« Commentary Magazine Podcast

Have Cooler Heads Prevailed?

2020-01-09 | 🔗
Trump seems to have taken Iran’s calibrated response to the U.S. strike that took out Qasem Soleimani as an opportunity to take the temperature down in the region. Will cooler heads prevail? And does the Democratic narrative, which suggests that Trump is itching for a war with Iran, make any sense?
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Some regions, oh. Welcome to the commentary magazine podcast today is Thursday January nine. Twenty slash, twenty. I am John Podhoretz, the editor of Commentary magazine the seventeen year old monthly of intellectual analysis, political probity, cultural criticism from a conservative perspective. As ever, we invite you to join us at commentary magazine dot com are still newly redesigned website, where we give you a few free reason asking to subscribe. One thousand nine hundred and ninety five for a digital subscription in twenty nine. Ninety five for an all access
everyone, including our beautiful monthly magazine in your mailbox eleven times a year with me April. What's senior editor high Abe, I jump nor Associated high. Now I John and in Washington, Senor Writer, Christine rose high. Christine hygiene are right Oh, tromp IRAN from Spain, The Iranians fired some missiles that didn't they heard anybody and apparently gave us a heads up beforehand so that they wouldn't hurt anybody thus apparent he making live the theoretical case. No, I made my maid mothers paid that that's what what was needed here was a strong message from the United States in the form of the killing of Custom Ceylon
that, would re establish a deterrent effect on IRAN's increasingly provocative an aggressive behaviour over the last six to eight months in in the region. Trump said as much. I were here's what I was struck by in his speech yesterday, which is that having people who were both who are sceptical of him skeptical the strike skeptical of aggressive, foreign policy. Moves had talked themselves in the idea that we were on the verge of war. And now they say you know what Trump step back from the precipice of the war that he was stored, or even better that ran, had given him in off ramp and would the president be wise enough write to me ass, yet a later the situation and he had blunder at our centre right. So basically, he doesn't as as
manifestly evident from decades of his now things off on these matters, he does not believe in large scale military conflict in the Middle EAST. He is deeply opposed to it and it makes total and perfect sense. One of the reasons that he struck salami. The way he did was precisely that in the councils of discussion that he was in what he was looking for was a decisive act. That was precisely not the sort of thing that would require large scale, military intervention, the tacit admission and all those who said that The rain had given him an off ramp is that they had only just tuned into all of this that they hadn't been following events in the region. Until the ceremony strike an hour, and that was there only frame of reference and IRAN's
response, as we said in the last podcast around, would need to respond in a face saving manner. That appeared to be a reciprocal escalation of hostilities, but was nevertheless calibrated so that it would it would de escalate the situation. That's precisely what happened, and it suggests that everybody had planned this thing out pretty meticulously the notion that the trumpet Mini Russia had simply blundered its way into a textbook effort to impose costs. On a revisionist adversary and de escalate and escalating cycle of hostilities and the notion This was just sort of an accident on the part of the Trump Administration is really insulting to anybody could follow. These events are familiar with the literature. Okay, so here here's here's the other way of looking at this witches, that saw money was hit, as was the head of the rocky militia. So these two key figures in this effort, at least inside around
and what how IRAN responded in the forty two, my six hours after this happened was with total discompose that, as you know, they jined up Giants Memorial protests things and had a stampede that killed hundreds of people that right and then, of course, the most salient one which I suppose could have been an accident, but was almost certainly not maximum, which was the clearly accident. I assume accidental shoot down in the sky of the UN Ukraine of the of the Ukraine. We airlines, the shit down, I mean- that's, probably was well, it broke up, admit what they know is it broke up in mid air, relatively low over the airport and and and we're never gonna know what happened because they aren't gonna provide the Black box to to Boeing for bowing to find that is the signature of a plain that breaks up Harris. That's been head right, I'm particularly there. I'm because
low enough that it a you now and it no one said it banked, or did anything like that that you know like there were there were. There was debris there were like actual pieces of clothing and toys, and things like that that were found on the ground. So yet not, I would say to them most focused thing that the regime did in the wake of the killing of civil money was, was to enact strikes that didn't, kill any Americans. I think that was that was a very deliberate and they they they they accomplished. Not they they accomplished what they wanted to do, which is to not provoke, which is due to create this serve symbolic strike. Supposing it, it must be said that that the real threat in the fear right is that uranium retaliatory responses are over, that they will occur, and the fear is that they will be proxy forces well outside the Middle EAST, in places like Western Europe, Latin America
United States that could that could still retaliate, and that is the real fear and concern also the status quo ante that we ve been dealing with for the last forty years. What we wanted to do is up the cycle of escalation of direct attack Turanian attacks that they that wording that big they couldn't deny plausibly or that work that they took credit for on: U S? Forces personnel alight assets. What this did it stop that cycle so far? I mean you know again. One needs to be tempted, the things it's only its live in a week since, since we start the motorcade in Baghdad, so gay who knows you now take this? Could that could a minute this could have been faint, to lead us into a false sense of security, and then they do something really bigger spectacular, though that has not been the signature, although solemnize no longer there others, I want to bring something up,
yesterday in the office, but I haven't seen really discussed much in regard to Trump speech, which is the what I thought was a dramatic and odd opening, which is that he walked out. And sit before saying good morning, hello, before even dressing directly the events of the other night. Previously, the the attack itself, he hey. Man said as long as I'm president IRAN will never have a nuclear weapon right, hello, last night, there was very basically deliberate and amount white shore. What what to make as other than the face value content of what it says. So this this actually provides a good sag Christine to the larger from which is so there's some polling out. Finally, and it's very confusing, actually making sense of appalling,
one of the things that is said in that the ESA Usa, today Ipsos Paul that came out this morning. Says, is that people now think that IRAN, developing a nuclear weapon, is more rather than less likely than it was before, and maybe the trump people were seeing this in their own private Pauling Data, and so he wanted to. You now basically make this point as blatant plainly and blatantly, as he possibly could, without any qualification, because This was it. This is a concern that he that worries him electrically, let's say yeah, I think. Actually, the response and the sort of media narrative that we were discussing in the previous podcast that no one has pointed out is that it has set up a way and made it differ, four trump, not to be pretty bold about how he's talking about the strike is, you know, look let's. Let's remember that
You than thirty percent of Americans can even find IRAN on a map, so what they get the way that they get their stories about what happened and what it means is very fear based its cable news, driven its twitter driven and I There's something one of the reasons that Trump has been so recalcitrant, The briefing he had yesterday with Congress and in the way and in the bluntness with which has been talking about all of this, is that he is sure of twitter. He must have spending the last twenty four hours, six hours reading all the World war. Three tweets from everyone on the left. Is concerned, and you know that the car hyperbole, with which this this completely understandable as north had textbook reaction to iranian aggression over the years is probably infecting his thinking too, because I dont know how closely he's really been monitoring this either so that, appalling among Americans kind of makes sense right. We do like the bold
old action by the american military to take out a terrorist. That's feel good story right, a minute after Bin Laden with what we should we shouldn't. We should lay out what the polling says, because it is. It is genuinely confused yes, because eight, so it is they support, the taking out what most support the killing of Soleimani, but they feel It is his increase. The likelihood of war with IRAN were more okay, so so two different Paul say that about forty three percent of the public supports the strike were actually now. I think there was maybe it was fifty five percent support restaurant in one point, forty three of another and it's down to somewhere between thirty, three and thirty eight who oppose the strike mounted them are. It is like in the forties and then but fifty five percent of people say that the strike made America less safe. So let so just a part
that's ok. So what that suggest is that the public once again follows trumps. General approval rating Edwards you ve ever since AIDS, less safe. That's like fifty five percent disapproval. Fifty two, fifty three fifty four percent disapproval. Forty three percent, like the strike, that's trumps approval rating what's interesting, is that the people who disapprove of the strike that does not track with his disapproval raving. It is twenty points under his disapproval rating in low, timid, thirties, whereas his disapproval rating is in the low to mid fifties, meaning that the strike itself, not that all those people support the strike,
They were unwilling to say that they were against it. Why half of them in that gap? Half of them wooden, express an opinion and then half them scene, ought to be willing to say that they like what Trump did, unless you assume that enormous numbers of Republicans didn't like what he did and we're being replaced by democratic, dead or email independence. I want to say briefly that I could- and maybe it's to charitable to the president, but it's not it's possible is not meet. Didn't make that statement right at the outset of the press conference because he's been can coming twitter and is responding to the left, but intelligence assessment, say of one of the ways that ran could respond to this is to pursue nuclear weapons is to reactivate its programme. It was going to their eyes met was its immediate think, not thrash, not a break out necessarily, but it's too I mean. Is that settles Gunnar not by the enrichment limits and could pursue something along the lines of getting the twenty percent
really quick and fast. We should explain how that works. Okay, so the way this works is that, according to the the J C p away that IRAN Deal and the general understanding of how nuclear perfectly proliferation works the uranium processing, if you, if you process uranium as the Iranians, had to twenty percent of its up ultimate explosive capacity. That is the point at which you are it's fissionable. You can t get and then you can apply new processes to it. That will turn it into weapon eyes uranium. What most when you're, not there and you don't need the uranium to be at that number. You degrade it to what's to three percent of its overall capacity and according to the the
read the IRAN deal. They had decide they had announced they were going to degrade to three percent of their stockpile and now, if they're going to abrogate the deal which and they made this hormone ancillary abrogate the veal they could have done in any way. Since we pulled out of it, but not entirely Alcatel Zimmer, more Europeans reporting add that in the United States was that they totally out of hearing the other, not their abiding by the court and clinical enhanced. Trafficking when they origin? They are accept that you I found that they were chief, you know done, but it's all face able to prevent Europe from having to confront this, not back provisions right so snapped back, meaning that and that that that actually true now, which is that
there? Are provisions in the IRAN deal that that required? Not not only the sanctions that we put on them after the we pulled out of the deal, but very harsh international sanctions that the deal itself requires the? U N, to impose. If the Iranians abrogated that's what you call the snapped back actions which obviously they they want, because there suffering under the sanctions that we put in place anyway, so their behaviour is not entirely clear, but it's also. It's also. I think important to note if you follow this stuff closely, that the question is: how long does it take them to make a bomb that that is always the question
so the IRAN deal itself had a ten year window. Some say twelve, most rational people say ten, but had a ten year window, meaning in twenty twenty five. They would be legally allowed to start upping the uranium and there or would it take a year? Would it take two years to spin these centrifuges and make the arabian weapon sizable, or would they develop the technology sufficiently overtime without doing it so that they could take them three months or two months because they had gotten the centrifuges so much better and presumably there's a lot of intelligence, hard, serious intelligence work, meaning
hands on to screw with that bright, to degrade their computer capacities to maybe, if they're building things to introduce glitches into their construction, us, the Israelis, various other people. Maybe you know in the in the midst of, of that sort of thing. So when we say IRAN may or may not be more likely to build a weapon, all all were all that's going on here. Is that the time frame for which in which IRAN will go nuclear, maybe shortened from five years from now to three years from now, and that is, I think, why Trump found it necessary, not just for electoral reasons, but to say that this was the ultimate aim of all deterrence against IRAN. Isn't just to make
were that they don't hit american targets. I agree, I think the more we talk with more. Thank you. He took the moment of of his having done this extraordinarily bold thing to come out and say: don't even think about it. This did I now you see I'm serious right now, and that is the point right, which is that those of us who oppose the IRAN deal very heatedly, did so with the understanding that it was going to release a huge amount of money to IRAN and that, whatever degradation of the of the timeline by which IRAN went nuclear, how much you took that seriously that we had made it clear that we did not. Have the stomach to prevent them from getting a bomb that, even though we had made this deal and Obama said they would never get out of it, that that was a lot of nonsense and that we were all we were doing, was saying, put on the brakes, and you know
when I'm not present any more after two more terms. You can have a bomb and you know, and I pray moi le they lose, and so you know that's where you're not listening. I was gonna, say thinking about trumpet. Action in the in the media narrative about this in particular, I mean there's a sense in which the public problem he has Apocalypse fatigue greetings and apocalypse in older trumps election was an apocalypse climate changes and apocalypse now war with IRAN in looming apocalypse and there's a sense in which we can't even its difficult for them like to temper their own thoughts. Hence the pull that was all. That seemed somewhat confusing, because there's our public leaders and the media are are unable to temper them either, and I do think this than speed. So the way. The Trump Administration is dealing with Congress on of IRAN,
being really really problematic mean MIKE Liese response yesterday to the briefing was: was pretty angry and come other reports that we ve gotten from how the Trump Administration officials dealt with questions from Congress about future authorizations of of, attacks and such was not and I mean obviously, this is a very tense time since he is facing in these bees been impeached, but this is an issue of national security and you would hope that the administration have a couple of people who would be able to deal with Congress in a way that would be more productive at the very these two com, some of these public fears and to tempt down some of the hyperbole that were sitting in the media about a looming a war with IRAN. Where am I
would be. I would be a temperate in my estimation of MIKE leave the senator from Utah's explosion and rage at the briefing I might lie is now aligned with Rand Paul as one of the two foremost Auntie Intervet as the two for most auntie intervention Republican mansion is sceptical. We're ok, fine intervention, sceptical interventions, furious hee, hee hee is increasingly revolted or position himself against, even like supporting Taiwan's you know, is an effort to support Taiwan against the Chinese. Serve domination of the south, China, sea and
stuff like that, and so, as no was saying to me before the show, you know the fact that it's not like twenty different Republicans came out of that meeting and said what the hell was that how dare they had their? They treat us that way. I understand that there are lined with Trump and all that, but you know, but generally speaking, people can get their backs up and be offended at some low level or beauty. I don't know who was the briefer but or seem even if it was one of the joint chiefs getting offended at the idea that they weren't being taken seriously and Lee is the only one who said this. But how was the worst briefing? He never received them all of that. Yet just the opposite, actually in their republicans, like Jim Rice from Idaho, who have do, is not prone to hyperbole, has no ambitions beyond the Senate, whose was pretty clear that their imminent threat, I'm not in that briefing. I am not going to second guess the intelligence that they saw, but it seems- and it's entirely possible- the administration Blue this thing
But how hard is it to make the case a Cassim Sola money is in involved in attack planning on american assets and allies. When that's been the pattern of behaviour for the last eight months, it's like accusing Duncan not to be in the operational stages of donor manufacturing, its due role, a cell. The idea that this is a hard case to make is difficult for envision. Maybe that's what happened, but it's also entirely possible that the ideological proclivities of the people who were attacking this- being an unsubstantial briefing, are allowing their priors to lead them. Well, there was a little way doesn't also goes out just who said that there was a whiff of the weapons of mass destruction, narrative that the left loves to revive against any republican president, but there is, but I do think that going forward its this idea of a war powers, piece of logic,
coming to the house or in the future, action seem to be what prompted a lot of the sort of screaming an ailing. We should also say in public reporting, from places like Reuters that were speaking not with american officials, but iraqi officials and militia officials on the ground in Iraq say that ran, had infrared inserted Katyusha Rockets and shoulder file missiles, that'll take down helicopters into the country in recent days, and that's a sort of thing that you can't abide public reporting. I dont have classified intelligence, but that's just what we know, but by the way. So, if Nancy Pelosi wants to once to advance, work knew a new version of the war powers resolution or if the Senate and the house, both Senate, really more importantly, I wish to reassert the Senate's primacy in determining whether or not we are go to war and what constitutes war that is a useful and fruitful general
conversation. I think it would be better for the responsibility for the relative irresponsibility that that the Congress has descended into for it too, assert its right to play roles in this and see what happens like it's been, for the reasons that you know we haven't been addressing these matters. Although eminence not a nonsense. To say that you know we didn't you know we haven't, there hasn't formal deco, there wasn't a formal declaration of war against Iraq, but there was a mean it's a distinct different. Seventy seven senators voted to authorize hostilities against Iraq. Duration is not yet again towards the hours against around right.
Precisely so what are engaged in releasing action in Iraq? So if what they want to do is you know assert that they have budgetary, they have their budgetary authority that would allow them somehow to pre prevent to prevent you, no military action being taken by kinetic action. Let us say by the administration- because they will set all these rules in rags and place about what constitutes stuff. That half Congress has to be consulted on all go ahead, see if we can find a consensus on that score. The truth is we're not going to, but powers. Resolution prohibiting action against IRAN would not have prevented the strike against salami right. I guess all money was not in IRAN. He was in Iraq, is legitimately I mean it was the energy
whether there, a United Nations resolution prohibiting his travel outside of wherein no one cares right, Some of you knows wherever you want right, he was greatly jointly in Iraq. He was therefore criminally in Iraq, a gordian rational law. Yeah, I mean that's part of the joke here. Is you know yet like throwing I'm into the briar patch of saying you know you're not allowed to go to war in IRAN. He doesn't want to go to war in IRAN and what does it mean to go to war with IRAN? Does that mean if again, this is where it gets interesting cause? It's it's a useful national debate in a country that has lost its mornings on these things, like. Does that mean that you can't do five strikes? You can't you couldn't do five airstrikes for while in a defensive capacity you launched it wherever you want right, Tellier depends on. What's what now self too,
and there is no legal daddy ever having from its useful to have a debate. This country's lost its mornings and the question is: what constitutes war? What constitutes you know? Defence, Immediate defence of actions that that sort of thing, I do think that The administration made a mistake, not giving Congress a heads like There was no reason they could not have called you know, Schumacher and policy in Mcconnell and and Kevin Mccarthy into the White House. Two minutes before someone. It was a better if we had to say we do not. We have decided to take this action not to consult that way, but to inform and saying we couldn't do it, because we can trust them cause,
traders is. That's not a good way to build a national consensus, even even if half our audience believes that to be the case. It still you know, but you know, truth his it might have given Schumann most of this opportunity to then certain say and we we read, shared our our our caution approval, and then the White House didn't care editor of it entered uses, then this addition, note of a reckless rogue. White House that's what I'm saying that they beg my thereby Ivan are, I think, even with, if, though I mean even had they have they consulted. Ok, fair enough, Oh they're, damned as they do in the end. They don't, of course that's the thing they trump doesn't. Doesn't these nice These are meaningless to him. The pageantry Of leadership is of totally no meaning to him. Right so
at your leadership is by the way you are showing them that they are there stress in this matter by doing precisely I just said they did not that they're like players, but that their extras, which is sort of what might Lee, was complaining about but don't you also get the sense that, especially with Pelosi and they're kind of like the pair to really want their Todd alerted demonstrate basic manners every time they have an interaction with with Trump. In the end they become too focused on the displays of of ACT for themselves, in the same way that actually Iraq Sumer has a lot of nerve. If that's true trucks, rumour has a lot of nerve. Being somebody who, supposedly you know is, is a well behaved. You no person seeking better Hey you're on the part of on the party has of what I have been asked to say: tromp was totally the adult in the room on this. One, including
when he he's tweeted out after the iranian response attack. His calm, always where all is well will have more to say about it. You know, no Americans were killed that too, was considered sort of crazy and laughable that that he was saying all is well. It's just the ominous. Even when he's trying to be reassuring is too, although I have to say that the idiosyncrasy level at which the response that all is well response was greeted, which was Well, that's a line from animal house all you know, because ship dealer, bread by Kevin Bacon, says all is well. While the town is melting down, the fur is all is well does not come from animal right. I mean be calm. All is well is, like you know, from the seventeenth century, or some the I mean,
seriously like this is what the Commentariat how the commentary responds two trump saying all is well meaning. You know what yes and no one got hurt as far as we can tell so all is well like I've. Not you know, I'm not exactly a defender of tat its use of rhetoric, but these people are in you know, I don't even have Trump Sigh Animal House So how do you know about the crime? guy where it would be a crime, but certainly one the veto, one that he might have whelp of might well have participated in, but I mean I do want to get back to this thing of. Liberals, talking themselves into the notion that Trump is a psychopath who was gonna, led us into nuclear war and
and talking themselves out of it or or like being relieved when their worst fears didn't come. True this I don't see relief right. I see a lot of people sort of anticipating, with a distinct note of hope, almost that their worst fears and predictions would be borne out, because the alternative that Trump executed a very calibrated response characterized by for thought and measured understanding of deterrence theory. That would have been the world view. That is very cherished, but I mean in twenty seventeen team, you and I went on MSNBC in September between that, whatever it was when he started saying about Kim Jong. And in North Korea like, I will reign fire in fury. If you you know that name nuclear, I will do you no fire and jury like
We ve never seen or something like that and, like I people say to me in the green room like I want to sleep in a bomb shelter I mean I'm so terrified everybody I said the similar Spock everybody so terrified, and this is so terrifying and it's like three seconds later he's. You know he won't. We dig what they make a wonderful letter exchange like that's an trumpet, step meetings and you notes and make a deal with North Korea which, by that who tracker problem? Where that's? Who trump? Really it's like? no way that he behaves has any effect on this general layering on of his own personal peccadilloes to the general Forty year, portrait in their own heads of the Republican Party and its leadership as being war hungry nuclear
weapons. You know slavery, people who are going to lead us to the brink of of you, know the world and am in that was Reagan. That was you know there People were crazy books about how Reagan's religion was leading him to. We don't go to want to have it clear exchange that would bring about in over the that would bring about judgement day amidst a classic failure to understand. Comprehend is probably the better word. Deterrence just how it's not a failure to fruitful they don't accept deterrence they're, not interested in it, as as a strategy number one in number to what they want is to believe it understandable. You want to believe the worst of the people you don't like and who are your enemies, but but it's like take them sure of the guy. What on earth would lead you to believe.
The trump who has set for thirty years that every effort to do anything the Middle EAST was stupid, wants to be engaged in a hot war with IRAN that like, but then they were. There is also this extraordinary aspect is along the same: what people on twitter girls on her saying, will John Bolton surely very disappointed. Now While there were two things, a Maltese disappointed who foresee a wanted confrontation with IRAN or, thank God, boltons, not their right yet by right, yeah yeah, that's right, because, because bottle he doesn't want, because what he wants presumably in their fevered imagination of his enemies, Bolton wants not an effective piece of deterrence.
But an all out, bloody messy armageddon that that's what he wants act right, and we believe that when you believe that people that you don't like want things that are caricaturist cartoonish em, now clearly something that only you know of Bonn villain would want. Then you're. You know then you're, just improving yourself not to be even remotely serious person. I mean it's one thing to say that the strike and saw money was reckless or that you know you then made clear, did didn't, look like they thought it through, and all that I think those are arguable. Propositions, because you can have an argument about them but saying Trump wants a nuclear war. There's no it's not a serious way on looking at things. Nobody wants a nuclear war, but it is an extremely useful domestic.
Political story to tell at this particular moment in time right, particularly for a Democrat, because this is the whole, oh idea of the rather weak, democratic primary presidential contenders that anymore, better than this guy cause he's a loose cannon mean If I'm a raging old, socialist aura whatever or you know, hands the old vice president. Whatever it is, it's gotta be better than this guy because he is so dangerous because he doesn't play by the rules. He doesn't respond. The institution, so I think, to a domestic political audience
That argument would bees river for some of them somewhat power. So what we have in those terms is we have this strike, which is more popular than unpopular now. Obviously, if you breaks appalling down, it appears that it's a vastly more unpopular popular among self identified Democrats. So that's you know so obviously Biden WAR, everybody saying this was bad fits in with the main stream of the parties opinion on it. Generally, I think the public is not reassured, though there's a lot of trepidation, even among people who support the strike, I mean, if there's trepidation, I'm always sceptical about this idea that people are afraid. I've been nine eleven made people afraid big. It happened here. They saw the town was burn. We thought twenty thousand people have been killed in the couple.
And there were the anthrax. Then there were the anthrax insight, but were genuinely afraid, particularly in this city. But everywhere are people afraid, because a missile hits a guy in No, but you hit they hear on that here on cable news. They hear the mayor of the Ark Citizen, asleep or cells are everywhere. I mean there is a kind of fearmongering that goes on in the media, the people, I think people do generally feeler anxiety, if not outright fear right, but as always the question of how to interpret that fear. That's why this pole, the USA? they have such Paul is confusing to me, and in brings up this possibility, which is that if you have people, saying this man us less safe, but by ten points they support rather than oppose the strike, Maybe safety as isn't the ultimate concern
I mean I'm not sure. Obviously you know you do things like this in order to enhance national security, which I guess a safety but Maybe these aren't contradictory. Maybe there is something in it that it's like well, look if you says we had to do it. I'm gonna take him at his word of forty three percent of people say he said we added and I'm I'm not schooled enough to know whether we should or shouldn't but find That's he's an iranian general neurons, bad IRAN's been always been bad forever. Sixty percent of the public was Post of the IRAN deal, if you remember sixty two percent of the public, as opposed to the IRAN deal when the President of the United States was telling him was the most important thing you could possibly do so that there is a deep reservoir of hostility toward a RON in the american body Politic. That is, unless it is unwell.
Right, but so maybe safety. Maybe this whole idea is too mushy firm for people. Like the day. They understand that there are things, they're more immediately important include. And even if they couldn't articulated the reestablishment of deterrence, which is the high which the high in theory, about how things work in it's obviously not serve street level. People warrant that involved in politics or that it's the bullet Look if the bully is gonna be pushing around you. You can't you now and you and you don't do anything just gonna get worse right. That's the reestablishment of deterrence, the terms that everybody understands writers was at all. They got the message that solar money was just a horrible horrible actor in, and they understand that you that the world's worst most dangerous people have to be dealt with. Yet whether or not that means.
That there will be challenges incur by doing that unless your personal pen, pals, North Korea there does seem to me to be a weird so nineteen. Seventy two was forty. Eight years ago the drama the nineteen seventeen electoral, obviously we were we had. You know hundreds of thousands of people. You know war in Vietnam and nineteen. Seventy two things were terrible in this country. We have had wage price control. Crime was surging. All of this present had been elected in nineteen sixty with forty three percent of the vote eerily familiar, perhaps and There was no reason to believe that he was secure, and by November of night in seventy two George Mcgovern guy.
Thirty, seven percent of the vote in the lowest showing of any modern candidate right so as ever, and probably that will ever be. How is that possible? Well, so the party his the party believes that its Anti Vietnam position, combined with all sorts of liberal social attitudes, it it went down this road and almost everything that it advocated was not supported by a majority of people, they were Dixon said they were, they were soft on crime. They were bad on net. They were bad on that and they were, and and they were isolationist in foreign policy. Now, as I understand it, wage impress controls are properly it is now very, I mean press report. You must we locate markets like that, they weren't working first of all, you want
unwanted wage controls meant you didn't get a raise, so I find it hard to believe that wage and price controls were bad enough money with appalling, just right airport, while pulling was not great them by the way. If you there was only there were two polling firms and they you know- I mean it. Wasn't there wasn't great there just wasn't that much of it but Harrison Gallop, and that was really at. But my point is that if you Take the dramaturgy now right, you have Democrats in cities are pushing for no bail, letting PETE This is an issue in New York, obviously, but it's going on all over the country, San Francisco elsewhere, so their push no bail, their pushing, lighter prison reform, lighter sentencing you know letting letting people out of jail at a time when
crime remains at historic lows, but is taking up a little bit and very loose on drugs, which again seems be popular, but how popular is like: okay, so you're for liberalizing marijuana laws while people are lying in the streets dying of federal overdoses, and maybe those are separate things and you shouldn't talk about them together. But I dont know if Trump can't make a decent case about that, and then you have this in time the United States act decisively abroad. The Democrats oppose it, and I don't know I We're not the same country were way more liberal than we were then we're decades of wave veterans of world WAR, two who are still living in all were still alive by the time that the seven too, had ever seen and veterans were per. Out of their service and proud of their country, and you know there were
tens of millions that there were sixteen million veterans of World WAR two who are still living in all we're still alive by the time that the seven to election old ran people hated crime, and all that I mean I don't think we're nowhere that we're not that country any more, but issues that I dont really understand how it is going to redound to democratic effect. Well, I mean it's going to be facing. If, if this most recent piece of deterrence holes, does it really fascinating to see how the country should have Digest said I'm indeed, I would guess the only argument that the Democrats could hope to make the sort of campaign about it that they could say, Tromp wanted war, wanted war with one against war, the wreck and when IRAN would have been IRAN rather better want, would even they wouldn't they were. They were not easy as bellicose you're right, but if that whether or not that sticks well in in the
What I anticipate is that IRAN will return to a campaign of asymmetry and that will be covered as though it's an escalation press will cover these attacks. The way they did not cover at the last eight months of destabilizing attacks on american assets and allies because they want to affect the political narratives say that the region has been destabilize. By trumps behaviour that and I'm I'm I'm framing that as a moral failure, because in my view it would be ok, so the way IRAN strikes at America asymmetrically, with a witness, s way to understand. That is to look at how it strikes Israel asymmetrically, so it you know, blows up a jewish centre in Cyrus it which just down the Argentinean governed eventually took fifty years, would stick to end by the way the government that it took down the Kirshner is back and run,
Argentina Odin. Last that long, even though she was complicit in the murder of the prosecutor, who you know who was killed investigating the investigating the crime, are they blow up a bus in Bulgaria? These things are these things time. They happen months later. So if we were to look at what would happen if the was the model they would try to find soft under bellies where they can attack. They could attack Americans elsewhere right now in and viability they they dont, want to write her signature such that is so unambiguous. The United States is compelled to respond militarily, although the thing If I, if, U S, embassy, blows up somewhere, the first thing that anyone gonna think now is that IRAN did right into my anywhere. Or Orange sent word or in six months. I mean who else has? Who else would want
lava? U S, embassy or boot would be able to have the out means motive in and skill. So, but Christine can we go back and and that that might in semi to scenario that I feel that I lay out enough here. Look at it, Democrats earned the good shape to win the presidency. That's the thing it's hard for does us where this close to things, to understand that right, trumpet still at forty three percent. Some like that, you know, Biden it's him in some of these, had two heads Biden looks like he's gonna, but its very possible Biden. There's gonna walk into the nomination, Europe is a radical gets himself into trouble for How good reason, then all they need to do is to spend those. Eighty, eight thousand votes and three states back in their own direction, in order to neutralizes advantage there, we don't see much change in trumps. Support suggests live.
One more voters, unlike George W Bush, who got twenty two percent more vote in two thousand for the needed in two thousand. So they they people shouldn't, think it just because the economy's good, nor that, like madam most there's, not showing in any way to suggest the trumpets in a better position than he was a year ago. So do what does this does the liberal too radical issues set. Is that problematic? I think it's mainly product public, for by I mean a meteor, seeing your seeing him feeling a little heed from from Bernie Sanders lately. So it's not now, if you'll necessarily walk into it, but if it's if its binding versus trumpets Trump, is in real trouble and he's predict in trouble with suburban women and has been for several years now. I don't see him making any
are any inroads with the groups it he most needs to be courting right. Now, contrary to some of the sum of his rhetoric and positioning, certainly about impeachment. Turn those women off even more, I think so you know, he's a real trouble, but, as you know, has we ve long said he's such a rogue politician than its past Well, that might not matter and what we're still a long way off a dude it's interesting that binds recent surrogates predicting Iowa that the theme they're using is we know Joe, which I think is kind of both dig it at that. More left, leaning, radical members of the Democratic Party, but also its trump. This dear that he is erratic. This idea that, even when he does something that any republican president doing would be considered normal deterrence in foreign policy, it does matter to the extreme, voters on the left, but it should be Biden and the more moderate Democrats need to be careful about not succumbing
that same rhetoric, because if their whole brand is a steady hand, you know no more of this erratic crazy trump stuff. They can't they can't dulled intimate hyper either in so far. I think pines avoided that see this your time store. I think that your alluding to, I think, was the new times about about Sanders solidifying his support It really does seem to be the case because Warren Warren is in is in slow motion collapse, space which is actually kind of stabilized. Maybe I could fourteen percent Navy was a hearing Wendy legitimate right, she's down like a third like her support has literally decline from via their slash October right so but there's a very telling little graphic that five thirty eight put out today, which is binds up ten points nationally, and then you have the first four states right
that's I New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina and Biden is leading in every single one of those states, so he's leading by half a point in Iowa he's leading by two to New Hampshire he's leaving by ten points in Nevada and he's leading by twenty five points in in South Carolina, exactly anyone right to rights it right now? This notion that Bernie, a surgeon, is not support by the accident mean I mean I am all willing to believe it or that you know Buddha judge can you know, can sir when Iowa, which, by the way, I think, would be really bad for Sanders. But it is winning Iowa could win Biden the nomination, because he because that will be the end of sanders, particularly by violence, New Hampshire in a bind winds in New Hampshire, that's it both to judge by the way is Biden will win. The next three will win the three following states:
that will be all she wrote. So I don't know the Buddha judge. Winning you know is so bad for Biden, but certainly if Biden wins Iowa, it's very hard to see how he doesn't just walk into the nomination. So I am, I am deeply sceptical of this measure also by the way it appears that five people, and only five people have qualified for the debate next week. Just a week from today find God so, on the one hand, Biden will not be able to you now be silent or escape. You know the attacks or something like that, but. He can also go on the attack for the first time, which he is largely decided not to do, and it's not like Sanders isn't easy to attack because he's very
Clear, but now in his positions, are very clear and obviously people, don't you know. Don't love aren't offended by him and debate we get come on we're gonna win this thing in November and come on you're just you're, like a bureau socialist. What does that? What you think the American People are gonna want. I mean something Biden can start reading the stage instructions and say We got a win, those three states, you are not gonna win those states. We had a win mission. Pennsylvania and Wisconsin you we're not gonna win those states. You were like a lunatic from Vermont who get out who like, you know who cunning in the Soviet Union like what are? What are we crazy. I mean Mommy's hasn't had to do that pretty glorious, my I haven't had to do that and as
necessary, but you know this- is it like? Aren't gonna be any more these, I think maybe they'll them supposedly they'll have more, but by may set them out particular if he wins. He wins. Iowa like that'll, be the end of it. Like wasn't gonna like set himself up to be a sitting duck in debates in February and March and April. Why would he do that? We have already had this will be the seventh eighth or something right has been won a month since June? Were I think it's the seventh so, but but. Where so. Where does this and then next week impeachment is gonna start right is apparently the Democrats in this and are now openly saying the policy stop. This already very embarrassing detail in this big piece and time magazine today about policy. The here at home in our policy, makes her move or something
like that, so why is she holding the impeachment of? Why is she? Why is she holding back the impeachment whatever it is papers Can I suddenly she saw John Dene Unseeing S, Son John Dene, architect. The genius architect of the first of the stonewalling, and then you know and then the turncoat of of Watergate. Well anyway, fine sti I'm invasion. She was great and she said if its. If this is and serious and the papers, if not, don't send it. Like I mean day yet, police is overplayed. Her hand- I maybe it's just but can you imagine it's like? I don't know who would not agree to start such associations. She saw Jarman, see a man. Indeed, I guess Red Lawrence Tribes, idiotic. I swore ironic, I say Lawrence tribe is concerned a great mind when he is obviously such a blow. Hard idiot is beyond me, but when law
stride said: don't you know she send the articles of impeach way over such John is the question that, can you imagine a political figure taking advice from pundits on twitter and television? I got it. I am. I don t even try to think of like what that, what the analogy, what the analogy would be to taking advice from John Dene, it would be a light touch. Airing advice. What better than Tucker, Whoever ran the travel office under Clinton. You know it's like You know. I don't think that this person has the best, also even more in the moral framework. He was bad when he was doing the stonewalling and then he to save his own high turn coat and we're supposed to believe that he did that out of the window out of out of more out of a deep moral conviction that in a Nixon was was bad. He was bad. Nixon was bad too, but so is dean. It's just funny.
You know it's a funny details, at least if she had gotten from Larry Tragic would say. Well, you know a respected constitutional scholar, not like this. You know preposterous creepy, you- know a reality pop. Political reality, tv star, like John Dene out with his glasses and as are all too young, to remember him testifying, but where these stupid glasses anyway
What means I don't mean to get all you know at hominem here, but you know, but this is the Trump air so anyway, so I impeachment next week saw Molly this week, Iraq, more IRAN, maybe over the course of the next month, have what what are democrat. What are the? What is so? What are Sanders Buddha judged clover charmed all these people's was to do to change the dynamic of the democratic race between now and it's like twenty eight day, twenty seven days or something to ILO I've been demand. Gemms advice, glad tat they can take it Try to go hearted Bernie, I suppose I'm that Dumb Biden, I suppose- but I mean what what we ve seen the dangers and that we know we know.
How we have had to have that can read down to be the attackers discredit where the hell were you, but you will you ve been saying for so long this might not really change right. Getting closer and closer to the boy were really it hasn't, it really might not. I mean that the surge time that the famous surge time in in modern presidential history was January when John Kerry surged in Iowa Howard Deem was ahead in mid December by he was it carry was at four percent and then he ended up I'll right when we're not scream I ain't was the night of Iowa, though Thou can. I came in fourth carry had the swift,
guys next to him saying you know I want to be a? U can you should be in a boat with John Kerry, like he's blah blah blah, huge news of Arabic, Santa dominated Barack Obama, both January right and they had to and they had to, they had to have a kind of relatively why it new cycle in which they could somehow pop right, we'll trumps, not in
which we now, but there had. The house has screwed the them on that by insisting on impeachment and Trump will not trump. You know can't can't take a breath without making news, maybe they can, but if all they're doing as responding to him, how did they make the case for themselves? That's my point, like you have to make a case for yourself and also sale that guy's interesting. You know I just tunnel and that that person would be club which our think, like the person you could see the radically who is the one who hasn't? Quite you know who who who is in a position to like charge ahead because she hasn't had a moment. I live with Eat a salad with her come right. We all round of all of us will have its as slight self spot. Her because she's in ass if in ways that she hasn't been given credit for, but she is,
really just. She doesn't as you are quite right. A hundred times that debates really just have not mattered, it's a may. Isn't that amazing so like if you're, if you go from here on in like we can only do just don't do debates at me, Well, there are too many rights, it's like baseball season where you know their, let you know what gets there that skip? You get skip a billion games where I know where this easy there were fewer than there were in internal sixteen and. Only fewer than there were in twenty twelve when the Republicans have like a team of them or something there should be a law against town Hall, meanings specially any hosted by CNN Slick. Oh my god, you know that I think Fox is having town homey. You see this. They would, judge, M Booker. Something are having town Hall meetings on Fox week after next, something like that anyway. So.
Issues set from nineteen. Seventeen is no way to make news, but anybody who, in the live, been hearing this from a lot of people like trumps, gonna win it's all over now those guys make it Babo blah I'd. Just keep your keep your powder dry, because that that that It may feel like that it maybe that's right, but the feeling is not reflected in it. Whatever empirical information we have now, maybe the empirical information is incorrect, misleading or their allotted shy, tories or that whatever, but you know and trend the end there, be some huge new, disastrous situation between now and then, rather that trumps gonna be fighting his way out of could be could be I'm in happened to Obama every year, as we keep said, this is the first by the
the one what's happened with IRAN is the first unexpected crisis. There follows the Obama having a crisis every summer member abundant every summer rises. So this is the first like who had is play. This is all very weird like I, you know you can't game it out. It's very strange and being up there certainly could be more anyway. So with that. We will bring this to a close for a Christian. No, I'm John Podhoretz keep the candle.
Transcript generated on 2020-02-25.