« Coffee With Scott Adams

Episode 31: Joel Pollack to explain the Iranian nuke deal. With delicious coffee.

2018-04-26 | 🔗


Sound is not ideal, but you can hear it.

Joel Pollack, Senior Editor at Large, Breitbart, explains the Iranian nuke deal and the implications.

The post Episode 31: Joel Pollack to explain the Iranian nuke deal. With delicious coffee. appeared first on Dilbert Blog.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
so hold on a second while we go and everybody bump bump bump bump joy you can enjoy the theme song i am here today with job pollack senior editor at large a bright bird who angel say i say joel join me in the themes on bump bump bump bump what's the story gets better everything all right i asked you're here to give us a brief tutorial the iran's nuclear deal trying to figure is it a good deal is a bad deal if it's a bad deal what's wrong with it can we fix it just as briefly as possible to sort of you gave us goes up to speed joke anew could you run through that just give us
the nuclear deal media version so our jobs back and explain the steps to the conclusion but to answer your question yes it's a bad deal of infected terrible deal by doesn't necessarily mean that we should tear it up because when you working at your options what matters is what's happening now what you're alternatives are now not what they ought to have been if you had done her better job getting yourself to this point so wishes explain briefly why did you is bad so before the iran deal the situation that we had ways iran had been trying to build nuclear weapons for decades simply working up to doing this and the united nations eventually cod on
and passed a series of resolutions banning iran from doing any kind of nuclear enrichment and what was extraordinary about these resolutions was that they were unanimous in some cases in russia china let them go through member russia and china tend to veto everything that we want the u n security council this time they actually agree so we held all the cards all the leverage we were passing sanctions the international community was on board and iran was really suffering economically because of their regimes pursuit of nuclear weapons the obama administration then decided to reach this agreement where the centrally we gave up all of that leverage in exchange for some very flimsy promises from the other side and you
and explain that any number of ways in scotland to say there are different models that explain the facts one model would be that obama secretly an array of plants and how does it give restore away i don't agree with all that that does explain the fact but you can also explained the facts with a more sympathetic approached obama you could say he's a patriot who believed this was the best way to divest ourselves of war in the middle east if we made europe strong and we made iran dominant power in the region that maybe there be more stability and we wouldn't have to send troops there and get involved in message and i think that how many of the members of the obama administration sincerely felt they really thought they were doing the right thing the jewel did you ever hear anybody explaining that way now
the problem was when about explained the deal he oversold it to put miles was karim can quickly get into was the detail of the deal that works or doesn't work ok so the idea is on our hand we give up the sanctions that had on the arabian economy plus we froze hundreds of billions of there's an iranian assets to be frozen for many years and we also gave him over dollars in cash as part of the transaction that the official migration is that some of that was due to some old weapons purchases by many ways it was also a ransom because iran was holding for americans prisoner effectively holding hostage and we delivered this calf to them on palace in the middle of the night on a cargo plain olive varied re dodgy so we gave them all of these benefits
in return they slow down some of their nuclear said if you just slow down their development of nuclear materials they slow down any research and progress on nuclear weapons programmes and that some sets out after six years eight years ten years their different sunsets in the deal but those are permanent commitments there the temporary commitments although the above administrate try to say well uranium parliament passed resolutions are not going to use nuclear weapons for twenty five years and that sort of thing that's all just on paper effectively iran can start to reason the activities that it was doing before the deal after about a decade or so so big complain we gave away all of our leverage we gave you run all this cash some of which was our
we have control over and we only got these commitments to stop nuclear enrichment for now eventually they can resume naturally get much though do we also care about the missiles was out every part of the deal or should it be great question so few my administration misled itself there were going home negotiations who believed the deal was going to include missiles but it didn't what happened was the actual text of the deal does not include missiles but the u n six ready council resolution that was passed alongside the deal does include a restriction on missile research but it's not binding language its very suggestive lame iran should not do this but it's not legally binding so but are these do what are they doing it do you see them do it please help me
so they're launching all kinds of missiles we complain about it we say this is not in the spirit of the deal we say this isn't in the deal the obama administration was no more lenient than the truck administration has been but essential the deal was written so badly that the iranians can make an argument that they are allowed to do it another vs ie that's what why do care that this sort of sounds like the dumb question why do care for ran has good weapons who are they getting use it on a dumb contained but is not well trained to wipe israel off the map so those are well below let's not pass through that one what what are the odds what think of the odds ran is unstable enough to destroy itself just to destroy israel of course around when would be evaporated
the iranians have said in the past that one miss all they could wipe out israel is it such a small area would be worthwhile ever retaliation israel which said because iran is a big country and would be harder to wipe out he writes a thorough have actually been iranian leaders who said this but for you either ran does have a big brother you know around would be evaporated all this hope on the israeli side it is also a fear that because iran is a theocracy that its run by people who believe if they are literally the messengers of god that they were trying to bring about that kind of confrontation that sort of consecration because at the end of the world would come and that would bring about the arrival of the twelfth mighty or whichever profit they're waiting for to come at save the world
normally you don't you wouldn't necessarily think that this would be a consideration but there are pretty crazy people running iran and especially the last president mahmoud ahmadinejad was pretty knots and so people fear that iran what is so religion fundamentalist at this would actually be a desirable outcome they wouldn't actually care israel retaliated because they would be saved in the religious salvation that would follow his ward any worse i've always been deeply curious about this and let me say that if i were israel i would treat threats like they were a hundred percent certain does you don't take any chance of being completely annihilated so israel has to treat it like it's a certainly but from our are of real area safe place over here we believe there is anybody and ran sitting room talking to each other saying you know
gay with me if we get blown up because we got that religion thing workin for us we got like because i honestly i don't believe there's any human and ran whose having that conversation in shall literally believes i'd be better off under that scenario your view of the iranian regime is as you say israel can't take that chance and i'll get it right there are some neighbouring states in the middle east and also feel they can take that chance like this those who are also in the flight path of uranium missiles in some of the other smaller gulf countries and then western europe and the rest and missiles that are being developed would have the range to hit western europe is also the question of what kind of life you have when you're in that rage you might not believe iran is actually going to do something but went you my constrain what you're able to do just in the ordinary course of this iran can threaten shipping
you can already friend shipping through the persian gulf it can threatened the mediterranean especially now there's involvement syria which has many coast in the the mediterranean so iran is using missiles not just to make threats but to expand its reaches a power not just in the persian gulf war but also look into the matter well are you die voice when puzzled by the fact that neither the u s and ran we we feel we can be friends and we feel that the religious difference there's gotta be the big part of that driven by scale irrational forces that we can't understand you can't deal with but how is that they get along with russia russia is not exactly the most fraud islamic place in the world and it seems like if they can get along with russia is there no scenario that i can never get along with us in well you know israel's attack a question but at least america
what by some measures the iranian people are actually the most pro american people in the middle east outside israel because the american people and iranian people have alone relationship going back many decades and draining admire america ordinary uranium people admire america very pro american in general it's the regime that's the problem and theirs i would recommend people read an essay today by eli late in bloom bird who said is dead is so unstable right now because the people are so fed up with their regime that perhaps the best option is not to do anything but to keep this uncertainty around your heart and to let the regime collapse because once the regime is gone and there's no conflict with iran is no reason to fear like some next so that that also argues that a ten year deal that would be bad for you at the eleventh deal it would sunset in turn bad law
be very close to a poem deal because nobody knows what's going to happen in ten years feels unlikely that the iranian regime would be anything like what it looks like today in europe the interesting thing so normally you might say we have a couple of hours on the iran till we could carried up which is what posted republican candidate said they wanted to do but not sure how you would then deal with iran's nuclear programme because they would just go on producing nuclear weapons or nuclear material you could enforce it rigidly which is what donald trump said he would do during the election and i actually thought there was probably the most interesting position because there are provisions in the deal that allow it to inspect their military sites if we actually enforce the deal the way it's written we could you a pretty good job
sure they weren't producing nuclear material and if your weapons unfortunately the europeans are re skittish about actually enforcing the deal because they like the deal is doing a lot of trade or the potentially do a lot of the iranian regime and then there's the option of this fix it you're talking about a new guarantee or which the front president mentioned yesterday was trot but there's a lot of fears that new fix could make things worse for a variety of reasons and highly makes the argument iran has failed to benefit from the deal in one of the ways we thought they were yes we gave them billions of dollars yes we removed the sanctions eyes tromp was elected because trump is bringing always certainty now a lot of countries are fearful of invest in iran and that investment that they thought there were gonna get the big economic windfall hasn't happened so their currencies in free fall and the people are furious because their government keeps him is money to fight
in syria and pay terrorists in africa other places so is positive orbit trumps best position could be increased the uncertainty entity he's done with twitter account which is to encourage the uranium protesters to keep rebelling against the regime and eventually show them to such an extent that they have come to us for aid or benefits that we have additional leverage to get them to improve the deal orange sway to collapse and enjoy even you deal said no the framing let me tests as framing here obviously far more knowledgeable about this whole area so let's see if this makes sense i've said did the best argument with ran is that as long as the internet exists and they have this big population bubble of young people who were real progress pro u s or at least not aunt i am u s the uranium system is going to change and probably in the next ten years
no matter what their theirs i think that the eu s does the other it'll just be internally the internet plus young people equals change there we can either be part helping them get to that next level or part of the problem so that seems to me the iranian regime if they wanna maintain anything like there's the needs start getting flexible now because they dont have any past and the future through there's there's no you kill you kept right on paper hey this is how the iranian regime in its current form last ten years there's no plan that works like that saying is by investing in better energy technology and the united states we ve managed to lower the price of oil so iran has failed to benefit from the windfall they thought they were gonna get with continued high oil prices i think their national budget depends on
well being something like a hundred and fifty dollars a barrel well and we basically just undercut that by investing in fracturing shale all the things doing so oils about half that many eyes it's not going anywhere near a hundred fifty verily type soon sixty something new yeah so we can prove our own technology and undermining the regime that way economies badly wrong but the people as you say their interest in the internet the internet's very ivy censored there but the young people there are very smart very bright they're interested in when new technologies are all they want to be part of the broader world the more we make that world attractive and the more we show them the benefit of doing it i think the tougher it does get for the regime
so if you to predict do you think the president trump can get an improvement in the deal or at least a better understanding with ran through his tromp like talents i think you will find a way to create more uncertainty sudan when's either way as you point out the often try do is to win the problem with a new your fix and this has been explained to me by experts you really understand what's possibly coming in the fix what are they is thinking of doing is finding a way to stop iran's missile programmes so europeans will agree to that they'll say ok let's have new deal where iran agrees to stop developing long range missiles sovereignty so good because iran doesn't have any long range missiles not giving anything up still have all the short range missiles enable can you to develop those so we ve
agrees to that could give sanction to and approve of effectively iran developing short range missiles so the facts might be worse than what we have now even though the attentions might be to show what i think trouble do is find a way to apply american sanctions to certain uranium behaviors that don't necessarily require europe to cooperate with us and that way he will at the press without blowing up you entirely so that if the deal gets broken it'll be broken by iran and in that case we will have more diplomatic club with europe do i get a better deal or to reimpose all the sanctions and really go for proof against iranian regime what the track record of the current iranian regime when they make a was a public pronouncement that says we will do this we will not do that have they been low one
are there any big examples will it will say the last ten years where they said we will do this and then they just we know they didn't do it do you have a track record lies constantly i was international agreements were wont let me clarify the question though the things i do expect that they would lie like every other country but there's a in category because they are a theocracy says they pay you know a far too are or the earth supreme leader says no matter what we do we're never gonna where yellow hats is there anything where they ve said this as are the putting my leaders word on the line taking the credibility credibility of the theocracy and this we're not gonna do this in the cases have they ever not done it
for example when a step away from something and kept that commitment but you can think of examples where they may threaten they delivered i mean they banned the satanic verses i will salman rushdie and they had a fight for him for many years and he took seriously enough to live in hiding for four decades they threatened retaliation against the united states and israel for various things a name they carried out a terrorist attack a couple years ago in bulgaria against butler both israeli tourist so they do keep your word on threats to the extent that they can that's one of the reasons the dangers to the united states they have good relations with a lot of our enemies raw rivals with venezuela with cuba that's what it thinks it is their projecting a threat to our hemisphere is well why what what do you think they wanna projector threat into is a defensive or offensive
this is where we come to the question of what kind of regime it is i think the iranian regime hates america was blinding passion because it's part of their theocracy they see america a great safe not just as bad guys but we are in their view the theocratic view we are the embodiment of satan on earth they got rid of satan in iraq by having this revolution in nineteen seventy nine but to make the world perfect for their religious purposes they got to rid the world of us in time that's why even obama was giving them everything they should have wanted billions of dollars and so forth they kept having rally saint just so america in the streets and in obama had a heart winning people but that's part of the regime that's why people like me are very sceptical of the day because we do think that iran is crazy enough for these the leaders are crazy enough to do crazy things for
think of their religious beliefs so you for you may have hardly talk about what i call the golden age and the golden age is where we realise that our problems were more psychological than real and this is a classic one now i like to stay sceptical on anything that matters that and then just proven to beyond our reach i doubt if it does i like keep my flexibly one of the things that i could believe i could easily believe nah demonstrated to my level of sceptical i guess by it hasn't had my threshold if there really are people in the iranian leadership who are this crazy i'd love to i don't know how you verify that because remember that the thing they help us back with north korea is the assumption that he was crazy and then as soon as we put it to the test he's acting
nothing by rationally and and i believe the current thinking is the kim jong then went from once a year and a half ago or death crazy there's no doubt about it look at all the proof oh yeah we were a hundred percent wrong about that he's just he's just completely rational do you think there is any chance that we could have i can't realisation with ran to meet will benefit i think so and proof for there would be what happened when george w bush invaded iraq whatever the rights and wrongs of that war it scare the iranian regime into thinking we were crazy enough to invade countries that had these weapons programmes or even pretended to have the weapons programmes so iran actually stopped its nuclear weapons research and development for a few years after we invaded iraq so they are capable of acting rationally when there is some threat of annihilation again this could be
matter of disagreement among the ayatollahs something it's worth risking annihilation something innocent but if we could project a thread again to iran doesn't necessarily have to be military but remember what would our hunting with kim jong moon was basically counter craziness with craziness predictability of his own to the point where kim german realized he had apart realized it meyer firing fury i think i was the phrase from used to describe what would happen north korea people believed him or enough people inside regime but but but it is no use nabbed everybody from crazy to unreason yes yes and so there is a possibility we could do that again with iran i think the problem is we ve sent them so many signals over the last fifteen years there we retreat threats george w bush back town obama pulled out of iraq prematurely donald trump has decided
yet what is policies in syria and the attacks on chemical weapons facilities which is nice and crazy and unpredictable he also says i wanna get out of there as soon as possible so iran think talk areas have to wait this guy out so we have to i think apply some of that magic their trump used with north korea to iran and their washing is very closely the foreign minister of iran made a remark earlier this week that if we pulled out a variety of it would hurt our relations with north korea evasively said if you pull out and i'll show you can keep your commitments why would kill jump on agreed it do anything with you if you don't follow through on the deal with us so they're watching everything we do then try and everything you said is is rational behaviour on their part so so here's the day i like to challenge assumptions as somebody said the difference between north korea and iran course lots of different spooky one is that iran is operate from a religious base
for they may not have the same rational decision making process that we would imagine is rational but get look at the recent example we had of the religious right embrace president trump who saw that being ok my my my point is that every thought that because they have a religious framework can't get to a good common sense rational safe place is an assumption that could be tested i think you know what you know one attested by giving them a lot of stuff and say hey be our friend now you don't have to the pressure but i feel like through someplace we can get there that that would work for you when ass they would not endanger israel or the rest of the world
there is another factor we haven't even mention it most people don't even discuss but is the fact that the supreme leader quota quote of iran the i told you how our common aim is very old and not healthy and we may just need to wait for someone else to come along says you know why we gotta do things differently so major to change our leadership times on our side yeah that's what i'm thinking they have time i'm way over the time that i asked you to appreciate that are you out of time off you other i got here i hit most of my question some let me ask you just the final question do you we can reach a stable point with a ran away
israel would be safe and we ve accomplished or or objectives not with the present iranian regime because they are inherently destabilizing they rely on these stabilizing other people but i think it's possible with a reformed iranian regime worry completely new iranian regime and so that's why i think trunk has taken the right approach in vienna we against the regime even while he's being very careful about what he does practically so i think we can get to a more stable placed his there's nothing arrogantly inherent to the iranian character there's nothing about you ready people themselves it means we have to be at odds with them even just the nature of their fear credit regime is one of the most repressive totalitarian systems you keep juggling has a cult of the leader but with iran also got this central religious cults running country and
maybe people in the streets were not wearing the right clothes and things i gotta be it's it's really a problem and people are sick of it so i think we can get to a more stable place but it requires us to see the regime is the problem and i think a bomb saw the regime is the solution because he said well they have absolute control therefore they can deliver on a deal and i just any thought the nature of regime was a meaningful to stability but their destabilizing everybody including so i think it was with some change there we should see more stability no keep my we also said the king john then was the problem and we wouldn't be able to work as long as he was there well tat rob s side
we will do the reins play basketball because maybe we ever where the way forward their dennis will revisit here's what's wrong with dry versus austria is actually more rational uranium athletes forfeit matches against israeli athletes rather than compete they would give up i don't think north korea has ever forfeited a match you they may hate always other countries they may hate asking me hate israel who knows what they i don't think ever given up a basketball game or anything else whereas iran will literally forfeit wrestling match susan fencing matches in chess matches everything not to recognise israel and other countries so that's at a different level of of weird and think once you haven't changed there won't you
retired a loser because of losing by forfeit i think they might have an opening well thank you so much joy for joining us buddy central and this was really good why i really i really needed all of that that their background really helps me a lot so this tremendous and and thank you so much faster than usual all right so those little test little torreon the uranium deal they told me a lot you know when you watch tv or read an article yours do yourself but i have questions your talk the thing that i want to ask a question about another thing and so it was really fun for me to be able to
ensure that i got the questions answered there were my here my blank sponsor on a slightly different topic i saw a bit in zero hedge the publications zero hedge today and i i woke up layton you're right into this sum a little behind on the news the news that the three places we we missile attacked in syria did not have any signs of chemical weapons that are confirmed story yet so amazing that oh well i'm just looking for your comments and people like this a lot i need to
a better technology set up here but i thought the the delivery of information was tremendous he was an ipad next time why privileges a better system in general yesterday shirt now yesterday shirt oh so so it is true that the syrian attack does not to have heard anything they have nuclear weapons well do you remember what i said about the attack on syria zander remember my common son periscope because what i said was given explain to me why we were why we knew three weapons met
why we knew that there were three chemical weapons plants in syria and we knew exactly where they were enough so that we can bomb them and remember i said sounds a little suspicious that we know exactly where these plants are end by the way we don't mind bombing them in sending away you know a big plume of sadly gas into the into the civil in population of syria so let's wait to see if that news is confirmed i want to give you fake news on here but it turns out that if it turns out that the the sites that we bombs or missing in syria did not have any chemical weapons that will be an interesting story sources you i think we have to wait for sources so lip so
so i would ask you not to resume their what i just told you is actually factual and just tell you i read one article i would need confirmation in that doesn't matter if they and weapons there that is correct i believe calculation was probably that we needed to send some so bombs over there we need to show that we were now play it around but there wasn't anything we really deeply to do work or do we just need to make make a show of it so there we made a show of it may or may not have been any chemical weapons in those three sites was joe again joel pollack senior editor at large bright bart and a friend so the sound was ok was i didn't see anybody are complaining the sound when i was talking to the job
well i will try to do maybe some more interviews did he changed by strategy in winning over around why don't know that i have a strategy per se but i have i have talked about free me it if a ran thinks that the framework now is how do we stay the same without letting the united states changes i think that frame can be changed because around as jewels said ran is to change around doesn't have a no change option the only thing that they can control maybe is what they change to begin the young people there plus internet equals change and if we have it a ten year deal
if you can predict ten years into the future one are rarely even looks like that's enough for this morning i'm going to shut down for now and i'll talk to you again sometimes you
Transcript generated on 2020-04-02.