Loading summary
Transcript16 lines
- [00:00]
A
Is this PG or is this not pg?
- [00:02]
B
No, it's not pg. This is. We're talking about legal stuff. No one's listening to this with their kids. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the Illegal News. I'm Sarah Longwell, publisher of the Bulwark, and back with me today is my guy, Andrew Weissman, best selling author of Liars Kingdom, host of Ms. Now podcast, main justice lawyer, professor, New Yorker, dog dad, and a multi hyphenate renaissance man. Andrew, glad you're back.
- [00:31]
A
That is a great introduction.
- [00:33]
B
I love it.
- [00:34]
A
The dog part, it was great. Loved it.
- [00:37]
B
Jeez. The more we do the show, the more things I have to say about you.
- [00:41]
A
Okay, I'm coming back.
- [00:43]
B
Great. Okay. Before we dive into the illegal news, my producer has just, like, ask Andrew if he has a story from his weekend.
- [00:53]
A
No, wait, wait, no, no, that's like, wait, that's. I have a feeling that's like, why I brought it. And you're probably like, no story.
- [01:03]
B
Like, if I hadn't just seen it, I would have been like, skip this part. Skip this part. Right, okay. No, instead. Instead of stories, Murika, we're going to talk about Iran. Just because that was actually the story of my weekend because I was pretty glued to the negotiations because they're both. On one hand, it's sort of like this show, incredibly important and substantive and like, important to the future. And what happens on the other hand, like, so much silliness going on. Like, and also it's so much. I was, like, very much struggling to understand what is happening here. And so I know this isn't always what you and I talk about on the show, but I heard that you wanted to talk about it, and so I'm excited for you to break down this MOU situation.
- [01:51]
A
Yes. And I. And I have a big question for you because I am. I can't even say in the middle because it's a tome, but I am reading Regime Change, the new book by Maggie Haberman and
- [02:09]
B
Swan.
- [02:10]
A
Jonathan. Jonathan Swan. Yeah. He's great. I mean, not that she's. She's great, obviously, but everyone knows her. Jonathan's just terrific. And I was actually following them on Lawrence the other night, and so it was sort of fascinating to hear them. They're just. They're so serious. They're such great journalists. But I had a question for you, but let's first sort of break it down. Can I give a quick shout out to somebody you and I both know? Because a lot of my thinking is comes from Tess Bridgman, who is a Co editor in chief of Just Security. She was in the Obama administration, in a, in position, a whole series of senior positions to know. And I've really, I've talked a lot about this with her, so many ways I'm channeling her. But I, I thought she had such an interesting way of thinking about this, because what I wanted to know from her is what exactly have we agreed to? How does it compare to what Obama agreed to? In other words, like, what was that? What is this? What are the pluses or minuses of where we are? And what is she thinking about? Like, what's going forward? So those were sort of like the three things that were top of mind. And so the, one of the things that I thought was that she was like, let me just make sure that we're comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges. Is that when she said, let's just think about what we have now. And what you compare it to is there is under the Obama administration, is that there were two things under the Obama administration. There was an interim agreement and then there was the final agreement. And she said, so when you're comparing what we have now, you can't compare this to the final agreement because this is just an interim agreement. So you have to compare it to the interim agreement under the Obama administration. I mean, obviously you know what the final result is, so you can think about that. So that sort of was step one. The other is she just said, look, we're just in such a crazy different space because the Obama agreement didn't happen while there was a unprovoked illegal war and the straight Hormuz was closed. And so that all the, it's. And that the thing that we're all caring about and the reason that, that Trump said we went to war, which he now calls a war, but it was like, is it a war? No, it's not a war. Because if it was a war, I had to get congressional approval. So it's not a. Now that I'm resolving it, it's a war. I mean, it's just, I mean, the, the lies are just unbelievable. But just to be clear, what we have now is a sort of temporary solution to, okay, we're not going to bomb now and the Strait of Hormuz is going to open, but the nuclear piece is completely up in the air. Like, the thing that we went to war over is not in any way, shape or form resolved. Like that is can kicked. And so it's so hard to. Like, I was listening to Donald Trump this morning on some news program saying, and I just want to say, like, x billion dollars of oil. We're going through the Strait of Hormuz. And I'm like, and that's where we were and more before the war. So, like, it's insane that it's like, oh, let me just understand. We are in such a worse position and including a worse bargaining position by the way. Sanctions gone. And that there's. We. We. This isn't. J.D. vance, I think is just completely, let's just say misleading when he says, no, no, no, no. The sanctions only go away if Iran does. A, B and C. No, no, no, they're. They're gone now. And so, you know, Iran is going to get all this, like billions of dollars from a conglomerate. We're not acting with all these other international countries in way, the way that Obama did. We're sort of out on our own. We've given up the leverage of sanctions. The, the idea that now everyone knows that, that the idea that we're going to drop more bombs and they're going to close off the Strait of Hormuz, it means we're in a worse position because it's, it's proven that they have this straight of her m leverage. I mean, everything about this is worse. And the one reason we went to war is not resolved at all, which is ostensibly about whether. Whether we're going to do something that is better than what Obama agreed to in terms of the nuclear weapons. Okay, so I. Do I sound triggered?
- [07:10]
B
Yeah, you do. Can I just. I do want to add, though, because as I'm listening to you, the one thing to say that they went in there because they wanted to do something about the nuclear program. I actually think isn't. Is the. It is. Was the stated reason much later, actually. Like, remember how long it took us for them to start to articulate a reason? And, and so in the beginning, they went, they went. Trump went. Because Netanyahu said, hey, you know, let's do this. And he'd just done Venezuela. And he thought, well, this will be easy. We'll drop some bombs and then I'll walk away. And he. And because he's a moron and thoughtless and he's got Hegseth, who's also a moron and thoughtless. Like, then they had to reverse engineer a reason to do it.
- [07:55]
A
You're absolutely right. And that raises the question I wanted to ask you. Okay, so that is like a really, really. That's not even like a footnote. That's like a really important point. That, and I should have said the sort of belated stated reason for the war is not one that there's, there's still, there's, there's still a belated result in this that we're not even back to where we were. So in the book Regime Change, you have reporting that says that in the internal meetings at the White House, in spite of this sort of the facade of, you know, we're all on board and we do whatever Trump says and there's no dissent. You have military personnel saying, don't fall for Netanyahu's constant refrain. He does this all the time. It's hyperbole and it's, you know, you're underestimating, like, how hard this is going to be that the Strait of Hormuz is a problem now. There's all of the things that we're seeing were flagged and there were people who were dead set against it, most notably J.D. vance. Right. And that, by the way, this is like such a Washington parlor game because when you see newspaper articles or books come out and like, to me, it's like, you know, I would never ask Maggie Haberman this or Jonathan Swan, because they can't possibly give it up. But, you know, you read stuff like this and you're thinking, okay, J.D. vance wants to be president, and he has now differentiated himself from this war. But also Marco Rubio, who is not exactly 100% on board, but let's just say he is not taking the do not do it stance, according to this book. So, one. Isn't it obvious? J.D. vance is one. Obviously was the source for that. I mean, there's so many things in that book where it's like, there are two people, things are in quotes, and one of the people is talking to Putin. Well, I don't think Putin was a source of Maggie Han and, and Jonathan Swad. So it's like, pretty clear who the sources are. And so this is like what you do in Washington if you want to get your story out. But also politically, J.D. vance to, to me is being so duplicative. Dup. Duplicative. He's being so duplicitous because it's like he's out there selling this thing and saying all these things that are just not true. But also behind the scenes, he is getting the story out that he was never in favor of this, which have to, by the way, drive Trump and Susie Wiles just insane.
- [10:43]
B
Maybe. So I have a, I have an alternate theory on this.