← Stay Tuned with Preet
Loading summary
Transcript127 lines
- [00:00]
Preet Bharara
From Cafe and the Vox Media podcast network. Welcome to Stay Tuned.
- [00:06]
I'm Preet Bharara.
- [00:09]
Jim Sciutto
There were folks who for years could never imagine the US Carrying out limited strikes on Iran, right? If you go back to the 12 Day War, he dropped those bunker busters, right? And you had presidents through multiple administrations who never would have gone to full scale war with Iran. And here they are. So if you're a Putin or a Xi or a Kim Jong Un, you know, you quite reasonably might look at that and say, well, he might go further than we imagined.
- [00:37]
Preet Bharara
Welcome to Stay Tuned. I'm Preet Bharara. My guest this week is Jim Sciuto. He's CNN's chief national security analyst. His latest book is called the Return of Great Russia, China and the Next World War.
- [00:51]
That's coming up.
- [00:53]
Stay tuned.
- [01:01]
Support for this podcast comes from what if your business had someone who could draft, negotiate and manage contracts but never slept, ate or took a day off? With AI it's possible and with Juro it's a reality. Juro is the complete AI solution for business contracting from draft to signature and beyond. Juro gives you conversational access to your contracts and data, plus the connected workflows and integrations you won't find in basic AI review tools. Juro has powered 3 million contracts for a fraction of the cost. Visit Juro.com Vox for 20% off year
- [01:38]
Jim Sciutto
one we gather here tonight to bring
- [01:43]
Tucker Carlson
women back to their rightful place.
- [01:45]
Podcast Narrator/Announcer
The Testaments, a new Hulu original series from the executive producers of the Handmaid's Tale. It's easier to accept a story than believe that the people around you are monsters. The battle isn't over. There comes a time have to take
- [01:58]
Preet Bharara
action when you have to choose your own destiny.
- [02:00]
Never quite as it seems.
- [02:03]
Podcast Narrator/Announcer
Watch the new Hulu original series, the Testaments, streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney for bundle subscribers. Terms apply.
- [02:14]
Preet Bharara
Just before the ceasefire was announced, CNN Chief National Security Analyst Jim Sciuto weighed in on the war in Iran, the great power conflict and Trump's impact on our alliances.
- [02:31]
Jim Sciutto, welcome back to the show. It's been too long.
- [02:33]
Jim Sciutto
It has. It's great to be here. Thanks so much for having me.
- [02:36]
Preet Bharara
Fortunately, not a lot has happened since you were last here.
- [02:41]
Jim Sciutto
The field of international affairs is really slow right now.
- [02:44]
Preet Bharara
I will just say with some indulgence that probably when you're introduced, one of your most important credits and accolades is left off. And I also left it off. But I'm going to do it live on the show and that is that you are, among other things, not just an author of a new book and a number of books and a world class reporter. You are also a former high school extemporaneous speaking champion in these United States. I've never forgotten that. I think you and I had a discussion about it when my boys some years ago were in high school and were extemp speakers. They didn't reach the heights that you reached, but shout out to all the folks who are thinking about doing public speaking in high school. Look how far Jim Scutto's come.
- [03:28]
Jim Sciutto
See, I gotta say, it's funny. I did an interview with my high school magazine the other day.
- [03:33]
Preet Bharara
That's great.
- [03:34]
Jim Sciutto
Brought that up. And I said, listen, it teaches skills, right? Thinking on your feet, just the way you think and construct thoughts and arguments. And every day that makes a difference in my life.
- [03:45]
Preet Bharara
And speaking on the fly for people who don't know the category, you get three topics. We have much more serious stuff to get into, so let's begin on a less somber Note. You get three topics. You have 30 minutes to prepare with a limited set of resources. And then essentially from memory, I think later in high school, you're not allowed to use notes. You are to give a seven minute speech. Taking a position on one of the topics that can be quite obscure.
- [04:14]
Jim Sciutto
Yeah, it's true, it's true. And organizing your thoughts and all that kind of stuff. And I do, if I look at it, it's kind of what a live hit is, right? Totally. You're not making arguments, you're reporting the facts. But you might inject some analysis and try to put it into context. It is. Yeah, I agree with you young ones out there. It's definitely something to consider.
- [04:37]
Preet Bharara
Okay, so, Jim, I needed to do that because it's almost too somber, what
- [04:44]
we have to talk about.
- [04:44]
So you have this great new book, the Return of Great Powers who Knew they Left Russia, China and the Next World War.
- [04:54]
Interesting.
- [04:54]
You talk about the next world war. This book has to have been put to bed some months ago. That's how publishing works. It's very timely for this to come out and to have you here, but we are recording this at Lunchtime on Tuesday, April 7. It will not come out for a couple of days. And just in the last few hours, the President of the United States in his ongoing war with Iran has said the following thing on social media after giving deadline after deadline that keeps getting extended for surrender by the Iranian government, quote, a whole civilization will die tonight. A whole civilization will die tonight. I have about 80 sub questions beyond just putting that quote to you.
- [05:46]
Let me ask you first, what's the
- [05:47]
reaction among your sources in the military?
- [05:50]
Jim Sciutto
Disgust. That is not language that the US Military likes to be associated with. And there's been some tension inside the Pentagon under the new leadership. They're job oriented, they're mission oriented. Right. And they've got wars to fight. And if you think about airmen to rescue, Right.
- [06:11]
Preet Bharara
Pilots shot down, are you saying, Jim, that their mission is not to destroy a civilization?
- [06:16]
Jim Sciutto
Any US military officer I've ever encountered in 30 some odd years of doing this has said and through quite difficult wars, as you know, for this country in Iraq and Afghanistan and IR on, it's certainly not the way they target. Listen, you could be out in the field in the midst of a firefight and you will hear soldiers say a lot of things. But from a command perspective, it's not a phrase I've heard with missions. And I will say it contradicts the quite deliberate focus of US Military action for years, which it's a phrase. It's almost, you remember, the hearts and minds phrase. And it's not like we had great success winning those hearts and minds in Iraq or Afghanistan. But at least there was an effort to say we, the US Military are here not to go to war with you, the Afghan people or the Iraqi people or the Iranian people, but to our issue is with your leaders and even at the same time make a parallel effort to benefit those people, to build roads, repair electrical power plants, not blow them up. It's deeply, deeply contradictory.
- [07:23]
Preet Bharara
Just one foray back in history for a moment because I've asked other guests this question. Had Trump been the president at the relevant time, would there have been a Marshall Plan?
- [07:33]
Jim Sciutto
Not the way he looks at international affairs. Right. Because whether it's financial engagements abroad, trading relationships or even defense treaties, it's very much, it's transactional. What have you done for me? And he has a default setting that all these relationships are to America's disadvantage, that we've been pulling all the weight and they've been doing nothing. And therefore we get no benefit from it. And I forget if we did it in $2026, as opposed to $1950, what the Marshall Pan would cost today. But it's a big bill, Right. And that was a deliberate investment. It was not just a gift. Right. It was a deliberate investment in American interests in Europe. And that's the thing about these alliances that, by the way, was a bipartisan position, as you know, through dec. These alliances are in America's interest, that they're not gifts, they're actually, they're two way streets that give America benefits as well. But Trump doesn't see, he doesn't see them that way.
- [08:36]
Preet Bharara
So maybe it's a dangerous game to try to find issues in Trump's personal life or his business life and analogize them to his job as commander in chief. But there are a couple that come to mind. It is not the case, as you just pointed out, that the Marshall Plan or things like that, that in day one and day 100 and day 1000 look like charity, look like largesse. They are in a sense, not in a pejorative way, but transactional too. They're long term investments. I haven't studied Trump's investing history, but my sense is from his dabbling in this and dabbling in that and getting into this and getting out of that, including casinos and real estate, that his investment horizon is not long term necessarily. Have you ever thought about whether or not that affects how he thinks about being commander in chief?
- [09:26]
Jim Sciutto
I certainly have this application of New York real estate practices, the particular way that he went about them to international affairs. And he repeats it. He talks about the art of the deal. And when he wrote that book, it was about doing business. Now it's apparently about negotiating trade and negotiating, say, reopening the Straight of Hormuz. And you replace then whatever his financial threats in the 80s were in real estate deals with I'm going to bring the weight of the US Military down on you and end your civilization. So the US Military is quite a force multiplier for those kinds of threats or those kinds of negotiations. But it's interesting because he does not see, he doesn't perceive the benefit just in the last several days when he took shots at NATO for not backing the US Efficiently in this war. And then he carried it even further to say the South Koreans and the Japanese, they didn't help us and the Australians. Now he may want more help from them, including physically and militarily trying to open the strait. The thing about those relationships, they're not just about putting U.S. troops there to protect, say the South Koreans or the Japanese or the Australians. It allows the US to project itself as a Pacific power, which is in America's interest. And by the way, the US has territory in the Pacific, Hawaii and Guam and so on. So he doesn't see that having those bases there aren't just a gift to those allies, but that they also serve America's interests.
- [11:03]
Preet Bharara
Look, I have another armchair psychoanalyst theory about that, too, which is, I'll try it out with you. This is a man at age 79 who has had a lot of success, a lot of failure. He's been elected to the presidency twice, does not appear to have close friendships. In fact, I don't think anyone can identify a best friend or a brain trust outside of Stephen Miller, who is many, many decades his junior. And so anyone who's gotten that far without friendships, my armchair psychiatry theory goes, maybe also doesn't understand the power of alliances between and among nations. Am I totally off base there?
- [11:44]
Jim Sciutto
I don't think you're. Listen, I'm not a professional psychiatrist.
- [11:47]
Preet Bharara
Neither am I, but it's allowed in podcasting.
- [11:50]
Jim Sciutto
No, I hear you, I hear you. But when you look at the way he operates, right, he makes things very personal, right. Think of the way. And then on what he sees as a positive side, he seems to neglect that Russia is fighting tooth and nail every day to weaken the United States and weaken America's partners and weakened the US Led international order and so on, and say, well, he perceives to have a good personal relationship with him. And that overrides every U.S. intelligence assessment for 30 years about Russia's and Putin's intentions, because he perceives that based on whatever warmth he believes they've established in their phone calls and meetings, that that trumps, excuse the word, all those other things, similar with Kim Jong Un, similar with Xi Jinping, for all the disputes they have because of his personal relationship, he makes things very personal. And on the flip side, on the negative side, he perceives personal insult, it seems, from leaders who don't do what he wants. Greenland. I want Greenland. Why is NATO denying me Greenland?
- [13:00]
Preet Bharara
It's a little less armchair, but continuing with the psychology of the president. And by the way, the psychology of leaders, particularly in times of war, is incredibly important. It's not just sort of an indulgence for podcasters. They're doing it in China, they're doing it at the Kremlin, they're probably doing
- [13:18]
it at the White House.
- [13:20]
You have to understand the psychology of the person, which is inextricably intertwined with the policy of the person, Right? And so here's a guy, just to make the case for him, who's 79, and all these critiques that you might make or I might make, by people who didn't ascend to the presidency, by people who didn't become billionaires, by people who didn't beat the pants off their rivals when left for dead politically, who didn't have A hit show that worked for so long, all of which she accomplished and achieved with the same movie. Right. He got a big boost from his dad with a lot of money. But it is not unfair for his brain to think to the extent it thinks it's worked for me. This is how I got to where I got. And I've gotten to some place that only a few dozen men in the history of the country have ever gotten to. Why should I abandon my instinct now? Isn't that fair?
- [14:18]
Jim Sciutto
You and I, in our time and dealing with folks in government and in business, we meet a lot of people who think quite highly of themselves. Right.
- [14:28]
Preet Bharara
Perhaps it's a natural.
- [14:29]
Jim Sciutto
It's a natural human condition to imagine. If you reach heights of success, it's all about you. And of course, a lot of it is about you. I think that I've always been impressed by the leaders I meet who acknowledge benefits they had or others who helped them along the way and don't imagine
- [14:48]
Preet Bharara
that any humility at all.
- [14:50]
Jim Sciutto
Yeah. And that does not seem to be his nature. You know, it's interesting when I was watching the President and Pete Hegseth and John Ratcliffe, the CIA director, and Dan Kaine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs, do their press conference about the rescue of this pilot, which was remarkable, truly remarkable. Right. I mean, this is the best the U.S. military, its best difficult environment, showing that they would not leave one of their own behind. Great danger to every one of those pilots and commandos involved. And they had success. It was a brilliant operation. It worked on a thousand different levels. Fantastic. I've seen announcements of operations before. Think of the bin Laden operation or other successful. And again, I'm not claiming that previous politicians or generals are perfect. I'm just saying that in my experience, the tone was one of sobriety and weight and praising those involved, but not jumping up and down and just saying how great you are. And there was so much of that. And then infused. I mean, you heard some sort of religious imagery in there and constant deference of praise for the president himself, less deferral to others. That tone change is reflective, I think, of the style of leadership.
- [16:18]
Preet Bharara
I want to come back to the themes of your book, spend a lot of time and maybe understand the Iran predicament through the lens of your analysis in the book and through Ukraine. What is it about Putin and Trump that they appear to have committed parallel catastrophic blunders of expectation where they thought that a country of tens of millions would come to its knees in three days or four days? You point out in the book that there was this great paradox of intel, which is, on the one hand, the Americans really believed and anticipated the actual invasion when a lot of people didn't believe it would happen. But no one anticipated the staying power and the defensive strategic excellence of the Ukrainian people.
- [17:08]
Jim Sciutto
There's a lot of intelligence that in the lead up to Putin's decision to invade, that Russian commanders did not want to send bad news up the chain of command, did not want to send any element of doubt that Russian forces couldn't run roughshod over Ukraine and win the day in days. Right. And that is a product of Putin's leadership, which he expelled, destroyed, killed anyone who challenged his authority, so that there weren't folks around him who would say to him, listen, we got to watch out here. This is not going to be so easy. The US intel read was that he did not get any contradictory or cautionary advice. And I will say it's not the equivalent, but I will say there is a parallel to the way Trump operates. Right. He has surrounded himself by people who, to the best of our knowledge, Right. I mean, certainly the way they speak publicly, shower him with praise, describe him incessantly as the tough and a brilliant decision maker, et cetera. Were there folks willing to tell Trump prior to this war that, well, the Iranians might very well close the Strait of Hormuz, the risk is higher than you imagine, blah, blah, blah. I would be surprised if uniformed officers, even with the number that have been purged, didn't do so. Or even John Ratcliffe, who by most accounts has been running the CIA in a responsible and professional way. But did his national security advisor take him aside and inject some concern, his vice president, et cetera? We don't know. But certainly in their public comments, we're not hearing. We're not hearing that. So I'm not equating the two, but there are some parallels to the decision making.
- [19:05]
Preet Bharara
So let me ask you, what was the consensus among American government officials and experts out of government about what it would take for Iran to surrender conditionally or unconditionally?
- [19:18]
Jim Sciutto
I'll tell you this. We know that at least there were intelligence assessments that raise questions about the. Well, even just the success of US Operations. I mean, just in the last several days, we had an exclusive story about how even after more than a month of war in Iran, that Iran maintained a good half of its missile capabilities, its launchers, its missile supplies, et cetera. And that's one reason why, as I sit here in Tel Aviv, we still have lots of air raid Warnings every day, they're still able to fire. And that contradicts the President and the vice president and the Defense Secretary saying constantly, they've got nothing left. In effect, we know that their intel assessments, whether they pay attention to them, they exist. So people are still producing those products. Much like if you look at the 12 Day War last summer, there was an intel assessment that said, you know what, we did a lot of damage to their nuclear sites, but we didn't destroy them for good. Which we know to be true. Not only because there was an assessment, because Trump himself made it, you know, said made a decision to go to war because those nuclear sites still existed.
- [20:22]
Preet Bharara
So no, you have to obliterate them every few weeks.
- [20:24]
Jim Sciutto
Yeah, basically, that's a fair word, obliterate. So we know there's information in the system, but the decision making is not. It just doesn't seem to be the way he makes decisions. Right. He seems to make seat of the pants decisions. And there's another commonality in it. Not just surrounding himself by folks who tend to say, yes, he's an all force guy in every interaction. Think back to the trade negotiations, both with friends and foes, whether it's Canada or China. He's like, I'm going to destroy your economy in effect, unless you give in. I'm going to put punishing sanctions on your steel, your cars, et cetera, unless you give in. And the calculation is Trump's. The calculation seems to be if I push them enough, they're going to yield. Similar with Iran here, but it actually hasn't worked. You have Europe now making deals amongst themselves with others and over time deciding less trade with the US he thought that Denmark and Greenland were going to yield on Greenland. Actually. It's firmed up their positions. It's made it less likely of an agreement. And you might say that today as we're watching the Iran situation, that while, and I've been to Iran more than a dozen times, a large portion of the Iranian people have no love for their regime. And who would, particularly after January this year when they slaughter tens of thousands of people. But burning the country down does not. As much as they'd love to see the regime fall tomorrow, burning the country down does not convince them that you're doing this for them. Nor does the President say we should take their oil.
- [22:05]
Preet Bharara
As we sit here today, on Tuesday afternoon, do you believe he's looking for an off ramp, so to speak, or not?
- [22:11]
Jim Sciutto
I believe he would like a solution that does not destroy the economy. Right. The US Economy hurt Him worse and we see some. Listen again, if you look back to parallels, if you look back to Liberation Day, that's a year ago, almost to the day when you had the trade war. The bond markets were enough for him to pull back from the brink and take down some of the biggest tariffs. If you see oil go to 200, does that pull him back from the brink? It's possible. But the thing is now he's somewhat painted himself into a corner because this deadline is so it's a line in the sand, as it were.
- [22:48]
Preet Bharara
The madman theory only goes too far. And you are a much greater expert on international relations and foreign policy than I am. But my sense of things has been that whether it's practiced by Nixon or someone else, behind the madman was a very thoughtful, shrewd, historically educated and strategic thinker. Any of that the case here?
- [23:14]
Jim Sciutto
Yeah. If I remember my history right, that Nixon told Kissinger to deliberately communicate this sort of, well, I don't know what the boss is going to do to the Soviets. Trump people have said to me for years that his unpredictability is an asset and that that could scare the other side to give it in because they're not quite sure how far he might go. And I wouldn't dismiss that entirely. Right. I think if we look at some of the actions in the last several years, killing Soleimani was a bold move at the time. There were folks who for years could never imagine the US Carrying out limited strikes on Iran. Right. If you go back to the 12 Day War, he dropped those bunker busters. Right. And you had presidents through multiple administrations who never would have gone to full scale war with ir, and here they are. So if you're a Putin or a Xi or a Kim Jong Un, you quite reasonably might look at that and say, well, he might go further than we imagined. Now, the difficulty with those three is they already have nuclear weapons. And there is some thinking in this part of the world that Iran will be more, not less, committed to seeking a nuclear bomb, given nuclear weapons seem to be the one thing that protects you from attacks like this. I also think that, and I talk about this in the book, another potential consequence, which we're already seeing moves in that direction of Trump's retreat from the world order and retreat from alliances is that our allies think more openly about acquiring nuclear weapons. There's public debate in Japan and South Korea, Germany sharing the nuclear deterrent with France. More, not fewer nuclear powers. And that's quite a daunting future to imagine.
- [25:05]
Preet Bharara
I'll be right back with Jim Sciuto after this. Support for the show comes from Upwork Hiring can be a double edged sword. On the one hand, there's the promise of growing your team, making everything more manageable and scalable. On the other hand, it can be such a headache. Here's an upwork With Upwork you don't have to do it all yourself. They make it easier to bring on the right freelancers right when you need them. You can browse profiles, review past work and get help scoping the role so you can hire with confidence and get started quickly. Seriously, you could connect with the right freelancer in just a few hours, especially when you sign up with Business Plus. Their AI powered shortlisting pairs you with the top 1% of talent in under 6 hours. No endless searching required. Upwork also cuts down operational hassle by handling things like contracts and payments in one place so you can spend more time running your business. Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That's Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's Upwork.com Upwork.com. Support for the show comes from Thrive Market. Wouldn't it be nice to go to a grocery store where everything inside was hand picked for you? You wouldn't have to worry about checking labels or googling ingredients because you'd already know that all allergies and dietary restrictions were accounted for. That's what it's like to get your groceries with Thrive Market. It's a membership based online grocery store. For just $5 a month you get access to a curated selection of organic and non GMO brands you can easily filter by diet. You also get access to weekly sales, free gifts, and the peace of mind knowing that the foods and ingredients you're getting are right for you. One membership covers the whole family, even when everyone eats differently. No more decision fatigue. Your filtered results only show what fits your household. And the best part? Thrive Market says that every paid membership sponsors another one for a family in need through their Thrive Gives program. Ready to do your own spring reset? Join Thrive Market with my link thrivemarket.com tuned for $20 off your first three orders, plus you'll get a free $60 gift.
- [27:35]
For the last 10 years, everything in American politics has basically revolved around one man. And as a political journalist who came of age during Donald Trump's rise in 2016, I've had a front row seat. I am officially running for President of the United States. It's going to be only America First,
- [27:57]
Jim Sciutto
America first, thousands of supporters of President Trump stormed the U.S. capitol building.
- [28:04]
Preet Bharara
But is it possible to talk about politics without talking about Donald Trump? That's the question I'm going to ask in our new show from Vox.
- [28:12]
Podcast Narrator/Announcer
The idea of like a post Trump or not exactly Trump focused show can exist because he's not really driving any agenda items. It really does feel like so reactive.
- [28:19]
Preet Bharara
You know, I think this Iran thing is also going to cause a big split in the gop. So far it doesn't among like people who say they're MAGA voters are still with Trump. But like for the first time, you see on a major issue, open opposition from the start of this war. I'm Astet Herndon and welcome to America.
- [28:36]
Jim Sciutto
Actually,
- [28:39]
Preet Bharara
let's talk about China for a moment. So the world has seen, you know, big bad Russia invade puny little Ukraine, thinking that it could overrun the country in a couple of days. Fast forward several years. United States thinks the same about Iran. Are the Chinese thinking like, okay, maybe Taiwan gets a buy? Yeah, how are they thinking? And you talk about Taiwan and China in the book at some length. How are they learning the lessons or, or are they with respect to what they want to do?
- [29:13]
Jim Sciutto
So going back to the start of the full scale Ukraine invasion, there is no one I've spoken to in Asia and Europe or in the States who does not believe there's a direct connection between Ukraine and Taiwan, that, that China is watching Russia's experience there to measure, not just on the battlefield, what war looks like. For instance, now that it's all about drones, but also how the world reacts, what the economic costs are, how long the US Stays in it. Does it stay in it to win it, or does it eventually lose interest and back off? All these things that contribute to its calculation as to whether eventually it takes a shot at Taiwan. Taiwan is different from Ukraine because it's surrounded by water. It makes it fundamentally harder to accomplish an invasion, but it doesn't make it impossible. And looking at the Iran war, does it make them more or less likely? On the one hand, one could say, well, goodness, if he is willing to order military action against Iran, might he attack us in the Taiwan Strait if we try to take it ourselves? Possibly. Or she could calculate, there's the US wrapped up in the Middle east again and by the way, depleting its missile supplies, which were already not low but just difficult to replace because we haven't really created the supply chain to do it quickly. Maybe now is the time. I talk about this in the book and I think A lot of viewers here will have heard the year 2027 is one that Xi Jinping told his generals to be ready to take Taiwan. And we're pretty close to 2027, and they have a lot of capabilities today that they didn't have a few years ago. The Taiwanese are nervous. And by the way, there's another possibility, short of a full scale invasion, which would be, I talk about this in a book, a blockade, a boa constrictor model they call it, where you surround and you basically wait for Taiwan to yield.
- [31:14]
Preet Bharara
I mean, what's China's horizon if they're in fact scared or worried about Donald Trump, which arguably is to Donald Trump's credit, can't they just wait three years?
- [31:24]
Jim Sciutto
They can. And it's interesting. I spent a lot of time living in China, spent a couple years there as a diplomat, and I stay in touch with a lot of contacts in Asia. And that China wants stability, right? It doesn't like surprises, and it doesn't like surprises in the relationship with the US it wants to have a stable relationship as best it can while it's aggressively pursuing its interests. And Trump is fundamentally, maybe unstable is too strong a word, but he's certainly surprising and he tends to change his mind a bit. So that is in conflict with China's preferences. On the flip side, China has calculated for years that the US and the west are in interminable decline. And there's a lot of scholarship in and around China that they believe that decline is accelerating under Trump, and not just at home, domestic division, et cetera, but a decline in American stature, a decline in American alliances. It's interesting, the language we had when I was in the embassy, which was consistent across the board, was that the US has allies, China doesn't. China sort of has North Korea and it's built this, no limits partnership with Russia, but treaty allies that you could defend, you could count on to come to your defense. China didn't really have them. The US did, had them in spades. You got South Korea and Japan and you got NATO. The US Is under Trump dissolving that. So if I'm China, I'm thinking US Isn't weak, certainly, but it's weaker than it was before.
- [33:03]
Preet Bharara
No, it's China's dream. Right. I was hearing someone recite in the last couple of days, if you think of strength of a nation as measured in GDP is not perfectly coextensive with strength, but it can be that the US Is number one, China is a few trillion dollars back, but if you Combine the US with the EU and with the UK, you're almost double. Then you add in Japan and some other countries, you kind of dwarf even China and we already dwarf Russia. And you would think that when put in economic terms like that, Trump would see that, but he doesn't.
- [33:49]
Jim Sciutto
Why not Canada and Mexico? It's a lonely world without friends.
- [33:56]
Preet Bharara
So let me ask about alliances further. And while asking about alliances, asking about Marco Rubio, who said very clearly not long ago, we need to pass a law. Imagine that we passed a law in the context of, generally speaking, the Congress being supine and not asserting its powers with respect to the War Powers act and lots of other responsibilities, advice and consent and everything else. But the one thing they did do was say a president cannot unilaterally withdraw from NATO. How does Marco Rubio talk about that in meetings in the Oval Office with Trump literally stating out loud, NATO has nothing to really offer us.
- [34:38]
Jim Sciutto
It's interesting. Even Rubio now with the spat within NATO over the Iran war is he's not saying he's done with NATO, but he's certainly not defending NATO. And in a way, the anti NATO folks inside this administration that include Trump have found themselves an excuse, right, to say, well, you say this is a two way street. I asked you to stand by me in war and you didn't. Now, even George W. Bush spent some months before the Iraq invasion trying to build support coalition of the willing. Trump went in and then said, why aren't you in? But they feel like now they have a case to make. Now, alliance is about dealing with friends and convincing your friends to come along. One might say. But from a statutory perspective, even if Congress holds a line and says you haven't passed a law, say Trump leaves NATO tomorrow, even if the law says you need Congress to do so, if the commander in chief is not willing to enforce The Alliance, Article 5 of the alliance, then the alliance has no meeting. There was other phrase that Trump just stuck in my mind as he was taking shots at NATO. He said, I've always thought NATO is a paper tiger. And by the way, Putin does too. I was like, why do you share? You're undermining your own asset. Right. But why are you accepting his view of it, which it's not the first time we've seen him do that. He feels like they have a special bond and even seemingly what a bipartisan majority has long believed against US Interests when it comes to that alliance.
- [36:22]
Preet Bharara
There's an interesting question also going back to psychology again, that a president is arguably constrained by having an interest in a good legacy well into the future. And by good legacy, meaning, the historians say good things about you, maybe get some statues. I mean, we know that Trump loves to have things named after himself. Maybe he's worried that won't happen after he leaves office and he passes away. So he's trying to do as much of that as possible now. But arguably it is a regulating influence for you to think, after I die, people will say, this person was responsible for peace. This person strengthened our alliances as opposed to what may happen. Greater nuclear proliferation, greater power by China, because the alliances that we have been used to in the post world War era are frayed. It's a long way of asking, do you have any sense? Does Donald Trump care about what happens after he dies to his legacy or not?
- [37:24]
Jim Sciutto
He apparently cares very much about legacy. Right. Because he's trying to, like you say, name stuff after him. Even the Kennedy Center. Right. Build the Arc de Trump, as they call it, in front of Arlington National Cemetery, those kinds of structures, et cetera. But he does seem to believe that ending Iran's nuclear program would be a legacy issue for him. And by the way, I don't think a lot of people would contest that if he could successfully do that without.
- [37:53]
Preet Bharara
If it's permanent.
- [37:54]
Jim Sciutto
If it's permanent, Exactly.
- [37:56]
Preet Bharara
There are lots of things that a president can do, lots of things like a CEO of a company can do that would make everyone happy in the short term. A lot of things and a lot of sacrifices you don't have to ask people to make. Also in the short term. Now, we've seen some of that with Trump initially running on the prospect of higher gas prices under Biden. Oddly in my mind, talking about delayed gratification and saying, well, a little bit of pain is okay in the short term. My view of that is that's not a sort of higher minded strategic realist. Trump speaking. He has nothing else to say. He didn't expect gas prices to rise as if it was all part of the plan. He thought he was going to be done in three days.
- [38:41]
Jim Sciutto
Yeah, well, listen, we could say quite clearly that President Trump attempts to create his own reality, even when the facts point the other way. And we should say that with confidence. I mean, he lies. He lies at times or says things and then the next day says they're no longer important. On the legacy issues, I do believe he wants to create a legacy, Iran being one of them. I mean, Greenland is one of his legacy issues. Right. He wants to expand the territory of the United States, controlling The oil of Venezuela seems to be one of his legacy issues, as is building the defense budget. Right. Because he's long claimed to have rebuilt America's military. And if you look at this most recent defense budget, to add 40 some odd percent to what is already by far, many times bigger than anybody has defense budget. Again, another legacy issue for him that he hopes, I imagine would last beyond. And that's, he's not the first president to have those legacy issues. But I think that like with his day to day, I don't know that there's anybody around him that is saying to him, you know what, you know, destroying NATO might not be a great legacy to be associated with.
- [39:57]
Preet Bharara
Do you think that the alliances are temporarily damaged? Are they strained, are they stretched or are they irreparably damaged?
- [40:07]
Jim Sciutto
They are deeply and possibly irreparably damaged. I've been already writing another book because
- [40:13]
Preet Bharara
look at you with the books, there's
- [40:14]
Jim Sciutto
just too much happening. But I'm writing about the consequences of US Foreign policy under Trump. And I've been spending a lot of time with US allies in Asia, travel to Eastern Europe, Western Europe to Asia, spending a lot of time in the Middle east. And I ask folks, high level officials very directly questions like do you trust the US to come to your defense or can you get over Trump attempting to take your territory? Denmark. Right. Canada. Can you ever make a trade deal with the US that you trust again? Do you believe Japan and South Korea? Are you confident that the US Would come to your defense? And if not, is that why you're openly discussing your own nuclear deterrent? And the combination of answers I get are quite consistently no, they don't trust the US like they used to. And that even if there's another president who thinks differently, thinks more old school the way, you know, the bipartisan consensus, consensus used to be, they can't make the same bet they made after 2020 that Trump was in aberration.
- [41:23]
Preet Bharara
Yeah, yeah, no, it seems to me if you're the, if you're the leader of a European nation, it's the height of irresponsibility not to prepare for that eventuality because American democracy is nutty enough. You can elect an Obama, then elect a Trump, then elect a Biden, then elect Trump again. And by the way, imagine that the steps and acts that you undertake to protect yourself against continuation of Trumpism and the freeing of allies, those are not things that happen on a one week cycle. They happen on a many, many years long cycle. And they're going to invest in more nuclear and they're going to invest in more military. Those are budgets that span years and years, do they not? They can't be undone quickly by President Newsom or President Shapiro or any other Democratic traditional president. Right.
- [42:15]
Jim Sciutto
And it is true, you use the word existential, that these countries think of it as an existential threat. If you go to Eastern Europe, I spent a lot of time in the Baltics because they know Russia better than anyone. Because remember, they were under Russian control till 1991. It's like a minute ago, you and I, you know, it's like yesterday that was actually even. Well, it's been longer since the Mets championship. But anyway, it's not long ago. They believe they're Russia's next target. They don't just believe they'll be threatened. They believe that Putin wants to bring them back into the fold. South Korea certainly believes North Korea is an existential threat. Japan believes that China is an existential threat. Even the polls and others. So they can't rely on the wisdom of American voters to correct the excesses of the Trump years. They have to make decisions that protect their people. That's their fiduciary duty. Right. In even more extreme terms, now does
- [43:13]
Preet Bharara
a world in which Germany and the UK and France and a whole bunch of other allies and economically Canada and other countries are a little more self reliant and a little more independent, is that necessarily a less safe world or could it be a safer world?
- [43:29]
Jim Sciutto
So the truth is they took way too long. They should have done this a long time ago. Right? And it is true that they, we spent the money to defend Europe and they over time weakened and weakened with some exceptions. I mean, the Polish Eastern facing allies did a better job, but in general they were relying on us and they should have started earlier and now they got to catch up and now they have to catch up under enormous pressure. More balance in that relationship would be good. And frankly, it's fair. It's fair for you and me because our tax dollars pay for that security umbrella, whereas more of their tax dollars go to, well, their kids don't pay college tuitions like you and I did, that kind of thing. The trouble is that Trump seems to be burning down the whole structure, right? Because, because of that and because it doesn't see the value of the alliance. It's not just about getting Europe stronger and bearing more of the weight. It's just, I'm done with you guys. Your problem. That's the way he talks about Russia. That's the way he talks about, you know, The Ukraine war, et cetera. The thing is, for Europe, the shortcut, the only thing I was going to say is like, there's no shortcut for them to get from where they are today to being able to carry their own weight. It just takes too long and a lot of money. The shortcut is nuclear weapons.
- [44:49]
Preet Bharara
Isn't the best case scenario that we maintain our alliances, we keep them strong, and the individual members of each alliance are also themselves more self sufficient and more strong. Don't we want to have our cake and eat it too?
- [45:04]
Jim Sciutto
Well, that's if it was a healthy relationship. Right. You know, even in bringing it back to personal terms. Right. It's give and take, understanding each other's value, you know, working together, stronger together, all that kind of stuff. But Trump seems to believe the US doesn't need him. Right. Doesn't see the benefit and he's even said as much.
- [45:25]
Preet Bharara
I want to go back to the civilization comment because I can't get it out of my head. Can Marco Rubio, who's going to the president and trying to temper that and trying to explain that the people of Iran largely are not our enemy. I mean, they're not our enemy wholesale. And a large subset of the population, as you said, doesn't like their regime. What you're doing is you're driving them into their regime's good graces a little bit and tone down the rhetoric. Or has he reached a point in his presidency that he can say apocalyptic, arguably genocidal things and no one in his orbit says boo?
- [46:10]
Jim Sciutto
Well, no one in the administration, few people on Capitol Hill, heads of corporations. When I look at this, having covered Trump for 10 years, is that we've had limits broken over time. Right. Each time you think will never go further than this. You go further and further. And just that the system, there's some system breakdown. Right. There's probably some numbness involved.
- [46:37]
Preet Bharara
But this is worse.
- [46:39]
Jim Sciutto
I know it's worse.
- [46:40]
Preet Bharara
I don't mean to be overly. Because it's not just threatening. So now let's say so today is
- [46:46]
Tuesday and let's say he does that.
- [46:48]
He orders the indiscriminate bombing of every power plant, of every bridge. I don't know what it means to destroy a civilization in the night. I don't think that's possible. Let's say he destroys monuments. Let's say he says he destroys museums. And now it's Thursday or Friday. And you were the head of the Joint Chiefs or you were a general responsible for some of those war work streams. Now you're complicit in that. Are we going to see no resignation? Are we going to see no talking back? Are we going to see no defiance, particularly in a world in which everyone understands that unlawful orders are to be rejected?
- [47:31]
Jim Sciutto
Well, one thing we don't know is if whether some of these departures at the senior levels of the Pentagon, including among uniformed officers, was because they spoke up and paid for it.
- [47:42]
Preet Bharara
Yeah, that could be right.
- [47:43]
Jim Sciutto
Or weren't willing to be a part of it. It's possible, particularly around even back in the day when the most alarming thing we were doing was blowing up drug boats right off of Venezuela. So we don't know the extent of dissent and dissent with consequence. Where folks say, I'm out, this is just a bridge too far. In public, we've seen a lot of folks who claimed to support, say, NATO or the law of war just not speak up. Right. You've heard what Marco Rubio and others said in the past. Right. And are no longer saying in public,
- [48:21]
Preet Bharara
may we judge those humans very harshly, Jim?
- [48:25]
Jim Sciutto
Well, I think as Americans, we very reasonably can. Right. I always say that there's a courage shortage in Washington and political courage has never been common. But it's. It's a endangered species. Right. And it's a shame. It's a shame. But it's not exclusive just to Washington. Right. Because we've seen a whole host of folks in different categories and industries, people don't have courage.
- [48:54]
Preet Bharara
What's interesting about, we could call this episode, like war on psychology, that to become a politician, which I have resisted doing, you have to have a certain arrogance and ego and a certain courage to put yourself out in the public vote for me. There are very few shy people in politics. They're type A personalities. And that's not uncourageous to go out there and put yourself on the line and have you and your family covered negatively and take attacks. I mean, I don't know. That's a pretty. I don't know if courage is the right word, but it takes a certain strength of character and personality. I respect people who do it because I don't have the Constitution for it.
- [49:38]
Jim Sciutto
Well, politics is not the only place where you can demonstrate courage. Right. And I think that if you, look, if you're a professor or university president, do you defend academic freedom? If you're the managing partner of a law firm, do you defend your ability to defend clients? Right. If you're a citizen of Minnesota who thought that the tactics employed by immigration officers were deadly, do you protest against them. And we do. Courage is not gone, and I've been amazed at some folks I've witnessed who do stand up at the highest levels. It does not seem that it's rewarded in politics of late. Doesn't mean it won't be someday.
- [50:23]
Preet Bharara
Anyway, folks, to learn a lot about where we have been, where we are, and possibly where we're going, turn to Jim Sciuto, the return of great powers, Russia, China and the next world war. And you are a very important voice as we see how things unfold in a very precarious situation in Iran. Thank you, Jim.
- [50:41]
Jim Sciutto
Too kind of you. Thank you, Preet.
- [50:47]
Preet Bharara
My conversation with Jim Sciutto continues For members of the CAFE Insider community. In the bonus for insiders, we discuss the controversy surrounding press coverage of the Defense Department.
- [50:58]
Jim Sciutto
This administration has quite deliberately restricted the media or attempted to right up to and including kicking CNN and other outlets out of the Pentagon. And you've still seen some pretty hard hitting coverage, right? That's revealed a lot.
- [51:11]
Preet Bharara
To try out the membership, head to cafe.cominsider again, that's cafe.cominsider after the break, I'll answer your questions about why members of Congress receive special treatment at airports and what the birthright citizenship case means for indigenous tribes.
- [51:42]
Podcast Narrator/Announcer
Chronic migraine 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more, can make me feel like a spectator in my own life. Botox Onobotulinum toxin a prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month. It's the number one prescribed branded chronic
- [51:58]
Tucker Carlson
migraine preventive treatment Prescription Botox is injected by your doctor. Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection, causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue and headaches. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions including als, Lou Gehrig's disease, myasthenia gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome and medications including botulinum toxins as these may increase the risk of serious side effects.
- [52:37]
Podcast Narrator/Announcer
Why wait? Ask your doctor, visit botoxchronicmigraine.com or call 1-844botox to learn more.
- [52:44]
Lowe's Advertiser
Introducing Home Care Plus, a new subscription service from Lowe's that helps make life easier by giving members a hand with home maintenance. Let Lowe's tackle the tasks you keep meaning to do, like electric dryer, vent cleaning, replacing hard to reach light bulbs, and more. Subscribe to Home Care plus for just $99 a year and consider your to do list done. Members get more at Lowe's. Available in select zip codes only. Cancel anytime. Non refundable fee. Product purchase required. Terms and service restrictions apply. Details@lowe's.com Terms subject to change.
- [53:13]
Podcast Narrator/Announcer
It's today explained President Trump has not made a coherent case for his war in Iran, and last night he said he's not ending it yet.
- [53:21]
Preet Bharara
We're going to hit them extremely hard over the next two to three weeks. We're going to bring them back to the Stone Ages where they belong.
- [53:30]
Podcast Narrator/Announcer
His ally Tucker Carlson has been making a very coherent case against the war
- [53:34]
Tucker Carlson
because it doesn't serve American interests in any conceivable way. And let me just say that if it does in some way serve the interests of the United States, I'd love to hear it.
- [53:46]
Podcast Narrator/Announcer
I heard on Tuesday we asked Carlson about his break with Trump and about how the Trump coalition is splintering as some young conservatives abandon the president and embrace something darker.
- [53:57]
Tucker Carlson
It becomes like all of a sudden, like, hey you kids, why are you listening to Elvis Presley? And that rock music is bad. Like all of a sudden Fuentes controls the conversation and becomes the cool kid and the net effect is to make the Holocaust a joke.
- [54:12]
Podcast Narrator/Announcer
Today explained every weekday wherever you get your podcasts.
- [54:21]
Preet Bharara
Now, let's get to your questions.
- [54:23]
This question comes in an email from Laura, who writes, we've been hearing a lot lately about the special treatment members of Congress receive at airports from expedited TSA access to dedicated airline service desks. Senator John Cornyn has now introduced a bill to curb those perks. What exactly would the bill prohibit, and why were lawmakers given this special treatment in the first place? Laura, that's a really interesting question, and a fraught one at this time. With so many issues at airports, amid the public outcry over the recent actions of ICE and Customs and Border Protection, members of Congress have been locked in a battle over the next funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The previous funding measure has lapsed, and TSA funding has become collateral damage. In the stalemate, TSA agents have missed paychecks, staffing has been strained, and security lines have grown longer as fewer officers report to work. In stark contrast to those long lines that you and I might experience, the public has become much more aware that members of Congress receive Special treatment at airports. That issue drew fresh attention after Senator John Cornyn, as you point out, introduced the End Special Treatment for Congress at Airports Act. Pretty good self explanatory name which would require members of Congress to undergo the same TSA screening procedures as all other airline passengers. Then it gained even more visibility when Delta Air Lines announced that it would suspend specialized customer service for lawmakers until TSA funding is restored.
- [55:48]
How do you like that?
- [55:49]
Those developments have prompted a broader why were lawmakers receiving special treatment in the first place? Well, the story appears to go back to the mid-2000s, around the time I was working in the Senate. You may remember the lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who was at the center of a major corruption scandal involving, among other things, Native American tribes that had hired him to lobby on their behalf. During the fallout, it emerged that one of Abramoff's favorite lobbying tactics was flying lawmakers around the country on his private jet. At the time, the rules allowed members of Congress to accept private air travel so long as they reimbursed the plane's owner at the cost of a first class commercial ticket. Of course, chartering a private jet costs a lot more than a first class ticket, and Abramoff used that price gap to secure extended access to lawmakers during those flights. By 2006, the scandal had reached a boiling point and Congress moved to tighten its ethics rules. In 2007, it passed the Honest Leadership and Open Government act, which eliminated the first class reimbursement loophole and required members to pay the full charter cost for private flights. Not surprisingly, many lawmakers shifted to flying commercial. Within a few years, reports began surfacing that major airlines had created special service arrangements for members of Congress, dedicated booking desks, streamlined scheduling, lounge access and occasionally even holding a plane briefly if a lawmaker was delayed by a vote. Around the same period, lawmakers also began receiving white glove service from tsa, including faster screening and airport escorts. The current TSA funding crisis, of course, has put a spotlight on those perks, highlighting the contrast between the airport experience for the average traveler and that of elected officials, elected officials who have been bungling funding for those workers. Cornyn's bill aims to eliminate that disparity. It would require members of Congress to go through the same TSA screening as everyone else and bar them from bypassing standard procedures or receiving priority treatment based on their status. But Cornyn's bill does grant lawmakers a bit of a break. If the bill passes, they'll be allowed to apply for TSA precheck, just like everyone else.
- [57:59]
So far, the bill has passed the
- [58:00]
Senate and is now pending in the House. Thanks for the question. This question came as a post in the Stay tuned substack chat from Lauren what does the birthright citizenship case mean for the Indigenous tribes? Lawrence so thanks for the question. It was one that came up at oral argument from Justice Gorsuch. In fact, so like many people, I listened closely to the oral arguments in the Supreme Court's birthright citizenship case, Trump v. Barbara at its core, the case is about the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. Quote all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States. End quote. The central dispute, of course, is over what it means to be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The parties challenging the Executive Order argued that jurisdiction means ordinary legal authority. In other words, if you can be arrested, prosecuted, or punished under U.S. law, then you are of course subject to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of the 14th Amendment. That's subject to narrow, historically recognized exceptions. And if you are subject to the jurisdiction of the US and born here, you qualify as a US Citizen. So the administration countered that birth on US Soil isn't enough by itself. The Solicitor General told the justices that subject to the jurisdiction requires something more than simply being physically present and expected to follow the law. It requires full political allegiance to the US and that's where the indigenous tribes issue enters the discussion. The government invoked indigenous tribes as a central example of one such historical exception to the 14th Amendment. Today, of course, Native Americans are U.S. citizens under federal law, Period. Congress settled that question in 1924 with the Indian Citizenship act, which extended citizenship to all Native Americans born within the United states. But before 1924, courts wrestled with whether the 14th Amendment automatically applied to members of tribal nations. The issue, again, was jurisdiction. In the 19th century, tribes were often treated as distinct political communities with a measure of sovereignty. As a result, members of tribal nations were not always viewed as fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States in the same way others born on US Soil were. In oral arguments, the Solicitor General pointed to that history to argue that if mere birth on US Soil were sufficient, Native Americans would have been automatically recognized as citizens in 1868. But they often were not. Therefore, he argued, the 14th Amendment must require something narrower, like direct and immediate allegiance to the U.S. the ACLU responded for its part that those historical examples don't support the administration's broader theory. They argue that the exclusion of tribal members for a period of time in the late 19th century reflected the unique constitutional status of tribes at the time, not a general principle that children born here can be denied citizenship based on their parents immigration status. Those are different things, they argue. In other words, in constitutional terms, a tribal nation is not the same thing as an individual immigrant family. We'll likely get the Court's decision sometime this summer, so stay Tuned. Well, that's it for this episode of Stay Tuned. Thanks to my guest Jim Sciuto. If you like what we do, rate and review the show on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen, every positive review helps new listeners find the show. Send me your questions about news, politics and justice. You can reach me on Twitter or blueskyeetbarara with the hashtag AskPreet. You can also call and leave me a message at 833-997-7338, that's 83399, Preet. Or you can send an email to letterscafe.com stay tuned is now on substack. Head to staytuned.substack.com to watch live streams, get updates about new podcast episodes and more. That's staytuned.substack.com Stay Tuned is presented by Cafe and the Vox Media Podcast Network. The executive producer is Tamara Sal, the Deputy editor is Celine Rohr, the supervising producer is Jake Kaplan the lead editorial producer is Jennifer Indig the associate producer is Claudia Hernandez the audio and video producer is Nat Wiener, the senior audio producer is Matthew Billy and the Marketing Manager is Leanna Greenway. Our music is by Andrew Dost. Special thanks to Tory Paquette and Adam Harris. I'm your host, Preet Bharara. As always, Stay Tuned.