← The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim
Loading summary
Transcript90 lines
- [00:03]
A
Sky News, the full story first. Hello, it's me, Yalda, and I'm in Davos at the World Economic Forum. We're putting out this podcast a little later than usual because we're waiting to hear President Donald Trump address this event. And I think it was worth the delay.
- [00:31]
B
All we want from Denmark for national and international security and to keep our very energetic and dangerous potential enemies at bay is this land on which we're going to build the greatest golden dome ever built.
- [00:47]
C
And me, Richard Engel, and I am just back from the United States. And Yolda, all eyes in the world are on where you are right now. A lot of headlines, but he, the main one seems to be America must have Greenland. That America is owed Greenland. But he did say that he wouldn't use force, but that he needs Greenland in order to protect the world from Russia and China and build a golden dome to create a defense network like the world has never seen. Yalda, so much to unpack as usual now?
- [01:22]
A
Yeah, absolutely. Lots to unpack. Welcome to the world podcast.
- [01:37]
C
Yelda. We're going to get into exactly what Trump has said at Davos and where this leaves Europe. But where are you now? For those who are just listening, you have this sort of, sort of very Scandinavian kind of wood paneling behind your wood bookshelves. It looked like you're in some sort of ski, apres ski place. Where are you?
- [01:55]
A
In Davos. So I'm, you know, Davos is a ski resort. It's where the globalization elite come to be at the most, you know, talked about networking event on the planet. And my, this sort of Airbnb that we've rented out because accommodation is limited, as you can imagine.
- [02:15]
C
Oh, so that's a rented, like, flat.
- [02:17]
A
It's a rented flat and most people stay in chalets or rented flats. It's really hard to get accommodation here and it costs a lot of money to, to, to come here and, and to book, you know, something here to stay for the, the week. It is, I guess, the most talked about networking event on the planet. It's where the global elite gather every year atop this mountain in the ski resort of Davos. And this time it's become ground zero for the Trump administration.
- [02:52]
C
So they're just there to make deals and make waves and everybody is just gossiping and gossiping and talking and talking and talking. Lots of conversations over what? Fondue or wine?
- [03:04]
A
And also, you know, espressos. I mean, most of the time, you know, you see and hear from business leaders. There are thousands of business leaders frankly, here, you know, something like 3,000 delegates and over 60 global leaders here. It's turned into, in the last few, few years, a geopolitical event as well. Certainly, that's what Donald Trump's presence and the attention on him has done to it this year.
- [03:28]
C
As we said, we will unpack Trump's speech and also get the reaction from European allies. And I want to hear what people have been telling you. Yalda, fundamentally, has Europe finally reached a breaking point with the United States?
- [03:42]
A
Yeah, it's been described as a rupture, a transition, a new era. I've been speaking to Richard Fontaine, he's a foreign policy expert and getting a sense of what people in Washington have been saying. And frankly, he told me the situation is worrisome and a massive distraction. And the other thing, Richard, of course, we're going to touch on in this episode is the situation in Iran. We've been talking about it for the last couple of weeks following those mass demonstrations and that, frankly, bloody crackdown. We've had lots of listeners send in questions. So we're going to try and answer some of those questions. And I'm going to shamelessly plug a podcast I did last week with some Iranian women from the diaspora in the United States. If you've got time, please go and listen to that.
- [04:32]
C
Please do. I think we're going to hear more about Iran in the coming weeks and months. The US Is still sending troops to the area. Whether Trump really wants change there or he's just talking about it. He set up expectations in Iran. He said, help is coming, troops are on the way. Is help really coming?
- [04:47]
A
And of course, as usual, you can send us your thoughts, your questions, usual place the world@sky.uk and listen to us wherever you get your podcasts, whether, whether it's Apple or Spotify and follow us on YouTube. So, Richard, before we get into what's happening here in Davos, let's just recap a little bit on, on Greenland, because, I mean, for many people I'm talking to, they're saying this is an epic distraction. The talking point at this conference, which is an epic economic conference. So there's, you know, hundreds of business leaders here, and they come here, gather here every year, as we said. But the talking point on the geopolitical front this year should have been this massive package for Ukraine, $800 billion package, which, by the way, the Americans didn't even send a representative to the meeting that was supposed to take place earlier this. This week. There are Iranian protesters outside the Congress wanting answers from Donald Trump, who said to the Iranian people, go out onto the streets, help is coming. I mean, frankly, that's what he should be talking to his European allies about. Instead, we are talking about, to quote Donald Trump, he's described Greenland as a piece of ice that he needs for world protection.
- [06:15]
B
It's the United States alone that can protect this giant mass of land, this giant piece of ice, develop it and improve it, and make it so that it's good for Europe and safe for Europe and good for us. And that's the reason I'm seeking immediate negotiations to once again discuss the acquisition of Greenland by the United States, just as we have acquired many other territories throughout our history.
- [06:40]
C
And he sometimes called it Iceland. He says it's America sort of saved the world if it wasn't for us. He feels that this is America's land, it's our hemisphere. He kept talking about that over and over. It's our hemisphere.
- [06:54]
A
Well, let's just recap a little bit what's happened in the last week. You know, why Donald Trump is talking about Greenland? Because all the European leaders here are saying, why is this top of the agenda suddenly? And it isn't something new, frankly, you know, speaking to some members of his first National Security Council, they've said to me that they floated this idea of Greenland, the importance of Greenland, about a decade ago to Donald Trump. And you'll rem during his first administration, he sort of talked about it and everyone sort of thought he. Has he gone mad? Why is he raising the idea of Greenland? And like all things Donald Trump, he says something that is discussed or the last person who said it to him, but it's the execution, it's the way in which he delivers the message, which can sometimes be jumbled up or confusing. But for his national security teams, the idea of acquiring Greenland felt quite critical for the national security of the United States and the Western alliance, for the critical minerals that they have. None of this idea of Greenland was in his national security strategy, which they put out about a month ago. They talked about the importance of the Western Hemisphere and anything within the Western Hemisphere. And Greenland is very much the way they view part of that they should acquire. And so whether it's going after Venezuela or now setting their sights on Greenland, that is very much part of the wider plan. When you look at Donald Trump's speech today, you know, part of that speech he actually says, and I'll quote him, it's actually part of North America. It is a core national security interest.
- [08:30]
B
We need it for strategic national security. And international security. This enormous unsecured island is actually part of North America on the northern frontier of the Western Hemisphere. That's our territory. It is, therefore a core national security interest of the United States of America. And in fact, it's been our policy for hundreds of years to prevent outside threats from entering our hemisphere. And we've done it very successfully. We've never been stronger than we are now. That's why American presidents have sought to purchase Greenland for nearly two centuries. You know, for two centuries, they've been trying to do it. They should have kept it after World War II, but they had a different president. That's all right. People think differently.
- [09:21]
A
He goes on to say, we won't get anything unless I use excessive force, but I won't do that. I don't want to use force.
- [09:28]
B
We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But I won't do that. Okay, now everyone's saying, oh, good. That's probably the biggest statement I made, because people thought I would use force. I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force. All the United States is asking for is a place called Greenland, where we already had it as a trustee, but respectfully returned it back to Denmark not long ago. After we defeated the Germans, the Japanese, the Italians and others In World War II, we gave it back to them.
- [10:11]
A
You know what I think, Richard? Ultimately, you know, when I listen to where Donald Trump has pushed European leaders and he's. There's an air of anxiety here at the moment. You know, this speech was highly anticipated. It was going to be anyway. But I think that the high drama, the high stakes that he built up in the lead up to arriving here, and then we all thought that he was going to, to, from start to end, basically berate Europeans, bash the global elite, talk about how he wants to take Greenland and leave, essentially. But what he kind of did was a mishmash of a campaign speech where he talked about American economy and growth, and then at one point said, should I talk about Greenland? I wasn't going to.
- [11:03]
C
Yeah, he was like, tempting. You all want to hear about Greenland? He's working. He's working the crowd. He's just happy on that stage.
- [11:09]
A
He's a showman. And he knew that this is like an episode, right? So he started the episode in Washington where he was teasing, teasing, teasing. And no doubt, he was seeing all the global headlines and the conversations being had by the likes of you and I and the rest of the media who are sitting around talking endlessly about what he's going to do, you know, is this the end of NATO? Is this the end of the alliance? You know, what's actually going to happen? What does he want to do? Is he going to use military force? The Europeans have sent troops, the Americans have sent troops. The, the Russians and the Chinese are sitting there with their bag of popcorn going, we don't need to do anything.
- [11:47]
C
Yeah, exactly. They're saying this is, this is the best.
- [11:49]
A
I, I think that, you know, what we've seen throughout the course of the week is this buildup of him talking about, you know, what he wants to do. The high tension. We had Mark Carney, the Canadian Prime Minister, say the rules based order, it's finished.
- [12:05]
C
When the rules no longer protect you, you must protect yourself. But let's be clear eyed about where this leads. A world of fortresses will be poorer, more fragile and less sustainable. And there's another truth. If great powers abandon even the pretense of rules and values for the unhindered pursuit of their power and interests, the gains from transactionalism will become harder to replicate. Hegemons cannot continually monetize their relationships. Allies will diversify to hedge against uncertainty. They'll buy insurance, increase options in order to rebuild sovereignty.
- [12:51]
A
Canada stands by Article 5, which means, you know, an attack on one is an attack on all. It's unwavering and we stand with the rest of Europe. Basically, he's implying that if the United States tries to use force on, you know, the Danes, essentially we will all come to the aid of, you know, Denmark and we will protect Greenland. So that's what Mal Carney was saying. Emmanuel Macron, which, you know, Donald Trump seems to, he seems to be in Donald Trump's sights at the moment. He doesn't like him anymore.
- [13:25]
C
Yeah, he liked him at first. Remember, he was the, he was the Trump whisperer.
- [13:28]
A
He thought he was a charming Frenchman. But now he mocked his glasses. He said, what was that about? Because he was sporting these aviators on stage. And Emmanuel Macron says that it's, you know, he's got some eye condition.
- [13:41]
B
Emmanuel Macron, I watched him yesterday with those beautiful sunglasses. What the hell happened?
- [13:49]
A
But he talked, leaked his messages that Emmanuel Macron had sort of sent him text messages. So note to all European leaders and anyone wanting to text Donald Trump, you know, beware, like it could be for public consumption. But he also described him as someone that, you know, no one wants so he was sort of saying, I don't really care what he thinks. No one wants this guy.
- [14:11]
C
He'll be on his way out soon enough. I think he also added, so, you.
- [14:15]
A
Know, this has been playing out this drama for some time, but the idea of acquiring Greenland goes back more than a decade. And interestingly enough, you know, for all the people who are tracking and watching this, they're all saying there are treaties that, you know, the Danes, the United States and the people of Greenland have signed to say, the United States is welcome to have bases here. The United States is welcome to, you know, tap into our rare earth minerals. They used to be up to 10,000 US troops stationed in Greenland. Guess how many there are now? Less than 200.
- [14:52]
C
Yeah, I think it's about 150.
- [14:53]
D
Yeah.
- [14:54]
A
And there used to be there was this offer of signing more deals and treaties to access the rare earth minerals. The United States has, you know, shown very little interest in getting moving on that. So. So if they are interested in protecting national security, the big question is then why haven't they moved on creating more bases or tapping into the rare earth minerals and doing all the things that the Europeans, the Danes are telling them, hey, you're free to do this. We're happy to sign whatever deal you want us to.
- [15:25]
C
So I guess the time has come. Let's really dig into Greenland. Why Greenland? Why this obsession? Why he feels that Greenland is owed to him, and why he keeps saying that the United States really owns Greenland already and saved Greenland when the Danes had lost it. What is he talking about here? So I think it's important to understand how. Who he is. You know what, Yalda? I didn't exactly realize it went and looked at Trump's birthday. He is a boomer. He's like a baby boomer. So World War II, right after World War II, as soon as there's peace in Europe and then peace in Japan, there is this population explosion starting in 1946, the first year of the boomers, and he's right there. So his entire life has been framed by this post World War II alliance. And the boomers came out of this and they feel, and he clearly says this all the time, that the United States saved the world and then was paying for NATO, and now it's time to pay back, and that'll be safer. So why the obsession with Greenland in particular? Do you know that this US Base that's there, do you know a little bit of the history of it? It's a great story. It's a great story. It's a whole spy story. It's an espionage story. So go back to World War II. So 1946, peace is breaking out. Denmark had been occupied by the Nazis, right? So you have the Soviet Union expanding Europe in real post war catastrophe collapse. And in 1951, the US launched this secret operation. So with the US and the Soviet Union fighting over basically the debris of Europe and the US deciding with Europe, the best way for all of us to emerge from this global calamity is to have a new rules based order to get together with NATO. One for all, all for one kind of agreement where we don't take land from each other and we hold back the Soviet Union and Greenland was fundamental to this. So while Denmark was still recovering, the US military and with US industry launched this secret mission called Operation Blue Jay. And they sent about 80 ships, 12,000 or so men recruited from the United States. They had prefab housing units and equipment and bulldozers and, and oil and fuel. And they sent it all to Greenland with icebreakers. And they built this base in secret in Greenland in order to have a place right next to the Soviet Union. And now it is a space force base. Do you remember Trump launched a space force? It used to be an air base. So it was built by the US in the aftermath of World War II in secret. Huge base. It was big for a while and now it's small. But it is very strategic for space force. And, you know, so you can imagine a base that looks like a lot of prefab housing, not very many people, and lots and lots of satellite equipment looking up at the stars, looking up at satellites, doing satellite coordination, incoming missile defense. And now he wants to own it and put in a missile defense system for the world, primarily the US which he says will benefit Canada. And that's why he's got this obsession.
- [18:47]
A
That'S really fascinating kind of where the history of it all comes from. So, you know, we have, we saw this high tension throughout the last few days. All the Europeans coming out saying, the world order as we know it is over. Donald Trump arrives, everyone's holding their breath, and he kind of gives a speech where we're like, okay, the headline is he's not gonna use excessive force, but they're not gonna forget if the Europeans don't do as they say. So I personally think he's gotten the Europeans back them up into a corner. They're now going to have to come to the negotiating table. He's going to look for some kind of treaty with them where the United States, you know, maybe leases Greenland for 25 years. The Europeans will hope that as soon as the Democrats are in, they rip that piece of paper up and everything goes back to normal. And frankly from history we know that that just frankly doesn't happen. Once the United States signs, as signs that deal, it is going to belong to the United States. Clawing that back, you know, once the US starts to heavily invest in Greenland. That is kind of my prediction around this.
- [19:53]
C
And there is also. He wants to etch his name into the history books and he keeps referring back to the history of deterrent territorial purchase by the United States. And there is a history of that. There was the Louisiana Purchase with a huge amount of territory bought from the French and added to the US and then Alaska was bought from the Russian Empire. And now he wants to add another piece of territory and he's already offered a price for Greenland, I think was $700 billion, which he said, you know, that'll be the price for it. So he has a figure in mind as well and I think history to put his name in the history books. But I think he's pretty serious about it.
- [20:34]
A
Oh, 100%. And he's being taken seriously by the Europeans.
- [20:37]
C
And the Danes don't have that. It's a weird space, you know, they don't. It's a semi autonomous territory and these semi autonomous territories. So they had about. The Danish have about a 300 year history of involvement, colonial involvement with Greenland. And for the last several decades it's been getting more and more independent. But when Denmark collapsed in World War II and was occupied by the Nazis, it was the US that went there and established this base in secret to stop the Soviet Union or to bomb the Soviet Union to have a lookout position right next to them where they meet up in the Arctic. So he feels it's North America.
- [21:21]
A
Yeah. And Richard, you know, the Europeans that I've been speaking to here in Davos have said to me this. We have to accept, you know, relying on nostalgia or an America that that once existed is futile. We have to come to grips with where we are. And where we are is that the United States has stabbed us in the back. When after 9, 11, when the United States invoked Article 5.
- [21:46]
D
Exactly.
- [21:47]
A
There were body bags, there were coffins arriving with, you know, all of our troops coming home for America. We did this for America.
- [21:56]
C
I'm so glad you did.
- [21:57]
A
We remember and we feel completely let down by the United States and the fact that they have stabbed us in the back over this. Frankly, they haven't been stabbed in the back, been stabbed in the chest. You know, he hasn't sort of gone behind their back. They literally punched them in the face with this. So for the Europeans, it's a bitter moment. They're incredibly emotional about this and about what is transpiring. The motive of the Chinese and the Russians has always been to create a wedge between Europe and the United States so that they can basically weaken the strongest, most powerful military alliance in the world and in history. And, you know, if Donald Trump has his way, they're going to achieve that because of the language that he is using. And, you know, for the Europeans, they're also saying, I mean, I saw Jared Kushner, Trump's son in law, and Steve Witkoff, his special envoy, strolling around and one of the German diplomats I was sitting down with said to me, look at that. You know, look at the people he has on the front line. These are family members, these are dealmakers. This is not business as usual. This is a different sort of way of operating. It's all, they're open for business, but it's all about deals, deals, deals and deals that only benefit them. And we, frankly have nothing to offer. You know, all we have are our values. That's what this European said. And, and they're not values that Donald Trump shares with the Europeans.
- [23:24]
C
So for a guy who talks about peace, he's very aggressive in his language and, and military. And it brought me back to a time I was called in one day and I met with President Bush during the Iraq War for a chat in the Oval Office. And we were sitting there, and I remember we talked for over an hour, which, unlike Trump, who talks a lot, was quite a bit of time with Bush. And I remember seeing people coming in and out as National Security Advisor and I realized how powerful an American wartime president really is. The decisions were being made by him and his National Security Advisor and the nsc, the National Security Council, and that was pretty much it. Sure, they had to, you know, go through Congress and whatever, but they were making the decisions. CIA was there working for them, and they had full command in these, in these wartime conditions of the power of the US Military and government. And it's very, can be a very seductive thing. I remember thinking that at the time, if the wrong person gets this taste of what a wartime American president is like, is really like you could easily become addicted to it.
- [24:37]
A
Richard, fascinating hearing that story about your meeting there with President Bush at that really critical time. So my prediction for all of this, Richard, you know, having Seen the way Donald Trump has operated and the anxiety that the Europeans have felt over the course of the last week, week where they thought he was going to come here, put them in their place, double down, talk only about acquiring Greenland, whatever it takes, including force. They will take a deep breath now, sigh of relief that he has said he's not going to use excessive force and that he's going to ask for an immediate negotiation to begin. They will, I think, offer him that they are backed into a corner and they will now see this as some kind of off ramp to put together some kind of treaty where perhaps Donald Trump signs a lease that goes on for 25 years. He gets his gratification. He gets his. The legacy that you were talking about earlier, you know, being in the history books of acquiring Greenland and the Europeans have saved NATO and saved the alliance by agreeing to some kind of deal and, you know, putting an end to, frankly, what is an epic distraction.
- [25:53]
C
All right, so your, your prediction is a deal's coming.
- [25:56]
A
A deal is coming. But let's take a break now because after the break we're going to be hearing from a foreign policy expert, Richard Fontaine. You'll hear some of his predictions and some of his outlook on what he thinks Donald Trump might do next and what the Europeans should do.
- [26:32]
C
Welcome back to the World podcast. So, Yalda, you've been speaking to Richard Fontaine. So what did you two talk about?
- [26:39]
A
Yeah, as you know, Richard Fontaine is someone that you and I both know quite well. He worked at the State Department. He worked as one of Senator John McCain's national security advisers. He now runs a think tank in Washington called the center for a New American Security to really get a sense from him about how concerned Washington is about this moment and whether he really does think this is a turning point, a new era, a rupture or some kind of transition. He is someone who you would sort of almost describe as a quintessential Washington, D.C. you know, with wonk who believes in the rules based order and these international institutions and the sort of liberal ideals and values that, you know, we, we talk about. And the shared values.
- [27:30]
C
Is that his body on the floor behind you?
- [27:32]
A
Yeah.
- [27:34]
C
How's she doing these days with that philosophy?
- [27:36]
A
Shared values with the, with the Europeans. So he told me, as an American, he's reeling, you know, by what he is actually currently seeing, the state of play by the so called leader of the free world and how Trump is currently carrying on. Richard Fontaine, so good to see you and speak to you about the current situation. I'm currently in Davos. And I'm really curious to get your thoughts about the current state of play. Of course, you're currently at the center for a New American Security. You have worked at the State Department. You've also worked the National Security Council for Senator John McCain on foreign policy. You know this geopolitical world so well. And some people are describing the current moment as a rupture. Others are saying it's a new era. Others are describing it as some kind of transition. How would you assess what we're currently seeing?
- [28:39]
D
Well, it's really strange. For starters, I went to Greenland with Senator McCain many years ago when I worked for him. And if you had told me then that that would be the source of the transatlantic breakup, I don't think anyone would have believed it. But here we are with the President of the United States saying that he wishes to get, buy, take, I guess, the sovereign territory of a NATO ally, Denmark. And one is tempted to sort of laugh at this. But I think you have to take it seriously at this point, especially given the imposition of tariffs, that it may be in the offing that Trump has proposed and so forth. And so I think the alarm on the European side sounds greater than I have heard at any other point. And the president appears to be dug in. So we're in the middle of a very manufactured crisis, so I think that's where we are. And the collateral damage is going to go, go beyond Greenland if, if this goes on.
- [29:43]
A
You know, I guess the, the question then is when Donald Trump speaks, should Europeans, should the world be taking what he's saying constantly seriously?
- [29:55]
D
I think the problem is he means some stuff seriously and other things apparently not, or at least backs off some of the things. He's talked frequently about Canada becoming the 51st state. We, we certainly haven't seen that happen and doesn't seem yet to be making real moves toward that. He talked about doing to the president of Colombia what happened to Maduro in Venezuela, but then had a phone call with the president of Colombia and said things are worked out and invited him to the White House. You know, in Iran, he said that if the government killed protesters, that would elicit from the United States a military attack, something that they would be hit very, very hard where it hurts. And they did kill protesters, and he didn't actually hit them hard, at least not yet. And so it is hard to know what exactly to take as a serious threat and what to take otherwise, particularly when it comes to something for which, frankly, there's not much good reason to have the position that the United States currently has that it, quote, needs Greenland in order to fend off off the Chinese and Russians from it, frankly.
- [31:05]
A
Could the United States, President Trump, have gone a different way about this? You know, the fact is that there isn't a massive troop presence in Greenland. You know, the. There aren't treaties that have been signed where the United States has access to vast amounts of rare earth minerals. There are things that the United States could have done to expand their influence and footprint over Greenland.
- [31:31]
D
Yeah, of course. And that's true as we speak. I mean, that remains true. So there was a treaty signed back in 1951, Greenland Defense Agreement. It was renewed in 2004 under the Bush administration. It really allows the United States to do almost anything it wants or feels it needs to do, security wise in Greenland. The United States, at one point in Greenland had 10,000American troops stationed there. Right now we have about 200. So we're really concerned that the Russians and the Chinese are about to launch some kind of operation to take Greenland. We could go to 400, 600, 800. I mean, it might be a good start. You know, if you want to exploit critical minerals there. The Danes and the Greenlanders have said, come invest in it. The bottom line is there's nothing that we as Americans would need to do in Greenland that we can't do already. And certainly there's nothing that we need to try to strip away sovereign territory from another country for.
- [32:29]
A
Well, Steve Bannon, the brains behind Trump 1.0 and a leading figure and voice within the MAGA movement, said last year, I believe that fighting it out over the Arctic, with the vast resources of the Arctic is going to be the new great game of the 21st century. Do you think there's truth in that? Are we starting to see that kind of thing unfold?
- [32:49]
D
World, you're starting to see certainly more competition among Russia, Europe, China, the United States in the Arctic. I mean, as the ice melts, as the freedom of maneuver gets greater there, as more things sail into and fly over the Arctic, yes, it is more of a commons for competition than it was before. But again, if you start from the. The premise that that requires the United States to take Greenland, then I guess the same thing would be true of all of northern Canada, which is in the Arctic, and Svalbard, which belongs in Norway and in the Arctic. And maybe you would throw in Iceland and maybe there's some other islands up there. I mean, you know, it's just hard to understand again, what the current position, how the current position reflects the reality, which is that competition's heating up, so to speak, in the Arctic and the United States is part of it.
- [33:48]
A
What do you think Europe, frankly, should do? I mean, should they be tougher on Trump?
- [33:54]
D
I think this one's pretty hard to really support the American position here, even as an American. And so I think the Europeans are going to stand about as firm as they can, but then in terms of resistance to tariffs and maybe, maybe counter moves on the economic side, ganging together to rhetorically and diplomatically support Denmark's claim to Greenland. But the hard part then is if that's right, then how do we get out of this? And that remains to be seen. It looks like we're getting further into the morass than before we get out of it.
- [34:37]
A
How do you think the Chinese and the Russians are reading this moment?
- [34:42]
D
Well, the Chinese must once again be kind of toasting their good luck. And the Russians, too. I mean, the Russians can't help themselves. I mean, some Russian officials have already said, yeah, see, you know, the NATO is cracking up. We told you so. I mean, what the Russians and what the Chinese would like is to push the United States away from Europe and push Europe away from the United States. The hardest thing for either of them to face in very different ways, of course, more militarily on the Russia side, more economically and technology on the Chinese side is a united U. S. Europe bloc that harmonizes its approach to third countries like Russia and China. That's where we are strongest, and that's where they would be weakest. Well, if we're fighting with each other and Europeans are on one side and Americans are on the other, and we're talking not about what Russia is doing in, in Ukraine or how we respond to what China's doing, but rather to what we're doing to each other. Well, that's good news for the Russians and the Chinese.
- [35:49]
A
Do you think then that, you know, we'll suddenly find this wedge and this divide growing and suddenly the Europeans are, you know, going into the embrace of, of a China. Already we're seeing Emmanuel Macron say there should be more investment with the Chinese. Mark Carney's saying the same sort of thing. Suddenly Europeans are feeling the need and the pressure to diversify their own economies and move towards China.
- [36:18]
D
Right. The more that a country doubts the availability of the US Market, the availability of US Capital, the more likely it's going to be to seek alternatives. Well, look around the world. Where are the alternatives? China is the second biggest economy in the world. It is at least has the possibility of upgrading ties with a lot of different countries. And so what you're seeing over the past really six months or so are a lot of world leaders that haven't been to China in a very long time starting to go to Beijing now. They're not going to embrace China. They're not going to believe that Chinese political values are theirs, but they are going to look for ways to reduce the economic risk that they think the United States poses if the US Government is willing to close off its access to its market whenever there's some sort of perceived transgression. So, yes, I think you will see countries doing what their governments would naturally do, which is look for ways to protect themselves.
- [37:20]
A
Richard, you're in Washington. You know, I wonder how this is being sort of assessed and read there. Just in the last 24 hours, we've seen Donald Trump release text messages from Emmanuel Macron and the Secretary General of NATO. He has written a letter to the Norwegian leaders blaming them for not giving him a Nobel Peace Prize and therefore he's no longer going to be thinking about peace. How do you think Washington is reading all of this?
- [37:52]
D
With some level of astonishment, to be honest with you, because you have, you know, smart people working for the administration who now have to go out and come up with arguments for why the United States really needs Greenland, even though it hadn't until recently, apparently. So there's this sort of, level of, kind of policy upheaval and surprise and then there's this notion that I touched on before, but it's sort of the opportunity cost of these debates. I mean, there are real issues happening in our world today again, Ukraine, Iran, China, the future of Venezuela. Those are the kinds of things that the US should be focused on as a matter of foreign policy, that the transatlantic partners can work together more closely on as a matter of foreign policy. And the more time they spend fighting over these things that shouldn't be fought over, the less time there is to deal with the real issues. And I think that's, you know, it's almost a little more than sadness and anger among people, people right now.
- [39:00]
A
And, and for someone like you who values, you know, these sort of international institutions or the rules based order, do you think this is now a new reality and we have to sort of accept it?
- [39:14]
D
There's a new reality. It's still unclear to me how different the new reality will be over the long run than the previous one. I mean, there's some things that are not coming back as particularly well, functioning institutions of any kind. I mean, the UN Security Council has been paralyzed for a long time. But then again, during the Cold War, that was pretty much the status quo. There was a short amount of time after that that it was able to do some things. You know, this great power competition is here to stay. The mercurial nature of American leadership, I think may not be here to stay. I think it really depends a lot on the personality of the President. But there's other things that, that probably are here to stay for a while. I mean, Americans looking through the world through a more narrowly construed national interest lens and saying globalization didn't work out so well for part of this population, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and other places don't seem to have worked out well. And that we have to kind of look out for ourselves. Now that I think is not only happening in the United States, by the way, but other countries. And I think that part of it does put us in a different world than the one where the United States was sort of aiming to be the benevolent leader of all like minded countries and the door was always open to those rogue countries or autocracies or whatever that sought to, you know, kind of join the, join the community.
- [40:42]
A
And Richard, how would you sum up the first year of Trump's second term?
- [40:47]
C
Them?
- [40:48]
D
I wrote an article for Foreign affairs that was published on Inauguration Day, so a year ago, and it emphasized the degree of continuity that was likely between the Trump administration and the Biden administration on issues like China and trade and Israel and the Palestinians. I don't know that I've written an article quite as wrong as that ever before and hopefully won't since. If you summed it up, it would be a major break in this administration, not only with the Biden administration, but in a lot of ways a break with the first Trump administration in style, in the degree of kind of insulators around the president or lack thereof, and the elevation of things that were kind of an afterthought, like Greenland being a of part perfect example of it in the first term. The President did talk about and just nothing happened. And then of course, the last thing, there was a lot of talk which I never particularly bought into, but that Trump was an isolationist. He just wanted to kind of come home and worry about immigration and the price of, you know, gasoline and things like that. But I think we see that he believes he's on a roll internationally. I mean, the Iran, well, the Gaza hostage exchange happened under him. The Iran nuclear strikes happened under him. This astonishingly successful military operation to grab the president of Maduro, President Maduro out of Venezuela. That gives a certain momentum to policymakers and to leaders. So a lot of momentum, a lot of confidence that the world will or will have to adapt to American desires and that there's kind of a new game in town again, not only compared to Biden, but comparing to Trump won.
- [42:43]
A
Richard, it's always fascinating to get your thoughts. Thanks so much.
- [42:47]
D
Thank you for having me.
- [42:57]
C
It is a new world order, and we don't know where this is going. And I think we're just getting started. I think he's just finding his feet and he's in the mood right now where he wants to take things and trade things. And once you start that taking from the weak and trading with the strong, you're redefining the map. And you redefine the map by executive order at your own peril. These things have long tails. But let's wrap up there with Trump and talk a little bit about Iran, although Trump is related to it in a major way. You have these episodes that you've put on about the ongoing protests and the crackdown, and you can listen to both of those, these interviews that you have done and these special bonus episodes on Apple or Spotify or on YouTube. And in Iran, the Internet is still down. It is now the longest shutdown in the history of the Islamic regime. Since 1979, the country hasn't been cut off like this. And getting information out of Iran remains, remains extraordinarily difficult.
- [44:02]
A
Yeah, absolutely. As you say, the Internet is still shut down. I'm seeing horrific images of dead bodies still in the streets of, you know, major towns and cities where they were killed. And frankly, the bodies have not been recovered. I've, in the last week been speaking to people who witnessed what happened. You know, certainly over a weekend where the regime cracked down and thousands of people have been killed. I mean, the regime has, you know, confessed that up to 5,000 people have been killed. And when an authoritarian dictatorship, a regime like this, says 5,000 people have been killed, you've got to wonder what the actual number is, you know. But, Richard, we've got a question here from a user from Spotify, and he says, what are your short, medium and long term predictions for the future of Iran? Why don't you go first?
- [44:56]
C
Okay. This is a question from Leche Ajay, thanks for the question. Iran, I think something is still happening. I don't think that Israel and the Trump administration are going to just sort of let Iran out of their sights. But the question that I have is how far are they going to go? Do they really want a total new government ground up in Iran or do they really want to try and replicate a Venezuela where they remove the top layer and keep the security infrastructure, you keep the repressive state in place just with somebody else at the top. And I think protesters that I'm speaking to, activists are worried that the same thing could happen, that there might be another military action on Iran, but it could be another attempt to sort of decapitate the regime, which in Iran would look like removing the ayatollahs and, and leaving the rev guard the security forces in place. And they get to keep their stuff, they get to keep their power, they get amnesty. But they have to be more in alignment with the United States. I'm not sure if that's possible in Iran and that's what I think they're planning, but I'm not sure if that that goes. So to answer this question, I think there's going to be more. I think they are trying to have a managed regime change operation. But you could either have that, okay, that's one option that maybe that works, or you have state collapse, total collapse, or there is the regime collapses into pieces where you have different provinces are breaking up. You know, things don't always collapse unilaterally. Iran is a huge country spread out over enormous amount of place. So I fully expect iron that there was going to be some operation. Clearly Israel and several Arab states thought there was going to be an operation. So they told him hold it down, slow down. And I think they're in the process now while building up forces to calibrate which of these three options they want to do.
- [47:00]
A
Yeah, I mean, I think the Israelis, you know, didn't ask Trump to hold off because they're worried he was escalating too fast. I think they're worried that they didn't have their, you know, air defenses and the kind of support they needed to make sure that they were protected in case there was some kind of retaliation. And we saw that news come out in the last week, week where, you know, Benjamin Netanyahu said to Trump, just wait, we're not ready yet, essentially. And now we're seeing aircraft carriers, for example, being moved into the region and things are being positioned for a potential military attack. So the regime isn't out of the woods yet. You know, they may think that, you know, maybe the United States, the Israelis won't strike, but something could potentially still happen. Having said that, you know, when you look at the demonstrations that took place in Iran in 2009, 2019, 2022, in each of those demonstrations, roughly several hundred people were killed. We are now talking thousands. There is no going back after this. How the Iranian population and people reconcile with the regime that they accuse of being deeply corrupt, of mismanaging the country, of having this ideology that they brought in 40 plus years ago which has led them to the misery that they're currently fac. I think the United States and Israel are positioning themselves for some kind of strike. But will they do real damage to this regime? Will they take out the top leadership and will they be able to do real damage to the repressive apparatus of this regime? I think these are the things we need to look for. And whether there are any clear defections and the scale of the protests, if they start again and the number of people who come out right across the.
- [48:42]
C
Country, I completely agree with you. I don't think Israel or the United States has taken their eye off of Iran. I think they're just building up forces.
- [48:51]
A
Well, we will be watching this space very closely, you know, as we wrap up things in Davos. I will also be speaking to the NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutter, about, you know, Donald Trump and his conversations, those leaked messages he'd sent, and how he thinks he's going to be managing the relationship. So we can definitely dissect that in next week's podcast.
- [49:14]
C
Well, I look forward to hearing more about that next week. Yalda, it is great to see you. I hope you're staying warm there in Switzerland.
- [49:22]
A
It was really good to speak to you and thank you so much to our listeners for listening. I'm here in Davos, but we'll be back in our usual places next week.
- [49:31]
C
Can't wait until then. Great to see you. Great to talk to you.
- [49:33]
A
Thanks so much. Bye bye.
- [49:39]
C
Foreign.
- [49:48]
A
Hey, guys. Yalda here. Thanks so much for listening. You may have already seen the news that Donald Trump announced on Truth Social that a framework for a deal around Greenland has been worked out with NATO. And now his usual crew of Steve Witkoff, Marco Rubio and J.D. vance will work out all the details. Else, I'm interviewing NATO Secretary General Mark Rutter tomorrow and I'll bring you all the behind the scenes of our conversation. So make sure you listen to that. See you next time.