Loading summary
Transcript29 lines
- [00:00]
Podcast Host (iHeart Podcast Network)
This is an iHeart podcast, Guaranteed Human. With Vrbal's last minute deals, you can save over $50 on your spring getaway. So whether it's a mountain escape with friends, a family week at the beach, or sightseeing in a new city, there's still time to get great discounts. Book your next day now. Average savings $72. Select homes only.
- [00:35]
Charlamagne Tha God
Peace to the planet. Charlamagne Tha God here. And listen, we are back. The Black Effect Podcast Festival is back in Atlanta on April 25th at Pullman Yard. Yeah, and the full lineup is nuts. We got the Grits and Eggs podcast, Deontay Kyle and Big Ice Cup Kat. We got Club 520 with Jeff Teague and the gang. Don't call me White Girl. Mona will be there. Keep it positive, sweetie. With Chr, we got Reality with the King with Carlos King. And yes, drink champs will be in the building. Plus, you know we gonna have a lot of guests, so you need to join us. And we got the Black Effect Marketplace, the picture podcast, and everything you expect from the Black Effect Podcast Festival. Tickets are on sale right now. Go get yours@blackffect.com podcast festival. Don't play yourself. Okay, pull up.
- [01:25]
Podcast Host (iHeart Podcast Network)
On the Serving Pancakes podcast. Conversations about volleyball go beyond the court. Today we have a little best friend compatibility test. Okay, how long have we been best friends?
- [01:32]
Charlamagne Tha God
Since the day we met.
- [01:33]
Podcast Host (iHeart Podcast Network)
As the League1 volleyball season heads towards its final stretch, there's no better time to tune in. You'll hear unfiltered analysis, behind the scenes stories and conversations with leaders making an impact across the sport. Whether you're following the final push of love season or just love the game, serving Pancakes brings you closer to the action and the people shaping the future of volleyball. Open your free iHeartradio app. Search serving Pancakes and listen. Now presented by Capital One, founding partner of iHeart Women's Sports. Then she says, have you seen a photo of my son? And I'm like, who is this person?
- [02:04]
Boys and Girls Podcast Host
Welcome to the boys and girls podcast. Arranged marriage is basically a reality show and you're auditioning for your soulmate. And who's judging? Only your entire family. I sacrificed myself to this ancient tradition, hoping to find love the right way. And instead I found chaos, comedy and a lot of cringe. Listen to boys and Girls on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.
- [02:30]
Gavin Newsom
This is Gavin Newsome and this is Richard Hoss. Richard, thank you so much for taking the time to come on, particularly at a remarkable time in in world history, particularly in History unfolding in the Middle east today. President Trump seem to have a day that he's been, you know, looking forward to for years and years and years, pushing NATO to move from 2% to 5%. What was your takeaway from this NATO summit? At least the first day. And does Trump deserve, I think, a lot of praise and for an accomplishment
- [03:09]
Richard Haass
here, I would argue President Trump. Well, first of all, Gavin, good to be with you. Thank you. Look, I would argue President Trump deserves credit for spurring the Europeans to do what they ought to have done years before. They ought to be putting forward a larger share of the effort for what's a common defense. I would just, as an aside, I would say much more important to me than whether The Europeans spend 3% or 2 and a half or 4 and a half is how they spend it. And I'd actually say something you'd probably agree with in public policy. How you spend money is almost always more important than how much you spend. And the problem with European defense is not just that they spend too little, but each country pretty much determines how it spends its defense, euros. So the whole ends up being less than the sum of its parts. So I would be pushing, if I were advising the president, I would say, yeah, push him to do more, but secondly, also push them, in a sense, to become more European rather than country by country by country, which is the way they often go about it. But I think that part is good. Less good is I think he's introduced some doubts into the reliability of the United States and what you might call the automatic quality of Article 5, America's willingness to go to bat for Europe. And obviously, there's also some fairly significant differences about how to handle the most immediate threat, which is Russia and the war in Ukraine. So I think it's a mixed bag. But, yes, it's good to see the Europeans essentially getting pushed to do more.
- [04:44]
Gavin Newsom
And it's interesting just as you unpack and I appreciate the how you spend and where you spend. It was interesting just looking at some of the details, that their direct spend in support of Ukraine would be considered as part of that contribution as it relates to that breakdown of 5%. It was also, though, interesting to see the breakdown within the countries. Obviously, Germany looking to move quicker by 2029 with close to 70% increase in their domestic defense spending. And then Spain, who was called out by the president today, looking not necessarily to. To reach that numeric. Is that, does that mean much to you or is that just. That's just noise.
- [05:26]
Richard Haass
The most interesting part of that is Germany. Less what Germany is prepared to do in defense, though doing more is welcome. But Germany has changed its laws and essentially now is able to raise serious debt, which was something that modern Germany had an allergy to because of the whole Weimar experience. And the fact that Germany now can really go into the markets and raise debt gives them far more capacity to potentially grow their economies as well as to contribute to national security. And I'd even go so far as to say the most interesting figure in Europe right now is the new chancellor of Germany, even though he had a rough start getting confirmed and so forth by his parliament. I actually think that Chancellor Mertz is, is in a position to, in some ways have Germany stake out the leadership position in Europe, something that historically, Since World War II, Germany's been reticent to do so. I would watch that space, particularly since the French, the British and others are so gridlocked domestically. I think Germany now occupies the critical position.
- [06:31]
Gavin Newsom
When you reference the Article 5, sort of, you know, I think the president, when he was flying over, there was some ambiguity once again, sort of creating some doubt and anxiety. He seemed to shift tone a little bit when he landed. But is that, is this that on again, off again relationship to the Article 5? Is that what you're referring to is sort of a lack of, of certainty and confidence in the president?
- [06:54]
Richard Haass
Yeah. For those who, you know, haven't read the NATO Treaty recently, Article 5 is the core of the agreement where essentially an attack on one is considered to be an attack on all. Curiously, it's only been invoked once in NATO's entire history, and that was on behalf of the United States after 9, 11. But alliances depend upon predictability and reliability and dependability. And I would argue that President Trump has introduced a significant degree of uncertainty into that, which I think is counterproductive. He would argue perhaps it was necessary to get the Europeans to do more. I would have said, well, probably there's better ways to do that, but that's where we are. And to the extent Russia senses there's uncertainty there, Putin, who, as we've seen in Ukraine, can be risk prone, might be more likely to take risks. So I always believe that the best way to deter is through certainty. So your friends know you'll be there for them and just as important, your enemies know you'll be there for your friends. So I would like for President Trump, as the days and weeks and months unfold, to look for opportunities to make clear that whatever our differences are with Europe over their level of defense effort, we see it as in our interest to be there with them.
- [08:09]
Gavin Newsom
You're here. What, what. In terms of the. The actual bombing itself, and I. I think by most objective standards, it was a success. Whether or not these sites were quote, unquote obliterated. That. That's a separate conversation. Is that your assessment, that. That this was a success, that that in the spirit of what you just said around some certainty that the President wasn't bluffing in terms of wanting to get diplomatic deal done, they appeared not to want to move in that direction. So then he asserted himself militarily.
- [08:40]
Richard Haass
I think it was the right thing to do. For years, we've been playing this game with the Iranians where they were enriching uranium far, far, far beyond levels anybody would need to generate electricity. So we all knew what this was about, to put into place the prerequisites for a nuclear weapons program. I also understood we couldn't allow Iran to get on the threshold, much less have nuclear weapons. We made that mistake. I would argue with North Korea. We don't want to have it now in this part of the world, because if Iran ever got nuclear weapons, not only would they act more aggressively and pose potentially an existential threat to Israel, but you know, and I know the Saudis, the Egyptians, the Turks and others would follow suit. And the only thing worse than the Middle east we've known is the Middle East I just described. So I think what Israel and then the United States did was warranted. We'll see what the results are. Whatever happened, the Iranian program was not obliterated. Elements of their program, I expect, will have survived the attacks on the three sides. More important, I don't know. You don't know? Probably the President doesn't know what amount of uranium or number of centrifuges and so forth are under some roof of some warehouse and some other part of Iran. I actually think going forward, Gavin, we have got to assume just the opposite, that the Iranian program was not obliterated, that elements of that program exist. And what's worrisome to me, I'll be honest with you, I would think that a lot of Iranian leaders have said, hey, this never would have happened had we had nuclear weapons. We could have deterred the Israelis and the Americans. So I worry that going forward, I think their determination to develop nuclear weapons, that might, if anything, be even greater.
- [10:24]
Gavin Newsom
Well, you know, I want to just pick up on that point because that's an interesting observation and an important one. And we'll get to North Korea as well in a second, because your reference goes back to the opportunity the United States had under the Clinton administration to take out their program before it proliferated. But I want to talk a little bit about the non Proliferation Treaty. People have brought that up since the 1970s. I think 200 countries were signatories to that, including Iran. There were a number of of countries that have developed nuclear programs that were not original signers to that. Obviously Korea and Israel, to the extent they have a nuclear program, quote unquote. But certainly India and Pakistan. But those countries as a consequence would make the claim you just made that they've been, they've had that deterrent. Now Iran assumed that they would not be bombed, I presume under the terms of the non Proliferation Treaty. Does that put at risk the entire notion of the non Proliferation Treaty, what's just occurred?
- [11:27]
Richard Haass
So let me give you a slightly convoluted answer. The Non Proliferation Treaty is only a small piece of the effort against non proliferation. I don't think it's a wildly successful piece in many ways because it really is a gentleman's agreement. We declare what facilities we're doing certain types of research or engineering in and then the inspectors come look at them. And inspectors can't look at places that are not known. So the entire treaty in that sense is based upon a degree of faith that I tend not to have. North Korea withdrew from the treaty and there was no particular penalty or anything for them having done so. Turns out the most important non proliferation tool out there is not the treaty. It's called America's alliances. By giving countries the confidence that we are there for them, they then don't need to become self sufficient. And the biggest way to accelerate proliferation will be, for example, if the South Koreans or others come to have doubts about their relationships with us. So don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the non Proliferation Treaty doesn't have some utility and I think in particular the inspection provisions can be useful, but we shouldn't exaggerate its impact. And Iran I would think was going to do and is going to do what it wants regardless of its obligations under this treaty.
- [12:46]
Gavin Newsom
So back to what you were saying. I mean, so just let's speculate what goes happens going forward. Obviously this notion of regime change people sort of pulled back a little bit, or at least it appears the President's pulled back. I don't know if Bibi is pulled back on the notion of regime change, but what won't change is their pursuit, presumably of a nuclear weapon. As you note, we don't know that the program was quote unquote obliterated, even though the physical sites may have been. We don't know where this enriched uranium is and centrifuges you imagine. Now your concern is now what? That they accelerate that program with the darkness, meaning without any international inspectors.
- [13:27]
Richard Haass
That's my concern. It might not be their immediate priority, which I think is to shore up the regime. But at some point, I do think reconstituting a program will become a priority, which means, by the way, the day may come where Israel, the United States needs to once again use military force if we discover some activity going on and the Iranians won't voluntarily give it up. It's not normal that problems get solved. When I was the head of the Council on Foreign Relations, I used to discourage the fellows from using the word solve or solution because that's just the way history works. So I don't believe whatever it is we accomplished the other day, and however much we accomplished, it didn't solve the problem. It may have reduced it, it may have set back the Iranian program, but that'll pop up again. It's. By the way, you mentioned regime change. It's one of the reasons that people, I think are attracted to the idea. If you can't solve the Iranian problem through military force or through diplomacy, then people say, what's left? Well, let's get a benign government. And I think that's why there's so much interest in regime change. The problem is it's easier to talk about it than bring it about. I don't see the prerequisites in place for it. And in any case, you can't base your policy on it. People don't like it when I say this, but it's a wish more than a strategy. If it were to happen. I think it brings problems, but obvious benefits with it, but we just can't count on it. And no president can give the order to say Secretary of Defense or State and say, get me regime change in Iran. They wouldn't have then the tools to necessarily carry it out when it comes
- [15:07]
Gavin Newsom
to just issues of trust. And you know, I think one of the questions that I get and I ask myself all the time, I feel like for most of my adult life I've been hearing Bibi Netanyahu say they're just months away, a year away from having weapons grade nuclear weapons. And you know, a certain point you just stop believing it. But your assessment, you know, your own objective assessment this time did appear to be different, that they were getting closer and actually appeared to be within a matter of months in a position where potentially we had a weapons grade weapon coming out of Iran. Is that accurate?
- [15:47]
Richard Haass
Pretty much. Look, this was a gathering threat. It wasn't an imminent threat. It was a gathering threat. And the question is how close? Now we know they had done most of the enrichment work they need to do to get it uranium enriched, plus or minus 60%. That's not just 60% of the effort. That's actually closer to 90% of the effort for reasons of physics that I couldn't explain because I don't understand them well enough. But I think I'm right there. What you don't know is how close they were on some of the other things, the actual fabrication of explosive devices, the bomb and so forth. And there, there was, the Israelis believe, and the economists published some very interesting stuff about it, that they had made some breakthroughs, they had had some secret programs and so forth. And I think we have to be tolerant. Just like after 9, 11, we were less willing to run certain risks, say about what Iraq could do. And this is not a justification for the Iraq war. I was against it, but just I understand some of the thinking. I think Israel after October 7th had less tolerance of running certain risks in their case. So I just think the combination of a change mentality in Israel, the evisceration of groups like Hezbollah, which couldn't really attack Israel anymore, and this new intelligence which suggests that however far along the Iranians were, they were farther along. And I think for all those reasons, the Israelis decided to act and we came in behind.
- [17:17]
Gavin Newsom
And does this keep Bibi in power for another extended period of time?
- [17:21]
Richard Haass
Well, he's got roughly, what, 16, 17 months to run before he has to. I think the elections are scheduled for October of next year. It certainly helps him. Israel, as you know, is deeply divided about issues on democracy, Gaza, what have you, whether the religious can be drafted and so forth. They are not divided on Iran, left and right, hawk and dove. There aren't a lot of doves in Israel when it comes to Iran. So it clearly helps Bibi. It changes the conversation a little bit. It brings Israel together. It's seen as an accomplishment. And he has, he has changed in many ways. Israel's strategic reality, given the change in Syria, Hezbollah, the weakening of Hamas, whatever you think, however critical people watching this might be of what Israel's done and how it's done it in Gaza, the reality is that Bibi Netanyahu in the last, what, 18 months has dramatically reduced the external threat to Israel.
- [18:19]
Gavin Newsom
If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip off. And Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Granger for the ones who get it done.
- [18:50]
Charlamagne Tha God
Peace to the planet Charlemagne. Tha God here and listen. We are back. The Black Effect Podcast Festival is back in Atlanta on April 25th at Pullman Yard. Yeah, in the full lineup is nuts. We got the Grits and They Age podcast, Deontay Kyle and Big Ice Cup Cat. We got Club 520 with Jeff Teague in the gang. Don't call Me White Girl. Mona will be there. Keep it positive, sweetie. With Crystal Renee. We got Reality with the King with Carlos King. And yes, drink champs will be in the building. Okay. Plus, you know we're gonna have a lot of guests, so you need to join us. And we got the Black Effect Marketplace, the picture podcast, and everything you expect from the Black Effect Podcast Festival. Tickets are on sale right now. Go get yours@blackffect.com podcast festival. Don't play yourself. Okay. Pull up.
- [19:40]
Podcast Host (iHeart Podcast Network)
On the Serving Pancakes podcast. Conversations about volleyball go beyond the court. Today we have a little best friend compatibility test. Okay. And how long have we been best friends?
- [19:47]
Charlamagne Tha God
Since the day we met.
- [19:48]
Podcast Host (iHeart Podcast Network)
As the League1 volleyball season heads towards its final stretch, there's no better time to tune in. You'll hear unfiltered analysis, behind the scenes stories and conversations with leagues leaders making an impact across the sport. Whether you're following the final push of love season or just love the game, serving Pancakes brings you closer to the action and the people shaping the future of volleyball. Open your free iHeartradio app. Search serving Pancakes and Listen. Now presented by Capital One, founding partner of iHeart Women's Sports. Then she says, have you seen a photo of my son? And I'm like, who is this person?
- [20:19]
Boys and Girls Podcast Host
Welcome to the boys and girls podcast. Arranged marriage is basically a reality show and you're auditioning for your soulmate. And who's judging? Only your entire family. I sacrificed myself to this ancient tradition hoping to find love the right way. And instead I found chaos comedy and a lot of cringe. Listen to boys and Girls on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcast.
- [20:44]
Podcast Host (iHeart Podcast Network)
This is an iHeart podcast. Guaranteed Human.