Matthew Continetti (6:13)

However it was Gazan civilians who took them initially. So this is actually something I think needs to be. The public needs to be reminded of this because we're still hearing this. Oh, the Gaza civilians, we have to protect them. They eagerly, eagerly participated in the taking of this family and the children. They, they hid them in their homes, holding them hostage. And we know from the, the surveys of the, of the streets of Gaza, they were absolutely enthusiastic about Hamas and what Hamas has done. This is no longer just an issue of, you know, a, a poor beleaguered refugee people being controlled by a terrible terrorist organization. They were all in. And I think the story of this family, this tragedy shows that they showed civilians taking them away, walking them out of their homes, never to be seen alive again.

John Podhoretz (7:03)

That's very well put and it has an effect on how we should be thinking about the Trump proposal to depopulate Gaza, to raise its buildings and to rebuild it from the ground up with, with the population relocated. As we've said here, as many people have said, this idea that this is a form of ethnic cleansing comic in, in some fundamental sense, because wars that are launched from a territory, the, the losers in those wars do not dictate the terms of their national identities any longer. They sought territorial advance in the form of the invasion of Israel. As Dan Ceno reminded us on Monday on the podcast, the actual plan here was not just simply to do it like one off, like October, like September 11, you know, blow up four buildings and then, although of course they also, they also wanted to decapitate the, the presidency and the political system of, of the United States, but was actually to invade, to move north through Israel and potentially to meet Hamas which would be moving down from the north to the south in Tel Aviv. That was actually the vision of October 7, which was not supposed to end with them retreating back to Gaza and then getting the stuffing kicked out of them for 16 months. This was an invasion by a, by a foreign entity. They're going to lose. And when they lose the concerns over where they go, it really not Something that we should care all that much about. Populations have been, have been relocated and moved around throughout the 20th century, even now, you know, as a result of, as a result of wars.

Christine Rosen (8:58)

And before we get to that point, we have to consider what might happen with phase two of this ceasefire. The release of the bodies today is supposed to be followed by the release of live captives in a couple of days. And in fact the living captives who are to be released will fulfill Hamas's obligation under the agreed to prisoner list of phase one. And that raises the question of what happens under phase two of the deal. And there are some mixed signals, funnily enough, coming from this administration and from the Middle East. Steve Witkoff, the special envoy for the Middle east has said that phase two will happen and he's going to try to make it happen. The Hamas, apparently in a report from the Times of Israel is floating the idea of releasing all those captives, all the remaining captives who are male soldiers, including Americans, in exchange for complete withdrawal. It's, that's a non starter, it seems, from the Israeli side. And Trump of course is on record saying that Hamas should have released all the captives last Saturday or all hell will break loose. So Maragaza is out there on the horizon, but I think the more immediate question is what is going to happen after this weekend? And does that, will the war resume? Will there be some kind of liminal space here where there are negotiations over what happened, whether we get another phased release of captives or what? Or does everything break down and people forget the worst outcome would be people forget about what Hamas did on October 7 and why Hamas needs to be destroyed?

Abe Greenwald (11:08)

I think I just want to say from Hamas standpoint, but my guess is they now they start playing for time, they, they start saying that there's, they can't proceed quite yet because there's this violation or someone said that they try to slow down, draw out this whole process as they've.

John Podhoretz (11:33)

Well, so phase two and phase three, I will actually read you phase two, the words and the, I can find them, excuse me, in the agreement. Second stage, very short second stage, just like the first stage, supposed to last 42 days, quote, announcing the return of sustainable calm, cessation of military and hostile operations. And it's taking effect before the exchange of detainees and prisoners between the two sides, all remaining Israeli men alike, civilians and soldiers, in exchange for an agreed upon number of prisoners in Israeli prisons and detainees in detention camps by Israeli forces and the complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip. So phase two is essentially what, what Israel agreed to Israel. Phase two, if it proceeds, is continuation of a ceasefire that is accompanied by a withdrawal of, with of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip and the sustainable calm. So Saturday Israel or Sunday Israel is going to have to make a decision. What they can say is there is no sustainable calm. You have reaped the whirlwind upon yourself, particularly with what happened today parading our dead children like they were, you know, like this was a. Like this was a, you know, Philadelphia after the Super Bowl. There is no sustainable calm. You're evil. We're done. We got out who we can get out. We have no faith that we're going to get anybody else out. We're going back in. The Israeli public is very, very divided on this. Ask a poll question. Poll question says 70% of Israelis want all the hostages back more than they want the resumption of the war. On the other hand, it is very possible that the Netanyahu government will fall if the war does not resume. There has been this suspended period of six weeks in which this political trouble that the coalition is in has been kind of frozen in place. For the most part, the populace is divided. The question is, will Israelis believe that it is a fantasy to continue dealing with Hamas or that the, or that the cost of losing, of being. Seeming to allow Hamas to dictate the terms under which this war concludes.

Christine Rosen (14:37)

Can I just, I just. My thought on that is the non starter is complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu is not going to do that and it would be foolish for him to do that. There needs to be a buffer zone. That buffer zone needs to be in the Strip. So forces need to be ringing the perimeter of the strip inside Gaza in order to prevent and deter another. October 7th. We've had all these discussions about the Philadelphia corridor between Israel and Egypt. The IDF needs to have some presence there in order to prevent the smuggling of weapons and funds into the Gaza Strip. So if I had to take a guess, Netanyahu's play might be to negotiate over that part. Right. We're not going to leave, but maybe there's something else that can be done in order to create the conditions for further release of the hostages. And I think that's what Witkoff, the US envoy will be pressuring him to do. Because everything we hear from Witkoff is he agrees with the public, the Israeli public, that section of which wants the hostages back, prioritizes the release of the captives ahead of the destruction of Hamas. But I think whatever happens, and I'm just, you know, sitting in my study, speculating as usual. Whatever happens is it's going to be this kind of gray zone for the coming weeks where we don't know what happened. And what does Hamas do? Does it take a provocative action? Does it kill one of the hostages in order to prove its mettle? That I think makes for a very combustible situation, only adding onto not only the domestic concerns, but something we haven't talked about that much, at least on the podcast I've been on, which is this mounting crisis in relations between Israel and Egypt. These armor divisions that Egypt has been staging outside the Gaza Strip in Sinai. Egypt is saying it's there to stop the Palestinians, but there's no question that the relationship between General Sisi and Israel has deteriorated. The relationship between General Sisi and the United States has deteriorated over the Maragaza plan. We're all spending this exerting this energy of past week about Europe and about Ukraine. That's important, too. But it seems to me that the Middle east is going to rear its ugly head at any moment. Once again.

John Podhoretz (17:25)

This is one of these interesting sort of contingent moments in, in history. Choices are going to have to be made here that are not obvious or deliberate in any in either direction. Netanyahu is an extraordinarily cautious and prudent player. This is something, as we have said constantly, people misunderstand. They think he's some kind of a zealots, you know, raging extremist type. And in fact, he moves with great trepidation and caution. Dancing or podcast with Yoav Galant that we talked about on Monday reveals that Gallant, who is otherwise kind of dovish in certain ways as a particular, as a military man, oddly dovish, had a much more, had a much more aggressive plan in some aspects than Netanyahu did at the beginning of the war and was refused, was told that his plan could not go into. That is Netanyahu to a T. He had a green light to unleash hell last week and didn't do it. He also doesn't know what to do about the hostages right now. Today in Egypt, there is a meeting to discuss phase two and the, I assume the American position is release all the hostages on Saturday or on Sunday or whatever, and we'll, you know, we'll, we'll, we'll take it from there. We'll see what, what kind of survival Hamas can, can achieve in the wake of that. Bibi has said regardless of what happens, Hamas cannot be allowed to survive, Period. These may be unbridgeable. This may be an unbridgeable chasm. Witkoff, because he's the negotiator, wants to declare a victory for the United States in securing the release of the hostages, since there are, you know, there are American hostages still there. The question is, at what point do the Israelis say, we cannot sacrifice our future, however monstrously tragic this is, to ensure the release of these. These people. Because we're now talking about tens of thousands of Israelis in the future who will die if we follow the logic of the ceasefire agreement to its. To its end, which is that Hamas will somehow survive to fight another day. That the message will be that if you take Israelis hostage, they may beat the crap out of you for a while, but that they. But that their emotional connection to their own people means that you have a whip hand over them. And who knows what that information will do to other nations and other countries and what the mythology that will spread, or the Hamas will spread if it survives, what that will do to other actors, not even just them.

Matthew Continetti (20:46)

Well, everything.

John Podhoretz (20:47)

What if Iran decides to somehow fly a plane into Israel, kidnap a hundred people, fly them back to Iran? I don't know how that would happen, but, you know, and then have hold them in Iran that so that Israel doesn't ever do anything to Iran. Hey, everybody. I want to talk to you today about Lumen. It's the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. And on the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat or carbs and gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workout, sleep, and even stress management. All you have to do is breathe into your Lumen first thing in the morning, and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fat or carbs. Then Lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for that day based on your measurements. You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals so you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time. And Lumen will give you tips to keep you on top of your health game. Look, your metabolism is your body's engine. It's how your body turns the food you eat into fuel that keeps you going. Lumen gives you recommendations to improve your metabolic health. It can also track your cycle, as well as the onset of menopause. Sadly, that's not really an issue for me. Or certainly if it were, given my age, that ship would have sailed. And you can adjust your recommendations to keep your metabolism healthy through hormonal shifts so you can Keep up your energy and stave off cravings. Take the next step to improving your health. Go to Lumen Me commentary to get 20% off your lumen that is l u m e n me commentary for 20% off your purchase. Thank you Lumen for sponsoring this episode.

Abe Greenwald (22:33)

Hi everyone, Abe here. I started off the year drinking the nutritional supplement AG1 and it's the easiest time I've ever had keeping a New Year's resolution because it's so simple and feels good to do. I'm getting a broad spectrum of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants and it supports my immune health, which is a blessing this time of year. The past few weeks of winter have been brutal. Sometimes it can be hard to get up and go in the morning or get outside because of the cold. Sometimes it's hard to get up and do the podcast. But with AG1, I find I'm hitting my health and exercise goals without any problem and my mental focus is sharp because AG1 is a comprehensive nutritional supplement that supports brain, body and gut health. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a more comprehensive supplement on the market, which is why I'm having fewer cravings. I've told my friends about it and they're into it too. Why wouldn't they be? You just start your day with one scoop and you'll really feel the benefits. And it's so easy to be consistent with that you formed a healthy habit without even trying. It's never too late to create a new healthy habit for 2025, so try AG1 for yourself. It's something I've actually been able to stay consistent with, and that's why I'm so excited to be partnering with AG1. And AG1 is offering new subscribers a free $76 gift. When you sign up, you'll get a welcome kit, a bottle of D3K2, and five free travel packs in your first box. So make sure to check out drinkag1.com commentary to get this offer. That's drinkag1.com commentary to start your new year on a healthier note.

Matthew Continetti (24:13)

This is everything we know about the history of terrorism and the west and the United States dealing with terrorists says just that. You actually do have to destroy them. I mean, I'm recalling President Obama talking about ISIS being a JV team. Well, that did not prove correct and we did not actually eliminate a terrorist cell when we had the opportunity. It will rebuild. It will come back, and allowing even a semblance of Hamas to continue to have any influence in the Region does, in fact, tell every, both its, its terrorist regime sponsor in Iran and every other budding terrorist network in the, in the world that that is exactly what you do. And this is where the impatience of the Trump foreign policy approach, both in the Middle east and, and in Europe, yields some unfortunate destabilizing results. Because there's no one saying that on the Trump side. There's talk of, you know, leveling Gaza, but saying Hamas has to be destroyed. And that is the beginning of our negotiation process. The rush. The rush there. I know some people claim that's a strategy, but it's not helpful when you're.

Christine Rosen (25:18)

Talking about, I mean, removing the Palestinians from Gaza and not allowing them to return implies that Hamas would not have a base anymore. But it's embedded in what Trump is saying on this particular subject.

Abe Greenwald (25:33)

But that also speaks to a sort of a different universe. We're not in that universe yet in this one, it's true. He's not talking about destroying gods, saying all hell will break loose. And I'm not going to say what that means is actually a way of dodging, being specific about saying terrorist organizations must be destroyed to the last man.

John Podhoretz (25:59)

Look, his vagueness is part of his strategy, and he says very extreme things without, without following them up with specifics. And that's, you know, you might say an opening gambit or a negotiating strategy or, or simply the way, the way that he thinks. Like, the details will be filled in later. I, I'm not sure the United States. What matters here with the United States is he's saying it's up to you. You know what, Bibi? It's up to you. You want.

Christine Rosen (26:29)

And we're supplying the weapons that Biden denied the Israelites.

John Podhoretz (26:32)

Exactly. But you want to. You, you decide as a, as a sovereign nation, not that he's that thrilled with other sovereign nations, but you want to decide as a sovereign nation that this is your. In your national interest, you go right ahead. That is the policy of the President of the United States, as far as we know it.

Christine Rosen (26:48)

And that's how he got out of the contradiction between his statement last week that all of the hostages need to be released or hell would break loose, and what Netanyahu settled for, which was simply the continuance of the agreed phase one of the ceasefire. Trump said whatever Israel decides.

John Podhoretz (27:07)

Yeah.

Christine Rosen (27:07)

So that's kind of how he's granting Israel the room to Agency. Agency the ability to act in its own national interest.

John Podhoretz (27:17)

Right.

Christine Rosen (27:17)

So not to say that there are. I do agree with Abe and Christine that there's a larger question looming here, which is what to do about Iran. And what's become clear over the last 72 hours or so is that the White House foreign policy is being run by people who have an extremely non interventionist, dovish attitude toward the world and believe that the first step should be reaching agreements with adversary powers, even if we don't have leverage over those adversary powers. So I do think Trump may try to open some type of negotiations with Iran in the coming months. And I even as I will say he did reimpose maximum pressure on its economy and was crowing about the fact that there have been mass blackouts in Iran over the past week that, you know, that would not be helpful to anyone if we enter another endless diplomatic process with Iran where clearly they'll be cheating and using whatever sanctions relief they get to sow havoc and terror around the world.

John Podhoretz (28:34)

And this, of course, represents, if you're, if your scenario works out the way that it works out, this rule represent one of the greatest missed opportunities in, in modern history. Iran is naked before the world. It has no defenses that we know of, air defenses or any defenses of that sort. It is still very active with its nuclear program. It is the position of the United States that it cannot be permitted to get a nuclear weapon. It has been a destabilizing force against Israel in the Persian Gulf, in the Red Sea, activating the Houthis.

Christine Rosen (29:13)

It's killed Americans for decades.

John Podhoretz (29:15)

Killed Americans for decades. And they are an open shot with very little cost to whoever might take the shot.

Christine Rosen (29:25)

I'm not saying the doves will win necessarily. I just want to put that out there, that this is a debate that I think is happening. And I do. When you look at what Secretary Rubio said during his visit to Israel last weekend, it was extremely powerful condemnation of Iran. And I think President Trump begins with the fact that Iran is trying to have him killed, and he understands that. Remember, there is that moment in the White House, in the Oval Office, God knows time has a flat circle now, a week or so ago, where he said he's left instructions to obliterate Iran in the case of his assassination. So if anything, and I'm sure we'll transition to Europe in a moment here. But if anything, what's happening in Europe may be something of a diversion from a more aggressive posture that the administration is pursuing toward Iran, even if that means ultimately that if Israel decides to launch an attack in the coming months on this defenseless Iran, on its nuclear facilities, on the nuclear infrastructure, simply to delay, on its oil platform, on its oil platform simply to weaken Iran further, move back the timeline for an Iranian nuclear weapon years, perhaps create political instability, which we already know is always beneath the surface in Iran. If Israel does that, I do think we're in a position where at the minimum, the Trump administration would provide rhetorical cover and diplomatic support when, you know, the United nations attempts to expel Israel or something like that as a result of this attack.

John Podhoretz (31:19)

Well, one thing we know about the Trump administration, both the first one and this one, is that consistency is not its hallmark. That it is expostulating a view of the world in, in relation to Ukraine does not mean that that view of the world doesn't end at the borders of Ukraine and Russia. It may well end there and that he may be incredibly aggressive elsewhere. We just, we don't know. He's not, he does not have a record of being militarily aggressive. You know, he's, he's done, he's done one shots, you know, taken out Soleimani hit, hit the hit Syria in, in 2017.

Christine Rosen (31:58)

But he hit hits early in this.

John Podhoretz (32:01)

But, but, but what? But, but these are, these are one shots. They're like one night operations. You go in, you go out, you're done. You know, so it's like going to Wisconsin, as Bill Murray would say in stripes. Day trip, you know, that's the day trip. Right. And, and so we're talking here about sustained military action. And, and the, the though it is.

Christine Rosen (32:22)

Interesting though, isn't it, that Israel was able to accomplish so much in one raid last October. Yeah, I mean I remember the interviews. Maybe it was Dan Senor even on our podcast talking about how some of the. Or John Chandzer on our podcast talking about how some of the IAF pilots got home for breakfast after destroying the Iranian air defense system. By the way, a Russian produced air defense system. They destroyed it and they took out some other facilities, particular the ones involved in creating the mechanics of ballistic missiles just to, just to communicate to the regime what they're up to. So we talk about sustained engagement. It's not clear to me actually how sustained it would need to be. Even a couple, you know, a couple days. Yeah, yeah, you could like set a, set the Iranian nuclear program back, but even decades.

John Podhoretz (33:22)

Right. But even his goals when using military action, he doesn't very restricted like he.

Christine Rosen (33:28)

Really doesn't like using it, which is unusual for a fascist.

John Podhoretz (33:31)

Right? Yeah, yeah.

Christine Rosen (33:32)

You know, I mean I read in Esquire magazine yesterday that, you know, we're living in the Third Reich but one difference seems to me is that this is a fascist dictator who loathes military force and all he wants to do is end wars and cut our defense budget.

Abe Greenwald (33:49)

You know, I think the key to his not wanting any sustained operations is that he wants to be able to say there's peace while he is in office. So it's all, the result is that it's all very short sighted.

John Podhoretz (34:05)

Right.

Abe Greenwald (34:07)

We can end this war in a day. Well, it's always easy to end a war in a day if you cave to the aggressor.

John Podhoretz (34:12)

Well, you know, it's a huge temptation for these presidents, particularly say a term limited president ultimately. What was Obama's strategy with Iran? I know he started, but by the time we got to the Iranian nuclear deal, what was the strategy? I'm kicking the can down the road. What does that mean? That means I want to get praise for making some kind of deal that stabilizes things right now, Right now. And then I leave and then I sign my $40 million book deal and I make movies for Netflix and I issue my year end top 10 book list and do whatever it is I do. And then the world can go hang because I've let this. I also was in a position to do something to destroy the nuclear aims of this irredentist regime, that history would regard my actions as something really decisive. And I decided not to do it because it's too much trouble. And I don't really know that I'm worried about the downsides and this, this temptation, which is to say I'm only here for a while and it's too risky. And I, you know, let, let, let, let the next guy, I'll deal with the things as they are right now. Let the next guy deal with the ramifications or the consequences. That's, you know, but this, this is.

Matthew Continetti (35:32)

Always so, this is so this is the debate that I think we all have been having since, since Trump won reelection about his foreign policy approach. Because you either have to see that he's very presentist. That's why he's announcing his foreign policy on Twitter generally. And Abe is absolutely right to talk about him not concerned about the long term. The reason I think he has written out plans that Iran should be obliterated if he is attacked. Doesn't suggest that he would do the same thing if an American was taken hostage by the Iranian regime. Right. It's very personal for him. And that personal deal making approach, is it strategic? Perhaps in the moment, Is it long term? Is it thoughtful? Long term? About how power works on the globe. That remains to be seen. Now, it is certainly in stark contrast to the Anthony Blinken, Joe Biden way, which we have I think correctly criticized for years. But it's very unnerving, I think, to our allies as we've been talking about with regard to Ukraine and Europe. I think in part because it isn't long term and strategic in its thinking. Now, are there people in the administration doing that kind of thinking? Hope so. But I would like to know who they are and what they see. The access of power, particularly the Russia, Iran connection, which nobody in Trump world wants to talk about because we're making this deal evidently with Russia. I'm just curious if there are strategic long term thinkers that Trump has brought on that we're just not hearing from.

Abe Greenwald (36:56)

Look, because, you know, I just want to add that just because he wants to act in ways that change the facts on the ground in the short term doesn't mean it doesn't have long term consequences. There is a long term effect of what he's up to regarding Putin and Ukraine and there is a long term effect. We don't, it's, it's in limbo regarding the, this hostage deal.

John Podhoretz (37:24)

Trump does not believe in allies. I think we can say this now as a fact, like you just said, our allies are unnerved. Our allies in Europe. He does not believe in allies. He does not, he believes, believes in personal friendships. He's willing to say, look, this guy is my friend. I like him. You know, I like Muriel Bowser, the mayor of D.C. i like Zielinski. He says he likes G, I like G. I like it. Like, he likes, he likes, he likes Kim Jong Un, who is like one of the three worst people who has ever existed on this planet practically. I mean, he likes people or he doesn't like people. They're, there are plenty of people he doesn't like and he makes no bones about that. None of that is, none of that obliges him or the United States to anything. That's part of the message that he's sending to Europe, to Canada, to places like that, which is I don't care about maintaining our alliance or having an alliance. And there are ways in which this is, I think absolutely.

Christine Rosen (38:22)

He doesn't care if, as if we're not getting anything out of it.

John Podhoretz (38:26)

What he thinks we're not getting out of.

Christine Rosen (38:28)

It's all about what we're getting out of the relationship.

John Podhoretz (38:31)

But that's by his definition of what it means to get something out of it. I think we get plenty out of NATO. He doesn't think so because he's.

Christine Rosen (38:41)

Because he thinks the allies are bilking.

Matthew Continetti (38:43)

Us well, that's why he's his.

Christine Rosen (38:45)

We're not getting paid. We're not getting paid. They're not.

John Podhoretz (38:48)

So he has a right. But what I think this is monarchical.

Matthew Continetti (38:50)

Not fascist in that regard. Like in terms of foreign policy, it's very much like alliance. I'm surprised he didn't try to mercantiles one of his daughters off to a foreign powers.

John Podhoretz (38:59)

Right.

Abe Greenwald (38:59)

I mean, well, that's why he's trying to get the rare earth deal, Right?

Christine Rosen (39:02)

That's exactly right, Abe. That's the source of what's been going on with him with Ukraine.

John Podhoretz (39:09)

Right?

Christine Rosen (39:09)

Yes. Besant went to Ukraine, presented this deal. We, we only have the sketchy understanding of what's in it. But essentially it was Ukraine would allow the United States not only investment in Ukrainian commodities mining industry, but royalties and licenses paid off the commodity production within Ukraine in perpetuity, it seems. And this is Trump's way of thinking, okay, we've given this 100 plus billion in military and economic and social aid. What do we get out of it? And Zelensky didn't sign it because Zelensky says that it didn't include the security guarantees he would like. And this set off, I think, Trump. And then, I'm not saying any of this is right. I just want to tell this narrative. Zelensky did make things worse by responding to Trump, by saying that he lives in the disinformation space. And if there's just one thing we know about Trump, when you criticize him, he will then go back and criticize you even more. So that's how we've gotten to the point now in this pretty remarkable breakdown of the US Ukraine relationship and all of its implications for the American presence in Europe and the NATO alliance. It starts from this, starts from this position that Trump views the world in completely transactional terms. And you're right, it's kind of monarchical because it's basically like, what are you doing for me, us economically? And then maybe we'll provide you some things. And just one final point. It's interesting to me that Trump understands leverage, political leverage, unlike really any other leader. Maybe Nancy Pelosi actually is the only politician who I think understands leverage in the same way Trump does. But Trump exercises leverage over America's allies. He understands that we have this military leverage. He understands we have this economic leverage because of the power of our economy. And so he's willing to use it in order to get what he wants out of our allies. But I just, again, I just wish he tried to look for places where we could build up leverage over our enemies. And right now, it doesn't seem like we're entering this process with Russia from a position of strength. Instead, we're exercising leverage over Ukraine.

Matthew Continetti (41:59)

Well, this, and this is actually, this is the key. And this is actually the irony of Trump seeing himself and wanting to see himself as this deal maker who knows how to make a better deal than anyone else else. If you're making a good deal, if you're the principal in a deal making, you know, situation, you know when to shut your mouth and let the underlings work out the details. And he doesn't do that. He take, he's got it. He's got to be involved at every single level. He's got to make these insults which actually wreck the deal. It's so it's, it's very juvenile, actually. And if he's gonna, and he's doing the easy path of bullying allies rather than, as you say, Matt, you know, taking up. Russia is our enemy in many ways. He doesn't treat him like an enemy because of this personal very, again, I keep saying monarchical, but it is, it's like a king negotiating with another king. And the underlings opinions and the people will just benefit from our wisdom, but he's got to work out the details, and the devil is in the details with a lot of these negotiations.

John Podhoretz (42:53)

I think that if you don't have allies or you don't believe in alliances, you also don't believe in enemies, really. I mean, Trump has personal enemies, but the personal enemies that he has are the people who threaten him personally. Right. Jack Smith is his enemy. You know, Alvin Bragg is his enemy.

Christine Rosen (43:11)

Tish James.

John Podhoretz (43:12)

Tish James. But I mean, you know, he has, he has, you know, somebody who's on the other side of a real estate negotiation and gets a, gets a building site that he wants, is his enemy in the world, in the world of global affairs. He does not view Putin as an enemy. He does not view Xi as an enemy. He doesn't think about it in those terms because the threats that they pose are conditional. They're in the future. They're, they're, they are. They, they involve thinking things through to a third or fourth level where if you do X and then that means, you know, not.

Christine Rosen (43:50)

And they're on the periphery.

John Podhoretz (43:52)

Right.

Christine Rosen (43:53)

Ukraine is far away. What does he always say? Taiwan. Taiwan is the little pencil above my desk. That is China. It's far away. Why do I care? And this is what I worry that we're heading toward is Yalta, too, where Trump, Xi and Putin sit in the summit and basically divide the planet up. They divide the planet and Trump just says, okay, Putin, you have your near abroad, and Europe's going to be on its own. They're going to have to figure out a way to get their affairs in order if they want to deter you. Xi, you have your near abroad. That's Taiwan. We're going to figure out some way where we can move tsmc, that's a semiconductor manufacturer that's based in Taiwan. Basically, we want to move it to the United States. We want to take back. Right. We want to take back our chips, the industry that they stole from us. This is Trump's language. And then you're going to take care of it. And I'm going to remove the troops from South Korea. I like Japan. You know, he seems to. Japan is like the one country with, along with Israel, the two countries he really likes. But we'll figure out something with Japan. But really, that's going to be yours. And we're not. I'm not that interested in it. I want the Western Hemisphere, specifically North America, Greenland, that's. And that's what we're going to do. That. That would be pretty amazing moment, and I do think it would have very dire consequences for American security, empowering these two dictatorships who do not have our interests in mind at all.

John Podhoretz (45:42)

And by the way, I mean, you know, if you actually play that out, like, as, you know, if you're writing speculative fiction, right, and you wanted to.

Christine Rosen (45:48)

Play this, what could happen in May, it's not that speculative because.

John Podhoretz (45:52)

Right, But I'm saying what happens over 20 years in a world in which we are. In which we effectively divide up the planet into spheres of influence. It's not a joke. I mean, I'm sort of thinking this through, like, Australia is a very wealthy country that has not had to really think all that much about its own defense. China essentially gets control of the Pacific.

Christine Rosen (46:15)

It's already infiltrating Australia.

John Podhoretz (46:17)

When you look at what's happening, Australia. And Australia will have to remilitarize. Japan will have to go. Japan will have to go nuclear, which has been, you know, it's like an axiom that they don't want to go nuclear. Japan will have to be.

Christine Rosen (46:30)

South Korea might go nuclear.

John Podhoretz (46:32)

Right. That's what I'm saying. We will look. We could look 25 years down the road at A world in which we have hyperproliferation. Hyperproliferation like that is. And part of the reason that we want to destroy the Iranian nuclear program is so that Saudi Arabia doesn't feel like it has to go nuclear. That was where all of 20 years ago. That was where all this started when people like my father and others said we have to go after Iran. Because that is where the consensus that only the seven or whatever countries in the world who have nuclear weapons should retain nuclear weapons. Because you can't trust a world in which nuclear weapons polarizes, a world in which nuclear war becomes thinkable. Trump Xi and Putin sitting around dividing the planet up means that, you know, our children are going to wake up in 2060 with 25 or 30 countries having armed themselves to the teeth and.

Christine Rosen (47:32)

A greater likelihood of conventional conflict. Because if you say, if you say, that's one thing I've been reading is this proposal. Again, I don't know if any of this is real or not. I mean, I guess that doesn't make me a very responsible journalist. But this is a podcast. You know, this idea that somehow we're being, we're floating as part of the peace talks with Russia that we're going to remove our troops from the nations that joined NATO since the end of the Cold War. Okay, that means that Poland, say we talked about this on the podcast the other day, Poland will continue to militarize, but without America playing a deterrent part in being involved in American. The forward deployment of our troops are a sign of America's nuclear power, our incredible economic military power, strategic power. Without that there, then the likelihood that Russia resumes its war in Ukraine or bullies the Baltic states or fights with Poland over Kaliningrad, some type of land bridge is extremely high. So it doesn't make for a better world dividing this up into spheres of influence. And it's a very and just finally, it is a 180 degree reversal from the first Trump term where he did have voices and he did listen to the voices in his administration who are saying, well, look, we understand the way you view the world, but let's try to also understand the importance of these relationships, the importance of America's global basing system, what the benefit of America's deterrent. You know, Trump plussed up the defense budget in his first term. And now I'm reading that the Hegseth Pentagon is going to pursue 8% annual defense cuts for the next five years left unclear is they say they're going to reallocate that money to Trump aligned priorities, but I don't know whether those priorities are in the Pentagon or they're going to be somewhere else at the border. And the border is important, and Trump has done a lot in that in his first month. But these decisions that are being made now as a result of this ascendant ideology that John, you spoke about the other night are going to have lasting consequences. And they're unknown, but history tells us they're bad.

John Podhoretz (50:18)

Right. I mean, and again, you know, so he doesn't believe in our allies or our alliances. And there are ways in which there are positives can come from that. For example, let's say that Biden had come into office and had said, yes, I'm restoring normalcy. And we love your, you know, these are our friends. And we, you know, NATO is the greatest thing ever, but you know what? 5%. You, you should, you should, you should contribute 5% of your, of your budgets to, to the military, to military matters. President Trump was right, actually. You guys have been, you know, you've been allowing us to support your domestic social welfare system, and we're kind of done with that, that. We love you, we love you, and we're with you and we're here and we. This is to save NATO. Of course, he didn't do that. Anything that Trump did, he was going to be the negative reverse polarity image of. And then Ukraine happened, and suddenly all these countries, feeling alarmed, start announcing that they are going to increase their defense budgets by massive amounts. And I'm not even sure that most of them have held to it since. Right. Germany was going to increase their defense budget by $100 billion a year. I don't know if it's still doing that.

Christine Rosen (51:46)

Germany and Canada are the laggards.

John Podhoretz (51:48)

Right. Okay. But I think what's interesting is that Trump offered an opportunity for a rebalancing of NATO within an admiring, friendly pacific structure. That was said. We all need to be doing more. We are not. You know, we've done this for 80 years. You could. So he didn't do that. So we're now back at, at sort of square one with the Europeans and Trump saying, hey, you're all a bunch of freeloaders. And they're saying, we're so offended by you. How dare you.

Matthew Continetti (52:23)

But this is.

John Podhoretz (52:24)

Talk to us this way.

Matthew Continetti (52:25)

I'm sorry to interrupt, but this is actually where temperament and leadership matter and where Trump is a disaster. Because you know what? He's not saying, he's not explaining. He's not even bothering to explain to the American people that he's, that this is a strategy that will make the world safer down the line. Again, short term thinking, he says, I'm making a good deal because they've been screwing us. That is a very different approach to leadership. And in a weird way, it's like the funhouse mirror image of the absolute disaster that was the Biden foreign policy, which was, we will placate you, we think you're important, but we don't really want to do anything and we don't want to commit American power. We're fearful of using American power. The opposite is, is Trump thinking he's using American power but not for the safety of America, not to make the world a safer place for Americans. It's to make a good deal and for the history books to say, look at the deal I made. And temperamentally whether that's in fact what long term will happen. That's in fact why I don't think Europe is so much offended as they are alarmed. I mean, if you listen to what European leaders are saying and our allies are saying, it's a deal is all well and good, but what about the long term strategy?

Christine Rosen (53:35)

They have no right to be alarmed. I mean, I am so annoyed at them, honestly. They've had 30 plus years since the end of the Cold War to get serious about this. They've had, as John just pointed out, they've had 10 years of the Trump era to get serious about this. They've had three years of the Ukraine war to get serious about this. And what's their response? The response is, JD Vance, you're so rude, talking about the problems in our countries. What are you going to do? Abandon us? Leave us? I mean, they're coming across as dependent welfare cases and they need to show some spirit here. I'm sorry. And just finally, I do think Keir Starmer, the Labour Prime Minister, he is kind of trying to and assert himself and he's coming apparently to the United States next week to meet with Trump and to propose, here's what we want to do. Here's an idea. That's something, that's something. Otherwise, just sitting around complaining about how JD Vance is rude to you doesn't get you anything with me.

Abe Greenwald (54:42)

That's the deal that we agreed to, though. It's not like, you know, this is.

Christine Rosen (54:46)

We agreed to that deal 80 years ago. You have to. Yeah, well, you have to renew and revitalize and the other people in the deal have to show something as well.

John Podhoretz (54:56)

Right.

Abe Greenwald (54:56)

I mean, that's totally fine, but we thought we were getting something out of it. If we suddenly decide we want things on different terms, then the terms have changed. But.

John Podhoretz (55:06)

Well, no, that's not entirely fair because I'm not an admirer of the way Trump is handling NATO. I wanna make that clear. However, this is what I know from the end of the Cold War, which is that. So NATO countries are committed to spending 2% of their GDP on defense, and they don't do it. And then there are meetings at Davos and at the World Economic Forum and all that, and they're like, we know, we know we're supposed to. And then everybody laughs and they all have shrimp cocktail and then they, they take selfies with each other in front of a Swiss mountain. Like, the idea was, we all know you're not living up to your end of the bargain, but, you know, like, we're all friends, you know, it's like, I know I owe you. I know I borrowed, you know, $15,000 from you and I owe you the money, but you're a billionaire, you don't really need the money back. And that for some reason, what for the billionaire, in this case, Trump, not America, necessarily has this burr in his saddle because it's like, you know, you should pay me back the $15,000. I know I don't need it. I don't really need it, but why aren't you paying me back? And it is, it has been an axiom of the, of the people who believe in the international world order as it stands, that America is supposed to give and other countries give less, and that they, by the way, are perfectly free. I mean, this is where I'm with Matt a little bit. They are perfectly free to talk all kinds of crap about America and its political system and what's wrong with it and our guns and how we have. We're too violent. And the entire intelligentsia of Europe exists in this relation to the United States as a kind of kvetching, finger wagging, impotent, Statler and Waldorf sitting in the balcony, talking about how bad we are, and at some point that's gotta stop or that's gotta end. Yeah. Then a vulgarian is gonna come along and say, you know, I'm sorry, but give me my money back or I'm gonna let you know, give me my money back or I'm gonna break your legs.

Abe Greenwald (57:22)

You know, I completely understand that and I agree. But what I'm saying is we partook in this, in their welching essentially on the deal, right, For a good long while. And it's not, not like that's what the main thrust of Vance's harangue was about. It was about their internal practices and their internal policies and their inability to listen to dissenting voices and so on. So I don't know. I just don't think the two are necessarily connected. I just want to say one more point about this in terms of Trump and national security, because Matt's got me thinking about this Yalta 2 thing, his. The way he would sell this. I mean, again with semi speculative fiction land here, but his idea is, well, we have the oceans, right? So this is, this is fine for our security. It may be bad for Australia's and it may be bad for Poland's info. However, what, what does that have to do with us? And there's a lot of Americans who feel that way because we've gone. We've been so long since we've gotten pulled in, you know, against our will, into, into the electrical grid.

Matthew Continetti (58:52)

Like, this is the thing.

Christine Rosen (58:54)

It'll be 25 years since September 11th next year. Right? 25 years.

Matthew Continetti (58:58)

But there are attacks on the homeland that don't require a military or even a drone. They literally, the Chinese, these have infiltrated so many, our water purification systems, our electrical grid, they could turn this country, the homeland, into chaos almost overnight if they have the capabilities that some, some people who assess these things on the regular fear they might already have and that we have been extremely derelict in our duty to protect at home.

John Podhoretz (59:24)

Right? Well, that's exactly right.

Matthew Continetti (59:26)

I sound hysterical.

John Podhoretz (59:27)

No, you're not.

Matthew Continetti (59:28)

You're not fiction. So I'm trying to gain this.

John Podhoretz (59:30)

You are not hysterical.

Christine Rosen (59:32)

And I'm sure there's a Japanese novel that's been written about this scenario somewhere, Christine.

John Podhoretz (59:37)

But that, that is why we still have enemies. So I'm saying that Trump wants to believe that there's no such a transaction can be with a friend or with an enemy, it doesn't matter, as long as the transaction itself is solid. And there are people you can't deal with. And Putin is one of them, by the way. I mean, we've had now 25, almost 25 years of his dictatorship with Matt's, you know, five presidents getting fleeced, you know, you know, seriatim by him and still, you know, still continuing to seek the same result. And part of the thing that happens in deal making is that you say, well, you can't make a deal with that guy. He'll run away with your deposit or something like that. And you can only you, when you do that with Your friends, as I say you can like it's bad friendship there. Some of the Europeans are not really the best friends of the United States. We're really good friends to them and they're like, they're, they're not that good friends to us, but they're, they also matter.

Matthew Continetti (60:37)

Getting their wallet when you take them out to dinner, that's the problem.

John Podhoretz (60:39)

Exactly.

Matthew Continetti (60:40)

But they like them, they're good company.

John Podhoretz (60:42)

But they matter less. And what's important about them is the, is the collective nature of the NATO alliance. It's not any one given individual member of NATO, but this idea that we group together like minded countries to keep Pacific. This place on earth that was the source of 100 million deaths just last century in the form of unnecessary and monstrous wars that you know, basically almost destroyed the, you know, almost destroyed the entire world. And we needed to do something to make sure that that didn't happen again. This was the solution and it's been astoundingly successful. And yeah, I think Abe's right. You muck with it at your own peril. And the scenario that I laid out or that Matt is talking about Yalta too, or Christine's talking about, you have Yalta too. And that's all great. Congratulations. We have spheres of influence. Oh, but China doesn't really believe in that. It's only going with that in effect to get its sphere of influence. It'll be perfectly happy to start stealing every penny, every transaction.

Christine Rosen (61:54)

The reason we have banks if it. We have the Western alliance, which also includes Japan and South Korea and Australia and New Zealand is in order to push the strategic boundaries of Western values and democracy as far away from us as possible.

John Podhoretz (62:09)

Right. Which include rule of law, understandable contracts. Contracts. Yeah. Respecting the sanctity of contracts.

Christine Rosen (62:20)

Individual rights. Yeah.

John Podhoretz (62:23)

And not intervene. And. Yeah. So things like that, which of course China and Russia and the countries that we would be dealing with here don't. And they would not be beholden.

Christine Rosen (62:32)

And so if you have, I mean it's interesting to me because. To think about this analogy because of course Yalta1 was a hate object for the American right for much of its history because this is where FDR supposedly betrayed Eastern Europe, gave Eastern Europe to Stalin and created the captive nations which lived under the Russian boot, the Soviet boot for decades at China. The big debate after World War II and after the Communist victory in the Chinese Civil War in 1949 was who lost China to the communists. And the American right love Taiwan and Chiang Kai.

John Podhoretz (63:09)

She's a historian. You were a historian. Right. You're also, you know, here's what's interesting to me. So you're a historian. You know all this history, even though you're 43 years old. JD Vance is 40 years old, so he's also should be a student of history and whatever and very intelligent and, you know, went to Yale Law School.

Christine Rosen (63:27)

He doesn't like it. He thinks it ruined. He thinks that it ruined a whole. It ruined our country. It ruined Middletown, Ohio. It sent him to Iraq for a war that he doesn't believe in anymore, and so he's done with it. And this is what I've been trying to say on the podcast. Trump doesn't like it either. He doesn't understand what we got out of it or what he got out of it.

John Podhoretz (63:44)

Right. But that's my point, which is he doesn't understand, and Vance doesn't understand, and the American people used to understand. And the problem is, of course, that We've had this 35 years since the end of the Cold War. We've had the difficulties that we faced in the 21st century. And, yeah, they want to act as though the lessons, 1945 onward, that America learned to its great sorrow and pain and the world learned to its great sorrow and pain and then triumphed don't matter. But they do. And. And. And those lessons remain in place because history repeats itself. And we will. We will be back there. We got to stop here. So we'll be back there tomorrow. Tomorrow. We're back here tomorrow to say the same things.

Christine Rosen (64:32)

There will be more tweets, though.

John Podhoretz (64:33)

Yeah, no, it's the Seinfeld jail. We're in the. Where? It's, It's. It's. You know, we're sitting in the jail together at the end of Seinfeld, repeating the hilarious things that we did throughout the nine seasons of Seinfeld, an ending that many people hated and I thought was absolutely genius.

Abe Greenwald (64:49)

So.

John Podhoretz (64:50)

But this is our end. So for Christine, Matt, and Abe, I'm John Buckhourtz. Keep the candle bur sa.