← The Long Game with Jake Sullivan and Jon Finer
Loading summary
Transcript88 lines
- [00:01]
Odoo Advertiser
Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder With a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, E commerce, and more. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for free@odoo.com that's o d o o.com
- [00:42]
Coreweave Advertiser
Support for this show comes from Coreweave. Everywhere you look, AI is expanding what we thought was possible. And at the center of it all is coreweave. Medical research and diagnosis, education, complex visual effects for movies, science and technology breakthroughs. CoreWeave powers AI pioneers around the world with purpose built tech building what's never been built before. CoreWeave is the essential cloud for AI Ready for Anything. Ready for AI to learn more about how CoreWeave powers the world's best AI, go to coreweave.com readyfor anything.
- [01:22]
Jake Sullivan
I do think they've made a decision, at least in the President's public messaging in the United States, to elevate domestic issues. As we head towards the midterms, we'll see if that sticks. Cuz he keeps getting drawn back to the foreign policy issues and keeps taking actions in the world that push foreign policy issues into the headlines. But there's definitely an element of Susie Wiles, the chief of staff and other political advisors, telling him, sir, you've got to talk about things here at home. And the speech reflected that in a big way. Welcome to the long game. I'm Jake Sullivan.
- [01:55]
John Finer
And I'm John Finer. So, Jake, today we're going to take a slightly different approach to the podcast, given just the pace and velocity of news that's occurred over the last week. And we're going to try to march through a number of issues that have been front and center, starting of course, with the President's State of the Union address, which took place last night and had an interesting somewhat lack of focus on foreign policy. But there were some significant things we'll discuss. We'll talk about the latest developments on two topics that were in the State of the Union, Iran and Mexico. And then we'll spend some time on a topic that you and I have both been following related to this standoff between the AI company Anthropic and what is now Called, at least by the president, the Department of War.
- [02:43]
Jake Sullivan
But before we get to that, as they say in the business robust agenda, I think it's important for us to do a quick wrap up of the Olympics. You and I both spent a lot of time over the last two weeks before the television watching everything from curling to men's and women's hockey. And we'll set hockey aside for the moment. My highlight, my non hockey highlight at California. And Alyssa Liu, that story, her story is just unbelievable. I know many of our listeners followed this closely, but it just bears underlining and putting an exclamation point after. Okay, first her backstory. Her father was a Chinese dissident who came to the United States as part of an operation after Tiananmen Square, after the crackdown of Tiananmen Square in 1989 and raised her as a single father. And then she basically retired from the sport at the age of 16 because she just wasn't having any fun, decided to come back, but decided to come back on her own terms, meaning she was just going to do it for the joy of it. And you could see in both the way she carried herself on and off the ice that she really meant that this wasn't some kind of BSNBC packaged shtick. This was her through and through. And with that joy, she goes out there, gives an unbelievable performance and ends up winning gold. And then after winning gold, just the sheer graciousness to her competitors, to the two Japanese skaters who came silver and bronze, it was like you couldn't help but smile all day watching that. And honestly, it's what the Olympics are all about. And I think she's going to really be enduring as a hero to a lot of people, a lot of little girls and a lot of little boys. And that's all to the good.
- [04:34]
John Finer
Amen. Such a colorful and as you said, joyful personality. You almost couldn't help but be rooting for her no matter which country you were from. I think in this case, maybe not China. My highlight, a man named Johannes Klabow. Six gold medals in what is probably physically the hardest Olympic sport. You've done some cross country skiing? I've done very little, but man, is that an endurance challenge. And to win six gold medals in one Winter Olympics, which I think is the most anyone's ever won in a Winter Games, all in this incredibly challenging sport, everything from the shorter distances to the longer distances. And to do it with just domination. He's sprinting up the hills at a sub 6 minute mile running pace on skis. Is just a remarkable feat of. Of athleticism that is hard not to admire.
- [05:30]
Jake Sullivan
You're right. I was a high school cross country skier. I was not close to winning a gold medal, to quote Wayne's World, let alone six gold medals, that would necessitate a gold medal rack. But I think this analogy is actually not entirely wrong, that this is the equivalent in track of winning the 100, the 200, the 400, the 800, the 1500 and the 5000. So he won the sprint, he won the middle distances, and he won the long distances. Everything unbelievable. I mean, really unbelievable. But not as unbelievable as a weekend of.
- [06:08]
John Finer
I was gonna say, are we allowed to talk about hockey now?
- [06:11]
Jake Sullivan
So over to you.
- [06:12]
John Finer
No, this is sort of story tells itself and people probably know it. But for the United States, which is not always considered to be the preeminent hockey powerhouse in the world or even in North America, to have pulled off two incredible gold medal victories over Canada with what are called golden goals, these sudden death overtime goals, Megan Keller for the women's team, Jack Hughes for the men's team, was just such a point of pride and just great drama and television and quality of play on both sides. Very good goals. By the way, you often, at the end of hockey games when everybody's exhausted, get these goals that are not exactly artful. But both of those were extraordinary and just a lot of fun.
- [06:58]
Jake Sullivan
Yeah, I mean, it was just the scenes, the explosion off the benches when those two goals went in. I rewatched probably both sequences, I don't know, 15, 20 times this weekend. I'm sure a lot of other people did as well. It was captivating, absolutely captivating. And the three on three approach in the golden goal over time really opens up the ice and makes for just epic viewing. So that was really something, I think a moment of pride for the entire country. I don't think people have been talking about hockey in this country as much as in the last week in years and years. I mean, this is, I think, really been something that has been a bright light for a country that's divided on so many other things. And in that sense, very cool.
- [07:47]
John Finer
So Jon Stewart pointed this out more colorfully and humorously than I will be able to, but basically making the argument that hockey is having a moment culturally with this HBO show. Heated rivalry, certainly athletically now with the Olympics and all the attention those gold medal games got. And as we'll get to even politically and geopolitically with the comparisons to the 1980 team, the last time the U.S. men's Olympic Hockey team won the gold medal. The women have won since then. And then this bizarre some aftermath in which some, and we are not among them, have been sort of gloating about the fact that we are beating up on Canada, given the standoff political between the United States and the Canadians, which is a bit bizarre. But, yeah, I like that hockey's having this moment in the sun, including last night during the State of the Union
- [08:36]
Jake Sullivan
address, trying to turn the Canadians into the Soviet red machine, a la 1980, is more than a little bit of a stretch.
- [08:43]
John Finer
It's a heavy lift.
- [08:45]
Jake Sullivan
You're right. Last night we saw the men's team arrive in the gallery for the State of the Union after the controversial invitation where the President was sort of caught on tape saying, I might have to invite the women's team as well. That was not exactly a glorious moment in the aftermath of this epic weekend. But the men's team came, got a huge standing ovation. The goalie got the Presidential Medal of Freedom awarded to him, and good on him for that. And it was a kind of interesting spectacle, this merger of sports and politics that you just don't see very often.
- [09:29]
John Finer
Yeah, look, I mean, we'll get to some of the substance of the State of the Union. I do think we, societally, given how polarized we are, have a tendency to sometimes over index on making a political moment out of something that is just kind of a cool national moment to me, having those guys walk in with their sweaters and people stand up and clap, given what they did was cool. I think the women's team should have been there, too. But I get that there's a controversy about this, and obviously the president is trying to use them to his political advantage. But also, if you're not a little bit proud of that, seeing those people in the gallery, I think you may be focused a little too hard on politics.
- [10:05]
Jake Sullivan
Amen. So speaking of the politics in the State of the Union, the longest.
- [10:10]
John Finer
You're not focusing too hard on politics.
- [10:12]
Jake Sullivan
Longest in history, at least. Longest in recorded history. Last 60 years, an hour.
- [10:16]
John Finer
Not a record you want, by the way, if you're certainly. If you're a staffer for the president, but maybe if you're the president, you feel differently.
- [10:22]
Jake Sullivan
Yeah, and I think he also broke his own record. I think President Trump has the second longest as well, followed by Bill Clinton, who clocked a couple of very long ones.
- [10:31]
John Finer
But this one of State of the Union addresses.
- [10:34]
Jake Sullivan
There you go. An hour 47, hour 48. So quite a long address. And we waited patiently Edge of our seats for the Foreign Policy section. It came very late in the speech, and there. There was very little on foreign affairs. What did you make of the speech?
- [10:54]
John Finer
As a piece of political theater, I think it was mixed. Certainly we're not the target audience for this, but I think there were parts of it that were quite effective and poignant. Even the recognition of guests in the gallery, including for the work that we focus on, some very poignant moments related to military veterans and recognizing their service in various conflicts going back a long way, including one veteran who was 100 years old being recognized for his heroism. All of that, I thought, was to the good, both for the country and probably plays well for the president, actually.
- [11:29]
Jake Sullivan
John, isn't he. He's turning 100 on July 4th, 2026, right?
- [11:34]
John Finer
Oh, is that right? Okay.
- [11:35]
Jake Sullivan
He's almost 100 years old, and so he was born on the 150th anniversary of the declaration, and he'll turn 100 on the 250th. And as a World War II veteran, unbelievable. I mean, that was quite a moment.
- [11:51]
John Finer
On the policy itself, there were some things that really caught me off guard. I think we would argue that the most important issue facing the country is the relationship between the United States and China. The competition between the United States and China, that was not a topic that the President particularly dwelled on. We know, we've talked about that this is a year in which the President will see Xi Jinping as many as four times. We know the President is very sensitive about not irritating the Chinese in advance of those meetings. And we've seen the US Kind of adjust course on some policy areas to try to avoid making those meetings unsuccessful in some way. We've talked about our concerns about what the United States might concede during the course of those meetings and has already conceded when it comes to technology, export controls, maybe even some bigger ticket issues like Taiwan. But last night he barely mentioned China. He mentioned it once, I think, in the context of Venezuela, where he described the very successful, from a military perspective, operation that took place against Maduro. He said they were enabled, the Venezuelans, by Chinese technology. How did that go? But other than that, basically did not mention China at all. And there is some history that you and I both are familiar with about China being a focal point in State of the Union addresses, certainly in the State of the Unions that we helped prepare for President Biden. China was probably the most significant section in the foreign policy parts of the State of the Union, including some parts that the Chinese didn't like in 2023, the Chinese accused President Biden, the United States, of smearing Xi Jinping. When the president called out China's increasingly autocratic behavior, maybe went a little off script, mentioning Xi by name a number of times. They are extremely sensitive to this. And rather than, I think, state the U.S. policy and assert the U.S. national interest, the president decided in this case, just give it a pass.
- [13:50]
Jake Sullivan
Yes, Joe Biden definitely ad libbed, repeatedly referred to Xi Jinping and had some colorful words about him in that State of the Union. The Chinese have this view that thou shalt not speak his name. And that just does not square with the way Joe Biden does business. A man who believes that just as Tip o' Neill said all politics is local, he says all foreign policy is personal. There's no way he's not going to say Xi Jinping's name.
- [14:18]
John Finer
But name me a world leader who would change places with Xi Jinping is, I think, what he said in 2023.
- [14:24]
Jake Sullivan
Yes, indeed. President Trump not talking about China in this speech is notable. It's consistent, frankly with the national security strategy, which does mention China, but has very little mention of China, very much focuses on other issues. And I think part of what's going on here is that these guys are trying to, A, as you said, be risk averse about not offending the Chinese and upsetting the apple cart when it comes to the deals they're trying to do in the context of the set of meetings that will take place this year. And then B, I think a certain lack of confidence on the part of the administration about what exactly their China strategy is and how they want to articulate it. So as a result, I think they just default to not really saying it. And that will be something to watch over the course of this year because not being able to clearly lay down what you are trying to accomplish in this most consequential relationship could end up leading to negative outcomes. So we'll have to see how that ends up playing.
- [15:29]
John Finer
I'd just say, by the way, lack of confidence, but also I think some pretty stark divides, at least below the level of the President, on what the US China policy should be. And so you have this dynamic where I hate this phrase, the deep state, but where people who are part of the government, maybe not necessarily political appointees, continue to push forward policies like arms sales to Taiwan, like new technology restrictions, and they make their way through the system and the minute they get the attention of the President, it seems like all of a sudden they pause, they get scaled back they get called into question. And so there is this kind of push and pull, including some very senior people who are on both sides of this argument in the president's inner circle.
- [16:12]
Jake Sullivan
Well, to that point, you could imagine a drafting process where somebody writes a few paragraphs that are hawkish, and other people look at that and say, we're not going that far. And then some people write some paragraphs that are quite conciliatory and emphasize cooperation. And the hawks say, hey, we can't be softies. And the net result is, I guess, let's call the whole thing off, just not even talk about China, which is basically what happened.
- [16:37]
John Finer
You've given a good insight, by the way, just not to pause too long on process, but how the State of the Union is actually put together. There is obviously a lead speechwriter for it, usually the chief speechwriter of the president. But the number of hands that get involved in the nipping and tucking and editing and adding things and subtracting things has gotta be in the many dozens by the time the speech is done. So if it reads like a document that's been put together by a committee, that's probably because that is how it's put together at the end of the day.
- [17:06]
Jake Sullivan
Yeah. And my sense is that the Trump administration departs from convention on many, many things, but maybe not on this one, that there are lots of hands in this speech, as there have been in the speeches of previous presidents. So the other thing that stood out to me, pushing foreign policy very late, talking about it very little. I mean, it was a few minutes and even fewer minutes if you take out the focus on these military heroes, to discuss foreign affairs. I think there are two things going on here. One is, I do think they've made a decision, at least in the president's public messaging in the United States, to elevate domestic issues as we head towards the midterms and to spend less of his personal time publicly speaking on foreign policy issues. We'll see if that sticks, because he keeps getting drawn back to the foreign policy issues and keeps taking actions in the world that push foreign policy issues into the headlines. But there's definitely an element of Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, and other political advisors, telling him, sir, you've got to talk about things here at home. And the speech reflected that in a big way. And then second, on issues like Ukraine and Gaza, I found the speech interesting because it kind of reflected a president who really doesn't have a clear idea of where things are going, doesn't know for sure whether there's any real traction in either of those processes, those peace efforts. And so he kind of hand waved at them and then moved on, which suggests a certain lack of confidence at the moment that he's going to be able to achieve his diplomatic objectives on those two files in the near term. Lots of lavishing appraise on Rubio and Wyckoff and Kushner. A lot less actual articulation of hey, I think we're going to get to an end point here soon.
- [18:57]
John Finer
Very much agree. They get listed as part of either the eight wars the President has supposedly ended or the ninth. I guess in the case of Russia, Ukraine that he intends to end but hasn't yet. And as you say, he then moves on to other things. Foreign.
- [19:20]
Odoo Advertiser
Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, E commerce, and more. And the best part, Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for free@odoo.com that's o d o o dot com.
- [20:01]
Rhonda Miller Goodrich
This is advertiser content brought to you by Stonyfield Organic. Our cows, them going out to pasture, they love it. They're so excited to go out every day they wait right at the door. In fact we milk them and we just open up the laneway and let them just go right out to pasture. I'm Rhonda Miller Goodrich and I'm a dairy farmer in Cabot, Vermont. Our farm is Molly Brook Farm. We're an organic dairy farm and we are a supplier to Stonyfield. Molly Brook Farm has been in my husband's family since 1835. We started our organic transition in in 2015. We had 53 acres of corn ground and of course we had to use herbicides and pesticides and the soil was dead really for all intents purposes we stopped growing corn and stopped using herbicides and pesticides and we seeded that down to perennial grasses. After that we began to see biodiversity in that soil again. To be organic certified, our cows need to be in pasture at least 120 days. I think the organic practices really benefit our animals. You know, having good feed, good water, a nice light area, that's what's important to us and that's what's important to Stonyfield. Visit stonyfield.com to find Stonyfield Organic Yogurt near you.
- [21:38]
John Finer
If there was a most anticipated part of the State of the Union last night by the foreign policy community, it was what is the President going to say about the drumbeat toward war with Iran? This has been something that he has talked about extensively, the possibility of US Military action against Iran. We have conducted a massive buildup of naval assets, of air assets into the Middle east in anticipation of a possible conflict. We've talked a lot about this during the course of this podcast, and I think we expected the President to lay out a case in some detail as to where this was all headed, what his intentions were, what his strategy was, what his demands specifically are of the Iranians.
- [22:22]
Jake Sullivan
And.
- [22:23]
John Finer
And to me, this content was relatively limited, like the rest of the foreign policy content. On the one hand, you could argue that he lowered the bar on the Iranians to actually avoid a war. What he basically said is they have to make clear, they have to say what he called, I think the secret magic words or something along those lines.
- [22:41]
Jake Sullivan
The secret words?
- [22:42]
John Finer
Yeah, secret words that they don't intend to seek a nuclear weapon. And by the way, good news for the President. In many, many public statements, including by the way, in the preamble of the nuclear deal that you and I both worked on, the JCPOA Iran said that it reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop, or acquire any nuclear weapons. So they've been on the record saying if all it takes is magic words, they've used them. So clearly there's got to be more going on. On the other hand, and you probably want to say more about this, he also laid out what I guess would be the predicate if the United States does decide to go to war would be the reason, which is he dwelled for a while on Iran's missile program, which he said has been built back up a bit since the 12 day war that took place last summer, and which he said includes an emerging missile capability that could reach the United States, intercontinental ballistic missile capability that could hit us. What did you make of. Of that?
- [23:43]
Jake Sullivan
First, I think it's important just to reinforce this point you made on the secret words. Right? So Trump says this is his quote, we haven't heard those secret words. We will never have a nuclear weapon, period. And I totally agree with you. This at least is a dangle of lowering the bar because as you noted, the Iran nuclear deal from the Obama administration, Iran explicitly said this. And in fact, just before the State of the Union, the Iranian foreign minister, Abbas Arakchee, a guy you and I both know well, tweeted literally that. So I kind of wonder if there's something going on with Iran making a declaration in this context that Trump is giving himself an off ramp if he wants to. So I just want to reinforce that. But then your point about the missiles, this really did strike me. It was new from the president. It was really the only new thing in the speech on Iran. And what he said was, they've already developed missiles that can threaten Europe and our bases overseas, and they're working to build missiles that will soon reach the United States of America. Now, Iran has for years been moving its missile technology forward and has for years been working on this kind of space launch capability to be able to put satellites up into space. And as our listeners may kind of know vaguely in the back of their minds from the North Korea context, North Korea used its space launch program as a way to perfect technology that could then be turned into an intercontinental ballistic missile capability, because it's basically the same thing. So Iran has been moving down the track of developing capacity to ultimately have an icbm. I think our understanding of this, based on public reporting, based on our discussions with experts over the last few days, is that, yes, at some point, Iran could potentially develop this capability. They did a space launch just last year, even after the 12 day war. But this is not an imminent threat. This is not something that is right around the corner unless there's information that the administration has that the expert community in the United States does not have. And so it does feel like they are reaching for something to try to pull forward a rationale for actually going to war. And I will be interested if this becomes the thing that they increasingly lean on. We've not seen all of the war hawks, all of those drumbeating for war, really focused on this issue in their public comments in the last few weeks. So the president has kind of dropped this in as a new variable in the speech last night. And I will be curious the extent to which this becomes central to his case if he goes to war. And then one last point, John, I was struck. He also said that Iran has restarted its nuclear program. He said, basically we took it out, but now they've started it up again. I don't think I've heard him personally explicitly make that statement. Maybe he has. We've obviously seen the reporting on that. But that would obviously be another element of the rationale if he chose to go Forward. But what did you make of the allusion to an Iranian intercontinental ballistic missile capability?
- [27:12]
John Finer
In a way, it almost adds a new red line to what has been traditional US Policy towards Iran across all administrations since Iran's nuclear program emerged. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Donald Trump have all said they will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon with greater or lesser degrees of specificity about what the US Would actually do, but basically making clear the US Would use military force if necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. President Trump seemed almost to be indicating that Iran developing an intercontinental ballistic missile capability, leaving aside whether it could put a nuclear warhead on that icbm, would also itself be a red line for the United States that would necessitate military action. I don't think other presidents have said exactly that before now. I'm not sure that's what he was intending to do, but that's sort of how the language on the ICBM came across, at least to me on the nuclear program. What was interesting to me about that is President Trump said not very long ago and has repeated ever since that the United States has, quote, unquote, obliterated, totally obliterated Iran's. Totally obliterated. Excuse me, sorry, I undersold. Totally obliterated Iran's nuclear program. So if they've already restarted it in a meaningful way, what did obliterated actually mean or accomplish for us? And what would obliterating it again accomplish for us? And we'll come back to these arguments, but also, there just seems to be a lot of confusion about the state of play. Steve Witkoff, who is, by the way, his negotiator on this nuclear issue, came out the other day and said something to the effect of Iran is a week away from having the ability to achieve nuclear breakout. I think he may have been putting himself in the mindset of pre July 12th or the 12 Day War last July, when the United States bombed Iran's nuclear program, because it's hard to imagine that Iran is anything close to a week away at this point, given the damage that's been done and the setback that that program has.
- [29:15]
Jake Sullivan
It's very strange.
- [29:16]
John Finer
And I don't know what he meant by that. He hasn't further explained it. I do think there was a period when Iran was. Was that close. Should they have decided to. But by the way, as we've talked about before, they have never made the decision in modern times to actually pursue a nuclear weapon. That's been their policy as we understand it since 2002. And nothing materially has changed there. So anyway, a lot of confusion about Iran. I think it led to more questions than it answered anything else about the state of the Union.
- [29:44]
Jake Sullivan
That one more word on the speech and Iran and then I think, John, we should just take on directly the question of whether it makes sense for the United States of America to launch a massive military action against Iran at this time. And that is, you can read the way he formulated the Iran section two ways. One way is that he didn't dwell on it. He put it late in the speech. He just said a few lines. Nothing was definitive. There was a kind of off ramp in this. Maybe Iran could just declare they're not going to go for a nuke. So this indicates he's trying to find a diplomatic solution. The other way you could read it is that he's more or less decided he's going to strike. He didn't want to make a robust case for it to the American people because he wants to keep Iran guessing and off balance. And he likes these military actions that emerge from a very kind of fuzzy context. He doesn't like telegraphing his moves. That's been a kind of hobby horse of his over many years. So I don't think we actually got a lot of clarity out of the speech about which direction he's planning to head. But the reality is that as he was speaking, the United States of America has the largest military buildup in the region since the Iraq war in 2003, a massive amount of firepower, and not just for show real operational capability at scale across the region, including an aircraft carrier that is on its last legs of an extended deployment being stretched to be part of this quote, unquote armada. So the pieces are there for some kind of major military move against Iran. And I think normally you and I do red team, blue team, we try to look at all sides of an issue. I think on this one we share the conviction that it makes no sense for the United States of America to take military action against Iran at this moment.
- [31:42]
John Finer
So often we debate these topics and I think they are certainly worthy of a robust debate in this case. I think given that you and I come down pretty strongly on the side of questioning why in this moment military action could possibly be the right next step. I think we should stipulate, by the way up front that we cannot stand this Iranian regime, that this is a profoundly bad set of actors who are beyond repressive and abusive to their own people. By the way, President Trump used a number last night that I'm not Sure. The US Government had officially used. But he said something on the order of more than 30,000 people. 32,000, he said, 32,000 killed by the regime during the course of the uprising that took place now more than a month ago. And we have no reason to question those numbers. We can't confirm them. But that is a horrific toll. And whatever the number was, it's far too many. And so it would be a good thing if the Iranian people rose up, toppled their own government. We would cheer that outcome of a more democratic Iran and people being able to live their lives without the repression they face. But I guess I come back at least to a few principles that lead me to believe this would be a profoundly bad idea to take military action now. One is that military action, as a general proposition, should be necessary. The protests that President Trump initially reacted to when he threatened military action are now over. The nuclear program, as we've discussed, was set back some number of years during the course of the 12 Day War last year. So what exactly is the urgency of doing this now? The administration has not yet laid out, the president has not yet laid out. Maybe he was alluding to intelligence we have not seen and we don't know what. We don't know when he talked about the ICBM program. But even that, I think, is a debatable proposition that that should lead to military action, given there is no nuclear warhead to put on that icbm. But we have not seen the goods on that. And so the case for urgency for necessity, which should be a threshold question to me, if you're going to take the nation to a significant war, has not been made and I don't see it. Second, military action should have a clear purpose. And this is one area. The president could have done some work last night, didn't do the work. Is this punitive intended to sort of signal to the Iranian regime that what they did to the protesters was unconscionable and therefore they should suffer for it? Is this intended to inflict further harm on the already obliterated nuclear program? Is this about regime change toppling the Iranian government, as some in the US Administration have indicated? Is there some other rationale? We actually have no idea. And it does not seem like they have decided on the rationale either, because the president didn't say much about why the United States might need to go to war last night, other than again, hinting at this ICBM program. Third, the risk of doing this is high. We keep coming back to this sort of argument because over the course of the last year, I worry that people in the United States and actually the President himself, have come to believe that military action is a cost free. The 12 day war went actually quite well from a military perspective. The operations conducted by the United States and by Israel achieved their intended result. The operation against Maduro, extracting him from a hostile foreign capital in Venezuela, went very well from a military perspective. But this stuff is never guaranteed. And this time Iran is incentivized, I think, to hit back harder than they did during the 12 days war because they are concerned that they have lost any deterrence of their adversaries, any ability to deter the United States and Israel from taking action. And I think believe they will need to at least try harder to impose a cost on us, maybe on Israel as well, if they are attacked again, by the way, given all the hints about regime change, they may think the United States is coming to topple their governments entirely, which is kind of an existential question for the people making decisions about retaliation. So the odds that they try to hit back harder against our bases, our allies, and that they inflict real harm and casualties go way up in the context of a bigger, broader war, which this could be. Fourth, regime change wars should just be exceedingly rare. Maybe never, by the way, given the track record of the United States conducting wars of regime change, but at least exceedingly rare. And we should at least be confident that we have some influence over who comes next and what comes next, and that what comes next will be better than the status quo if we go in and topple a foreign government here. Most outside analysts believe that the most likely successor to the current clerical regime, the Supreme Leader and his ilk who run Iran, would be the irgc, the Revolutionary Guard, which unlike the Supreme Leader, actually may even be less inclined to negotiate, make a deal of some kind with the west, may be more inclined to try to obtain a nuclear weapon. It's actually been the Supreme Leader's policy that Iran would not seek a nuclear weapon. And I think many in the IRGC leadership question that Iran should seek a nuclear weapon. And they will be by all measure every bit as brutal as the Supreme Leader has been in terms of internal repression. So if that's the outcome of military action, hard to argue that the risk is worth that sort of reward. And that's before we even get to arguments that there is no real threat to the United States emanating from Iran today, given the state of the nuclear program, given lack of at least clear evidence on the ICBM program, which means there is no clear legal basis for doing this that used to matter to governments. Deciding about whether to go to war hasn't always. And in our history, when we have trampled upon that, we've often come to regret. It does not seem to be part of the calculus today. And finally, and sorry for going on so long, this could actually be a big war, not just a 12 day war, not just a brief exchange of missiles. And it is pretty crazy and I think basically unprecedented in our history to start a big unnecessary war without meaningful consultation with our Congress which has the constitutional power to declare wars. Yes, the President sent up some briefers to talk to what is called the Gang of Eight yesterday. The leadership on Democratic and Republican side in the House and Senate and the Intel Committee leadership. But that is far from a full robust debate in the Congress, let alone a vote on whether this is a good idea. Even President Bush did that when he made the terrible decision to invade Iraq. So we do not feel ready from a constitutional perspective, from a public perception perspective, from a legal perspective, on top of everything else.
- [38:42]
Jake Sullivan
Let me just start John, by picking up on this point you made about it could be a big war and a point you made about risk. Last year when we bombed Fordo, the Iranians knew what we were planning to do, what our objective was. It was to neutralize this deeply buried nuclear site. They knew that. So their incentive at that point was to de escalate rather than escalate because if they escalated then we would expand to include striking much more of Iran, including potentially the regime this time. They have no idea what our ceiling is, whether if we start dropping bombs, that's going to be a limited strike or all the way up to full on regime change. So if you're in that position on their side, their incentive this time is probably actually to hit back, to try to deter the US from continuing or escalating. And that makes this situation much riskier, much less stable, much more prone to miscalculation than last June's 12 day war was. Now there are possibilities here where the US and Iran kind of communicate to one another we're going to do a little thing and you might do a little thing in response and then we'll tie it off. So I'm not saying it's guaranteed that this explodes into a massive war by any stretch, but the risk is significantly higher. And I think that dynamic, not knowing what exactly it is that the United States intends, is what inserts so much uncertainty into this situation. So John, just to kind of double click this point, if the Iranians are thinking about their options. What do they do if they think, hey, the US Is coming for us, they're coming foursquare for us. What are their options in response?
- [40:35]
John Finer
I think the options we'd be most concerned about if we were advising the President on this topic is the United States has a significant number of military personnel in very easy missile and drone range of Iran. We have thousands of military personnel based in the Gulf countries, in Qatar, in the UAE and in Saudi Arabia. And, and we also have, by the way, a large number of American citizens who live in these places, work in these places. And last time Iran, during the 12 Day War, decided basically to conduct a telegraphed set of strikes against one country, Qatar, against, aimed at US Facilities there, but sort of signaled they were going to do it. The United States was able to defend. It was a relatively limited barrage, a larger scale. And by the way, Iran retains, as far as we understand it, a supply of many hundreds of short range ballistic missiles that can reach these places and even larger number of drones. If Iran kind of lets all guns loose, blazing against these sites, it will be very hard for us to defend them. And the United States has, and this is an issue we've wrestled with in the government, a limited number of what are called interceptors. The munitions we fire at drones fire at missiles to take them out of the sky. We, we can defend quite effectively for a period of time. But the longer this goes on, the more our supply of interceptors gets depleted. We don't know the exact numbers, we're not there. But it is likely that Iran has more munitions to shoot at us than we have to shoot at their missiles and drones.
- [42:12]
Jake Sullivan
And look, if you're going to take military action against a country that at least possesses the capability, we don't know about the will, but possesses the capability to hit your bases, hit your people, you've got to be able to answer a simple question. And this was kind of the core of your argument as you laid it out. What are you trying to achieve? And as I said last year, whatever one thinks of the merits of that action, Trump could answer that question. Trying to achieve the neutralization of Iran's main nuclear facilities. This year, they haven't been able to answer that question. And that's partly because they've backed into this whole thing because Trump fired off some tweets in support of the protesters and we haven't really talked about that. This whole thing kicked off because he told the protesters that help was on the way. And now he kind of feels in A bit of a corner, but he's opened the aperture to the nuclear program, the missiles and other things. So it's partly because they've backed into this whole thing, but it's also partly because the answers just ain't that good. So, as you said, if it's to hit the nuclear program again, Trump said, we totally obliterated it. Here we are eight months later. So what's to say we won't have to come back eight months from now and do it again? It could be to hit the missile program. Israel spent almost two weeks hitting their missiles last year. Here we are eight months later. Are we going to be here eight months again? With all the risks that you just identified of what Iran potentially could do in response, is it to support the protesters? They were ruthlessly gunned down in the streets. The protests were largely squelched. Although there is an interesting question as to whether we're starting to see students back out on the street a bit or at least out at the universities. But by and large, that massive wave of protest was just crushed through sheer brutality after Trump said help was on the way. So it's a little mistimed to try to really help the protesters. Is it to bring about regime change? Trump should come out and say it if it is, and explain why the United States should sign up for a regime change war where we have no idea and very little control over what comes next. And as you say, we all want to see this regime bandaged to the history books. It is murderous, it is barbarous, but we do not have a good history of regime change wars. And it doesn't make sense to sign America up for that. And if you're going to sign America up for that, you damn well better explain to the American people why and get their consent through the Congress. So for all of those reasons, I just think we are on the cusp of something really problematic on multiple different ways levels. And look, the Trump people will say we've taken military action before. It's worked out for us. You guys have overestimated the risk from Iran and they've been proven to be a paper tiger. And I don't think we can just shrug our shoulders at that because Iran has proven to be considerably weaker and is considerably weaker today than they were two years ago at this time. And Iran has in the past kind of absorbed a massive hit from the United States and from Israel and not done much in response. Okay, that's possible. But this is all about a risk benefit analysis. The risk is real and they just simply have not explained how right now this has to happen. And I'll just close by saying Tom Wright, our former colleague, wrote a really interesting piece in the Atlantic that people should read where he basically says, why are we rushing into anything? We don't have to get a deal right now and we don't have to go to war right now. Iran doesn't represent an imminent threat to the United States. They're weak. We have leverage. Let's keep playing this out. Why are we just rushing pell mell to take a military action that could go south on us in some way? I don't know if I agree with every word Tom wrote, but I think it points up this fundamental reality that this is not necessary right now. And when military action is not necessary, the thumb should be pretty heavily on the scale of not doing it. So that's where I net out this sound. It's more like a blue team, blue team than a red team, blue team. But sometimes there are issues where you and I think it's important to register.
- [46:36]
John Finer
I think the other reason is I'm not hearing a lot of these arguments being made by even elected Democrats in Washington who you would expect. I mean, there are some of them doing this, standing up against what is happening. But to me, the capsule summary, which I am surprised I don't hear more of, is Trump administration pulled out of a nuclear deal with Iran that brought Iran much closer in the aftermath to the potential of having a nuclear weapon. Now they're trying to re achieve basically an identical nuclear deal or something very close to that. They bombed Iran last year and now are on the verge of having to bomb Iran again. So they've got these two choices that they have basically forced on themselves and the strategy that led to it, let alone the strategy that flows from the aftermath of it, is totally unclear. So anyway, no debate this time. I think we're basically on the same page. Should we move to one other topic that took place? It was focused on in the State of the Union address last night and which really erupted last weekend in a significant way, which is the cartel situation in Mexico.
- [47:51]
Jake Sullivan
Yeah, go for it.
- [47:52]
John Finer
The Mexican government conducted an arrest last weekend of a well known cartel leader named Nemesio El Mencho o Segueira Cervantes, but goes by El Mencho. And this was a pretty significant action. This is a notorious person. He's actually got a kind of interesting background, maybe just a few notes on who he was. He actually spent a lot of his youth, kind of honed his criminal chops in San Francisco. He then moved back to Mexico and started his career in Mexico as a young man, as a. A local cop, policeman. And began building his criminal record, criminal enterprise. From that perch, he developed a business, this cartel that he led until this weekend that spans human smuggling, extortion, fuel theft, and even, according to a recent report from the U.S. treasury Department, a timeshare fraud scheme that targeted tourists in. In Puerto Vallarta. This just big, sprawling criminal conglomerate. And he was caught by the Mexican government, which had not, up until recently, focused as much on his cartel and on him. They had been fighting against the Sinaloa cartel in a different part of Mexico. But he was betrayed by. Sounds like a lover of his, who told her, according to the police report, trusted guy, where he was located. The Mexicans were able to go in and find him. They chased him. He got shot. He ended up in a helicopter, died in the helicopter, which, by the way, seems a bit dodgy, but neither here nor there, and obviously is now no longer alive, no longer the leader of this cartel. But all of this comes against the backdrop of what has been a full year of very intense pressure by the Trump administration on the government of Mexico and President Scheinbaum, who we both dealt with, to do more, to crack down on cartels or else, and in this case, the or else is the United States will go in militarily and take action inside Mexico, which we have not done in our recent history, and which would pose a massive challenge to U.S. mexico relations just given the violation of sovereignty. So the Mexicans did this under significant US Duress and with some role played by the United States, which we should talk a bit more about.
- [50:19]
Jake Sullivan
Yeah, it's true. Under significant US Duress. But it's also true that Mexico has a history of doing these kinds of operations going back 15 years. Basically, every few years, they take out a kingpin, one of the top guys at one of the major cartels. And this is the latest iteration of that. And what tends to unfold after they do this, after they eliminate the top guy. It's interesting. You said dodgy in the helicopter. You think they. You think they just executed him in the helicopter?
- [50:49]
John Finer
I'm making no accusations. You do wonder when people die in custody who are so reviled like this, but who knows?
- [50:58]
Jake Sullivan
Okay, all right, fair enough. So we've seen basically this playbook before, and then the cartel has a playbook in response to a kingpin getting taken out. And that's essentially three types of violence. One type of violence is the cartel goes against the Public and the state. And we saw this from the Jalisco cartel, which El Mencho headed, you know, burning vehicles, burning banks and buildings, attacking state facilities all across Mexico, not just in the areas where they dominate, to flex their muscles and say, hey, we can hold you guys at risk. That's abated to a considerable extent in most of Mexico. The area of their biggest stronghold, Puerto Vallarta, which is a resort area out on the Pacific coast, it's still ongoing to a certain extent. So you have these three types of violence. One is cartel on state, cartel on public. Then you have the violence between cartels, because when a leader gets taken out, the other major cartels think, hey, they got a vacuum. We can move in on their turf. And I think we can expect in the coming weeks, other major cartels smelling weakness from the Jalisco Cartel, will try to grab some of their market share. And that can kick off real violence. And in the past, we have seen that with previous Mexican cartel leaders who have gone. And finally you get violence within the cartel because who's going to take over? So rival factions start fighting. And one more thing to know about El Mencho is he actually came to run this Jalisco new generation cartel because the head of this previous cartel was actually captured by Mexican authorities, which led to that cartel's division into two rival factions. El Mencho's faction won and he took over. So he is the product of a previous Mexican operation. Exactly. The way he got into his job is through an operation exactly like the one that just took him out. And just back for a second, just to give people a little bit more of the color on this. In the first Trump administration, the Mexican government captured the son of El Chapo, a guy named Ovidio Guzman, who was a senior guy in the Sinaloa cartel. The Sinaloa cartel went even further than the Jalisco cartel has in terms of an attack on the state. They basically did a siege of a significant city. They took soldiers hostage, they attacked military housing. And the violence got so intense and moved so fast that the Mexican government actually had to release El Chapo's son. He got let go, and then in the Biden administration, he was recaptured and extradited, which kicked off another wave of intense violence that left a lot of people dead. That Biden administration effort also involved the joint intelligence effort between Mexico and the US and that's what we've seen here from the Trump administration. You're right that President Trump is dangling the possibility we'll go do it ourselves, which I think is reinforcing the, shall we say, the enthusiasm of Sheinbaum to execute this, to have the Mexicans execute it. But I think this is what we will now have to watch, that first wave of anti state or anti public violence. We'll have to see how long it continues and where I think the inter and intra cartel violence we're just at the beginning of. And it will be interesting the extent to which Mexico thinks it can contain that, manage that, and whether the Trump administration is going to continue to say, okay, you've made this first move, now we want to see a lot more moves in rapid succession or we're going to take over ourselves.
- [54:46]
John Finer
Hard to imagine a world leader right now who has a harder job than Claudia Sheinbaum. In some ways, Mexico's state capacity ability to deal with these security crises is extremely limited. She comes on the heels of her mentor, Amlo Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who had a very different approach, actually to cartels. He called his approach hugs not bullets. Essentially trying to kind of take a more conciliatory stance towards cartel leaders to avoid exactly what just happened over the course of the last weekend, which is an eruption of violence perpetrated by cartels against the state, against Mexican citizens and international citizens. Basically acknowledging that the Mexican state did not have the ability to totally crush and crack down on the cartels. Sheinbaum has taken, again, under significant pressure from the United States, a more confrontational approach, first to Sinaloa and then to Jalisco, New generation cartel, as you said, and at the same time is under intense pressure from President Trump and Stephen Miller to deal with migration flows across Mexico into the United States, which are tied to this cartel issue because so involved in human smuggling and has to renegotiate massive trade agreements with the United States, which has its review period taking place over the course of this summer. And that trade agreement is obviously essential to the Mexican economy. So XI is under an incredible amount of pressure, has these interlocking, interrelated challenges, and is trying to manage it as well as possible. And I think, I think I would give her a lot of credit, by the way, for managing a very challenging relationship with President Trump up till now. But this could, in any number of ways go off the rails, up to and including, obviously, the possibility of US Military action inside Mexico, which I believe is very much still on the table. And that is why the role of the United States is so controversial in this situation. Every time one of these big arrests happens, you gotta look very closely at the messaging that comes out of Mexico and comes out of the United States. Often the Mexicans will downplay, if they acknowledge at all, the participation of the United States. Often this administration, the Trump administration, will want to tout how involved it actually was. And you saw a little bit of that dueling message this time, by the way. You saw it even more intensely with another arrest that took place at the end of January. This is kind of a weird one, but you followed this arrest of this guy, guy Ryan Wedding, who is a former Canadian Olympic snowboarder who was in the 2002 Olympics in salt Lake City and became one of the biggest narco traffickers in North America, tied to the Sinaloa cartel. He was arrested with some involvement that's never really been fully spelled out of the United States. And it led to these competing statements. The Mexican government basically said, and they did most, if not all, of the legwork, the United States implied actually it had done more of the arrests. There was this public back and forth between Sheinbaum and actually Cash Patel, who put out on Twitter that FBI teams executed with precision discipline alongside Mexican partners to bring Ryan Wedding to justice. He was extradited to the United States. So this creates real political problems for Sheinbaum. A more sensitive administration would probably keep its mouth shut about what exactly the US Role was, if it was greater than has been acknowledged, to allow Sheinbaum the space to be able to keep conducting these operations on our behalf. But these guys just don't seem inclined to give her that space.
- [58:33]
Jake Sullivan
First of all, I vaguely followed that, but I had no idea this was an Olympic snowboarder who turned into one of the biggest narco traffickers in North America. That's interesting. I'm going to go read more about good old Ryan West.
- [58:45]
John Finer
Be a lowlight for the 2002 Olympics,
- [58:47]
Jake Sullivan
I think, just to close this out. Your point about Sheinbaum having a lot on her shoulders. Trade, migration and drugs. Three issues near and dear to Donald Trump's heart. These are three things where Mexico is very much in the center of the action. It's hard to think about topics on which the president is more passionate, that are more politically charged, that are more emotionally charged, and that he spends more of his waking hours thinking about. So, yes, ShinePalm is in a uniquely pressured situation and, as you said, has been handling it pretty well.
- [59:40]
Today Explained Host
In the wake of the release of millions of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, the rich and famous are finally feeling some pain. But even with corporate resignations here, and with former Prince Andrew being arrested in the uk, the Question remains, how did Jeffrey Epstein remain a thriving member of the elite for decades when everyone seemed to know what he was up to?
- [60:02]
Coreweave Advertiser
I don't think you could be friends with Jeffrey Epstein, whose MO Was obviously having sex with young girls, even as Trump said, on the younger side, and
- [60:10]
Today Explained Host
not know his MO Untangling the Epstein conspiracy. That's this week on Today Explained every weekday and now on Saturdays.
- [60:29]
Jake Sullivan
Should we turn to the standoff between the Pentagon and the AI company Anthropic?
- [60:35]
John Finer
Yeah, remarkable. Want to lay it out and we can discuss.
- [60:39]
Jake Sullivan
So Anthropic right now is the only AI company that is currently providing classified services to the Pentagon. It is the only one on the classified system providing its AI capabilities for use in DoD war fighting. Anthropic has basically said it has two terms of use. One is that its product cannot be used for mass surveillance and the other is that its product cannot be used for lethal weapons controlled by AI. The Pentagon is saying that they do not accept these restrictions, that they should be able to use the system for what they call all lawful uses and they should decide. The Pentagon should decide what is lawful. So the Pentagon has threatened Anthropic and basically said that if it doesn't comply, if it doesn't drop these two restrictions, that either the Pentagon will use this authority called the Defense Production act to compel Anthropic to provide its capabilities to them, restriction free, or the Pentagon will put Anthropic on a list of supply chain risks, a list that is usually reserved for adversarial foreign companies. And if you go on that list, if you are deemed a supply chain risk by the Pentagon, then no company that does business with the Pentagon can do business with you. So this would be a real threat to Anthropic's business model. So that is the baseline of what is going on here. And Dario Amadai, the CEO of Anthropic, who has been very outspoken on this topic, had a meeting this week with Pete Hegseth, the Secretary of Defense, to discuss the standoff. They did not resolve it. In fact, the Pentagon has given a Friday deadline, 5:01pm Eastern Standard Time, for Anthropic to comply or to face one of the two potential sanctions I just described or courses of action I just described, Anthropic said it's not going to comply. So as we tape this here on Wednesday, this is very much up in the air. What do you make of this, John?
- [63:00]
John Finer
Well, it's a remarkable situation and in some ways a novel, unique situation because maybe to be for A half, a second most charitable version of the argument the administration is making, or Pete Hegseth is making. It is very unusual for companies that sell to the US Government, in particular companies that sell to the US Military, to place restrictions that arguably go above and beyond whatever U.S. law or the U.S. constitution require in terms of how those capabilities are used. And so, on a very abstract level, Pete Hegseth's argument is at least somewhat compelling. He says, we're bound by U.S. law. We, we are bound by the U.S. constitution. And as long as we're following that, no private company that has its own kind of views and interests should be telling us, the Defense Department, what is necessary to do to defend the country. The problem with that argument is, as we have discussed many times on this podcast, this is a totally novel capability. These large language models, autonomy in warfare. And I think you can make a pretty strong case that Dario Amodai and other leaders of large American AI labs have a deeper understanding of what exactly is safe and unsafe in terms of how these models operate in their current incarnation than Pete Hegseth does at this point. And he has expressed real concerns about how the models would go about making decisions about when and how and how extensively to use force if they are sort of left to their own devices. And I would be of the view that we should take those concerns extremely seriously. Now, again, in a normal administration, I feel like I start almost every sentence I use about these guys with that caveat. This would be a very, I think, constructive back and forth between a technology leader and a policy leader and to try to come to some sort of understanding. But this is now with these guys gotten all caught up in accusations about Anthropic that are longstanding. Elon Musk and others go online and talk about Dario and Anthropic being part of woke AI. Anthropic has expressed more concerns about safety and safeguards when it comes to large language models, at least publicly. They've expressed more concerns than some of the other labs that's gotten them in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, even separate and apart from this contract. And this is a place, an area, where this administration, lack of sometimes transparency, operation in good faith and by the way, clear adherence to law, policy and the Constitution when it comes to the use of force in warfare leads to very legitimate questions being raised by the public, by private actors, about whether they actually will do what they say and adhere to the Constitution and the law in all cases. There's been a lot of legal questions raised, and this emerged from the strikes that took place and the operation that took place against Maduro and, and Venezuela, which we and others have raised, I think legitimate concerns about whether those conform with legal requirements and the Constitution. And when Anthropic found out that its model was used in the conduct of that operation, at least according to reports, it became quite concerned. And that is what led to this current discussion, debate, standoff about the safeguards that they want to put on the use of.
- [66:33]
Jake Sullivan
Claude so we're in the middle of this story. Obviously in the next few days we'll get more clarity about what the Pentagon chooses to do and whether there's an off ramp here or whether they escalate the situation. And I think we should come back to this once we've seen that and reflect further on the novel questions that are raised by this issue. But for today, in addition to everything you just laid out, which I find very compelling, let me just make three short points. The first is there's something bizarre about the Pentagon's position that it's either going to compel the Anthropic to provide its capability to the Pentagon through the Defense Production act, or it's going to declare it a supply chain risk. Both of those can't be right. It can't be that actually we could compel it. We really need it and we want to use it because we trust it. Oh, and also it's a supply chain risk. It suggests that this supply chain risk threat is not based in something real, that Anthropic is not at all a supply chain risk, that it has a good product, that the Pentagon really wants to use that as a trusted product that the Pentagon trusts so much much it's pushing very hard to get it. And therefore the supply chain risk threat is really about the government just trying to crush a business and bend it to its will. And I think that is dangerous way beyond just this narrow use case that is just flat out dangerous. Secondly, to your point about these being incredibly uncertain areas, what exactly are these capabilities? What are exactly the risks associated with them? We, we are learning new things every day and there is a lot the labs like Anthropic know that the rest of us don't know, that the people in government don't know. I would say here, just as Ty goes to the runner in baseball here, an argument on both sides about who should decide these things should go towards the more cautious end. Especially when you're talking about things like mass surveillance and lethal autonomous weapons, weapons that kill people and purely are controlled by artificial intelligence without A human in the loop. More caution is better. And that leads to the third point, which is a point you made. Work it out. There is no reason why, if Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon stepped out of this kind of macho effort to just coerce Anthropic into conceding that they couldn't come to some understanding that would address the Pentagon's concerns that Anthropic isn't going to be remote control determining every decision the Pentagon makes with the use of its capability. But that also addresses Dario's legitimate concern. So again, to finish where you basically started and finished in a normal administration, I think this could get worked out as it stands. My biggest concern here is that it is an indication of the coercive power of the federal government against a company that frankly, is trying to do the right thing. And that leaves me feeling pretty nervous about the implications of this going forward over the next three years.
- [69:42]
John Finer
Also, what is the magic of Friday? Why does this have to be done in two days anyway? Exactly. A lot of this is just very odd.
- [69:47]
Jake Sullivan
Unless there's some big mass surveillance program that they want to roll out next week, right?
- [69:51]
John Finer
Yeah. Or autonomy against Iran in the context of a strike, God forbid.
- [69:57]
Jake Sullivan
So just to round things out, there's been a couple of developments in the news that give us a new segment. It may be a one time segment of what we'll call good diplomacy, bad diplomacy. I will give an example of really kind of good and frankly, heartwarming diplomacy. And then you can give an example of how not to do things if you're a diplomat overseas. So my example involves the visit of the Brazilian President Lula to South Korea. Lula lost his pinky finger in an industrial accident when he was a union worker as a young man. So he only has four fingers on one hand. So he goes to South Korea and he participates in a ceremony at their memorial where he has to wear gloves. And there's an amazing video of him putting the glove on and realizing when he does that the South Koreans have actually made the glove so it only has four fingers. And he looks at his wife and he shows it to her. And just the delight on his face and the care and the thoughtfulness the South Koreans took is pretty damn cool. And what makes the story even more interesting is that the president of South Korea, President Lee himself, as a young man, had an industrial accident while he was working at a factory that produces, I think it's baseball mitts and something else. He was essentially a factory worker as a very young man. And he was in an industrial accident where he got his wrist caught and he now has a permanently disabled arm. So you have these two men disabled as younger people, as workers, as factory workers who have risen to be president of their countries. And then this beautiful show of grace from one to the other. Everyone should just watch this 10 second video. I would call that good diplomacy.
- [71:50]
John Finer
Amen. And by the way, it's nice on a personal level, but these personal touches, as I guess we've seen, I mean, they can actually make positive differences in relations between countries. These are human beings that lead these places at the end of the day. And I'm sure that meant a lot to President Lula. Onto briefly what not to do. And here we come back to our friends the French and the United States relationship with France. And I'll stipulate up front, the French are not always easy in a diplomatic context. And I say this almost in a family sense, in a loving way. I've been in touch over the course of the last couple days with my former French counterpart, who's a great guy and sometimes you butt heads. But the United States has really kind of stepped in it with France over the course of the last week. Made now be on the path to being resolved. Basically what happened was there was the killing of a right wing activist in France by at least what the United States alleges were left wing radicals. And the State Department put out a statement expressing concern about the rise of left wing violence in France. French government did not like the statement, did not feel that it was accurate. It and did what often happens in diplomatic disputes. They summoned the United States ambassador to France, who is Charles Kushner, Jared Kushner's father, to basically come in, see the French government and get scolded, get read the riot act. This is a fundamental function of ambassadors overseas. When a country is angry at your country, they will often do this. And by the way, things can escalate from there. You can get thrown out of the country as an ambassador. A country can recall its ambassador to your country, as the French did in one instance during our administration when they were upset at us about the Aukus deal that we made with the Australians and the UK in this case, they said, Charles Kushner, come in and explain yourself. And Charles Kushner decided just not to show up, say thank you. No, thank you, I have other plans. As an ambassador to a country, you can have no other plans that are more consequential than being summoned by the government. This then led to a lot of back and forth and the press started to escalate. It does seem like the French, for now at least, are deciding not to blow this up further, not to declare what is sometimes called Persona non grata Charles Kushner and force him to leave the country. But this is just in the category of an unnecessary way to inflame a situation. The US Made its point about this act and even France's reaction underscored the importance of the US Point didn't end and and brought more attention to it. Kushner could have shown up, listened politely, walked out the door, no harm, no foul, decided instead to do the opposite. And it hurts the relationship to behave that way.
- [74:44]
Jake Sullivan
All right, so we went through a lot of issues today, finished on, I think, a good note on diplomacy here. And that'll be it for today.
- [74:54]
John Finer
We'll be back next week with a new episode of the Longest Game.
- [74:57]
Jake Sullivan
In the meantime, send us your questions and comments@long gameox media.com and find us on substack@staytuned.substack.com the links are in the show notes.
- [75:14]
John Finer
That's it for this episode of the Long Game.
- [75:17]
Jake Sullivan
If you like the show, please follow, share with friends and leave a review. It really helps listeners.
- [75:22]
John Finer
Follow for updates and more analysis in your inbox. Join the community@staytuned.substack.com the long game is
- [75:30]
Jake Sullivan
a Vox Media Podcast network Production Executive Producer Tamara Sepper Lead Editorial Producer Jennifer
- [75:36]
John Finer
Indig Deputy Editor Celine Rohr Senior Producer Matthew Billy Video Producers Nat Weiner and
- [75:43]
Jake Sullivan
Adam Harris Supervising Producer Jake Kaplan Associate
- [75:47]
John Finer
Producer Clark Claudia Hernandez Marketing Manager Leanna Greenway Music is by Nat Weiner. We're your hosts John Finer and Jake Sullivan.
- [75:56]
Jake Sullivan
Thanks for listening.
- [76:05]
Odoo Advertiser
Support for this show comes from Odoo. Running a business is hard enough, so why make it harder with a dozen different apps that don't talk to each other? Introducing Odoo. It's the only business software you'll ever need. It's an all in one fully integrated platform that makes your work easier. CRM, accounting, inventory, E commerce, and more. And the best part? Odoo replaces multiple expensive platforms for a fraction of the cost. That's why over thousands of businesses have made the switch. So why not you try Odoo for free@odoo.com that's o d o o.com
- [76:45]
Experian Advertiser
New year, new me. Cute, but how about New Year New Money? With Experian you can actually take control of your finances. Check your FICO score, find ways to save and get matched with credit card offers. Giving you time to power through those New Year's goals, you know you're going to crush start the year off right. Download the Experian app Based on FICO Score 8 model offers and approval not guaranteed. Eligibility requirements and terms apply. Subject to credit check, which may impact your credit scores. Offers not available in all states. See experian.com for details. Experian.