Eddie Fishman: What is Actually Happening in Iran?

[music]. >> This is one of the I think honestly. tragic lessons of recent history is, you. know, the countries that [music] have. given up nuclear weapons or that have. developed some parts of the nuclear. program but that didn't cross the. threshold have actually fared a lot. worse than the countries that have. developed nuclear weapons, right? I mean. this is. >> Damn, Eddie. >> And it's back. >> That's a crazy paradox when you think. about it. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I think there's an incentive. I. mean if you look at Gaddafi, right? I. mean the the Libyans. >> paradox when you think about it.

Everyone who didn't get a nuke. >> Look what happened to them. >> Look what happened. But you don't want them to get a nuke. but if you don't get a nuke. >> [laughter]. >> you might want to get a nuke, Eugene. It Just go on LinkedIn, man. >> [laughter]. >> This [music] is What Now with Trevor. Noah.

>> [music]. >> A little bit. >> Um. >> Like, you know. go shopping for my kids. >> You go shopping for your kids? >> In SoHo, yeah. My wife has like this. There's this like kids store there that. we like we walk through. >> You guys go together? >> Yeah. Yeah, yeah. >> Your children believe in in closed. democracy. >> My my my wife likes to dress my my kids. in fashionable New York clothes so we go. to a place in SoHo. I think it's called. Makié. m a k i e. >> And your kids choose what they like?

>> No, no, no, no, no. >> Or they don't get to choose. >> They don't GET TO CHOOSE. >> I MEANT. >> [laughter]. >> OR THEY DON'T GET TO CHOOSE. >> YEAH. But it's hilarious though. My my. kids look like very hip like, you know, Manhattan two my two-year-old and. four-year-old. >> That's so cool. >> My wife is really into that. >> She likes dressing them up like yeah, now. >> Yes, yeah. >> You know when when when wives dress kids. up, you're off the hook. >> That's true. >> Cuz she doesn't touch your fashion. anymore cuz there's too much paperwork. now cuz she has to worry about herself. first and then the kids.

>> That's actually. >> you stop being a representation of her. Remember before you were a proxy. If she. was dressed nicely and then you were. not, then she's like, "Come on, this guy. is making me look bad." Then she would. focus on dressing you up. Now she's got. two kids. >> Mhm. Here's the thing though. I That's true, but I have noticed though since we've. had kids, I just don't get any new. clothes anymore. >> Ah, I told you. >> Yeah, so I I. like all my clothes are like from like. five like It's like this this blazer I. got when I was like 25 and I've. definitely gained like a solid 15 lb, so.

>> But before she would have been like you. allow Eugene he'll end your marriage. carefully. >> [laughter]. >> Eugene will expose things that you never. wanted to know. She doesn't care. Honey, why was the. podcast? I learned everything. I now. know the truth. You don't care about me. anymore. >> [laughter]. >> Yeah, I was wondering. I was like, "Where are my my new clothes?". >> [laughter]. >> It's over. >> Yeah, the one thing she has gotten me. these really nice socks that are super. comfy that I've like cuz I've had to. dress that more of all the book talks. and stuff like that.

And um there's like a hole in one of. them and I was like, "Can I have a new. one?" cuz I loved it so much. And she. was like, "Yeah, but it's like 2 months. ago." I still haven't gotten it. And I. was like, "What's going on?" She's like, "Well, Father's Day." She's waiting to. give it to you on Father's Day. I was. like, "I need it now like, you know, I. need this sock.". >> That's amazing. >> I need the sock. >> You know what she should do? She should. give you the new socks now and then but. cut out the part that has the hole and. fill the give you the whole filling part. on Father's Day. [laughter]. Then you get new socks now but the part. you need to be filled on Father's Day. >> [laughter].

>> I thought I was the problem. >> You can Oh, we're recording. We're all. good? >> [laughter]. >> All right, let's do it. Eddie Fishman, welcome. >> Good to see you. >> Welcome to the podcast. >> Yeah. >> And welcome at the best possible time to. have you on because. I've asked around and there are a few. names that come up more when you when. you request the services of somebody who. is adept at understanding statecraft, I. believe it's called. sanctions, borders, geopolitical.

skirmishes. You worked for the State Department. That's correct, right? >> yeah. >> You were instrumental in like I guess I. guiding some of the policy around like. like the the US's sanctions between. China and Russia. So, I mean, I'm I'm. sitting next to the perfect person to. ask. And because I don't like not that I. don't trust the internet anymore. I just. don't know what to search for these. days. It's easier for me to ask an. actual expert in person. >> I thought you were going to say cuz the. internet searches for you instead. >> No, it did No, I don't know what to.

search for these days. >> You think of a dog, next thing you see. dog ads. >> You're not wrong. You're not wrong. But, everyone has the same question. So, I'm. going to ask it on behalf of many of us. What is actually happening in Iran? >> Yeah, it's a great question. Look, I started my career motivated by. trying to come up with a solution to. Iran's nuclear program that didn't. involve fighting another war in the. Middle East. That's why I I honestly joined the.

government after I graduated college. Iran was building a nuclear program, the. US was fighting a war in Afghanistan, another one in Iraq, and both of them. were going terribly. And I thought to. myself, there has to be a better way to. try to non-violently. coerce countries that are trying to do. things that we don't want them to do, like seek nuclear weapons or support. terrorist groups, to stop them from. doing that. And that had been the US. policy for a long time, right? That's. what George W. Bush wanted to do in his. second term. It's what Barack Obama did. and famously. with the Iran nuclear deal.

Look, I think Donald Trump in 2018. during his first term, he made a gamble. He He said, "If only we'd impose more. sanctions on Iran. If we put them in. more economic pain, I could get a deal. that was even better than what Obama. did, right?" And he tried that through. the so-called maximum pressure strategy, and it failed. You know, by the time he. came back uh in the second term, so you. know, last year, Iran had enough nuclear material to. build 10 bombs, which is way more than. they ever had, you know, before uh you.

know, before we actually had that deal. in 2015. And so, I think Trump was sort. of confronting with this confront-. confronting this massive failure, which. was he had tried maximum pressure to. stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. It hadn't worked. And so, he could have. theoretically tried a different. approach, maybe pivoted to something. more like what Obama did with diplomacy. >> Yeah. >> But instead of changing his goals, he. changed his means. He escalated from the. use of economic warfare through. sanctions and economic pressure to the. use of military force. And I think uh. we're now seeing why every president.

before him had been hesitant to attack. Iran. >> So, so here's here's what I hope we get. to um in this conversation. I I I think. one, I'd love us to all be able to. actually understand. what's going on not on the ground, but. like, you know, behind closed doors with. Iran and the US. >> Sure. >> Uh two, I would love for us to all. understand why you I guess sort of. shouldn't mess with Iran lightly, right? Uh three, I would like us to even. understand who sets the rules around who.

should and shouldn't have things, whether it's nuclear weapons or who. decides where borders should or. shouldn't be enforced or how you get to. enforce that, um what attack is, what. defense is, and then understanding where. America exists in the world now as it. pertains to China and Russia, who seem. like the other major state players. So, let's let's work from where we are now, right? Everything you laid out makes sense to. me, but I'm just going to ask like the. the the dumb question that that lingers. in my head, and that is.

why is America so opposed to Iran. building up. you enriched you- uranium? And and I'll. I'll I'll I'll I'll I'll say the I'll. ask the full question. >> Sure. >> Why is America so opposed to it. when Iran has constantly said we're not. trying to make a nuclear weapon, we just. want to enrich the uranium because we. have many other uses for it. We can use. it for power plants, we can use it, you. know, for our energy needs as other. countries have. So, explain explain that. part to me. >> Sure. So, look, there is this thing.

called the nuclear non-proliferation. treaty. I think it was first agreed to. in the 1960s and basically it it. regulates which countries can and can't. have certain nuclear material. >> Okay. >> And basically the bargain is there there. are a few countries that legally can. have nuclear weapons, right? The United. States, China, Russia, the UK, and. France. >> Why? >> It's, you know, basically who was the. most powerful countries after World War. II and were able to sort of make. themselves permanent members of the UN. Security Council. >> That's a great gig. We should decide, Eugene, who between us gets to own a.

gun. I'm going to vote for me. >> I was going to go more for Afro-comb. >> [laughter]. >> BUT LOOK, I MEAN. >> TO NON-PROLIFERATE. >> YEAH, I mean I do I do think there is. something, you know, there which is, you. know, at the sort of peak of the power. of these countries they sort of traded. in some of that power um in exchange to. sort of uh you know uh legitimize their. access to these these weapons. >> So, they so they made a deal with the. rest of the world or with themselves? >> And with the with the rest of the world. >> Okay, okay. >> The vast majority of countries have.

signed on to this. And and the bargain. that they make is that they will not. pursue nuclear weapons, but in exchange. they do have access to nuclear fuel, nuclear material so that they can have. nuclear power, which is by the way we. need, right? And I think in fact we we. should have more of now. It's part of. the reason that we're not making more. progress getting ourselves off of fossil. fuels cuz we we haven't built enough. nuclear power. So, Iran is a signatory. to this nuclear non-proliferation. treaty. The problem is that routinely, you know, as part of the you know, being. a signatory you're inspected by the.

International Atomic Energy Agency, routinely Iran lied about what they were. doing. They were enriching uranium to. levels that exceeded what they were. allowed to do under the nuclear. non-proliferation treaty. They're they. had done research on actually producing. nuclear weapons in the 90s. They had. former Soviet scientists by the way who. were probably. looking for a job after the collapse of. the Soviet Union. >> of them were. >> Yes, exactly. Who said, "Hey, I have. something that one really good. marketable skill and I can sell that to. Iran.". >> put my profile on LinkedIn and maybe.

somebody can hire me. You're hired. >> That's what one of them would say. >> [laughter]. >> It's like you know, looking for work on. LinkedIn. >> He has experience working [laughter]. with extremely volatile materials. We'll. not mention which one. Wink wink. >> [laughter]. >> It was a great business. I mean, it's. how North Korea also built up their. nuclear program. >> Oh, so this was so basically everyone. who is sort of persona non grata in the. geopolitical world, they got their. scientists from Russia really. >> Oh, yeah. Okay. >> It's like it's one of their main exports. pretty much. >> You guys got your scientists for NASA.

from Germany. >> Oh, yeah. The US, yeah. Exactly. Right. I mean. >> Wernher von Braun? >> Yeah. Von Braun. And then and then of. course, I mean, Einstein, you know, Oppenheimer. A lot of those guys were. Jews who ironically, you know, the Nazis. didn't like the Jews and so they went to. the US and then they built nuclear. weapons. I mean, it's one of the all-time great, you know, sort of ironies of history, right? That the the Nazis picked on the. Jews. The Jews went to the US, built. nuclear weapons and then won World War. II. >> It feels like a perfect parable in a. way. >> Yeah. >> It's almost like people. in trying to destroy someone, they then.

create their own end, you know, do you. know what I'm saying? They go like, "We. have to stop them, but they're not doing. anything." And then they go on to like. help the other people who then destroy. you basically and your empire. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. >> Hubris, man. I mean, it's as old as the. Greek myths and it still plays out like. this in the modern day. >> like a Greek tragedy, yeah, in many. ways, yeah. >> So look, Iran did cheat and they did do. a lot of things that suggested they. really wanted a nuclear weapon. And just. to address one important thing is you're. saying, "Why does the US not like what. Iran is doing?". The UN, so the the entire UN Security.

Council on multiple times voted to. condemn Iran and saying that Iran did. have to stop enriching uranium because. the whole international community was. worried about what Iran was doing. And. so, that's also I guess one of the ironies. of Trump's approach is that lead leading. up to the 2015 nuclear deal that Obama. and and a number of the other world. powers signed with Iran, international law was on the US's side, right? The the international law which. is what the UN provides said that Iran.

should stop enriching uranium. Well, at this point, you know, the US has been the one that. unilaterally pulled out of this deal in. 2015, that imposed sanctions re-imposed. sanctions on Iran unilaterally, that now. has attacked Iran twice in as many years. without any international authorization. So, in some ways for for a long period. of time the US was sort of on the right. side of international law, but after. Trump pulled out of the 20 15 nuclear. deal which he did in 2018, we've sort of. been on the wrong side of international.

law. >> So, correct me if I'm wrong on this. because I've never worked in the State. Department nor do I have any. qualifications. I've always felt like America just does. what it wants and then sometimes it's on. the right side of international law and. then some but it's not like America's. trying to be on a side. America's just. like, "Listen here, buddy. This is what. I'm doing and if it's on or not on your. side of law, then that's your problem.". But it seems like every time. the UN, you know, like like if we think. of it like weapons of mass destruction, totally. You know, Saddam Hussein, all. of that. America went against the UN,

right? But America just did its thing. and then when something else is. happening, America will do its thing. that but it happens to be on the other. side of the law. So, am I misunderstanding this or is America. just doing what it wants to do and then. sometimes it's for the law and sometimes. it's against international law? >> I think probably in broad brush strokes. you're you're right. Although different. presidents I think take this to, you. know, further than others. And I will. say, look, when I was in the US. government in the Obama administration, one of the things I did was I went to. other countries, Singapore, Malaysia,

Indonesia, >> and sabotage their countries. Say it. >> Exactly. Yeah. >> [laughter]. >> You know, you you we need more people. like you in the world, you Jean. You. have goodness in your heart. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, you're right. And. ate noodles. >> Yeah. >> No, no, I'm joking. You didn't sabotage. their person. Yeah. [laughter]. >> Um yeah, so basically what what we would. do and this was when we were putting. pressure on Iran uh in the early 2010s, >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. >> um if you keep buying oil from Iran, you. know, you a Singaporean.

>> Okay. >> uh company, we will cut you off from the. US dollar. We will use this key choke. point in the global economy, which is. the US dollar, >> Mhm. >> critical for all international business. And so, it was I mean, we I I didn't use. quite the accent that you just used uh. Trevor. Although, I probably should. have. It would have made me more. credible. Um and we did sort of give. these folks sort of binary choices, which was like, "Look, if you don't stop. buying oil from Iran, you're going to. lose access to the world's most. important currency, the US dollar.". What I will say though is when you. deliver that message to a foreign.

businessman or diplomat, like it doesn't. usually go over well. They're like, "What the hell are you doing here. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. >> And so, [clears throat] what helped us. in those days was to say, "Look, I'm just here because the UN, including. your own country, has said that Iran. shouldn't have a nuclear weapon. And. guess what? Their oil sales are directly. funding their nuclear program. So, I'm. just here to help you comply with your. international obligations." And that may. sound like, you know, glib or something. like that, but it actually worked. And. it made this it made it much more likely.

for the person on the other side of the. table to be like, "Look, we are being. pressured by the US, but but truly like. this is accurate." Um it's a lot. different if I just said that like, "Look, the whole international community. disagrees with me. >> Yeah. >> We shouldn't be doing this. >> Yeah. >> But still, um you should stop doing. business with Iran cuz I told you so.". Which is by the way, that has been what. Trump has tried to do uh with a lot of. different countries in recent years. saying like, "If you don't do X or Y, I'm just going to wallop your economy. with tariffs or sanctions." But and. there's no sort of legitimization that. helps it go down easier, which also.

means um not only is it is it like a a. more awkward conversation, but like from. a very practical like self-interested. perspective, that person on the other. side of the table is way less likely to. do what you want them to do. >> I mean, it's. the same in in in like human relations, right? You try to. you know, persuade uh your kid to do. something that they don't want to do, um. they're much more likely to go along. with it if they think that it's just. Uh. you're you're you're on the side of. justice, but. >> That's true. >> Where you kick them [laughter] out. >> That's my petrodollar.

It's to threaten them with homelessness. >> [laughter]. >> So you can do what daddy says, no? Or. They grab me, "Listen here, buddy.". >> [laughter]. >> Yeah, you got to use that accent. It. works It's much more effective than you. >> It really It really works well. Okay, so. okay, so this this this is providing a. lot of clarity. So you you had a world. where Iran. Am [clears throat] I correct in assuming. people don't want Iran to have a nuclear. weapon because it it gives them more. power or it's not because they think. they'll use it, right?

>> It's a great I mean, I'm glad you. brought this up, cuz there's really two. perspectives on this. I think like the. the less common perspective, although. some people have it, is that you know, the Islamic Republic of Iran, like they. are literally this messianic regime in. which they are so committed to wiping. Israel off the face of the earth that. even if it means that they would destroy. themselves um you know, in the process. that they would go ahead and use that. nuclear weapon. I'd say that's a. minority opinion. >> Okay. >> The the more credible opinion amongst. sort of national security experts um is.

that Iran is the world's largest uh. state sponsor of terrorism. So groups. like Hezbollah and Hamas that have. killed lots of innocent people around. the world, including Americans, are on. the payroll of Iran. Iran has basically. trained and created a lot of these. groups. And so even if Iran wouldn't use. a nuclear weapon itself, what happens if. it gave some highly enriched uranium to. Hezbollah? And Hezbollah said. >> Then okay, so that's the cause that's. the real cause of concern. >> Yes. It is. nuclear to I mean it's it's weird. I.

mean I don't know if you guys. were in New York in like the 2000s. But. when when this when this issue really. came up, it was like mid-2000s, like. 2005, 2006, 2007. And the big fear then. was that we would have a nuclear 9/11. That the next terrorist group wouldn't. just fly a plane into the World Trade. Center. Like they would have like a a. bomb laced with enriched uranium. Um. and it was a legitimate fear, right? Because Iran was hyper-charging its. nuclear program and supporting these.

terrorist groups. >> Well, this this is Okay, this is an. interesting question that I have. actually then is. >> [clears throat]. >> I like your phrasing. Was it a. legitimate concern or was it a. legitimate fear? Cuz sometimes a fear. can be legitimate because you have a. fear and I can say that is a legitimate. fear. >> Mhm. >> But was the concern actually like. legitimate as in. was this based on something that could. happen or was it based on the idea that. something could happen? >> Yeah. >> Which I know seems like semantics, but. but do you understand what I'm saying? Sometimes people are afraid of.

something. Okay, here's an example. In America, people are terrified that. their kids are going to get kidnapped. >> Yeah. >> It just became a campaign in the United. States at some point. Kids were going. missing. They were on milk cartons. But. as a percentage of the population. >> Never understood that milk carton thing, but anyway. >> Yeah, but yeah, as a percentage of the. population it was huge, right? I mean it. was small, it was tiny. It was. insignificant. Not to the parents of. those children and not to their. communities. But in terms of how it made people feel. they started writing laws that said your.

kid could not go unattended at a park. They couldn't like walk home. If your. child is found like by themselves, they'll take the child sometimes away. from the parents. But they created such. a mass hysteria. that now they've undermined the very. existence of childhood in my opinion, right? >> And the freedoms of it. >> The fear was real. >> Mhm. >> But the thing that the fear was based on. wasn't necessarily as real as people. thought it was. So, in that was was it a. real issue or was the fear the thing.

that people were focusing on? >> Yeah. I mean, I think it was a a real. issue just given the stakes, right? Um. and given that 9/11 did happen, right? >> It just happened, like okay. >> So, we had just experienced a terror a. massive I mean, coordinated terrorist. attack, you know, four planes that were. >> Not shook the world, yeah. >> Yeah, right. So, I do think it was. legitimate. Um and this is one thing. that I'm conflicted about. It's also why. I think um on honestly evaluating. foreign policy is so difficult. Is that. you don't know the counterfactual,

right? You don't know like, well, what. what would have happened if we had not. done, right? And so, like if you look at. the track record of US policy since. 9/11, I would say most people, including. myself, would say we like over we. exaggerated the impact like how big of a. threat terrorism was. We like were. scarred by 9/11. It did take away a lot. of our freedoms. You know, I remember as. a kid you know, the first time I flew. alone, my mom and dad taking me through. security and like dropping me off to off. of the gate. And so, like we have lost a. lot of our of our freedoms. Um at the.

same time, we have not had another 9/11. scale terrorist attack in the United. States. And so, it's it's I'm just I'm. just being honest. Like I'm genuinely. conflicted on this cuz it's like is this. because of government policy? And if you. look at Europe, for instance, like there. have been these massive terrorist. attacks, right? I mean, if you remember. in the 2010s in Paris, the Bataclan and. yeah, and the Charlie Hebdo and and. there were once in Brussels, you know, so um yeah. >> Yeah, it it it really becomes difficult. because on the one hand, you want to.

live in a world where. you don't allow isolated incidents to. define how you live your daily life. >> Right. >> But on the other hand, you can't ignore. them as if they never happened. >> Mhm. >> Do you Do you know what I mean? So, it's. like you're in this weird place of like. how how much do you preemptively act and. how much do you not and how much So, it. feels like America's in this place where. it's going, we do not want to get to the. place where we have to think about. preemptively acting or not acting when. it comes to uranium or nuclear weapons. with Iran. >> That's right. >> That's That's That's essentially where. it is. Just as a as a side note, does North.

Korea have nuclear weapons? >> Yeah, they've got a full suite of. nuclear weapons. >> Oh, okay, but this is interesting. So, if they have nuclear weapons, what are they doing with them? >> Yeah, I mean, they So far, they've not. used them, right? Thankfully. I think that they feel like they have a. sense of impunity. So, there's a fear. that they could launch some sort of. preemptive attack on South Korea. I know. South Koreans are generally worried. about that. >> All the time. >> All the time. I don't know if you guys. have been there recently, but it's a,

you know, Seoul is within, you know, within range. of a lot of the artillery and whatnot. from from North Korea. So, so far, the. answer is they haven't used them, but. there is a fear that it could embolden. North Korea over time to act. aggressively. So, I think that's the. other the other part that's maybe a. little bit more nuanced is even if an. Iran or North Korea isn't going to use. nuclear weapons, do they feel that by. virtue of having nuclear weapons that. they can actually push the envelope a. lot more below the use of nuclear.

weapons? >> Right. Right. So, >> maybe North Korea wouldn't use a nuke. against South Korea, but would they feel. emboldened to attack South Korea? >> Because they have a nuke. >> Because they have a nuke. >> Right. And And like this is one of the I. think, honestly, tragic lessons of. recent history is, you know, the. countries that have given up nuclear. weapons or that have developed some. parts of the nuclear program, but then. didn't cross the threshold, have. actually fared a lot worse than the. countries that have developed nuclear. weapons, right? I mean, this is. >> Damn, Eddie. >> It's bad. >> crazy paradox when you think about it. >> Mhm. >> Yeah. I I there's an incentive. I mean,

if you look at Gaddafi, right? I mean, the the Libyans. >> paradox when you think about it. Yeah. >> Everyone who didn't get a nuke. >> Look what happened to them. >> Look what happened. But you don't want them to get a nuke, but if you don't get a nuke. >> [laughter]. >> You might want to get a nuke, Eugene. It It's going to lengthen, man. >> [laughter]. >> Yeah, but you see. this is what this is So this is what. this is what I love about No, but but. but Eddie, this is what I like about. your your brain and the way you and the. way you think and the way you write and. the way you. >> [laughter].

>> I can't believe you did that. That was funny. >> No, you So I think what I've what I've. always enjoyed about your work is that. you grapple, yeah, right? Grappling is is is necessary whenever. whenever it comes to issues of state or. anything large because it's not simple. We want to act like it's simple, but. it's really not simple because what you. just said is the ultimate paradox. We would Many people would argue. that we don't want other countries to. have nuclear weapons, let's say, right? We don't want more nuclear weapons out.

there. But we also cannot deny all the. countries that have the nuclear weapons. >> Mhm. Seem like they're living a more. chilled life. >> You know, if you have the nuke yeah, versus if you don't. And then the ones. who have it aren't also aren't using it. So if you're working in the State. Department and you're looking at this. information. at what point does the paradigm shift or. does it ever shift? Like do you have to. game these things out and ask yourself. if the idea you're working from is. correct or incorrect? >> Yeah. It's a good I mean, it's a fair.

question and there are I mean, it's an. extremely um heretical opinion. There. are some scholars who believe that. nuclear proliferation isn't actually as. bad of a thing because. um it creates more stability, right? I. mean, we we used to in the US talk about. trying to do regime change in North. Korea. We don't really talk about that. anymore, right? I mean, there there's a. reason Iran was attacked, but North. Korea wasn't, right? Um and so. I think my own view on that is that. nuclear proliferation is very dangerous. I mean, if you look even at the history.

of nuclear incidents when there's only a. very small handful of countries that. have nuclear weapons, we've come very. close to accidental nuclear war on a. number of occasions. Oh, yeah. >> When? >> In the '80s. You know, I think even in the '90s. during the Clinton administration, there. was. it was actually after the end of the the. Soviet Union. I think it was. Russia during the Yeltsin period. Their. their radars picked up that there was a. >> If you have them coming over the North. Pole. >> Right. >> Right? >> And I think thank he thankfully Yeltsin. was like, this doesn't make any sense.

>> No, it wasn't Yeltsin, actually. >> It was crazy. >> No, it wasn't anyone in leadership. >> Who was it? >> one man. who was tasked with doing the thing. >> Or President button. >> Yo, the the the story went This is like. one of my favorite stories cuz I. remember watching this and me like, wait, what happened? They saw the ICBM coming. I think it was. like over the North Pole somewhere. They. were like, yes, yes, yes. It's coming. for Russia. Top chain of command all goes, it's. coming in. The bomb is coming in. What. do we do? What do we do? Counter strike? What do we They agree, we are striking.

back. We are striking back. We are. striking back. You know, everyone has to. now send codes. Send codes. All the codes. Get your keys. >> ONE, TWO, AH, YOU GOT IT WRONG. ONE, TWO, AH, ON THREE. >> NO, WAIT, ARE YOU GOING TO SAY THREE AND. then we do it? >> One, two, ah. >> No way. Okay, okay. Say three then. Why not say four then? Why not say one. or four? >> One, two, three, four. >> Yeah, now we got it. You see, I don't. know why they do that. So, anyway, [laughter]. so what what happened then was the chain. of command brings it down. It gets down.

to one man. who's in his bunker and the job is to. launch. And then he went, this doesn't make sense. He just of his. own volition went. He is like, it doesn't make sense. >> You went rogue under the. >> The guy said it doesn't make sense. >> an order. >> My man, the biggest order. >> To launch. >> The biggest order. And I I forget what. his reasoning was. It was something. along the lines of him not understanding. why there was only one or why they were. launching the way they were. He just was. like, "It doesn't make sense.". >> is not right. >> And then he didn't launch.

And then after the point when it would. have been too late, they realized it was a a satellite or. malfunction or something was causing the. reading. >> And it It was not an incoming. >> It wasn't There was no bomb coming in at. all. And then they phoned him back and. they're like, "Ah!" And he's like, "I didn't launch.". And then they were stuck because now. they had to choose between punishing him. or for disobeying instructions. or applaud him for. saving the world, arguably. He saved the.

world. >> Yes, he did. >> Yeah. Give that guy the Nobel Nobel. Peace Prize. >> He should get it. >> Absolutely. >> He should, but then they they didn't. punish him to the full extent. >> for disobeying an order, obviously. >> Yeah, but they just They disappeared. him. And he's like a He's like a folk. hero in Russia, but they just. disappeared him. But not like to a. gulag. He just They were like, "You just. go away. Thank you, but go away.". >> Wow. Like a witness protection program. >> Yeah, in a way. In a way. >> That's wild. >> But I didn't know there was like. multiple times. >> Oh, yeah. But I mean, to to to like that. whole story, like imagine And that's.

only when you have two countries that. have large nuclear arsenals. By the way, China now is in the process of making. that three countries. But then, imagine. if that was 10 countries or 20, right? I. mean, the just uh the the risk goes up. exponentially the more players you have. in this in this really awful game. >> When did the world ever become scared of. the damage that a nuclear bomb can do? Was it Hiroshima? Where people Do you think Hiroshima's. actually a demonstration. >> Oh, yeah. >> of what these weapons can be? You think.

it was necessary for it to happen for. people to go, "These things are real"? Because. I think had that not happened, we would. think maybe this is not real. >> I'm I'm with you, by the way. And I. think this is another sort of broad. lesson of statecraft. As I was. mentioning, one is sort of. counterfactuals are important, and you. have to ask yourself, like honestly, like what would have happened had we not. done X, right? Another one is you know, unfortunately, for weapons to be taken. seriously, oftentimes they have to be. used. Um you make the um example of.

Hiroshima uh and Nagasaki, which for. sure, I mean, you would not I mean, I. don't think anyone believed uh the power. [snorts] of these weapons. They were you. know, there's a very closely guarded US. national secret before uh these attacks. I think this is actually relevant for. today, too, because you know, the Strait. of Hormuz, right? Um even going back to. when I was uh in government, whenever. you would sort of war game what happens. uh with a war against uh Iran, you'd be. worried that they would close the Strait. of Hormuz. Wouldn't this be so bad for. >> That was in the war games. >> Oh, for sure. I mean, cuz it's like the.

key. maritime choke point. >> Okay, so it's so it's the most logical. thing that they would do. >> Yes. Although, I think one of the uh. suppositions that um military planners. strategists had for many years was that. for Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz, they would have to use these sea mines, right? They're sort of like floating. mines that just blow up if if you hit. them. They've got thousands of them. And the the sort of the like sort of the. logic was, well, sea mines don't. discriminate if you're a tanker carrying.

Saudi oil versus Iranian oil. >> the land mines in Mozambique, yeah. >> Right. Yeah, they don't discriminate. And so, this would be just as bad for. Iran as it would be for all the other. countries in the Gulf um because Iran. also depends on the Strait of Hormuz to. sell its own oil. So, everyone was like, well, maybe they wouldn't do this. because it would be like economically. suicidal for them. >> yeah. >> But what they did in, you know, February. and March of this year, um after the US. and Israel struck Iran, they didn't use. sea mines. They just used these drones. and missiles that cost like 20, 30,000.

dollars a pop. They struck like a dozen. or so ships, not even that many. And and. just uh for scale, uh before the war, you had like 150 ships going through the. strait on a daily basis. All they struck. was like a dozen ships. And that was. enough then to get like the crews of. these ships to be like, "Hell no, I'm. not sailing through that straight, right?" And this is like at a cost of. like less than a couple hundred thousand. dollars if you add it up. And so, what. they did was they completely confounded. expectations. They showed that they. could close the straight A at very low. cost, and B in a selective manner, right? No matter where they could sell.

their oil. They could say like, "Your. oil is good, your oil is bad, like your. ship isn't going through, but like we're. going to sell all of our oil." That was. the surprise. But now that the world has. seen that, that is like a killer killer. economic weapon, and like you can't. unsee it, right? That's just like a fact. from here on out. >> And And you know what also it exposed? The average person, like myself, did not. understand how oil gets from one place. to another in a steady stream. So, when the Strait of Hormuz was. closed, cuz in my head I imagined this.

Oil gets drilled, refined, gets taken. into a tanker, and the tanker makes its. way, and then when the tanker reaches. outside they're like, "Oh, we've got. more that are coming." Then they send. another one. But actually they go out. in almost like a straight line like. this. Then it becomes a pipeline but of. ships. >> Oh, wow. >> So, if the straight closes, it doesn't. mean the oil does not reach It like it. could take months before a country gets. affected because now all of a sudden the. the convoy, the caravan as it were, gets disrupted. >> So, we only That's why we only notice. that it's delayed. The impact is delayed.

because the last ships already left and. are on their way. >> So, just to give him his props, Stanislav Petrov. >> Aw. >> We should We should have a a world. >> Stanislav [laughter]. >> Stanislav Petrov day. >> We'll have soup and. >> Yeah, he was a he was a Russian. lieutenant, uh passed away in 2017, I. believe. But this man was literally. >> No way. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. He was He was the one. >> Wow. >> He was a full-on. uh He was the commander of the of the. Soviet military protocol. Oh, no, he he.

disobeyed the orders. >> Yeah. >> against Soviet military protocol. And. this was shortly after there'd been an. attack on a plane, I guess, but he. suspected a false alarm, decided to wait. for confirmation that never came. That never came. >> Wow. >> And. >> I. I I I I. >> me Yuri Gagarin. He's [laughter] He's up. there now because he saved lives. He. didn't go up a rocket and go hang out in. space. >> So, basically, what he did was just Just. everyone has the full story and. correctly. What he actually did was he. got the message from the nuclear guys to.

be like, "Yo, the nukes coming in. We've. got to We've got to fight." And then he. just didn't tell his superiors cuz he's. like, "If they know, we're going to. war.". >> Oh, wow. >> That's actually what he did. And then he said, "No.". >> That's amazing. >> Yeah. >> That's a hero. What's his name? Petrov? >> Yeah. That's That's That's the person we we. mostly owe you There might not be life. on Earth if it weren't for this guy. Stanislav Petrov. >> But is that the. >> Un- Unspoken heroes. >> Yeah, until today. Huh? Cuz you just. spoke him. >> Stanislav Petrov. We're going to say his.

name all the time. >> ruined his cover in my army. NOW I'M. GOING AH! >> [laughter]. >> AND THEN YOU GOT SCREWED. >> [laughter]. >> THIS DOMINO EFFECT OR IS IT JUST a myth? Eddie, that if one country launches, another one launches, another one will. launch, another one launch, and there. won't be life on Earth. >> Um yeah, I mean, I I think that it's. more relevant in terms of like the US. and Russia just cuz we have these. massive arsenals that there's this. concern that once if the if Russia were.

to think that there were incoming. nuclear ICBMs. if they didn't strike back before those. ICBMs landed. >> Ballistic Missile, right? Okay. >> Yeah, so these are missiles that, you. know, within 15-20 minutes can go from. the US to a target in Russia. >> As we called them in South Africa, express missiles, not local or station. missiles. These are long-distance. missiles. For New Yorkers, it's also the. same thing on the subway. >> It's express line. >> Yeah, there's express [laughter]. missiles and then there's one-stop. missiles.

>> Yeah. I mean, I I think the concern is. that if you didn't strike back and it. was a big enough strike, it could wipe. out your ability to retaliate. And so, um yeah. I mean, there the other the. whole thing is confounded now, too, because you also have nuclear. submarines. So, you've got these guys on. uh on subs that theoretically, even if. your entire country was destroyed, they. could fire back. >> just circling the globe, right? They're. like hiding from each other. It's a game. of hide-and-seek. There's nuclear. submarines everywhere in the world all. the time. Just hiding, waiting to get a call to. shoot a nuke.

>> That's another propaganda myth that. keeps going around that nuclear. submarines you think they're just. nuclear powered submarines patrolling. But, they're actually nuclear bombs. >> Well, they're both. There's some of them. Yeah, you have to say that. >> Some nukes, Eugene, not all. This guy. hashtag all nukes. Eh, eh, some nukes, Eugene. >> Some nukes are better than others. >> Eugene is a nuke hater, Eugene. >> [laughter]. >> But, this this Okay, this to me feels. like a It just feels precarious. It. feels like we're living in a world.

where we are one madman or one wrong. decision away. from everyone being embroiled in a. nuclear apocalypse or in a war that. didn't even need to start. >> Yeah. I mean, I think that's that is. reality. Um. and I think maybe just another point I. mean, one of one of the things that's. often guided my own. decisions in life, like what to do, is. trying to demystify things, you know? What are What are you know, topics or uh. you know, industries that I think are. interesting that I want to learn about.

And I was when I was in college, I. really wanted to demystify like how. national security decisions are made. Part of the reason I went into. government, too. And like, I will say to. the majority of people who haven't sat. in the situation room to see how these. decisions are made. Even in an. administration where I really respected. the leadership in the Obama. administration, it was highly. professional. Like, these are human. beings, right? Like, they have good. days, they have bad days. Um Um, tired. They get sick. You know, like people. like They it's um.

It's not for the faint of heart. I think. maybe that when you start realizing like. the the the amount that can go wrong and. in some ways it's a miracle that more. doesn't go wrong. Yeah. >> We'll be right back after this short. break. >> [music]. [music]. >> Just talk a little bit about the choke. points of it all. You know, you famously. wrote about choke points and [music]. I think it was one of the most in-depth. looks at.

how you can run the world with a new. type of weapon. For a long time people thought the best. weapon to win a war with was one that, you know, made someone bleed. And then. over time people started realizing no, the real weapon you want to use is one. that bleeds their wallets. You know? The US seems like it's it's in that. place or it has been in that place for a. long time. And. now we're starting to see either the. cracks of that system.

or the beginning of a new system on on. America's side. Let Let's break it down into two parts. One, what do people misunderstand about the. petrodollar? Cuz a lot of people talk. about the petrodollar now. Everyone's. like, "Oh, the petrodollar, the. petrodollar and Iran and China's buying. oil using the yuan." What do you think. people misunderstand about the. petrodollar? >> So, the petrodollar is just sort of one. part of the broader dollar system. I. mean, it's an important part because if. you just think about what a currency is, right? It's used for payments, it's used.

for prices, so we call it unit of. account. Like if I'm going to sell you. something, what price am I going to do. it in? And it's also used for. investments, right? When you think about. payments, uh, you know, something like 15% of. global trade is just oil. It's by far. the most traded good in the world. I. mean, just come out and the most traded. thing. Right, yeah. Um, I mean, it's. it's wild when you about the scale. The. fact that, you know, the most traded. good in the world is priced in dollars. and largely paid for in dollars means. that there's more demand for dollars.

around the world. Um, it's not the only. factor about why the dollar is such an. important currency. I mean, I think. arguably now just as important is the. fact that, you know, our stock market in. the US is something like 80% of global. equity market capitalization. So, if you. add up all the stock markets of the. world, like US. >> The US is 80%? >> Yeah. >> I mean, [clears throat] you've got, you. know, a couple companies in the US that. are bigger than most other. countries' stock markets. >> big, though. >> Yeah. Um, so, I mean, and our bond.

market's the biggest. So, generally, if. you no matter where you are in the. world, if you're generating wealth, uh, if you're a country or if you're an. individual, if you're a company, you're. you're generally investing it in the US. >> yeah. >> But but look, what this all boils down to is that when. money crosses borders, and that the sort. of the best metric we have for that is. what's called foreign exchange. transactions. It's when you take one. currency and exchange it for another. By. far the biggest sort of market of them. all, $7 trillion a day just gets swapped. in foreign exchange markets. 90% of those transactions have the.

dollar on one side of the or the other. >> No way. >> So, like I mean, you know, basically. trying to travel the world without or. trying to do business across borders. without access to the dollar is like. trying to travel without a passport. You. just can't do it, you know? So, um, the issue with the petrodollar would be, well, if China successfully. takes this 15% of the trade that happens. in the world and changes it from the. dollar to the RMB, yeah, that could be. sort of the first crack in this overall.

edifice that underpins the dollar. The dollar's central role in the global. economy is absolutely imperative for our. way of life in in the United States. Um, we run these giant budget deficits every. single year, um, because we can just. borrow money, uh, overseas, and that's. because there's basically infinite. demand for uh, US treasuries our. government debt. But then to your point. Trevor when it comes to economic warfare. which by the way has become the central. way that countries compete with each. other today. Unlike nuclear weapons you.

actually can use economic weapons. The key economic weapon that the United. States has is the dollar. >> So they'll cut you off from the dollar. that So so then explain to me why why. the US didn't use that for Iran like. I don't understand why the US didn't cut. Iran off or were they not able to cut. Iran off or cuz cuz what's happening. right now it seems messy. >> Yeah. >> And the whole world is paying for it. everywhere from South Africa through to. you know Australia. People are paying. more for their petrol. People are going.

to pay more for their gas. They're. paying more for their. the average goods. It's happening in. America as well. You're seeing gas I. mean some places is crazy as $9, $6. generally. Like it feels like it's. messy. When you run those those games that I'm. I'm I'm I'm I'm assuming not all of them. are like war games. >> Yeah. >> Are there other scenarios that the US. could have pursued? >> Look I mean we did pursue economic. warfare against Iran. That was the. strategy that originated in the second. term of George W. Bush. It was actually kind of interesting. His.

under secretary of the treasury for. terrorism and financial intelligence the. guy who oversaw all the sanctions. programs. He had heard Bush make this. comment where Bush was like sanctions. have no utility against Iran. They're. never going to work. >> Okay. >> sort of took that as a personal. challenge and one day he was actually. sitting in a hotel in Bahrain flipping. through the Financial Times when he came. across an article about a Swiss bank. that had cut ties with Iran of its own. volition. And kind of a light bulb went off with. him whenever he was like hold on a. second like maybe I don't need to.

persuade other governments to shun Iran. I could literally just go to bankers. >> Institutions yeah. >> Yeah bankers in London or Singapore or. Frankfurt or wherever and persuade them. not to to business with Iran of their. own volition and if they don't agree, you know, I could threaten to cut them. off from the US dollar. This was a. strategy that the US started in the. second Bush administration in 2006. This. guy, Stuart Levey, was reappointed by. Obama, sort of quaint in 2026 America. that a Republican would stay on into a. Democratic administration. Yeah, exactly. And and he pursued that.

strategy, handed it off to his. successors in the Obama administration, and that was the key to getting the Iran. nuclear deal, right? It was putting Iran. under financial and economic pressure. that then got them to the table to the. for the 2015 deal. And, you know, I think Trump. didn't It wasn't that he thought that. the economic pressure wasn't working. It. was that he thought if he only put more. pressure on Iran, he would get an even. better deal. >> Right. >> Didn't work. And so, he tried he tried. to use military force instead. I think. the irony of the current situation, though, is that what Iran is doing.

is they're basically taking a leaf from. the US playbook. They're saying, "Well, hold on. The US has used its key choke. point, which is the dollar, to try to. pressure us. And so, the way for us to. fight back is to say, 'Well, what what. choke point do we have?' We have the. Strait of Hormuz, the most important. energy choke point in the world, 20% of. global oil flow through this narrow. waterway every day.". >> oil. We're not even talking about. sulfur. >> Yeah. >> Helium. >> Yeah, all the things that you need to. grow crops around the world. We're. talking about. Yeah, fertilizers and. I mean,

they really they're Are they in a more. powerful position than the world. thought? >> Much more. Yeah. I mean, I think that's. one of the like what what what we're. seeing right now coming out of the war. is that Iran may emerge from this war. decimated militarily and economically, but strengthened strategically. Because. they've shown the world that they can. use this choke point to incredible. effect. And something I, you know, it used to be that the US could, you. know, like I said, I used to go to. places like Singapore and Japan, and you. said, "Well, look, if you keep doing.

business with Iran, we'll cut you off. from the dollar." Well, now what happens. if Iran says to the Japanese, "Well, if. you unless you lift your sanctions on. us, we won't allow your ships to go. through the Strait of Hormuz. That's. what they're doing. I mean, they're. cutting deals on a bilateral basis like. with other countries saying, "Your ship. can go through, your ship can't. You. have to pay me in gold." You know, yeah, totally. So, I mean, um I think what. we've seen cuz you're asking like what's. the what era is happening. I mean, I the. whole thesis of my book Chokepoints is. that we're living in an age of economic.

warfare. I think for the first 15 or so. years or 20 years of that period, we. were kind of in this unipolar world. where it was like the US had all these. economic weapons, but other countries. didn't. Well, now we have China with. rare earth elements where they. completely uh shocked the United States. last year by cutting off our access. And. we have Iran with the Strait of Hormuz. >> need those for everything, phones, computers, cars, everything, right? >> I mean, they literally they imposed an. embargo on rare earth elements in April. of last year on the US. And within.

weeks, Ford had to shut down its factory. that makes the Explorer SUV. They just. didn't have enough of these minerals. >> Within weeks. Literally, the factory. closed. And so, I mean, other countries have chokepoints, too. We're in an economic arms race right now. where every country in the world is. saying, "Well, what are the chokepoints. that we have that we could use against. our rivals? And then what are the. chokepoints that our rivals have over us. that make us vulnerable?" That is what's. happening right now. >> Okay, now. at the risk of sou- sounding like the. Joker,

why can't we all just get along? I don't. understand why we. >> I was hoping you don't say "Why so. serious?". >> [laughter]. >> I was like, "What? This is a serious. issue, eh?". We've used words like embargo. >> No, we haven't, but I'm saying okay, so. so hear me out. Hear me out on this. Hear me out on this. Hear me out on. this. This could be a very naive perspective. and a very naive point of view, but it. seems like we live in a world where. there is for the most part mutually. assured destruction now. You cannot just.

blow everything up everywhere. I mean, even looking at Russia and Ukraine. For all intents and purposes, Russia. could blow up Ukraine, right? >> I mean, they could use a nuclear weapon. >> That's what I mean. So, they have nukes, they're not using the nukes. They could. also blow up all of Ukraine, technically. >> Yeah. >> They have the capability, but they do not do it. Do you know why they do not do it? >> I think it would be the fastest way to. unify the entire world against them. >> Okay. >> And also, I mean, they're close enough I.

mean, with nuclear weapons, too. It's. like they're It's like if you nuke New. Jersey, I think New York is going to get. the nuclear fallout. >> Okay, so they're close enough, so. >> Oh, yeah. I mean, they're right next. door. um to Ukraine, so. >> Right. So, so they So, then they sort of. can't use the nukes on Ukraine, and they. also can't blow up all of Ukraine. because then people will come for them. And then the world also can't blow up. Russia because I guess the world just. doesn't do that. It feels like. I don't know. I don't know why. It feels. like. there's a lot of unnecessary posturing.

going on. And things being blown up for no reason. or. maybe the wrong reasons. >> Definitely the wrong reasons. >> Yeah. Yeah, and I don't understand why. >> Sorry. >> No, no, no. Go. >> I think it is necessary because if you. look at the countries that have nuclear. weapons, they have strong men that. really get challenged during elections. >> Okay. >> So, if you have a person that says, "I'm. the only person who can control this guy. this guy dog. I'm the one it listens to. I'm the one who feeds it." Do you really. really really every 4 years want change.

the person who's in charge of that guy. dog? America, if you look at all of the. countries that have nuclear weapons, is. the only country that does that. And it. just looks like the guy who's. controlling the guy dog is going, "Do. you think this is a good idea of. changing me every 4 years?". I think that's why he was able to make a. comeback, right? >> You've actually You've actually You've. actually made me realize. Maybe America should just elect its. nuclear president separately. >> Exactly. >> You should be like a Supreme Court. thing, maybe for like 10, 15 years. You. just have one new nu- nuclear nuclear. president. >> NBA commissioner, yeah.

>> [laughter]. >> You have nuclear president and you have. president president. >> You can have like a reality TV star as. president and then just like an. extremely boring water as like a nuclear. >> You have like a Jerome Powell but of. nuclear [laughter] weapons. >> It's not a bad idea. >> You got like you are just in charge of. nukes. That's all you do. >> [laughter]. >> The war can people can fight the war but. I'm the president of nukes. >> Yeah, because is there a country that. has nuclear weapons that has had free. and fair democratic elections running. over four years all the time? >> Germany. >> UK and France have them. >> Do they have many not have nukes? >> No, Germany does not have them. >> Ah, of course. How could I forget?

>> France have nukes. >> Yeah. And India has them. India has. nukes. Yeah, India illegally has nukes. They're. not part of the NPT. >> I don't see Modi going Narendra Modi. going anywhere anytime soon. [laughter]. >> No, he's he's. seems like he's in there. >> So, let's count all the countries. Do. this for me. >> Yeah, who does have nukes? USA? >> And then out of all of them, show us. which ones are. most likely to be out of power or just. came into power. >> So, there are five according to this. treaty we talked about, the nuclear. non-proliferation treaty. There are five. countries that can have nukes. >> Okay, so the can have.

>> US, Russia, China, France, UK. >> Okay. >> There are a few countries that have. nukes. They developed them outside of. the bounds of international law. So, technically illegal nuclear programs. >> Okay, got it. >> India, Pakistan, Israel, North Korea. >> Huh. Okay, so. >> Interesting come Wait, wait, wait, wait. But before you go on. I want to know about these countries who. are illegally developing nukes. Can you. explain this to me? Like how did that. happen? I mean. >> A lot of countries have sought to. illegally develop nukes including Iran. >> Right. >> The question is how have they been able.

to be stopped? >> Yeah, but. you've you've confused me here. Eddie, forgive me. Forgive me. You know, I I. play video games and I tell jokes. So, Eddie, you've you've thrown my brain. You've thrown. >> [laughter]. >> Who is that about? What's his name? Petrov or something? >> Yeah. >> Who's that little about. >> Dennis Love. >> Dennis Love. >> Dennis Love. >> So, [laughter] so. >> Dennis Love Petrov. >> So, so this is Okay, you've you've confused me here. You've. confused [laughter] me. We are saying that Iran is being bombed. and has been sanctioned because it is. illegally enriching uranium.

>> Yeah. >> because it didn't agree to it in the. terms of the So, what it agreed to in. the terms of its contract it hasn't. adhered to. It keeps failing the. inspections, right? Okay, but it doesn't. have nuclear weapons. >> Mhm. >> But then we are saying that India, Pakistan, Israel, and. >> Uh North Korea. >> And North Korea. do have nuclear weapons and they. developed those nuclear weapons. >> outside of the treaty. >> illegally because. >> They didn't sign there. They're not. signatories. >> Oh, none of them signed the treaty. >> them have signed the treaty, [clears throat] yeah. >> So, if you don't sign, nothing can. happen to you. >> why doesn't Iran.

>> No, the international community, to be. clear, has tried to stop all four of. those countries from developing nuclear. weapons. But to our point earlier, once. they cross the threshold, what are you. going to do about it? >> Yeah. So, then everyone should No, no, now I'm on Not Let me put it this way. I. understand where Iran is coming from. Not as a leadership and not as a. I do not see the incentive to not have. nuclear weapons is what I'm saying. Do you understand? >> No, the incentive, really, yeah. The. incentive is there. >> Cuz you Cuz you've just shown me You've. just shown me four countries that have. nukes and now no one can do anything.

about it. Then I'm like, well, then why. wouldn't I get a nuke? >> Look, I think it particularly and to to. Eugene's point, particularly country. authoritarian countries, there's clearly. an incentive, right? Because. you're worried that some other country. may come and say, you know, you're. illegitimate, we're going to overthrow. you. >> Right. >> Um so, yeah. I mean, again, if you look. at countries that have either given up. their nukes or, you know, like uh Libya. was sort of the classic case in the. early 2000s. Gaddafi cut a deal uh with. the US to give up his nuclear weapons. >> Boy, oh boy, did he pay the price.

>> You know? So, I mean, look, I I think uh. Trevor, you're onto something here. It's. There's a reason why authoritarian. regimes have pursued nuclear weapons. And I think another This also gets us to. another reason why there's fear about. Iran getting a nuke, right? So, let's. say Iran did successfully get a nuclear. weapon. Saudi. the UAE, all these other countries in in. the region, Turkey, who view themselves. as potentially a rival to Iran, they're. going to get nukes. So, you wind up. getting what a sort of a cascade of. nuclear proliferation.

>> Okay, so now now I understand what. you're saying. You're saying the. secondary effects of people getting. nukes might be more dangerous than the. primary ones in that. more people having nukes means more. opportunities for something to go wrong. with a nuke. Not not even people. necessarily launching Yes. So, if. everyone has a nuke and something goes. wrong with a nuke or a nuclear. facility or something. then people are just It's just because. there were just more nukes out there. It's the same way. if there are more guns in a society, it. is more likely that someone will get.

shot even if it's a child finding their. dad's gun in like a closet or something. >> I think it's actually an incredibly good. analogy. Right? You look at the US. Like. there are all these guns everywhere. >> Right. Okay. >> That's probably why we have such a. ridiculous high rate of gun violence. >> Right. And it doesn't mean that all guns. are bad. It doesn't mean that all gun. owners are bad, but it means that. there's a higher likelihood that. something that something will go wrong. with a gun. >> How many how many Stanislavs are we. going to have? Right? I mean, you're. going to have one in every country, right? You know? So And and given the. stakes, right? With with nuclear a. nuclear exchange, it's potentially. existential for humanity or at least for. certainly for individual countries or.

cities, right? Um. you know, nuclear proliferation I think. is a bad thing. >> I like how you've you've also phrased. it. It's not a nuclear war, it's a. nuclear exchange cuz there won't be a. war after the thing is done. There's. nothing. There's nothing after that. There's nothing. Basically, nuclear war. Eugene is like a it's a double block on. WhatsApp. That's what it is. It's like if you two people fart under. the same duvet cover. It's when you It's. when you block me and then I block you. and then it's finished now. >> Yeah, I I was going to use the fart. >> You're going to go with farts? >> Yeah, cuz if a couple farts all together.

at the same time. and then no one knows who. did what, but the crop dusting has. happened and then the. >> But then there can still be more. conflict afterwards. [laughter]. >> Have Have ever crop dusted anyone? >> No. >> My daughter taught me that term. I. didn't know what it even meant. >> You don't know what crop dusting is? >> Tell me, enlighten me. >> When people are chilling at a park bench. >> Do you really want to give. a State Department person more weapons? >> You never know where you might need this. information in any negotiation. >> This is true. Yeah, yeah, yeah. This is. helpful. >> in a park and then you just walk past. but you fart and then you go. >> Okay, yeah. It's the only way to do it,

right? You don't want to linger. >> behind you and then you see this cloud. of gas. >> [laughter]. >> And then you just crop dusted. >> Yeah, but what is the alternative? It's. like. >> No, there's two ways. >> [laughter]. >> THERE'S. THERE'S ONE WHO FARTS. THERE'S ONE WHO FARTS AND HANGS OUT. >> REALLY? >> And then everyone is looking at each. other going, "WHAT THE HELL?". >> [laughter]. >> AND THEN THERE'S THREE SPIDER-MANS GOING. CROP DUSTED. >> IF I [laughter] RULED the country, that. would be my my my number one law. Everyone who farts, you have to stand. there where you farted until. until the smell has disappeared.

You must. >> [laughter]. >> No, no, no. Just so that. Cuz look, there's nothing wrong with. farting. We all. absolutely nothing. We also got to get. rid of that in society. >> Yes. >> So, just stand there so that there's no. blame that goes around. Stand there and. put your hand up. >> Yeah, [laughter] exactly. >> you see someone standing somewhere and. they've got their hand up, you know that. they farted. >> And you know the person who's guilty in. a group of three or four people. that farts and doesn't acknowledge the. fart is the one that did it. Because people who go, "What's that?". are the ones who know they didn't do. anything.

>> I disagree. Some people are very good at. acting. >> Wait, wait, wait. They. >> I've seen some people. Some people Some. people Some people fart. >> Yeah. >> I've seen some people. And they're the. ones to go, "What is that?". And then other PEOPLE GO, "AH!". >> [groaning and screaming]. >> AND THEN THEY ACT LIKE. THAT'S THE OLDEST trick in the book. >> [laughter]. >> It's the oldest trick in the book. I'm. sure there's even I'm sure in history. somewhere people have done this on a on. a state level. What you do is you have a. nuclear incident or you have something. that goes wrong with like a chemical. weapon. And then what you do is you go,

"Guys, someone released a chemical. weapon. Are you seeing this?" And then everyone. starts And they go like you were the. first to discover it, but you're the. ones who actually dealt it.". >> Or you were developing a virus in a lab. and then. >> It's a trick. >> and then people were dying and then. you're like, "What is that?". >> Well, no, isn't it whoever smelt it, dealt it? >> Yes. >> And whoever denied it, FRIED IT. >> [laughter]. >> LET ME LET ME ASK YOU THIS. >> YOUR LINKEDIN IS GOING TO BE RUINED. AFTER THIS INTERVIEW. >> [laughter]. >> DUDE, MY CAREER is over now.

Um but we'll solve the world. I'll tell. you that, Eddie. We'll solve the world. Okay. Let me ask you some about like some of. the thinking that goes into the State. Department or how how world leaders try. and remedy a conflict, right? Okay. Donald Trump has chosen a specific way. with his people. It seems like and uh. this is only by reports, it seems like. many of his people internally said, "Do. not do this.". >> Yeah. >> They were like, "Yo, man, don't do. this.". >> Yeah. >> And then he was like pressured by Israel. and they said, "No, there's an imminent. attack." So, let's let's start with the.

first part. How does the American government or any. government, for that matter, determine. when. something can be called defend defense. versus attack? >> Yeah. >> Cuz cuz when they go like, "It's a. preemptive strike," I understand the. logic behind some of it. So, if you're. in the Wild West. >> Mhm. >> and someone's about to draw. I assume you cannot wait for them to. draw before you fire because the time. that it takes You did. I get I get that. I get that. Okay. So. I understand the logic in in striking.

preemptively to a certain extent, but. then sometimes I go. how far can you take that back? Is it. when the person has got their hands by. their side? Is it after they've. whistled? >> [whistles]. >> Is it that? >> Good whistler. >> Or is it the Or is it the pacing? Is it. Is it after the 10 paces? Is it when. they walk out of the saloon? >> Yeah. >> Is it when they ride into town? >> Mhm. >> Is it when you meet them in the Wild. West before we get to town? How how how far back can you go before. you say that this is now attack versus.

like defense? >> Yeah. I mean, I think the the the honest. truth is it's semantic and it doesn't. really matter. And the president is the. commander in chief. He or she can decide. when to use military force and there's. really not much of a check on that, unfortunately. I mean, to to your your. question though, I mean, Donald Trump. has tried to portray the strike on Iran. as preemptive, right? That they were. about to get a nuclear weapon and what I. would say is I mean, unless there is. some classified intelligence that has. not been either leaked or declassified,

which I consider pretty unlikely cuz you. would think that if there was a smoking. gun, they would have they would be a. high a significant incentive for the. White House to say, "Hey, well, look at. this.". I do not believe that there was a. preemptive reason to strike Iran. You could say that they already did have. 10 bombs worth of nuclear material. So, uranium enriched to a point where you. could turn it into a bomb within a week. or so. What I would say though is even now, despite this giant attack by the United.

States and Israel in June of 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer, that took out. a lot of their nuclear facilities, plus. the war that has happened in February, March, April, May of this year, they still have Iran still has. that, you know, 1,000 lbs of highly. enriched uranium. >> Even after the bunker buster and all. that jazz? >> They still got it. It's what I think. Trump calls a nuclear dust. It is buried. under this town called Isfahan in the. middle of Iran and we haven't. done anything about it. >> Yeah, but this is okay.

Again, maybe I'm naive, >> [snorts]. >> but if Iran had 10 bombs worth of. uranium, >> Yeah. >> did not make one bomb, >> Yeah. >> never mind 10. They did not make a bomb. And then they get attacked and you said. in a week they could make a bomb and. they. >> First threatened? >> Threatened, did not make a bomb. Attacked, did not make a bomb. >> Still do do not make a bomb. Then should we not assume that they do. not want to make a bomb or is that is. that foolish?

>> So I think one one other challenge and. look I think it's hard not to sometimes. we don't appreciate that societies can. be complex right and we often have to. anthropomorphize other countries and say. like Iran did this or that right? I. think the truth is within Iran you had. different factions you had different. people who said. we should have a nuclear bomb others who. said we should at least have the. capability to build one quickly if we. need it. Actually Ayatollah. Khamenei the senior the one who was. killed you know a couple months ago in. an Israeli strike. He actually had put. out.

a fatwa sort of this dictum saying that. we should never have nuclear weapons and. so one one theory one sort of hypothesis. is that the sort of aging supreme leader. I think he was 86 when he was killed and. was had terminal cancer so he probably. didn't have much long to live even had. Israel not. off him. I think there's this theory that he sort. of didn't want to actually have nuclear. weapons but a lot of these sort of. hardline younger young guns in Iran in. the IRGC the Islamic Revolutionary Guard. Corps did want nukes and so I think.

another sort of double irony here is. that in sort of taking out. yeah Khamenei senior. >> They've now created the monster that. they. >> the whole movement. >> You've handed over power to people who. are even more hardline than him and I. think look I mean. we all you know. you have Eugene you live in New York but. we all live in New York live in okay. you're here hanging out with us. There are a lot of look there are a lot. of [laughter]. >> [laughter]. >> We all live in New York.

there's a lot of you know the Iranian. diaspora you know they're they're. they're here and I think there was a lot. of hope in that community earlier this. year that you know this could be it you. could finally get change cuz I think. it's important to note like the Islamic. Republic of Iran like they're bad guys. they killed tens of thousands of. innocent protesters earlier this year we. would all be better off principally. Iranians if they were gone right? I. think there was high hopes that, you. know, there was change coming um when. was sort of going to die from natural. causes. You have an internal debate. about succession. You might get a more.

liberal government. Well, guess what? The US and Israel took care of their. succession problem for them, handed it. over from Khamenei senior to Khamenei. junior who seems to be a puppet of these. hardline IRGC generals. And so I do. think that. it's it's seemed like Ayatollah Khamenei. senior. you know deceased now did not actually. want to cross the nuclear threshold, but. it's clear that they did want to have. the capability to weaponize and now. there's an even greater incentive for. them to do so.

>> Don't press anything. We've got more. >> [music]. >> What now? After this. >> [music]. >> When. You know, and I'm obviously only asking. you from the US perspective cuz you. worked in the government. I'm not I'm. not. >> Yeah. >> focusing on the US, but like. when a president or their trusted. confidants are trying to figure out how. to solve some of these most pressing. issues.

are there ever stories or have you ever. encountered moments where a president. tried to go the opposite way to the. direction America seems to have always. gone? So. and again I use I'm using broad. language, forgive me. >> Yeah. >> But it seems like America's idea of how. to solve an issue has often been sending. the bombs. and things will get fixed. So how do we. fix Saddam Hussein? We blow things up. Brut force. And it's it's done and it's. like oh no no now you've got ISIS. And. it's like okay, that's not what we.

wanted. And it's like all right, how do. you fix. Gaddafi? Okay, you blow up Libya. It's. sorted and it's like no now you've got. like one of the worst slave trades in in. Africa and a hot body of hot bit of. extremism. Time and time again it feels like you. know even even Iran itself. it seems like America's dealing with its. previous sins in helping to oust a. leader that it didn't like who, for all. intents and purposes, seemed like a good. leader for the people. Maybe maybe not. the most perfect leader, but way better. than the leaders that came afterwards.

You see what I mean? Like how do you how. how. >> At at what like is there a point where. an American leader goes, "Let's try. something completely different?". And. if they have thought that has it worked. or has it not worked? >> Yeah, I mean there have certainly been. examples. I would argue that um the. original approach toward Iran, which was. to not use military force, to use. economic pressure, to cut them off from. this choke point that is the US dollar, originated during George W. Bush's term. I think it was, frankly, George W. Bush. being a little bit humbled after seeing.

what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq, right? Cuz I think there was sort of the. beginning of his term and after 9/11, particularly, a bit of a sort of rah-rah. attitude toward the use of military. force. You know, the US kind of felt. omnipotent. And then it became pretty. clear after a couple years of those wars. that they weren't going very well. Even. against these quite small countries. And. so then when a country right next to. Iraq that was multiple times bigger than. Iraq, more powerful than Iraq, namely Iran, was actually developing uh. you know, nuclear weapons that that you. know, wasn't something that Saddam.

Hussein even was developing, which made. it even more ironic, George W. Bush did. decide to try to use non-violent. pressure against Iran. That was the. baton he passed to President Obama. There've been other decisions. I mean, look, one of the decisions that I think. Obama took most heat over was the Syria. red line. If you remember when he came. out and said there's a red line in this. there's a sand there's a red line in the. sand. If uh Assad uses chemical weapons, we will attack. We will strike. And I. think, um you know, basically his whole. administration was gearing up, ready to.

bomb Syria in sort of. basically living up to Obama's red line. And then Obama sort of went for a walk. in the backyard of the White House and. said, "You know what? I don't want to do. this." And so, there have been moments. in history when, you know, presidents. have you sort of chosen to go the. opposite way of their advisers for good. and for ill. And I think to your point, I mean, we'll see when the sort of. definitive history is written on uh. Trump's decision to attack Iran, but it. does seem uh if you can trust uh some of. the early reports that Trump was sort of. uh sort of a a lonely voice uh in terms.

of wanting to strike Iran in February of. this year. Um and unfortunately, his. voice is the one that that actually. mattered. >> Has there ever been a case of the US cuz. you see you showed us or you just. described two two possible outcomes, but. they seem to be, you know, completely diametrically opposed. Like, one is like, go in and blow the thing up. or ignore it completely. Mhm. Have there. been any instances where the US has. tried to bring the other person in?

And what I mean by this is like, I'm I'm sure you've seen this because of. the world you've been in. Many people. will argue that. part of the reason the world has the. Russia that it has today. >> Yeah. >> is because the US did a terrible job of. bringing Russia into the fold post World. War II in and around NATO, the Cold War. The Americans just didn't do a good job. of being like, "Hey, join us. Actually, you're part of this G You know what I. mean? You're part of the G20. You're. part of this Come and come on. You're. part of this You You actually.

have a McDonald's. Let's do this thing. You know what I mean?". >> So, on Russia, I mean, it's something. it's a issue near and dear to my heart. I actually. um sort of was uh very interested in. Russian history, uh Russian literature. My uh great-grandparents emigrated to. the United States from the former uh. Russian Empire. And you know, spent a. summer uh when I was in college living. in Russia uh sort of before our. relationship has gone sideways. I've. now, by the way, been sanctioned by. Russia, so I can never go back, unfortunately. Um which by the way, I appreciate that. And when when I was sanctioned in 2022, a lot of people sent me these like. congratulatory notes.

>> No, no, no. Anyone losing a piece of. their home, >> Yeah. Yeah, I was like, hold on a second. Like, this is upsetting. You know, it's. like weird when a place where you've had. friends, where you've spent good times. um. >> away from you. >> Is taken away from you. So So look, I I. do think that US policy toward Russia in. the '90s could have been significantly. better, right? We could have given. Russia more of a bear hug uh than we. did, right? If you look at you sort of. juxtapose Russia with some of the other. former communist countries like Poland.

or Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Hungary. [snorts] I mean all of those countries. have generally become successful. uh free societies, you know, liberal uh. democracies. Even Hungary, right? where. we're sort of going in the uh in the. wrong direction for a long time. They've. now got rid of Orban and they're sort of. back in the in the fold. I do think we could have done a better. job. uh uh in the 1990s. But look, I I think. there's also um an element of just bad. luck and historical contingency. Um uh. you know, sort of the the main.

successful Russian politician that a lot. of people thought was going to succeed. Boris Yeltsin who, you know, sort of. famously kind of a drunk, uh not a. particularly effective leader, was this. guy uh Boris Nemtsov. Um. He's very handsome, sort of reformer. And um Yeltsin, when he was sort of. like, you know, like very clearly very. sick and dying, he was like, "Who can I. put in as my successor that's just not. going to like prosecute my family for. corruption and like take away our. resources?" And so he elevated this.

relatively unknown deputy mayor of St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin, into sort of. uh the Kremlin to be his sort of. handpicked successor. And so Putin. inherited the presidency from Yeltsin. He eventually won, you know, uh you. know, an election, but he inherited the. the presidency at the end of 1999 from. Yeltsin because Yeltsin was like, "This. is sort of, you know, the most innocuous. successor." But like if you think about. it, had that not happened, right? If you. would had If you had just had a free and. fair election and before Putin had come. in in sort of that role, you probably.

would have gotten a guy like Nemtsov. Um. the other thing I'll say too, just to. give. you know, some folks in the US. government a little bit of credit here, cuz I I do think we could have done. better policies, and I can talk about. those, but you know, we did bring Russia. in. You said you mentioned the the the. G7 G20. You know, we have this G7, which. is sort of like the close club of US. allies. We did make that the G8, right? We we brought them into the G8. >> And we brought uh Russia into the World. Trade Organization. And actually um I uh. part of the reason I was sanctioned uh.

by Russia. In 2014, when Russia first. invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea, I. was the Russia sanctions lead at the. State Department. So, I was the one. designing the sanctions [clears throat]. and negotiating them with the EU and the. G7 to try to put sanctions on Russia um. back in 2014. And I remember at the. State Department, my a lot of my. colleagues were like very against. sanctioning Russia. And I think it was. because they had just got Russia into. the World Trade Organization like 18. months before. And many of them, like. career diplomats, had spent like a. decade of their lives.

>> Trying to make this happen, yeah. It. didn't happen. >> working with them to like make sure that. their laws were right, and you know, getting in place so they could join the. World Trade Organization. And then like. 18 months after like the big project of. their careers had culminated, yeah, we're like, "Actually, we're sanctioning. Russia." And so, there was a lot of like. blood, sweat, and tears poured out uh to. by US uh diplomats to try to bring. Russia into the fold. Um but yeah, I. mean I I think unfortunately, history. just didn't go our way. >> One of the things I've always wondered. for for people who work in in.

your position or any position adjacent. to it in a government is. how much of yourself you have to keep. and how much of your patriotism has to. take over? Because I I can only imagine it's it's. it's it's a really. complicated situation, right? On the one. hand, you have your views as a human being. On the other hand, the country has its. views, and because you are of the. country, you're meant to adopt some of, if not all of those views.

But at times, your country's doing something wrong. >> Yep. >> How do you then find the. the gap between yourself and the country. without being seen, you know, because. people will be quick to say, "You're a. traitor." Or you know, it's treasonous, but it's like, "Yeah, but countries can. do things wrong." As in like. administrations or. And we've seen people who will fight. against their own country or they will. like from within the ranks, they will. there'll be a certain level of dissent, not physical fight, but they'll go, "No, I don't think this is right. We must. change this." And when it is changed,

we'll go, "Oh, thank you for changing. it.". >> Mhm. >> But if it doesn't get changed, that. person will get punished for trying to. change it. How how do you how do you grapple with. that? >> Yeah. Look, I think it's it each. individual has their own. uh perspective, their own moral compass. I think it's interesting cuz for me, I. think I would have a lot of trouble. serving in an administration whose. policies I disagreed with. And frankly, I. >> Okay. >> totally candid. Um you know, I was a. career diplomat at the State Department. I could have theoretically stayed and.

worked through the first Trump. administration. Um and I decided not to. um and in large part because, you know, I I really did believe that what Russia. was doing in Ukraine was morally. objectionable, morally abhorrent. They. were literally conquering their. neighboring territory or neighboring. country, right? Um. which is not something that I think many. of us ever expected to see again in our. lifetime. And something like that had. not happened since World War II, right? An actual military conquest occurring uh.

on European soil. And then you had Trump. elected in 2016. with, you know, the Russian government. actively assisting. Um I'm not saying. that Trump uh was colluding. >> But certainly, I mean, you know, that. that the Russian government did put its. thumb on the scale. And then you had, I. think, in the the beginning of the first. Trump administration, um a real effort to say, "Well, maybe we. should just excuse all of Russia's sins. We should uh you know, let them have. Ukraine." And that was not something I.

wanted to be a part of. And so, that was. a big reason why. I decided to leave the government. At. the same time, when I look at friends. and colleagues who have stayed around, I'm extremely grateful, right? I'm. grateful. Um and. >> Because they were bullwark in many ways. >> And and it's not even that. It's you. know, cuz I think a lot of them like, you know, it's hard I think during. Trump's. >> first you were you did see you know, and. and Trump gets mad about this, right? That he was sort of the deep state was. fighting against him. >> But I mean, even if you're not. necessarily a bullwark, like I think. having.

intelligent people in the room who have. some experience, who can sort of at you. know, the very least put their their. views out there, I think is so. important. >> Yeah. >> Um and look, I think in the one of the. the things that has done Trump a. disservice in his second term. is he does not have a high caliber. [snorts]. of cabinet or advisers around him. He's. a lot of people who really should not be. anywhere near making decisions. There. are a few people there I think are quite. they're good, they're they're credible. But it's a much much lower caliber than. he had in his first term. And I think.

that's part of the reason you've had. frankly a less successful uh policy. >> How do you how do you think we find the. balance between having expertise and. getting stuck in an old way of doing. things? Uh I asked this because I I remember. hearing one story about how. um when the Trump administration came. into power first time around, he just told people around him to make. calls. >> Mhm. >> He was just like. uh almost on like a childlike level.

>> Yeah, like you know what's best. >> Go ahead. >> Not even. He was like, uh "What's. happening in South Africa? All right, Eugene, aren't you South African phone. South Africa?" And then it was like, "Rudy Giuliani, isn't that Italian phone. Italy?" And like literally, I'm saying. it in a very comical way, but But it was. close to this. He just went, "Hey man, do you know you know something us didn't. you go there once? Phone them. You phone. them. You phone and people were just. using like their normal phones.". That's how the story like sort of first. leaked out is that people were. conducting state business on their on.

what do they call unsecured devices like. people are just phoning. But. and this is completely and a story that. I've heard so I cannot fact check it or. verify it. But apparently that was one. of the reasons that. the like the Saudis and the I think the. the Emiratis were able to even like get. to the table. No, get to the table. having a conversation was because Jared. Kushner just didn't like know this stuff. and he was like, "Why why don't you want. to talk to them?" And they were like, "What are you talking about? We're not. going He's like, "Why don't you talk to.

him?" And then he was like, "Yeah, I'll. phone him and you just talk to him." And. then the one person just talked to the. other one on the phone. and they made progress that they they. otherwise would have never made. if it had been contained within like the. >> the diplomatic channels of old. >> Yeah, the static you know, even things. like um which country you phone first. Yeah. I remember hearing. many world leaders were frustrated with. Biden's administration because they felt. like there was no there was no reaching.

out. There was no communication. There. was no and then Biden's team would say, "No, we're very we're choosing very. carefully who we will call first.". >> Protocol. >> Because it's protocol, right? Which. country we reach out to first. Apparently but as soon as Trump came. into power. >> WhatsApp's. >> every country was phoned. Like and I. when I say every country, I mean every. If you knew a country. the person their job was just to phone. someone there and just ask someone who. asked someone who asked someone who. asked someone and then you would even. like phone Trump's phone directly. It. was.

>> Yeah. >> It was in many ways chaotic. I don't. deny this. But it did give us. an insight into the fact that some of. the ways that we do things are a little. so stiff, you know? And state that like it holds. us back. So, how do you You know what I. mean? How do we find that balance. between the diplomatic protocols versus. new ways to. maybe make progress with countries that. we disagree with. >> I I couldn't agree more. I think that, you know, I in the process of of writing. Chokepoints, I spoke to 30 or 40 people.

who were in the first Trump. administration. >> Yeah. >> And one thing I heard consistently was a. feeling that it was actually exciting. because there was a a tolerance of risk, there was allowing people to sort of. freelance a little bit more than you. did, you know, in the Obama. administration it was extremely sort of. uh you know, orderly and you had a. meeting but then the the process you. know, was was followed to a T. Um and so. I do think there's there's something to. that, right? And I I think particularly. also with diplomacy like. it is helpful frankly to build rapport.

with other people, to have a. relationship where people can just pick. up the phone and call you. I mean, in my. own experience, a lot of the the. progress I personally made was through. >> personal. >> personal relationships, like trusting. relationships. So, I think there's. something there. I think when it comes to expertise. though, I don't think there's really a. substitute for it. Like I do think you. you do want people in the room who at. least know something about the country. you're talking to or about, right? You. understand. their history, you you know some people. there, their culture, maybe you spent.

time there. And certainly like when. you're talking about the uses of power, >> Yeah. >> economic warfare, you should probably. understand like, well, what might happen. if we're going to sanction the Central. Bank of Russia. Could that cause a financial crisis in. Germany? What would that mean for us, right? Like what would happen if you. attack Iran? Would they cut off access. to the Strait of Hormuz? Could they do. that? What would that do to oil prices? What would that do to fertilizer? How. about could we have a famine in part of. Africa, right? Because of like And those.

are subjects that you need some level of. knowledge. Um so, I think at the same. time like I don't having some sort of an. ossified. class of experts, I also think it's not. good either. Like I think you should. have. people changing seats at at the table. I. think Biden. uh President Biden by and large took a. lot of the senior people from the Obama. administration and just like shuffled. their chairs. >> Yeah. >> And I don't think that did him. much service, frankly. I think like. having some of those people back for. sure, right? Very good people, but also.

injecting some new ideas, some you know, fresh perspectives, I think it's really. important. >> I think of it it's it's sort of like. it's sort of like football in a way is. you have some football team, soccer, some some teams where the coach. moves every single player on the. on the pitch like a chessboard and the. team can become so stiff that they can't. respond dynamically to changes in the. game plan. And then you have other. coaches who don't have a game plan and. then that's chaos. But then you have.

coaches who go I spend all my time. picking the right players and putting. them in the right positions and then I. trust that when it's game time. >> They'll do what they need. >> everyone will know what they need to do. >> Yep. >> And in a way it's like I feel like that. could be like a perfect balance is you. find experts because they've taken the. time. to become experts in these fields, but. you also give them a little latitude to. say, "Hey, go out there, make friends, make. decisions, move the ball, like like. switch things.". Cuz I I just think we take for granted. how much. the small interpersonal relations.

shape the big geopolitical relations. >> Yeah. >> You know? >> Yeah, the big picture. >> One of the saddest stories I ever. uh saw was the story of how the. um Israel-Palestine negotiations. essentially. didn't come together and then did. just because Clinton forced the two. leaders to be in the same room. >> Really? >> They didn't even want to talk to each. other. It was like straight up like, "I don't. want to talk to them and they don't want.

to talk to me. We're enemies. This is. this. And Clinton said, you're going to. sit in the same room. And he did it. Arguably for selfish reasons, but in a. good way. He was like, I'm going to. solve this issue. >> Mhm. >> You're going to sit in the same room. And he was like, neither of you wants me. as your enemy. We're going to sit in. this room and we're going to go And they. didn't They refused to speak to each. other for a long time. They just didn't. speak to each other. They didn't speak. to each other. They didn't speak to each. other. And they would have meals and everyone. would meet up and but they And then one. day. one day the story goes one of them just. turned to the other one was like, how's.

your family? Literally. Palestinian leader, Israeli. Yeah, one of them just turned to the. other and said, how's your family? And the conversation evolved. And the. conver- And then the next time they. spoke more and the next And they never. spoke about the actual issues. each time, each subsequent meeting. And. then one day. one said to the other, do you actually want to get into Do you. want to discuss this? And that's when they made the most. inroads. That's when they made the most. Yeah, until that suicide bombing that.

happened. It looked like there was a path to a. two-state solution. It looked like there. was a moment in time where. Israel-Palestine wasn't going to be what. it is today. But the biggest breakthrough for me came. in the fact that two human beings. >> Interpersonal relation. >> Two human beings saw each other as human. beings. and no longer as like a country's name. And because of that they began the. journey. And like it got ripped away from the. world, I argue. But I even think about. that when we when we use like words like. the Russians.

>> Yeah, totally. >> I'm a little sad sometimes because I go, I have nothing against Russians. >> Mhm. >> [clears throat]. >> I've been to Russia. I went there for the World Cup. I've met. Russians everywhere in the world. Russian people. Forget what they've given us in the. world, like, you know, art and and. ballet and math and che- like lots of. things. But as human beings, you know, man, Russians are some of my favorite. people I've ever ever ever met. But then we say the Russians as. shorthand for the Russian government. >> Yes. >> And I think what we do is we create the. perfect propaganda for the Russian.

government to use on its citizens to. say, "Look, the whole world hates us.". >> Yep. >> And it's like, "No, no, no, actually we. have nothing against the Russians. We have an issue with Vladimir Putin's. government." Does that make sense? >> Mhm. >> And I I sometimes like that's why people. are like, "Hey, congrats, you got banned. from Russia." And they're happy for you. cuz they don't realize that you knew. human beings there. >> Totally. >> They think they think that you're cut. off from the government, but you didn't. lose the government. You lost humans, you lost friends, you lost family. members, you lost your history, you lost.

your culture. And that's that's the. thing that I think we forget sometimes. when we're having these like. geopolitical disputes in the world is. even when people like the Iranians, "Hey. man, I know people from Iran. Some of. the most fun you'll ever like amazing. human beings." You know what I mean? >> Mhm. >> But we then go the Iranians. And it's. like, "No, bro.". I wish we were more specific about like. the country. and that administration in particular. The same way no American wants to be. tarnished by the Bush years. They call. them the Bush years in particular.

>> Mhm. >> If you say to an American, "Ah man, what. you guys were doing in Iraq?" They're. like, "Ah yeah, the Bush years." Then. you're like, "Ah, the American years.". >> Mhm. >> Americans will be like, "No, no, those. were the Bush years.". Because they want to separate themselves. and America from that moment. You You get what I'm saying? >> Yeah, yeah. >> Like I I don't know. I feel like. there's like there's like a world where. we could try and like stitch the. interpersonal just a little bit more. >> It almost feels like um. the propaganda machine needed a villain. all the time. >> Oh, definitely.

>> So, I think when you look at the. I love I love reading about the Vietnam. War. When you look at the Vietnam War, there was no really there was not really. a. a villain that the Americans can look at. in Vietnam. There was no name. in Vietnam that people could say if. Vietnam started becoming synonymous with. the war that never ended, but there was. no human being. >> Yeah, You couldn't find the person. >> Right. But then when Iraq happened then. there was Saddam Hussein. There was. there was branding. When 9/11 happened there was Osama bin. Laden, you know, and obviously Africa. becomes synonymous with dictatorships.

So, but when you point the camera or the. lens back at America and go, "You could. be going through a dictatorship. yourself." Or Europe and you go, "This. is the same what Idi Amin. [clears throat] used to do to people not. wanting to be voted out, elections that. are prolonged, interference and. whatsoever." Then it becomes difficult. for people to to kind of ingest in their. own country because it has become. synonymous to something that happens. over there. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. It becomes it becomes. a part from the thing. I I even wonder. actually maybe maybe you're best.

positioned to speak to this. Do you ever wonder if No, no, no, no. Did you ever work in the State. Department? You've worked in departments, but. [laughter] not at the State. The department stores. The vegetable department. >> [laughter]. >> Many departments. Traffic departments. >> [laughter]. >> Eugene, many departments, not the State. Department. Do you ever wonder if America's. propaganda has been too good?

And what I mean by that is. is it possible that America's propaganda. was so good at a time when I argued. needed to be Every country uses a. propaganda, so no judgement. This is. just us looking at it as objectively as. possible. Is it possible that America's propaganda. was so good. that it bred a generation of people who. now had a complete inability to create. new ideas of other countries because of. the propaganda that that they'd been. fed. And I'll I'll tell you where I. bring this from.

When you look at the Cold War. and Russia and the US. it is fascinating to me that. after you know, World War. the two nuclear bombs are dropped by the. United States. the Allied forces panic, go, "What the. hell has happened here? We didn't As you. said it was a secret. We didn't know you. guys had this bomb. What the hell is. this? >> Mhm. >> America goes, calm down. We've got We've. got the bomb. We'll protect you. The. world's like, we We're not comfortable. with this. This is scary, right? Everyone starts to panic.

Russia then says, America has this bomb. and we don't like that they're the only. ones who have it. Maybe we should also. try and make one. They then posture. as if they sort of have a weapon, but. they don't. >> Mhm. >> America then says, Russia has a bomb. They then start acting like Russia has a. bomb. Russia then goes like, yeah yeah, we. might have a bomb. America acts more. like Russia has a bomb. And then they. push Russia to have a bomb. And And I'm.

not saying they forced Russia or you You. know what I mean. I'm not I'm not. simplifying it to that extent, but. it feels like the the the the the idea. that you can have of another country can. be so powerful that even subsequent. generations who didn't realize that it. was propaganda, you know, watching. cartoons like Popeye or Superman or any. of these, when you get into government, you're. like, I don't trust the Russians. >> Mhm. >> Why don't you trust them? >> By movies. >> Yeah, but why don't you trust them? >> Cuz from the time you were a kid, >> Mhm. >> you were taught not to trust the. Russians as a whole. And I'm not saying.

you should just trust Russia, the. country or the the administration. But. do you ever wonder if like that. propaganda is so powerful. that it has limited America's ability to. see beyond its own propaganda that it. created? >> Yeah, I mean, I think also, you know, the United States, despite the. fact that we are and have been for a. long time, the world's most powerful. country, we underwrite all of these. international institutions, we've had. sort of uh embassies all over the world, our pop culture, as you say, is all over. the world.

>> Yeah. >> We are relatively geographically. isolated. And the vast majority of. Americans don't travel overseas. They. don't live in cities like New York where. you have plenty of friends who are. Russian. >> Yeah, yeah, yeah. Anyone can walk by, yeah. >> Yeah, so it's very easy to caricature. uh other you know people from other. countries. And I think that often times. does us a disservice in foreign policy. >> Yeah, cuz it just limits your ability to. Like I don't know how you negotiate with. somebody if you don't see somebody to. negotiate with. Is what I mean.

>> Mhm. >> How How do you even begin that. conversation? What do you you know? You just give them a broad label and. then and then you bum away and then you. hope for the best. >> Yeah, treat them like Uber Eats delivery. guys. Take your goods and wish them. well. I mean what. >> That is definitely one way to think of. it. >> [laughter]. >> Is that what you do? >> You say I invite them in, you know. >> Oh, really, Eddie? >> BY THE FIRE. >> [laughter]. >> EDDIE'S LIKE, "I'm sure you're WONDERING. WHO THE SECOND SET OF FRIES WERE FOR.". >> REALLY UNFRIENDLY GUY, YOU CHEAP. [laughter]. CAN YOU CAN YOU BELIEVE he does that.

with the Uber Eats guy? >> He was a gentleman. This will be a. dinner I share. >> Yeah, right? >> [laughter]. >> I would be like. >> That's rough, man. >> Um but look, I mean I honestly you know, it's a it's a I wrote a book about. economic warfare. One and been traveling. the world talking about it and. honestly, something I never expected. One of the countries where there's the. most interest in economic warfare and. choke points, where I've been going. routinely over the last year plus, is. Canada. Because the Canadians. are like, "What is going on in the.

United States? Why are you. hitting us with these massive tariffs? Why are you threatening to make us the. 51st state?" And I And I go there and. and people are They're looking at us at. sort of to your point of like, you know, Bush era America. They're like, "Are you. the enemy?" And I And And often times. the message I have there is like, "Hold. Hold on. No, like we are still. effectively the same, you know, cultural. And And ultimately, I am still very. bullish on US-Canadian relations over. the long term. But, you know, even very. cosmopolitan,

powerful people in Canada are like. reassessing whether they can trust the. United States. And I think that's. because, you know, if you're in a place. and all you really do is consume. another country by virtue of what their. political leader is saying, which by the. way, is now how a lot of the world is. consuming the United States. Right, it's. no longer, you know, Michael Jordan and. the Backstreet Boys or whatever, you. know, like in the '90s, right? It's like. Donald Trump like is like the, you know, like the avatar of the United States. I. think it it has changed a lot of. perceptions. I mean, even I don't know I.

I don't know if you've had this. experience, like when I've been uh to. Europe uh in the last couple years or. sorry, I guess the last year and a half. since Trump came back, like a lot of my. friends, like we'll be having dinner in. like Berlin or something and they'll be. like, "Are you okay?" And I'm like, >> [laughter]. >> And it's because like they're just like. their only notion of American life right. now is like seeing what's on the TV, which looks so chaotic. And like little. do they know like you can walk around. the West Village or SoHo or Brooklyn and. be like, "Hold on.". >> Ohio, or like.

Oklahoma, or you name it. Like, you. know. >> Yeah, like and like maybe in a way. that's also troubling in that like your. society can be taking a really dark turn. when on like an individual level and. like a family level, you don't really. experience it. Um. >> Yeah. >> But yeah, it's uh it it it is sort of. like a a mind-bending experience when. you see how even people who are very. culturally similar to you, who are your. friends in other countries, are. perceiving the United States in this. moment. >> expect to know better, in fact. Yeah. So, you can imagine what the other. people think. It almost makes me wonder,

just hearing you say that, if America was seeing America doing what. America's doing, what would it do to America? >> Yeah. >> Like literally, if if America was. witnessing the United States doing what. it's doing now, would it impose sanctions on it? Would. it. invade it? Would it push for a regime. change? Would it. You know, that's a that's a that's an. interesting way to think of it because. if your allies are saying to you, you.

are not yourself, it's almost. the same as your friends calling you in. for an intervention to be like, "Hey, >> Yeah. >> you're not the person we knew you to. be.". >> Yeah. No, I think I think that's. >> Right. >> And. look, I mean, in in some ways. Donald Trump, at least when it comes to. economic warfare, is part of a. consistent trend where every US. president in the 21st century, from. Bush to Obama to Trump's first term to. Joe Biden to Trump's second term, has.

imposed sanctions at twice the rate of. their predecessor. Really? So, you've. seen an exponential rise in the use of. economic warfare across party lines. So, in one sense, we should appreciate that. he is sort of part of this trend. At the. On the other hand, you know, previous presidents, including. Trump during his first term, when they. were using economic warfare, it was. against Russia and Iran and North Korea. and China. Um it was it was a small. group of countries that, for better or. for worse, a lot of Americans viewed as. sort of these pariah states, yeah,

right? Trump, during his second term, has a. waged economic warfare not just against. those countries, but against Canada, against Mexico, against India, against. Japan, against the entire world. >> point, threatened Lesotho. >> Right. >> who does that? >> Right. >> He did, [laughter] right? I mean, they got hit with tariffs on Liberation. Day. >> They've already been surrounded by South. Africa. >> Right. >> I mean, what are. >> Yeah. >> Yeah, talk [laughter] about a choke. point, right? >> THAT'S A REAL CHOKE POINT. THEY'RE SURROUNDING US. >> [laughter].

>> YEAH, NO, SO I MEAN, LIKE THAT. YEAH, I mean, that that's not normal. behavior, and I think it does have. really long-term consequences for the. United States. Because. >> Yeah. >> I mean, if you go you we you sort of. loop back to our conversation about the. dollar, like, after we imposed sanctions. on Russia in 2014, and I was involved in. this, it was actually in 2014, before we had. any sanctions or export controls or. tariffs on China, that Xi Jinping said, "Hold on a second. If this can happen to. Russia, >> Oh. >> it can happen to us. And so then 2014, a. long long time ago, that China started.

trying to build alternative payment. systems to the dollar. So that they. could, you know, buy oil in RMB or, you. know, clear their trade through programs. that didn't, you know, go through the. west. >> Oh, damn. >> Um but it wasn't like Canada was doing. that or Japan or South Korea or France, right? It was like countries that saw. themselves as potentially allied with. Russia or, you know, they might do. something similar to Russia, right? Um I don't think anyone in France is. right now thinking about an imperialist.

war in the in the in sort of the way. that, you know, Russia has invaded. Ukraine, you know? So they don't see. themselves like potentially the. Russians. But now you do have like that. shadow of a doubt. >> Yeah. >> all around the world, including in like. the UK, you know, including in countries. that are like our our very close allies. who are thinking, "How do we build. security against America?". >> Damn. How do you create the unchokable points? >> Yeah. I mean, look Canada. >> Hm. >> to to the choke points, I mean, Canada. um. is a petro state, right? I mean, the. their their their vast majority of their.

exports are oil and gas. >> Yeah. >> Um to your point about the convoys, right? Um. Canada sells their oil largely via. pipelines. And those pipelines are fixed. infrastructure and they only go one. direction. They go south. They sell all. their oil and gas to the United States. and for a long time that's been a very. profitable business. They've got a very. large market for their energy. Well, right now they're like, "Hold on. What. happens if the US you know, sanctions us. or puts tariffs on us?" And so they're. investing billions of dollars to build.

pipelines to the coasts so they can sell. their oil and gas to China, to Europe so. that they can't be just dependent on the. United States. >> You know, what you're what I'm hearing you say in. this conversation is. it's so interesting how history will. repeat itself. But essentially, in trying to create a stranglehold. on like every country and every leader. and every moment, it feels like the US. has.

done the exact opposite. You know, like an overbearing parent. that tries to control every single. aspect of their child's life. Now their. child has a secret phone and has secret. friends and has a secret life. It feels. like that's sort of what's happening to. the US now is now Canada's going, "Oh, can I build my own pipeline? Can I make. new friends? >> China and India systems. >> Yeah, and then Brazil is going, "Can we. sell, you know, food to China?" And. China's going, "Can we buy food from. these people?" Like. it seems like. it has in some ways created the thing in.

the same way that you said with the. Germans at the beginning of this. conversation. They were like, "Oh, we're going to go. after all of these people." And those. people, because they were went after. went to America and created the. machinery that then took down the German. Do you get what I'm saying? >> 100%. >> Wow. This has been fascinating. This is. I mean. cuz it's ongoing. >> Yeah. >> I mean, like it's [clears throat] not. there's not there's not like conclusion. in your book. There's not like, "And. then they lived happily ever after.". That's what I mean. It's just we're just. there. >> There are two processes right now that I.

sort of see as like what's fundamentally. reshaping the global economic system, the whole international order. >> Yeah. >> You have an economic arms race. in which countries are looking what the. United States has done with choke. points, with the dollar, with uh. semiconductors, you know, that we've uh. you know, put an embargo on to China. And saying, "Well, what are the choke. points we have that we can weaponize?". Because economic warfare, it's a good. way to compete, right? Compared with. nuclear weapons which you're never going. to use, you actually can use choke. points. And so they're doing that. And then the.

other thing they're doing is this. scramble for economic security. It's. what are the choke points that make us. vulnerable. >> Mhm. >> to China you know, that China could use. against us. And that's why right now in. the US we're investing. tens of billions of dollars in our. domestic critical minerals industry cuz. we We want to be vulnerable to this. China uh Chinese choke point on. railroads. Um, >> but also now to the United States where. you know, we mentioned Canada, we. mentioned China with the payment system. I mean Europe, you know, they're now. thinking can they build alternatives to. cloud services? You know, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, they dominate the.

global internet. They build all the. infrastructure that the internet runs. through. And. >> And Europe wants their own now. They. want something that they can rely on. >> Exactly. And so I think these two. processes, the way I see it, are just. going to keep playing out until we have. a fundamentally reshaped global economy. Until globalization is something that we. learn about in the history books. >> It's just a moment in time as opposed to. the way things are. >> Exactly. I think that's what's happening. right now and there are different ways. that could go, right? We don't know what. the end point is, but I'm pretty.

confident that those two forces, this. economic arms race and the scramble for. economic security, are going to continue. to play out until we have a. fundamentally new global economic order. >> Then Eddie, you're just going to keep. coming back, my friend. We're just going. to keep having you back on the podcast. and we're just going to we're just going. to follow it step by step. This has been. riveting. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Like really, this has been. your insight, the way you the way you. share things, the way you grapple with. them. >> you explain. >> Yeah, the way you explain. Can I tell. you keep doing that cuz I think we take. for granted. >> [music]. >> how many new stories people consume on a.

surface level, but we never actually get. an understanding of and I think you do a. really good job with that. So thank you. very much for joining us. >> It's my pleasure. I enjoyed hanging out. with you guys. >> This was lots of fun, man. >> Good to see you. You're the man. >> You too. >> [laughter]. >> See you in the department. >> This segment is brought to you by. Verizon. So Joe, most iconic World Cup moments ever. >> What has to be in the list? Throw me. >> So many,

but as a Messi fan, as someone who has. been given so much joy by Messi, I think. 2022 World Cup, seeing football finally. give back to Messi, something that has he has wanted for so. long and winning that World Cup. >> when I should pull out my violin, please. >> Look. >> Let me know when I should pull out. >> Look, this man. >> like. >> had come so close in 20. >> Yeah, but it's not like the Is it the. most iconic moment? >> It was thinking of the. >> No joke, come on. Come on. >> Messi Okay, he's he's a god. Let me.

first go. Messi has been has been hunting for this. World Cup for forever. >> Yeah, this is just his story. >> Imagine you've been sliding into a. girl's DM. >> people. >> and sliding and sliding and finally she. says hi back. That's what it felt like. Yeah, for you. No one else cares. >> about your DMs. That's what I'm saying. I'm not saying no one cares about. Messi's win. I'm just saying as an. iconic moment, okay, I'll throw one at. you that I think is more iconic. Roberto. Baggio missing his penalty. >> That was iconic, but it was also very. traumatic. For me, it The first moment.

[laughter]. It was the first moment It was the first. moment that I realized how high the. highs in soccer can be. >> And how low. >> and how low the lows can be. >> what was crazy about about the Baggio. thing for me is how. it connected us in a world that didn't. even have social media. >> Yes. >> Right? No one had social media. I was in. school. >> Yes. >> And kids were talking to each other. We. You know, we called it the Baggio. phenomenon. >> yes, yes. >> If you kicked the ball and you missed it. the crossbar, people you called yourself. Baggio when you did it. It was.

>> You would kick and YOU'D BE LIKE, "BAGGIO!". HE Imagine being one of the greatest. attacking players of your time. >> The best player in the world at the. time. >> And then. after one action. >> defines you. >> Become becoming the verb for missing a. ball. >> It also It also It also He was a player. of the tournament. He had dragged Italy. again kicking and screaming to the. final. He had fans all over. Madonna. had a crush on him. >> Maradona. >> Madonna. >> Oh, Madonna. I thought you said.

>> No, no. The material girl herself, she. had been photographed time and again. wearing his jersey at concerts, out. jogging. So, you know you're really. you've really made it when your maternal. girl is objectifying you. >> worn that shirt since. >> and then to go from that. >> She hasn't worn that shirt since. >> So, I can give you. >> That's up there. That's Okay. Okay. Wait, here's another one that I think. could be the greatest the most iconic. moment. Luis Suárez handball against Ghana. South Africa 2010 World Cup.

>> Yeah, I can see why you picked that. Home World Cup, but. >> No, forget World Cup. Forget Take South. Africa. >> Okay. Okay. >> I know I'm biased. Take South Africa. Picture the moment. Ghana is on the cusp. of doing what no African team has ever. done before. >> Reach the semi-final. >> Reaching the semi-final of the World. Cup. The whole world is now. like we were all supporting Ghana. >> Yes. >> Right? If we're honest, the whole world. >> Yes, apart from Uruguay. >> Yes, it was Uruguay on their own. Against the idea, it was Uruguay and. then the world was support cuz Ghana was.

like a Cinderella team, right? So, you. had South Africans. >> African World Cup. >> Yeah, it was the end it was it was. Africa's Like Shakira said, "It's time. for Africa.". >> Yes. >> Right? It was time for Africa. Ghana's. in this cup. >> Ghana is the only remaining country from. Africa. >> to go through. >> A header comes in, bound for the net. >> And then the hand not of the goalkeeper. >> The hand of Suárez. >> The hand of Suárez. >> [laughter]. >> And by the craziest thing was I loved. Luis Suárez. He didn't pretend. Yes.

He He did That's another thing. He He. didn't He didn't lie. >> Mhm. >> He just put his hand up. Knock the ball out. >> I'm taking one for the team. >> Takes the red card. >> Yes. >> Do you think he knew his goalkeeper had. a chance of saving it? >> No. No. No. The goalkeeper was beaten. Goalkeeper was. >> No. No. I'm saying No. I'm saying the. penalty. >> Oh, yeah. I think the thing is if you're. in the 93rd minute and your country is. on the verge of going out of the World. Cup and the keeper is beaten and the. goal the ball is goal bound, you're. going to think, "You know what? I'm. taking my chances and I'm hoping I'm. hoping." Cuz the thing is if I stop it.

now, at least it doesn't go in. >> He is He is an instinctive. >> What he played Yeah, he played the. advantages. >> Suarez Suarez is an instinct player. I. will I think that's part of what made. him great. >> I think that I think I think most other. players would have hesitated and I think. that's the thing you're saying. He was. unapologetic. He didn't hesitate and he. knew the punishment that was coming and. he went like, "You know what? I'm going. to gamble and risk it.". >> I wonder if he's ever been to Africa. ever since. >> No, he's public enemy number one. >> He can't, dude. >> He is the entire Africa cuz what. happened.

>> Suarez connected us in a way that no. leader ever could. >> He didn't just connect Africa, he. connected the diaspora. >> That's what I'm saying. Like everyone. Everyone who was watching Yes. together. against Luis Suarez. And the crazy thing. is like I still love him. He still I. loved him from Liverpool. I love him as. a player. He was at Barcelona. So he's. like it's He's this lovable. >> You love him when he is on your team. especially. That's why he plays for. Yeah, you'll always love him. >> Yeah, if Suarez did that for your team. >> He's like Draymond Green if he was a bit. more talented. >> I don't know who This is a slam You say.

who was a bit more talented? >> Draymond Green had the talent of Steph. Curry. >> Fired. I don't know where Draymond Green. is but shots have been fired from Uganda. all the way to Draymond Green. >> No, because what what what what makes. what makes it even worse is so Suarez. gambles. >> Yeah. >> and then he wins. >> Yeah, he did win. >> because the penalty you know again. Asamoah Gyan almost does a Baggio, you. know, he hits the cross but the penalty. doesn't go in. So Ghana. the game goes into extra time. Ghana is. then eliminated in the penalties. But.

what made Suarez even more of a villain. is when. Asamoah Gyan misses the penalty. They cut to him. on the sidelines celebrating like crazy. while the entire Africa was going. through this trauma. >> You know You know what it what it also. left me with is like. Everyone has Everyone says sportsmanship. but I always wonder if you do something. that is part of the game and you're. willing to take the punishment, is that. not part of the game? >> It is. >> Cuz it's not like Suarez shot someone.

>> No, he didn't. >> Right? >> And the thing is he was greeted in. Uruguay as a national hero, obviously. But we also talked from when we were. young that crime doesn't pay. Or the villain doesn't win. We are told. like Hollywood teaches us this, fairy. tales teach us this. And in this one. moment. all that was turned upside down cuz. Suarez actually did win. Crime actually. did pay. Suarez missed the semi-final. Which means they actually It's part of. the reason why they lost to Holland cuz. Holland made the final against Spain.

Suarez would have been the difference. But. >> He probably would have been the. difference. >> Yes, but you could see in that moment. when Africa When you used to talk to. Africans about that moment, you can see. them having flashbacks. I think. >> My friend, we are all We are still. >> People are still in therapy. >> That was our great That was our greatest. hope, that moment. But maybe that's why. we should be grateful to Suarez. Right? As Africans, we've always needed things. that connect us as people. We're always. looking for moments that bring us. together as a nation, right? South. Africans have never felt more African. than in that moment, yes, right? Which.

is what we need more than ever. So in in. many ways I would argue Suarez might. have robbed Ghana, but what he gave to. Africa. >> time, yes. >> Long term thinking. >> No, he united Africa more than As you. said, more than anyone. But also the. funny thing about. >> Luis Suarez, the Nelson Mandela of. Africa. >> No, the funny. >> [laughter]. >> The funny thing about that moment The. funny thing Nelson Mandela's funny. The. funny thing about that moment is in that. particular World Cup Siphiwe Tshabalala. had scored the goal. >> Yeah. >> That made if which. Tshabalala's goal felt like the moon. landing for Africa, like one small kick.

for man, one giant kick for mankind, yes. And then Suarez brought us back. down to earth. Same World Cup, two very. contrasting emotions. And I think if. you're talking about bringing together a. continent or bring Tshabalala gave us. the delirium. And then Suarez gave us. like the depth of. >> despair. >> despair. True despair. But man, he gave us one of the greatest. moments of all time. >> As an official sponsor of the FIFA World. Cup 2026, Verizon is bringing.

once-in-a-lifetime experiences to their. customers, including free tickets to. matches and pitch-side access during. gameplay. If you're not with Verizon, no. sweat. Stop by a Verizon store to get in. on the action and learn about their. offers for new customers. Thank you so much for watching the. episode. If you enjoyed it, pass it on. to a friend. If you didn't enjoy it, pass it on to your friend still. Let them suffer for a change. And don't.

forget to engage with us in the. comments. If you want to suggest a. guest, maybe there's questions you want, maybe there's ideas that you have, you. [music] can chat to us. We will read. through the comments and we'll get into. it. Either way, I appreciate you taking. the time. Thank you for hanging out with. [music] us on What's Now. And remember, we do this for you, so we would like to. hear from you. Till next time. Thank. you.