]

I don't know, Trump has, Trump has punted time and again about resuming the military.

[Tommy Vietor]

He doesn't want the war to keep going, for sure.

[Michael Isikoff]

Well, yeah, I mean, you know, he threatens the bomb, power plants and bridges, and then he, you know, backs off. I mean, so I'm not, I'm not quite sure that that's, you know, I

[Tommy Vietor]

mean, I'm not arguing that's a likely option, but, like, is there a 5% chance? Absolutely. You know, someone, some psychopath from FDD or one of these think tanks that somehow has credibility in Washington, gets into his office and says, sir, finish the job with a nuke. Or Bibi Netanyahu comes and does another PowerPoint where they float Ahmadinejad as the next president of Iran, or Reza Pahlavi or some other utterly fantical moronic proposal that involves first, you know, taking out the IRGC with a nuclear weapon. I mean, like, crazier things have happened.

[Jeff Stein]

Do you know, speaking of Israel and nuclear weapons, do you know, can you talk at all about the relationship between Israel, nuclear weapons and the United States? Can Israel unilaterally attack Iran with a nuclear weapon?

[Tommy Vietor]

I have no idea. I sure as hell hope not. I mean, that would be a big step. Netanyahu has done a lot of crazy stuff to stay in power and, you know, elections down the road. I hope he wouldn't go there, but they have nukes, so.

[Karen Greenberg]

Okay, this is turning very, very scary. I'm going to try to ask something that's less, less scary and then you could come back to the scary stuff. Okay, guys, I'm curious, when you're talking about this amongst yourselves and with former Obama officials or even politicians, where the discussion with the international powers comes into play, are there informal outreach that you know of to international players that are not going on with the administration, but they're going on behind the scenes? And if so, how can that prove constructive going forward?

[Tommy Vietor]

You know, that's a great question. I wish there was more of that. You know, I mean, like CPAC, you all remember, like CPAC, the Conservative Conference every year in D.C. 15, 20 years ago, was seen as kind of like the bar scene in Star wars, the fringe crazies kind of getting together and having an event. Now it's the base, now it's the problem. Now it's maga. And so they've not only a CPAC been successful, but they've also franchised it. You know, you'll see like CPAC Hungary or CPAC Argentina or, you know, whatever. Yeah, so I think that the left would benefit from more sort of like connective tissue. And that doesn't have to be like, you know, super hard left. It could be, you know, Social Democratic parties, social Dems in various countries getting together, labor, you know, et cetera there. I think there should be more of that. There should be more conversation, cooperation, coordination, trading of best ideas and best practices than there currently is. I think it's constructive, but there's just not really that much of it that I'm aware. There's conferences and things, but there's just not that much.

[Karen Greenberg]

Do you think that the, the other powers in the world see it the way you do, which is that Trump has to make a deal and it's on Trump to do it, as opposed to some kind of larger coalition deal making?

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, they're, I mean, every single report I've read is that. Yeah, I mean, the, the Keir Starmer said absolutely no, we're not going to help out, the French are overtly rejecting, you know, any calls to be a part of a, an armada that helps boats get through the Strait of Hormuz. The Gulf countries reportedly were begging Trump to end the war and then he told them they had to be in the Abraham Accords, which is just insane. So, yeah, it does seem like there's pretty much unilateral agreement that, universal agreement that this is a bad idea.

[Jeff Stein]

I want to get back to talk to you about the kind of audience you have and if you're resonating at all with these young white, less than college degree males who are turning away from Trump. But first, we have to step away for just a minute. Okay, we're back. Tommy, are you getting any audience feedback from former MAGA types who call into your show or interact with you at all?

[Tommy Vietor]

Self described MAGA types are probably pretty far gone. I think if you're calling yourself maga, you're basically saying, I'm in the cults. Pour me some Kool Aid, let's do this. There are definitely disaffected Republicans, kind of former like Romney Republicans who would often tell us that, you know, we would listen to Pod Save America and Ben Shapiro, for example. Maybe there's some hate listeners. I don't know. It's, you know, most of the feedback unfortunately comes on social media, which is, as you all know, not the friendliest place.

[Michael Isikoff]

Let's talk Cuba.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yes, a bit.

[Michael Isikoff]

You know, the president you worked for famously opened up relations with Cuba, flew down there, went to a baseball game with Raul Castro. This president obviously has taken a very different tack and has indicted Raul Castro, notwithstanding that he's 94 years old, as you look at it, and where things are today, I mean, you can look at it a couple of different ways, but Cuba appears to be a completely failed state. There's been no reform by the Cuban government, both political or economic. They seem, you know, wedded to their rigid, more Marxist orthodoxies. First question is, what should be the democratic approach at this point to a failed state like Cuba, 90 miles from our shore?

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, I mean, I mean, I think the first question is, yes, it's a failed state, but I mean, how many decades are we going to try a failed policy, I think is the bigger question. I think is the kind of thing you hear from people who are not necessarily in D.C. or foreign policy experts when they talk about the U.S. and Cuba. What possible threat could this tiny little impoverished island 90 miles from Miami pose to us? It's all just like the dumbest threat. Legacy Cold War stuff in my view. And so you tell me if you disagree. I feel like all the, the lights are flashing green that Trump is preparing some sort of Venezuela style regime change operation. There's the Raul Castro indictment, there's sanctions, there's all these intelligence overflights, there's, you know, the rack, John Ratcliffe, the CIA director going to Cuba to present what sounded kind of like an ultimatum. I mean, that seems to me where this thing is trending. Do you disagree?

[Michael Isikoff]

Yeah, I mean, look, we had this conversation last week about Cuba and you know, was Trump going to do a Maduro like operation to seize Raul Castro? I think the optics of seizing a soon to be 95 year old who's no longer in power is a lot different than a leader like Maduro. So I don't see that in the cards. What strikes me is more of Trump bluster, much like Iran threaten bluster and hope somehow it leads to something positive. And it could, I mean, look, I mean the, the Cuban ambassador to the UN has said we're open to talks, we're open to doing some reform. And that's clearly in response to Trump's pressure campaign.

[Karen Greenberg]

So.

[Tommy Vietor]

But in the interim, we're starving an island to death. I mean, thank you. People have no power for 23 hours a day. You can't cook food, you can't go to the hospital. Like kids are going to be permanently malnourished. I mean, what we are doing to that island is evil.

[Jeff Stein]

And you know, Trump, Trump sold the idea of the Venezuela regime change as, you know, a thrust for democracy. But he quickly blurted out after, after it was over, it was all about oil. I mean, what, what do we get from Cuba? Sugar cane. I don't think we need that. We're responsible for it if we overthrow the government.

[Michael Isikoff]

But actually, here's the larger point which I wanted to ask you about. I mean, and this is the problem of trying to develop foreign policy when we have a divided country because, you know, you guys could get in and do a JCPOA and open up relations to Cuba and the next guy comes in Trump and completely does away with it. And you know, can you really have a stable foreign policy in this sort of environment where what one precedent does is going to be completely reversed by the next guy and that's the nature of our politics. You know, one could argue that's why you need bipartisan support for anything you do on the foreign policy arena. I don't know that's what you want to hear.

[Tommy Vietor]

But that perspective I agree with you that we look like a basket case to the world right now. It's Iran, it's Cuba, it's all kinds of issues. It's the whipsawing between Biden on Ukraine and Trump on Ukraine. We look crazy. Crazy. We look like a completely unstable, unreliable ally. And people are. Our countries are turning away from us because of it. I think on Cuba specifically, like, we tried 60 plus years of this stupid embargo. Let's try a different approach. And I would go back to the Obama policy of restoring diplomatic relations, opening embassies, getting rid of travel restrictions, trying to get money into the Cuban people's pockets through, you know, companies like Airbnb. Right. We stay at a home. That was an end run around the Cuban state. More travel taken. The cube put, why was Cuba on the state sponsor of terrorism list? That's insane. What are we talking about? It's a. It's a joke. More flights. Like, let's just expand commercial relations and see if over time that could lead to some sort of broader political change within the country. It's. Maybe that won't. Maybe it'll be failed, too. And I know a bunch of super hardline Cubans in Miami who dream of getting, you know, property back and sort of running it back to how things were before the Castros came along. Have a different. Have a different approach. But I like, I try. I'd like to try something new. On your point, though, about, does all foreign policy have to be bipartisan? I just think we can't end up in that place. Like, winning a presidential election means you have certain authorities to conduct foreign policy, and I think presidents need to be able to run with that. I think we could talk about a whole set of broad systemic political reforms in this country that I'd love to see that would make us less insane, like getting rid of gerrymandering or money in politics or, you know, what have you. But it's like sort of a little field for what you guys, I think, normally talk about.

[Karen Greenberg]

What about in foreign policy? Do you see something that you would say, you know, not talking about political reform, but talking about, you know, constraints, authorities, anything that comes to mind that you would say, if we could change this, we wouldn't be so vulnerable to the kinds of changes Jeff was suggesting.

[Tommy Vietor]

I mean, I think Congress needs to take back its authorities and start reminding people that it exists. And again, this is an area where it's like, hands up. I think Obama, we bombed places in service of taking out al Qaeda affiliates in ways that I think was not Intended by the original Authorization for the Use of military force after 9 11. Right. I think the War Powers act needs to be strengthened in some way so that you don't see these constant end runs around it. I mean, the Trump administration policy seems to be that you can just rename every military operation after 60 days and start the clock again. That's bonkers. I know every president since Nixon has said that the war powers is unconstitutional, including the president I worked for. But we have to find a way that just creates more friction on presidents before they put service members in hostilities. I think that would be a great start.

[Jeff Stein]

I'm old enough to remember watching John F. Kennedy's inaugural address. If there is one line that anyone remembers from that address, it's ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. You, as a master speechwriter for an American president, if you were the speechwriter for a new Democratic president, is there some version of that line that would rally Americans, you think? I don't mean to put you on the spot, an instant speech, but does something come to mind that could be a rallying point on foreign policy, national security for Americans today?

[Tommy Vietor]

I don't know that I have like a great pitch at the moment for a line. I do think that what Americans want to hear is an optimistic, hopeful vision of the future and one that makes them feel good about America and the story of America, even while recognizing its imperfections in all the ways we've fallen short. I think if you're just constantly sounding hopeless or bleak or running down the country or criticizing it, people get angry and they want an alternative. We have to get back to a Kennedy like vision that includes, I don't know, some sort of sense of shared sacrifice or collective support, care, feeding service to the country. I think that would be incredibly valuable.

[Jeff Stein]

I think there is a similarity from that time to this in that Americans felt we were sort of against the ropes in 1960. You know, there was Sputnik, Soviet advances, the Soviet Union was on the march. We were feeling crowded and threatened. And I think probably with Iran and the rise of China and so on. There's a similarity between these between today and back in 1960.

[Tommy Vietor]

Well, that's a really interesting point. I do feel like I have some whiplash because in watching the 2024 campaign, it felt like one of the few areas of bipartisan agreement was about the threat from China. There was a lot of competition to see who would be the most hawkish and tough on China. And then in practice, Trump has kind of given up the farm. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like.

[Jeff Stein]

Totally agree.

[Tommy Vietor]

Decided to fully sell out Taiwan. I don't really know what we got out of this last trip or what we even wanted to get. The trade war was lost within hours of it even starting. And so I don't want to get into a place where we are back into a Cold War framework where we do horrible things in Latin America, for example, in service of winning the Cold War. But I do think there is a way you could, I think, you know, drum up some nationalism and some competitive spirit in service of defeating China in some way.

[Jeff Stein]

Well, could you send us that speech tomorrow?

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, we'll work on that.

[Jeff Stein]

We'll get that sucker done before we wrap up.

[Michael Isikoff]

We should go around the globe a little bit. War, Ukraine, Russia. What is the preferred democratic approach at this point to a war? That does seem like a forever war at the moment.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, it does. I mean, I think I would get back to a lot of the Biden policy on this. I mean, it seems like Trump has continued intelligence sharing, as far as I can tell, which is absolutely critical for these Ukrainians. I think I would try to focus as much as possible on specific coordination around drone technology and development because that seems like a win win and mutually beneficial for the US And Ukraine, especially given all the challenges we're currently having in the wake of couple years of conflict with Iran about our stockpile of interceptor missiles. I think that Biden did a great job of like coordinating Europe and drumming up Ukrainian access to 155 millimeter shells and things of that nature. We should do more on deliveries of air defense munitions, but again, that's more complicated because those stockpiles got run down, I think. Bigger picture, I don't know why we're not doing more with the frozen Russian assets. It feels like Belgium is holding that up for like all of Europe and the US and that seems crazy to me. I would try to get creative about a process for Ukrainian accession to the European Union. Right now, it's like, jump through all these reform hoops and then you're in. Maybe there's a way to let them in and then create a process that goes down the reform route. I don't really think NATO is realistic when there's a war ongoing, but those conversations can continue.

[Michael Isikoff]

I mean, look, all that sounds great, but I don't see how it leads to any kind of resolution of the core conflict. Conflict that's going on.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, I don't either. And then you Know, you also have to have a pressure track on Russia and not just, you know, remove sanctions from the Russians because you're hoping to get more money into the markets because of the new war you started with Iran or, you know, increase their revenue by starting another stupid war with Iran. I think that the challenge with the Biden policy was it felt like endless feeding of weapons without any sort of diplomatic track that could lead to a resolution. I think Trump has put forward a diplomatic track. The problem is that it's a complete and total joke led by clowns like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner who have been to Russia, what, like eight times and they've never even been to Ukraine. It's not, it's not an actual negotiation. It's those guys greasing future economic deals with the Russian oligarch in charge of their sovereign wealth fund, in my opinion. So. But I think where Biden failed was not having talks with Russia, not having that diplomatic track going. So people felt like, like at least there was some process toward resolving.

[Jeff Stein]

Seems to me, sorry if I sound like an old, really old line Cold War Democrat. It seems to me with when you've got Finland, Sweden and the Baltics digging trenches, so to speak, today, and great fear of a Russian territorial move on them, that is a Democratic president or a candidate for president needs to say we very firmly, we will not countenance a Russian invasion of any NATO state. Period.

[Tommy Vietor]

Period. I mean, we should reassert our commitment to Article 5. But also, look, I recently went back because Ben Rhodes has a great new book out. You should check it out. I read the reread the FDR's for freedom speech and Reagan's evil Empire speech speech. Obviously, you know, very different people from different political perspectives, but both talked about shared values and a commitment to fighting fascism and the Nazis and autocracy. And it just made me think about how that kind of values based foreign policy is kind of absent now. And I think we should get back to that. We obviously don't want to repeat the excesses of things the US did in service of winning the Cold War. But, but it does feel like we just no longer have any sort of values or consistency in our foreign policy in a way that is leading to more conflicts, not less.

[Karen Greenberg]

You know, Tommy, one of the things that stands out when you say that is that, you know, you've referred many times during this conversation to mistakes that were made by the Biden administration and by the Obama administration. And I get the sense that you're not the only person that thinks that there were mistakes, that this is sort of a conversation that goes on among those who were in the room, so to speak. It might not. I mean, do you ever think about how, or do you think that that could be a constructive contribution that wouldn't, or is it so worrisome that that'll be used as political fodder against Democrats is to say, look, we learned from our lessons. And so how is that playing out? Is there a conversation about that? What's the trajectory of that?

[Tommy Vietor]

I mean, I think most of the stuff we do at crooked Media. So I do a foreign policy show called Pod Save. The Pod Save America is the political show. We try to draw from our experience in time in politics to, you know, provide analysis of things happening in the world. And a lot of that analysis is based around the fact that it's really easy to, like, take shots from the side, as I do now in my little podcast, but it's, like, very hard. It was very, very hard for, you know, Joe Biden to end the war in Ukraine, for example. Right. And just to be honest about that. So, yeah, we constantly talk about mistakes we made. We constantly talk about lessons learned from an overly militarized foreign policy, for example, and the inertia and the way the kind of DC permanent foreign policy class can push you towards more hawkish solutions. It's a very important thing, in my view.

[Karen Greenberg]

And do you think that foreign policy leaders within the political conversation and the political leadership in the Democratic Party are listening and understand and can own that or not?

[Tommy Vietor]

Not. There's a lot of some yes, some no. I mean, there's a lot of muscle memory and scar tissue from the post 911 political fights. There's a lot of Democrats who talk, and you kind of feel like it's 2003 or four again, and there's this kind of, like, need to throw, you know, as many adjectives and condemnations of various groups into the. Into the rhetoric and sound tough, even though, like, voters never end up feeling that way. But, you know, I think Obama course corrected on a bunch of stuff, but, you know, it was a different time.

[Michael Isikoff]

Well, let's get a little personal on this score. I mean, among the people in national security action, one of the leaders is Jake Sullivan. He helped found it, along with your partner Ben Rhodes. And I know there's been a lot of blowback about the idea that Jake Sullivan should be part of the Democratic Party foreign policy establishment in waiting for the next Democratic Party president. How do you feel about that?

[Tommy Vietor]

Like, I think that President Biden made a series of catastrophic mistakes when it comes to the war in Gaza that hurt America's standing in the world, that dragged out the war that led to more civilian deaths in Gaza, and that hurt his political standing. And I think there needs to be an accounting for that. Jake was obviously an important part of that team. I think he'll have to own those failures, and I think he does own those failures. I think the decision for whether or not to hire him to be part of that next administration, God willing, that there is one, will be up to the president at the time, who I think will take all these factors into consideration. So, you know, I, I, I've seen

[Jeff Stein]

there's a lot of baggage there.

[Tommy Vietor]

Yeah, there's, look, there's a lot of baggage there. I, I get it. I, I understand the people who are angry and say, like, we need new voices, the next generation of leadership, new ideas. I think those are total, totally reasonable positions to take. But it's like it, you know, it's also a bit premature because I don't think Jake is angling for a job anywhere at the moment. I mean, as far as I know, there, there is. How about this? There no job, no such job exists at the moment.

[Michael Isikoff]

Well, not for now.

[Jeff Stein]

Well, Tommy, thanks so much for spending time with us, considering that you and your, your buddies Jon Favreau and John Lowther play us. You know, you're still playing in the game and have immense followings and influence, so we wish you well because I think you're creative and imaginative and, and flexible thinker and there's no small need for that in the Democratic Party, that's for sure.

[Tommy Vietor]

Thank you all for having me on. We should, we should fight about more things in the, in the future, maybe. I feel like, Mike, I feel like this came about because you and I were barking at each other.

[Jeff Stein]

We had support.

[Michael Isikoff]

We had a Twitter spat on the Saudis and we haven't even gotten to the Saudis. Next time.

[Tommy Vietor]

Okay, we'll do that again. We'll run it back to you. We'll, Ben and I will have you all on. We can, we can fight about it.

[Michael Isikoff]

I'm up for it.

[Jeff Stein]

All right, let's, that's great. Thanks, Tommy.

[Tommy Vietor]

Thank you all. Talk soon.

[Jeff Stein]

So long. And that's it for this week's Spy Talk. Be sure to check out our complete podcast archive on Apple or wherever you get your podcast. And if you haven't already, do, Check out the SpyTalk Co news site on Substack where we offer steady diet of scoops and original analyses from the intersection of intelligence, foreign policy and and military operations. Just Google Spy Talk and you'll quickly find your way there. This edition of the Spy Talk Podcast was smoothly produced as always by Kanai and expertly edited by Molly Hockey for MSW Media. That's it. See you around. I'm Jeff Stein.

[Michael Isikoff]

I'm Michael Zoff.

[Karen Greenberg]

I'm Karen Greenberg.

[Jeff Stein]

Thanks for listening.

[Grainger Ad Voice]

For more original reporting and insights like this, this subscribe to SpyTalk Co on substack and follow us on Twitter talkspy. If you enjoyed our podcast, subscribe and leave a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. Msw media. Hi, I'm Moji Alohodial from the Feminist Buzzkills Live Pod, the only podcast that helps you navigate the news in this post. Pro Anti Abortion Hellscape each week with co host Liz Winstead, we dissect all the news from that sketchy intersection of abortion and misogyny, with providers and activists working on the ground. The cherry on top is we have amazing comedy guests who help us laugh through the rage. Feminist Buzz kills. Live Drops Fridays wherever you pop, listen and subscribe. Because when BS is popping, we pop off. When you're a maintenance engineer in a beverage manufacturing plant, you keep production lines moving and quality on track because there is no room for slowdowns. With Grainger's vast selection of high quality motors, sensors, belts and hard to find parts, you can get what you need fast and all in one place so nothing gets in the way of getting the job done. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click granger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done. Grainger knows when you're a procurement manager for an office park, you're not managing one building, you're managing all of them. And to stay ahead, you need to see through walls and around corners. Lights about to fail, filters ready to clog H Vac on its last leg. If you wait until something breaks you, you're already behind. Count on Grainger for quality products, easy reordering and 24. 7 support. Call 1-800-GRAINGER click grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.