Aaron Magid (5:19)

Thank you very much for having Me, Mike.

Mike Pesca (5:20)

So it is the cliche to ask, oh, what about that title? But it also is a compliment to the title that I must ask about it. So Abdullah served in the British military and he did spend his high school years and before in America. But is that what makes him, in your estimation, the most American, or is there something deeper about the sensibility?

Aaron Magid (5:40)

Sure. So I would say the Most American King is appropriate title for the book, not only because of his personal relationship with the United States, but also the political one. So on the personal level, as you mentioned, he did spend not only middle school, but high school in the United States, in Massachusetts, at a prep academy called Deerfield. He was on the wrestling team and so much wanted to fit in with other guys. He would go by AB Not Abdullah. When his father, King Hussein, wanted him to take Arabic lessons, he would often hide in the closet because he just wanted to have a regular American experience. After.

Mike Pesca (6:09)

Let me just interrupt and say and point out, he was a pretty good wrestler until he was asked to cut weight from 130 to 118, I think, and he had to live on Jello and he would pass out from that. So that maybe tells you something about, A, the hysterics of wrestling, but B, his own commitment.

Aaron Magid (6:25)

Correct. So he was very passionate in his wrestling, and that definitely showed through his, I guess, short career in that field. But after high school, he attended Georgetown University and so much enjoyed that experience. He ended up sending his own children to the prestigious Jesuit College. Afterwards, he trained with the US Military in Kentucky. He was on a Star Trek episode in California. And by the time he became King in 1999, because he spent so much time in the west, he actually spoke better English than Arabic, even after he.

Mike Pesca (6:57)

Yeah, and also because he hid in the closet during Arabic lessons, that maybe played a role too.

Aaron Magid (7:02)

Yep, that as well. And even after he became king, he continued to own property in the Washington, D.C. area and in California. The personal relationship is quite strong. But it's not just that. It's also the political one. King Abdullah was the first Arab leader to meet in the White House with both President Biden, President Obama and President Trump. He was the first Arab leader to have a joint address before Congress. Thousands of U.S. troops are stationed in Jordan under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Jordan was the first Arab country to have a joint a free trade agreement with the United States under the Bush administration. Time and time again, Jordan really receives top status from the United States. In recent years, Jordan has received about $1.5 billion in annual US aid. So just a huge amount. So given all those factors, I thought the most American king was appropriate because you don't see another Arab leader with nearly as strong ties with the United States like King Abdullah has.

Mike Pesca (7:56)

Yeah. And from America's perspective, he's their man. Certainly. But of all the things you said, all the geopolitical consequences, I course have to go to Star Trek. So as you report, he's in an episode, they put fake sideburns on him. He's not an actor. They do it because why not have the king of a country as a background player? But that's my question. He wasn't given a line because even if you're the king of Jordan, if you're not in the union, you don't get a line.

Aaron Magid (8:20)

Correct. So there was that weird quirk that even though he was a member of royalty, he couldn't get a line because he wasn't a member of the. Of the union. But it's worth pointing out he wasn't king when he was on Star Trek. He was actually a prince. But obviously, you know, the eldest son of the current king is very important, but you don't see a Mubarak or Yasser Arafat or Gaddafi ever appearing on a Star Trek episode.

Mike Pesca (8:43)

So from his American background to his British military background, to the period he. Before he became king, I don't think you've been investigating him that long, but this frequently happens in the Middle East. Other places that a scion will be sent to. Western School, Oxford gets a lot of them. And the hope is among people in the west that what will return to their home country is someone who is more oriented in the west, but also somewhat steeped in their values. Democracy being foremost among them, doesn't always work. Bashar Al Assad, not the greatest democrat, even though he got an ophthalmology degree, I think, in the uk. What about Abdullah? Or if I ask you, before he became king, when he was a prince, how much promise would you say that his American background would have had in terms of his future trajectory?

Aaron Magid (9:42)

Sure. So King Abdullah actually wasn't expected to be the next monarch after King Hussein. What happened was Prince Hassan, who of course was related to King Abdullah. He was the crown prince in Jordan for over 35 years. And he was the one who was expected to take over control from King Hussein shortly before his death. However, in 1998, 1999, King Hussein, who was ill at the time, he was getting treatment in Minnesota because of the advanced medical facilities we have in the United States, he decided to change the succession and then appointed King Abdullah to be the Crown Prince and eventually the king. For much of the time that King Abdullah spent in the United States, whether at Georgetown University or at Deerfield Academy, he wasn't expected to, to use that experience to be the next leader. In fact, he was more on the military track, maybe to be the head of the Special Forces unit and then eventually perhaps the head of the military. But he definitely did take some of his experiences from the United States to his leadership. I would say number one is his support of capitalism. And when he became leader, one thing he did is change Jordan's economy from a largely state run enterprise to much more capitalism, free trade. And that did, for a short period of time, boost the country's economy. He also did believe in more of an egalitarian playing field for individuals, especially on the economic level, and less politically. But I would definitely agree with you. He didn't take the democracy ethos of the United States and bring them into Jordan because after all, he's the one in power. He's never been elected and he's the one. And parliament is relatively toothless. And right now he's, he's preparing to transfer power from himself to his son, the Crown Prince.

Mike Pesca (11:26)

Yeah, I mentioned Bashir Al Assad. Same thing happened to him. His brother dies in a car accident, he becomes something like the accidental king. You did mention that Abdullah was thought to take over the military. Was he a playboy prince? Was he not taken seriously? Was it a shock and a giant learning curve when he did become king?

Aaron Magid (11:46)

Sure. So it definitely was a learning curve. One of the most striking elements was the fact that he spoke Arabic relatively poorly. So he, he gave very few speeches in Arabic during his first year, two years, because he wasn't really prepared on that level. And he had to have intensive language training to boost up his Arabic to where it is now in a relatively fluent level. So that was one element. Another one was just a political one. The previous Crown Prince, Prince Hassan, he was the one who was involved in a lot more of the political meetings with various heads of states, both Western leaders and Arab ones. And Prince Abdullah at the time, he was more focused on his military training. So he needed some time to develop the political contacts with other leaders in the region internationally. Also get into a deeper understanding of non military affairs domestically, whether the economy, infrastructure or just domestic politics. So he did have, the first few years, he did have a lot of help, especially from the head of the intelligence apparatus and other key security officials in the country to help the transition. Be a bit Smoother.

Mike Pesca (12:54)

So he becomes King in 99. 911 is very important to the U.S. and that region. How did 911 forge him?

Aaron Magid (13:00)

Sure. So 911 was certainly a key element for King Abdullah and for Jordan because it really brought the United States even closer to the Hashemite Kingdom, really strengthened the security cooperation between the two countries. We see it before the war in Iraq, where Jordan allows overflight rights from the country for the United States into Iraq, intelligence gathering missions from Jordan into Iraq, there were US Troops based in the country as well. So a lot of that gets strengthened during that period. We also had Human Rights Watch issue a report that the United States was sending to Jordan non Jordanian prisoners before being sent to Guantanamo Bay because they believed in Jordan they could be interrogated, quote, unquote, more freely. So the security cooperation between the two countries becomes very close. And King Abdullah becomes a firm opponent to terrorism by Islamic actors. And that's in contrast to some other Arab leaders in the region, whether Syrian Bashar Al Assad or Saddam Hussein, who would take a more equivocal approach. King Abdullah is strongly condemning Islamic terrorism, and that wins in the support from President Bush and various other US Officials.

Mike Pesca (14:08)

So there's another way where he's the most American king. And I know you're not a psychologist, but might there have been some sort of trauma bonding there? Or maybe. Let's not be so grandiose. You're asked to do things and you've. Or perhaps you're certainly open to doing these things, like allowing your country to be operated as a black site. It seems hard then for the United States or the west to criticize you for not becoming a democracy or not adhering to the standards of human rights when he was a useful off ramp on human rights protocol exactly in the way that the United States demanded.

Aaron Magid (14:45)

You're exactly right. And I think it's one of the reasons why the United States has definitely pressured Jordan on democracy issues publicly, a lot less than other Arab countries in the region. So if you remember, during the Arab Spring protest, President Obama played a very strong role in urging Egyptian President Hosi Mubarak to leave office. And then he eventually was ousted. There were no similar demands of King Abdullah, even though, of course there were large protests in Jordan at the time over not just economic concerns, but also political ones, authoritarianism and corruption. Had President Obama at the time issued a strong rejection of King Abdullah, that could have led to his ouster as well. But President Obama had developed very strong personal ties with King Abdullah even before he became president. A Senator he visited as well. And that was actually a part of his 2008 presidential campaign. So that helped preserve the ties between the two countries and ensure that democracy issues were never the priority for the United States and their dealings with Jordan and King Abdullah.

Mike Pesca (15:41)

Yeah, I would also say that Obama's, and maybe we only know this in retrospect, handling of the Egyptian situation, which wasn't easy, it wasn't just Obama, but was somewhat of a disaster. And if they, if it had to be replayed, a lot of different decisions should have been made. So maybe it was the personal ties or maybe the Obama administration didn't want to bite off not just the largest Arab country and having a full scale revolution with a leader who was once your ally, if a tyrant, they didn't want to do that in Jordan as well, where there were a couple of other factors arguing for sticking by your ally, a real ally, less so, I think than Mubarak had been.

Aaron Magid (16:23)

Exactly. I would say it wasn't just personal reasons why President Obama decided to stay with King Abdullah, was also the strategic relationship between the two countries, as at last did any individual present or even a specific party. So he mentioned King Abdullah's support or working together, at least quietly with the United States before the Iraq war. We also have to note that during the Syrian refugee crisis in 2011, Jordan opened up its borders and absorbed at least 600,000 according to the United nations, according to Jordanian government, up to 1.3 million Syrian refugees. And that played a key role in ensuring that those refugees didn't leave the Middle east and head to the west or the United States. So the United States very much appreciated that we can go on to Jordan.

Mike Pesca (17:05)

And we should point out that Jordan's population is 11 million. So the population increased by 10% to become essentially a sponge for these refugees. So they don't go to Germany and other places.

Aaron Magid (17:17)

Correct.

Mike Pesca (17:17)

And Turkey, NATO allies and Jordan had.

Aaron Magid (17:20)

Already accepted waves of refugees from previous conflicts. So the 1967 war from the. So a huge number of Palestinian refugees came to the country then Jordan received a lot of refugees from the Iraq conflict. So Jordan has consistently time and time again absorbed a lot of these refugees, even though they have sensitive demographic concerns. Another example of the tight cooperation would be the war against isis. Jordan has continuously joined with Washington to not only bomb ISIS targets in Syria, but to be a strong ally in that regards. And it wasn't just in the Obama administration, 2014, 2015, it's actually continued this month. The United States and Jordan worked together to bomb ISIS in Syria so the Obama administration and the United States writ large has understood that Jordan is a really key partner and they do a lot of things that might not even be popular among their own public, but to ensure that the United States needs to continue support the Hashemite Kingdom. And they've done that through not only huge amount of financial aid, but military assistance and then the political cover as well.

Mike Pesca (18:28)

So is it, let's assess the life, let's play the John Rawls veil of ignorance game and let's assess the life of the average Jordanian under Abdullah. Would you rather be a Jordanian than let's pick some of their neighbor states, a Syrian, someone from Lebanon. Well, an Arab Israeli. Let's put that in the mix. Which person born randomly into each of these societies has the best chance of life success.

Aaron Magid (18:57)

So we talk about one of his failures of King Abdullah's leadership since 1999 being the economy and the fact that unemployment is so high and the infrastructure is poor. That I think is definitely a big problem for his legacy. But I would say to his credit, if you look at many of the countries across the region, whether you mentioned Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, certainly a Palestinian and Gaza, from an average Jordanian's concerns, their situation is much better because they're not facing mass wars, refugee crisis. The refugees are not leaving your country, they're coming into your country because your country is viewed as stable. So King Abdullah has provided quiet and stability for his people since 1999. And that's also in contrast to his father who got into a bunch of wars not only with Israel in the 1960s, 67 War, Black September 1970, but there was also a conflict with Syria as well. So King Abdullah has been very cautious in his usage of military force and that has ensured that his country has not imploded like many other neighboring states. And these huge death tolls in Syria, hundreds of thousands of people were killed, certainly many were killed in Gaza during this recent conflict. Iraq is probably over a million people were killed since 2003 and then all the terrorism afterwards. So King Abdullah, because of strong support he has for among his security forces, has ensured that his, his citizens are safe and that he, he does deserve a lot of credit for that.

Mike Pesca (20:26)

There is no. So I've always looked at the society needs to deliver in order, security, prosperity and then justice. He's provided the security. The prosperity is not what he would like and not what they would like. And in terms of justice, it's still one of the lowest ranking countries in the world by Freedom House or these other organizations. But then Again, look at its neighborhood. And I suppose you could say you have to. Well, what do you think of that argument? How much more free could the people have been from Abdullah's point of view, which is he doesn't want to be toppled. He knows that he has. If he left things open to a vote, the Muslim Brotherhood would do well. So that's the question.

Aaron Magid (21:10)

Yeah. So if we look at last year's elections in Parliament, and Parliament is relatively toothless, but just to show what the people's attitudes are, the Muslim Brotherhood's affiliated wing, the Islamic Action Front, won the most seats out of any parliamentary faction. So if there were truly free and fair elections for the head of state, it wouldn't be a huge jump to think that the Muslim Brotherhood, which is of course aligned with Hamas and Gaza, would do quite well. And King Abdullah has no interest in that. So after the IAF did very well in last year's election, King Abdullah decided to ban the Muslim Brotherhood in April of 2025. Seized their assets, raid their offices, and now they're an illegal organization in the country. So King Abdullah is certainly not interested in democracy, because if there were a democracy, then his son wouldn't be the one taking over control. In a few years, it would be the Muslim Brotherhood. And King Abdullah, since he came into power in 1999, he's time and time again been very fearful and distrustful of the Muslim Brotherhood. I'll just give you one or two examples. In 1999, he decided to expel Hamas leadership from the country. And Hamas is very closely aligned with the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. And it provoked a lot of outrage because he accused them of engaging in terrorism, which he said was a red line. Then during 2012, 2013, he gave an interview with Atlantic magazine, and he said, the Muslim Brotherhood is wolves in sheep's clothing. So the Jordanian public is a very conservative group, very religious in general. So they would support the Muslim Brotherhood. And that's one of the reasons why he doesn't really want free and fair elections.

Mike Pesca (22:45)

So, last question, you've never interviewed him directly, have you?

Aaron Magid (22:49)

Correct. I put in multiple requests with the Royal Court, but unfortunately, they didn't agree. I would say that he gave an explosive interview with Then Landing magazine's Jeffrey Goldberg in 2013, where he ended up criticizing the tribes, the Muslim Brotherhood, various regional leaders. And since that interview, he's been very cautious because that was quite explosive. And now he only really does interviews on, you know, if they'll ask him about Israeli Palestinian issue or ISIS or Syrian refugees. But if you Start asking about very sensitive domestic political questions. He's not interested in those kind of interviews.

Mike Pesca (23:20)

That was actually preface to my question, which is just to establish you've not interviewed him, though the Daily show has. Here is my actual question. If you had one substantive question to ask him and one perhaps trivial question, but something you from knowing him as well as you do, just a lacuna of his biography or anything else, like some. Something Star Trek related, what would each of those questions be? Sure.

Aaron Magid (23:44)

So in terms of substantive, I would like to know more about the Prince Hamza affair, which is quite ambiguous even to this day. King Abdullah has accused his half brother of having foreign support and trying to potentially oust him from rule in 2021. This is during the beginning of the Biden administration and I'd like to figure out more who were the foreign actors who were actually supporting him. There have been rumors it was Saudi Arabia or some other Gulf states, but he hasn't really provided a lot of tangible details. So that would be the topic for subset of questions. In terms of the kind of fun questions, I'd like to know more. You discussed in terms of the wrestling, how he had to stop that, you know, in middle school and high school, if he's continued doing any of that after he became king. I know he's super into sports in those regards. Or is that just a activity he did when he was younger?

Mike Pesca (24:37)

That's good. And maybe you will hear the answers to those questions on the On Jordan podcast hosted by Aaron Magid, or who is also the author of the new book the Most American King Abdullah of Jordan. Aaron, thank you so much.

Aaron Magid (24:51)

Thank you for having me.

Mike Pesca (25:02)

And now the spiel, gonna try a weave here. Last week, Donald Trump, or rather the truth social feed for the White House, committed a grievance that almost had Trump apologizing. Should have had him apologizing, and we say should as if he's capable. So the feed, the video put up a cartoon of Michelle and Barack Obama depicted as singing apes. Now, there was an explanation for this, an explanation that of course didn't include the apology. But it was after many prominent Republicans, notably Tim Scott, the most prominent African American Republican, complained. It might be shocking, but I actually believe the explanation up to a point. So the video that comprised 60 of the 62 seconds of screen time in that post was election denialism, a crazy, intricate conspiratorial video about chips found in hacked voting machines. And then for two seconds you see Barack and Michelle singing as apes. Why? Well, often it was explained there can be A remnant of a clip that follows an original clip when posted. So in other words, whoever was running the Truth Social site posts this crazy conspiracy theory. Initiated by a court order, the Michigan investigation team obtained forensic access to a DS200 tabulator, the machine that counts of hoax. A Telet 4G wireless chip manufactured in Taiwan was discovered embedded into the motherboard. And then at the end, Michelle and Barack happened to get sucked into it. So a couple of things. Because of the algorithmic nature of feeds, you could tell that whoever was interested in the original theory also is interested in Michelle and Barack as apes that wouldn't get served up to you and me without asking for it. And perhaps it can be argued that a White House communicator should have slightly more rigor than you or me throwing up a clip on socials. Yes, it can be argued that no one in the White House is listening. But the big critique, the real critique, is that even if this mistake was a mistake, it was a racist mistake. Let's call it an unintentionally racist mistake. But the intentional part was a crazy conspiracy theory that is very bad for us as a country. Is it worse than racism? I don't know. They're both extremely bad. Depicting the former president and his wife as a gorilla playing into longtime racist tropes is a 10 out of 10 on the offense scale. A 10 out of 10 on what? Do you not want your president posting scale?

Aaron Magid (27:34)

But.

Mike Pesca (27:34)

But the conspiracy theory is also a 10 out of 10. Maybe a slightly different scale, but it's horrible ones in the category of racism. One's in the category of denigrating our electoral institutions and doing a lot to degrade basic trust in government. But the excuse, oh, that was just a terrible conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. That doesn't even break through at all. We understand cartoons, I guess we understand racism. It was so blatant that it needs no explication. And that was of course, the part that created a little bit of a kerfuffle. Because though there were some Republicans who say, ooh, the Obamas as apes. Ah, I know not to like that. None will dare say, you know, this election security stuff a little bit out to lunch too. The president, by the way, I do not think minds this attention. If more people see his election conspiracy videos because of a little tagged on racism, he'll take it. He'll like it. I also don't think he cares about his obvious rejoinder to his truth. His post about Bad Bunny's halftime show when he wrote no one understands A word this guy is saying. So, I mean, it was just low hanging fruit, low hanging guava or papaya perhaps that everyone were to say, what are you talking about? We speak Spanish. Many of us speak Spanish. 40 million voting Americans speak Spanish. It's all true. But I did some more Math. So the NFL calculates there are 39 million Latino fans in the United States if two thirds speak Spanish, because that is what statistics show. Latinos in The United States, 2/3 speak Spanish at home. That means just among Latino football fans in the United states. And remember, 4 or 5 million Mexicans are watching the game and people in other countries. But you have 25 million Latino fans who constantly will be watching football who speak Spanish. But it's the Super Bowl. It sucks. In a whole lot of other people who aren't normally fans, there are many more Latinos who were watching than would be considered fans of the NFL per se. So that gets the number up into 30, 40 million. There are 2.8 million Spanish speakers in the United States who are non Hispanic. So I'm saying even if this halftime show had 130 or 140 million viewers, 30 or 40 million of them do speak Spanish. And you could like Bad Bunny without speaking Spanish, or you get a lot out of the visuals of the halftime show and the melodies of the halftime show and Lady Gaga in the halftime show if you don't speak Spanish. Or you can watch Kid Rock specifically not speaking Spanish on a rival stream. Again, I don't think the president knows or cares onto one other part of the super bowl that was not gameplay, but was the commercial. Mike, what are you doing? I told you, it's called the weave. I could say anything. If I call it the weave, it counts as commentary. So the San Francisco Chronicle blasted one specific commercial with the headline, the Duncan super bowl ad was terrible. Here is the Internet's best reactions to it. Why?

Aaron Magid (30:36)

Why?

Mike Pesca (30:36)

Lily Janiak, who wrote the article, who's a professional theater critic at The Chronicle since 2016, a theater studies major from Yale and MA and drama from San Francisco State, a jurist for the 2024 Pulitzer Prizes. I didn't look for it. That was the idea at the end of the article. Why are you taking your opinions from, quote, the Internet? I will. With all those credentials, I will listen to your opinion on a bad super bowl ad. That is fine. That is what you were trained all those years to provide. And indeed, there are portions of Jania's opinion that I wanted to hear more of that. The commercial comes off as, quote, one Incoherent and desperate, like an AI hallucination whose sole instruction was to only use actors who have been botoxed or de aged. By the way, what actors haven't been Botoxed? Hey, Will, did you arrange the munchkins in the Fibonacci sequence? I got a genius whack of he's such a genius. Then why'd he put ice in his coffee, huh? Come on, Chucky. I'm just Will hunting. I'm not a genius. But there is this tactic of substituting criticism that we turn to the critic for substituting that with supposed insights from a collection of people on the Internet who are mad at something that's been going on for quite a while. I would say it never yields anything worthwhile unless you happen to read a post that that specifically makes you laugh. But we all know you could always find someone on the Internet. The Internet, which is basically a collection of everyone just 75% more angry than they usually are. You can always find someone to critique anything. I mean, it's a cliche to say that these people on the Internet didn't like it. Another word for cliche is a truism. And a truism means it is true, but also boring. But in this case, I don't even know if it was true. It was true to say that there was Internet backlash that characterized the reaction to the Duncan ad. Because what this critic Janiak does is she defines the Internet not as the collection of tweets that's lame and cliche, not as I found a bunch of people on Reddit. She exclusively relied on Blue sky, as if Blue sky represents the Internet in a way that X or Twitter might. When of course X or Twitter does not represent the Internet and the Internet does not represent people. And people being angry does not represent a true critical appraisal. She links to some Skeets I think bleeds whatever you call a post on Blue Sky. One of them had 29 reposts. I don't know Reese Skeets, she links to someone named Evelyn Wall Luigi, you know, so she's pro or he's pro. British authors and also assassins, but anti Dunkin Donuts, an insight that garnered 12 reposts. This is no way to do any of it. By the way, the ad tracker of USA Today, which is the go to for determining what were the best ads, somewhat empirical, they rated that as the fourth best ad. The Houston Chronicle, a subjective commentary, said Duncan has really found something with having Ben Affleck repeatedly star in their super bowl ads still funny and hits us in all the right places. They rank that as their third best ad. USA Today fourth best ad. I don't care. Or I welcome a critic saying no, it's not and here's why. But please do not consider it a proper refutation to use the angry socialists of Blue sky as a proxy for critical insight. And that's it for today's show. Corey Warr is the producer of the Gist and Kathleen Sykes runs the Gist List. You could see and read more of my super bowl analysis on the Just List. Michelle Peska is COO of Pete Fish Productions. Put her in the middle because she's in the middle of everything. Jeff Craig runs all of our social media and our video and is doing some editing for us as well. And we're pleased to announce Ben Astaire is our new booker. Ben Astaire is it one name? Is it two? You'll find out more about Ben Astaire in upcoming days. Boom Peru. G Peru De Peru. And thanks for listening.