Podcast appearances and mentions of Bruce Riedel

The Chief Operating Officer and a board member of the PGA golf tour recently testified to the Senate as part of its investigation into the possible merger between the PGA and LIV golf tours. In this episode, hear a summary of their testimony which was about monopoly powers, labor rights, Saudi Arabian oil money, loyalty to country…. So much more than golf. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes PGA Tour 2022. Official 2022-23 PGA Tour Media Guide. Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund. February 24, 2021. BBC. LIV Golf Fergus Bisset. February 1, 2023. Golf Monthly. Doric Sam. August 1, 2022. Bleacher Report. LIV vs. PGA Tim Schmitt. February 17, 2023. Golfweek. PA Media. August 3, 2022. The Guardian. Mark Schlabach. July 11, 2022. ESPN. Yemen Ryan Grim. May 18, 2023. The Intercept. Bruce Riedel. January 27, 2023. Brookings. Shuaib Almosawa. March 16, 2022. The Intercept. Audio Sources July 11, 2023 Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Witnesses: Ron Price, Chief Operating Officer, PGA TOUR Jimmy Dunne, Board Member, PGA TOUR 2002 HBO Music by (found on by mevio) Editing Production Assistance

This week we're traveling back to 1970s Iran with Persepolis! Join us as we learn about Qajar princes, the role of the CIA in the Shah's regime, banned music in 1970s Iran, the Iran-Iraq War, and more! Sources: Afshar v. Department of State (1983). Case text available at https://casetext.com/case/afshar-v-department-of-state Richard T. Sale, "SAVAK: A Feared and Pervasive Force," Washington Post, available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1977/05/09/savak-a-feared-and-pervasive-force/ad609959-d47b-4b7f-8c8d-b388116df90c/ AJ Langguth, "Torture's Teachers," New York Times, June 11 1979, available at https://www.nytimes.com/1979/06/11/archives/tortures-teachers.html "CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup," The National Security Archive, available at https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/ Qajar portraits https://asia.si.edu/exhibition/exhibition-highlights/  Miriam Berger, "The divisive legacy of Iran's royal family," The Washington Post (16 January 2020),  https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/01/16/divisive-legacy-irans-royal-family/ Yann Richard, Iran: A Social and Political History since the Qajars (Cambridge University Press, 2019).  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/17/british-spys-account-sheds-light-on-role-in-1953-iranian-coup Eskandari, Mohammad. “Pierre Razoux , The Iran–Iraq War, Trans. Nicholas Elliot (London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2015). Pp. 640. $39.99 Cloth. ISBN: 9780674088634.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 49, no. 1 (2017): 202–205. Heather Rastovac, "Contending with Censorship: The Underground Music Scene in Urban Iran," Intersections 10, 2 (2009) RT: https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/persepolis  Wiki: Kristin Hohenadel, "An Animated Adventure, Drawn From Life," New York Times (21 Jan 2007) https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/movies/21hohe.html  Roger Ebert's review (2008); https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/persepolis-2008  Ranj Alaaldin, "How the Iran-Iraq war will shape the region for decades to come," The Brookings Institute (9 October 2020), https://www.brookings.edu/blog/order-from-chaos/2020/10/09/how-the-iran-iraq-war-will-shape-the-region-for-decades-to-come/   Bruce Riedel, "Lessons from America's First War with Iran," The Brookings Institute (22 May 2013), https://www.brookings.edu/articles/lessons-from-americas-first-war-with-iran/ 

In his second AFIO Now interview, Bruce Riedel, former CIA analyst and current Director of the Brookings Intelligence Project at the Center for Middle East Policy, discusses Jordan and America's enduring friendship. Recorded 3 March 2022. Interviewer: Jim Hughes, AFIO President and former CIA Operations Officer. 

From August 5, 2012: Ritika Singh sat down with Bruce Riedel, one of the country's leading experts on Al Qaeda. Riedel's long and impressive career speaks for itself. A 30-year veteran of the CIA, a senior advisor on South Asia and the Middle East to the last four presidents of the United States in the staff of the National Security Council, and an expert advisor to the prosecution of underwear bomber Omar Farooq Abdulmutallab, he is also the author of Deadly Embrace: Pakistan, America, and the Future of the Global Jihad and The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology, and Future, among much else.The discussion ranged from the state of Al Qaeda today, to the posture of the Taliban and other regional terrorist groups that the United States engages by both military and diplomatic means, to targeted killing and the way forward for U.S. counterterrorism policy. They don't discuss the law—but any lawyer interested in the power to confront the enemy will find Riedel's discussion of the enemy itself particularly valuable.In May 2022, Lawfare and Goat Rodeo will debut their latest podcast, Allies, a series about America's eyes and ears over 20 years of war in Afghanistan. Thousands of Afghans who worked with the American soldiers as translators, interpreters and partners made it onto U.S. military planes. But despite the decades-long efforts of veterans, lawmakers and senior leaders in the military, even more were left behind. This show will take you from the frontlines of the war to the halls of Congress to find out: How did this happen? Learn more and subscribe to Allies at https://pod.link/1619035873.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

From July 12, 2014: As the election crisis in Afghanistan comes to a head, all eyes—or some of them, anyway—are once again on the future of Afghan democracy. But the United States's history in the region extends back much further than its nation-building efforts there since September 2001. On Tuesday, at a Brookings Institution launch event for his newest book entitled, “What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989,” Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow and Director of the Intelligence Project at Brookings, discussed lessons the United States can learn from its successful efforts in the 1970s and 1980s in Afghanistan. In his talk, Riedel discusses why the American intelligence operation in Afghanistan in the 1980s was so successful, and what, if any lessons, the United States can apply to its ongoing operations in the country. Riedel also explored the complex personalities and individuals who shaped the war, and explained how their influence still affects the region today. Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott provided introductory remarks and moderated the conversation.In May 2022, Lawfare and Goat Rodeo will debut their latest podcast, Allies, a series about America's eyes and ears over 20 years of war in Afghanistan. Thousands of Afghans who worked with the American soldiers as translators, interpreters and partners made it onto U.S. military planes. But despite the decades-long efforts of veterans, lawmakers and senior leaders in the military, even more were left behind. This show will take you from the frontlines of the war to the halls of Congress to find out: How did this happen? Learn more and subscribe to Allies at https://pod.link/1619035873.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Before the latest war in Afghanistan there was the one before: the Soviet one. Now largely forgotten, it set the stage for one of the U.S.'s most successful covert operations ever. Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution joins me to discuss the American role in defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan in the final years of the Cold War.

In episode 6 of DEEP Dive, Dr. Sajjan Gohel speaks to Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. He was also Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Near East and South Asia at the Pentagon, and a senior advisor to NATO. They discuss the situation in Afghanistan-Pakistan, the security challenges in Yemen and the current state of international terrorism. Bruce is the author of several books including The Search for al Qaeda, Deadly Embrace, Avoiding Armageddon, JFK's Forgotten Crisis, and Kings and Presidents. For the episode transcript please visit: deepportal.hq.nato.int/deepdive

On this week's edition of Le Show Harry examines comments from Bruce Riedel and former CIA official Michael Morell in order to remember September 11th, then brings us News of the Warm, News of NiceCorps, The Women of 9/11, News of Smart World, Let Us Try, The Apologies of the Week, music and more.

From July 11, 2014: As the election crisis in Afghanistan comes to a head, all eyes are once again on the future of Afghan democracy. But, America's history in the region extends back much further than its nation-building efforts since September 2001. On Tuesday, at a Brookings launch of his newest book entitled, “What We Won: America's Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989,” Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow and Director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, discussed lessons the United States can learn from its successful efforts in the 1970s and 1980s in Afghanistan. In his talk, Riedel discusses the why the American intelligence operation in Afghanistan in the 1980s was so successful, and what, if any lessons, the United States can apply to its ongoing operations in the country. Riedel also explored the complex personalities and individuals who shaped the war, and explains how their influence still affects the region today. Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott provided introductory remarks and moderated the conversation. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Be part of our community by joining our Facebook group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/thoughtbehindthings In conversation with Salman Javed, this episode explores the timeline of Afghanistan Pakistan relationship and why both states did what they did? How the timeline from 1947 to 1963 affected Pakistan Afghan relations? How things git better from 1963 Tehran accord? What happened after Dawood khan came into power again in 1973? What’s Pakhtoon Zalmay? How the period from 1975 to 1979 turned the events? Was Afghan war situation being the reason Zia came into power? What was the involvement of India in all this? How and why 1980’s warlord started? Did Pakistan support Taliban’s? How the rise of Taliban affected Pakistan? Tune in to know on the events of Iran revolution, Geneva convention, Hyderabad saazish, London group, how it affected the overall ties between Pakistan and Afghanistan, Nationalism wave in Pakistan, Al-Qaeda and so much more! Books mentioned by Salman: 33 Strategies Of War by Salman Javed, What We Won by Bruce Riedel & Dekhna Khalifa Choot Na Jaye by Abdullah Azzam Follow us on Instagram: • https://www.instagram.com/thoughtbehindthings • https://www.instagram.com/muzamilhasan Salman Javed’s Twitter: https://twitter.com/M_EssJay --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/syed-muzamil-hasan-zaidi3/support

Although a U.S. intelligence report conclusively found that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018, the Biden administration has not yet directly penalized the crown prince himself. Bruce Riedel explains why the White House may be hesitating to act more directly and why Mohammed bin Salman's position in Saudi Arabia may be less secure than the administration thinks. Show notes and transcript: https://brook.gs/3swwS5c  Subscribe to Brookings podcasts on Apple or Google podcasts, or on Spotify. Send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu, and follow us and tweet us at @policypodcasts on Twitter. The Current is part of the Brookings Podcast Network.

Bruce Riedel, director of the Brookings Intelligence Project at the Center for Middle East Policy. Mr. Riedel retired in 2006 after 30 years of service at the CIA. He was a senior advisor on South Asia and the Middle East to the last four US Presidents in the staff of the NSC at the White House. Mr. Riedel discusses his background and crucial work while on the NSC during the Iraq War. Recorded 17 Sept 2020. Host: James Hughes, AFIO President and former CIA Operations Officer.

Bruce Riedel explains why the departure of President Trump may have led the Saudis and their Gulf allies to rethink their rift with Qatar, and what reconciliation among the Gulf states will mean for the Biden administration's goals for restoring a working relationship with Iran. Show notes and transcript: https://brook.gs/3s1U4bQ  Subscribe to Brookings podcasts on Apple or Google podcasts, or on Spotify. Send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu, and follow us and tweet us at @policypodcasts on Twitter. The Current is part of the Brookings Podcast Network.

We talk with Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, about the Israel- Palestine conflict and broader geopolitics within the Middle East. Riedel draws on his experience as part of President Clinton's peace process team, and specifically talks about what he saw at the 2000 Camp David Summit, and why he did not have confidence in the summit's proceedings, which ultimately failed. Riedel also provides his outlook on the nature of the conflict overall, in addition to his take on the recent normalization agreements between Israel and the UAE, Sudan, and whether an Israel-Saudi Arabia normalization is on the horizon. Lastly, we get some insights on what the Biden Administration portends for these conflicts and situations.

In this special edition of the Brookings Cafeteria Podcast, Lindsey Ford, a David M. Rubenstein Fellow in Foreign Policy, interviews two experts and authors of some of the latest papers in the Global China series. Bruce Riedel is a senior fellow in Foreign Policy and director of the Intelligence Project. Natan Sachs is a fellow in Foreign Policy and director of the Center for Middle East Policy. Subscribe to Brookings podcasts on iTunes, send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu, and follow us and tweet us at @policypodcasts on Twitter. The Brookings Cafeteria is part of the Brookings Podcast Network.

On this week's episode of Babel, Minister Mohamad al-Ississ joins Jon to talk about Jordan's economy before, during, and after Covid-19. Minister al-Ississ is the Kingdom of Jordan's minister of finance and was previously the minister of planning and international cooperation. During our discussion, the minister breaks down Jordan's recent economic history, the economic recovery plan, and efforts to formalize the informal sector. Then, Jon, Will, and McKinley discuss the impact refugees have had on Jordan. Harun Onder, The Fallout of War: The Regional Consequences of the Conflict in Syria, The World Bank, 2020. Jon Alterman, “The Middle East’s Challenges Aren’t Just Combatting the Virus,” CSIS, April 28, 2020. Bruce Riedel, “Jordan’s unique coronavirus challenge,” Brookings, April 16, 2020. Manjari Singh, “Jordan after COVID-19: From Crisis Adjustment to Crisis Management,” The Washington Institute, April 15, 2020 Episode Transcript, “Jordan’s Economy During Covid-19,” June 30, 2020

American horror films often inject terror into ordinary suburbs and quiet forest cabins. Babak Anvari skipped that trope. Instead, he resurrected his childhood terrors from the Iran/Iraq War, when civilians were indiscriminately targeted by missiles, and added a sinister djinn to one family's nightmares. The result is a frightening and deeply authentic film. Also - what foreign horror role should be portrayed by Nic Cage? Motion Picture Terror Scale: 3 (Marcus) / 4 (Melissa). Quality: 5/4+ Personal enjoyment: 5/5 Articles mentioned in this episode: Throughline: Rules of Engagement "Lessons from America’s First War with Iran," by Bruce Riedel for the Brookings Institute "Iran and Iraq remember war that cost more than a million lives," by Ian Black in The Guardian "The 'beauty' and the horror of the Iran-Iraq war," by Mike Gallagher for BBC News "Terror in Tehran: Under the Shadow and the politics of horror," by Tom Seymour in The Guardian "Sundance 2016: Babak Anvari talks 'Under The Shadow,'" by Tom Grater in Screen Daily  

The title of Bruce Riedel’s new book, Beirut 1958: How America’s wars in the Middle East Began doesn’t “tell it all,” but Riedel’s story of how US Marines were sent to Lebanon by President Dwight Eisenhower and what they did when they got there tells a lot even 61 years later. Just one Marine died, but his mission was entirely avoidable.  He was killed by a sniper, and by Secretary of State John Foster Dulles’ Cold War paranoia.

In "Beirut 1958," Bruce Riedel tells the story of the the U.S. Marines' landing in Beirut in 1958, America's first combat operation in the Middle East, and draws some lessons on how to do better in the future. Subscribe to Brookings Events on iTunes, send feedback email to events@brookings.edu, and follow us and tweet us at @policypodcasts on Twitter. To learn more about upcoming events, visit our website. Brookings Events is part of the Brookings Podcast Network.

In July 1958, U.S. Marines stormed the beach in Beirut, Lebanon, ready for combat. Farcically. they were greeted by vendors and sunbathers. Fortunately, the rest of their mission—helping to end Lebanon's first civil war—went nearly as smoothly and successfully, thanks in large part to the skillful work of American diplomats on site, who helped arrange a compromise solution. Future American interventions in the region would not work out quite as well. Bruce Riedel's new book Beirut 1958: How America's Wars in the Middle East Began (Brookings, 2019), tells the now-forgotten story (forgotten, that is, in the United States) of the first U.S. combat operation in the Middle East. President Eisenhower sent the Marines in the wake of a bloody coup in Iraq, a seismic event that altered politics not only of that country but eventually of the entire region. Eisenhower feared that the coup, along with other conspiracies and events that seemed mysterious back in Washington, threatened American interests in the Middle East. His action, and those of others, were driven in large part by a cast of fascinating characters whose espionage and covert actions could be grist for a movie. Although Eisenhower's intervention in Lebanon was unique, certainly in its relatively benign outcome, it does hold important lessons for today's policymakers as they seek to deal with the always unexpected challenges in the Middle East. Veteran CIA analyst, National Security Council Staff member and Assistant Secretary of Defence Bruce Riedel describes the scene as it emerged six decades ago, and he suggests that some of the lessons learned then are still valid today. A key lesson? Not to rush to judgment when surprised by the unexpected. And don't assume the worst. Charles Coutinho has a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for the Journal of Intelligence History and Chatham House's International Affairs. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In July 1958, U.S. Marines stormed the beach in Beirut, Lebanon, ready for combat. Farcically. they were greeted by vendors and sunbathers. Fortunately, the rest of their mission—helping to end Lebanon’s first civil war—went nearly as smoothly and successfully, thanks in large part to the skillful work of American diplomats on site, who helped arrange a compromise solution. Future American interventions in the region would not work out quite as well. Bruce Riedel’s new book Beirut 1958: How America's Wars in the Middle East Began (Brookings, 2019), tells the now-forgotten story (forgotten, that is, in the United States) of the first U.S. combat operation in the Middle East. President Eisenhower sent the Marines in the wake of a bloody coup in Iraq, a seismic event that altered politics not only of that country but eventually of the entire region. Eisenhower feared that the coup, along with other conspiracies and events that seemed mysterious back in Washington, threatened American interests in the Middle East. His action, and those of others, were driven in large part by a cast of fascinating characters whose espionage and covert actions could be grist for a movie. Although Eisenhower’s intervention in Lebanon was unique, certainly in its relatively benign outcome, it does hold important lessons for today’s policymakers as they seek to deal with the always unexpected challenges in the Middle East. Veteran CIA analyst, National Security Council Staff member and Assistant Secretary of Defence Bruce Riedel describes the scene as it emerged six decades ago, and he suggests that some of the lessons learned then are still valid today. A key lesson? Not to rush to judgment when surprised by the unexpected. And don’t assume the worst. Charles Coutinho has a doctorate in history from New York University. Where he studied with Tony Judt, Stewart Stehlin and McGeorge Bundy. His Ph. D. dissertation was on Anglo-American relations in the run-up to the Suez Crisis of 1956. His area of specialization is 19th and 20th-century European, American diplomatic and political history. He has written recently for the Journal of Intelligence History and Chatham House’s International Affairs. It you have a recent title to suggest for a podcast, please send an e-mail to Charlescoutinho@aol.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Hey First Person listeners: The first two episodes of Foreign Policy's new podcast And Now the Hard Part are out! We're making episode one available to you here. If you like it and want to hear more, please subscribe to And Now the Hard Part on your podcast app. Each week, the show looks at one vexing problem in the world, traces its origins and offers a way forward. The podcast is a partnership with the Brookings Institution and is hosted by Foreign Policy's editor-in-chief, Jonathan Tepperman.    On this first episode, Jonathan talks with Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at Brookings and a former CIA analyst, on how to reset the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia.    Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia has rested for decades on an unwritten agreement that benefited both sides: The United States provides security and access to global markets, while the Saudis ensure that the oil keeps flowing. But the rise of the United States as a leading energy producer and the increasing recklessness of Saudi Arabia under the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman are forcing a rethinking of that contract. In the first episode of our new podcast, And Now the Hard Part, we tackle the question: How can Washington reset its relationship with Riyadh? And Now the Hard Part is a partnership between Foreign Policy and the Brookings Institution. Each week, we look at one vexing problem in the world, trace its origin, and then offer a way forward. Our host is Foreign Policy’s editor in chief, Jonathan Tepperman, and the guests are some of the smartest analysts around—all scholars at the Brookings Institution. This week Jonathan sits down with Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at Brookings and and a former CIA analyst.

Phil and Cooper do a deep dive into the ongoing conflict in Yemen, which has become one of the worst humanitarian crises in history. We look into how a unified Yemen was first formed, and how today, nascent movements in southern Yemen are looking into splitting the country once again. Two Al-Monitor contributors and Yemeni journalists, Naseh Shaker and Afrah Nasser, join the podcast to lend valuable insight into a civil war where conflicting reports are rampant. Also, Gulf Pulse columnist Bruce Riedel talks about the role Saudi Arabia and the UAE have played in the conflict, and Washington correspondent Bryant Harris speaks about the increased lobbying from Yemeni separatists in DC. Aden standoff puts Hadi's legitimacy at stake (Naseh Shaker) Yemen’s southern separatists take case to Congress (Bryant Harris) UAE shifts course in Yemen (Amar al-Ashwal) Riyadh faces new setback in south Yemen (Bruce Riedel) Southern Yemeni women enter storm of politics, war (Afrah Nasser) Extra Listening: Episode #34, Quds You Be More Wrong? (12/13/2017): After helping bring to power the same Houthi rebels who ran him out of Yemen, ex-President Ali Abdullah Saleh was killed by the rebels after they found him too disloyal. Episode #77, Backing Out (11/14/2018): The Trump Administration considers pulling its material support to the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. Music: Faysal Alawi - “Taybet Ya Al Madhnon” (Spotify | Apple Music)

The Trump Administration’s strong rhetoric following this week’s attacks on oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman is just another example of their maximum pressure campaign on Iran. Because of this, there are conversations in Congress about how the president’s office is utilizing war powers - the power to declare, and to sell weapons to other countries. What loopholes have Trump’s team been taking advantage of? And how have been lawmakers responded? Phil and Cooper discuss the laws in question and get some key reports from Al-Monitor’s congressional correspondent Bryant Harris. Democrats want to tie Trump’s hands on Iran. Here are their options. (Bryant Harris) Democrats move to defund Yemen war after veto defeat (Bryant Harris) Democrats fret over Iran escalation risk (Bryant Harris) Republicans rebuke Trump over Gulf arms sales (Bryant Harris) Sen. Van Hollen challenges Trump's bypass of Congress on Saudi Arabia, Iran Congress opens several new fronts in bid to block Gulf arms sales US blames Iran for Gulf tanker attack (Jack Detsch)   Extra Listening: Episode #8, A Hollow Orb for the King (5/31/2017): The US and Saudi Arabia sign a prospective arms deal totaling $350 billion over ten years. Episode #75, Crown Control (10/31/2018): A conversation with Al-Monitor columnist Bruce Riedel about the Saudi Crown Prince and his controversial policy decisions. Episode #77, Backing Out (11/14/2018): Phil and Cooper talk with Pentagon correspondent Jack Detsch about American military support for the Saudi-led intervention in Yemen. Music: Mashrou’ Leila - “Cavalry” (Spotify | Apple Music)

Since 2011, Yemen has transitioned from the scene of a political crisis to one of the worst humanitarian disasters in the world, but how U.S. policy affects the situation is the subject of little discussion. The United States provides intelligence and logistical support to the Saudi- and Emirati-led coalition fighting against Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen, and the conflict implicates the future stability of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the U.S.’s longest standing ally in the region. To shed light on the complicated dynamic of the conflict, on October 25, the Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution hosted a panel discussion on U.S. policy in Yemen, featuring Brookings senior fellows Daniel Byman and Bruce Riedel, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Dafna Rand, and Arabia Foundation senior analyst Fatima Abo Alasrar. They talked about the U.S.’s role in the conflict, the extent of the humanitarian crisis, and how the dire conditions on the ground can be alleviated.

Winding down our recent coverage of Saudi Arabia, Phil and Cooper speak with Al-Monitor columnist Bruce Riedel at the Brookings Institution to get his insight on the killing of Jamal Khashoggi, the state of the US-Saudi relationship, their involvement in the Yemen Civil War and palace intrigue. Also, Happy Halloween. Saudi Arabia's shifting narrative on Khashoggi reveals fragility (Bruce Riedel) Music: Fayçal Azizi - Hak a Mama (iTunes | Spotify | YouTube)

In a YaleGlobal article, Bruce Riedel urges the United States and the United Kingdom to sanction arms sales to Saudi Arabia after a journalist's disappearance from a consulate in Istanbul.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, America’s longtime ally in the Middle East, faces a tumultuous future. Plummeting oil prices, an ongoing royal purge, and Yemen’s civil war across the border have thrust the kingdom into a domestic and international maelstrom. But what role does the United States play in Saudi Arabia’s changing position? To address that question, Bruce Riedel, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, recently discussed his new book “Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and America Since FDR” at a Brookings event. Barbara Slavin, director of the Future of Iran Initiative at the Atlantic Council, moderated the conversation in which they discussed the state of U.S.-Saudi relations, the historical events that have precipitated Saudi Arabia’s current situation, and the future of the kingdom. 

This week we take a look at the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with Bruce Riedel. He is a senior fellow and director of the Brookings Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution. He's also the author of "Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and the United States Since FDR." Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Al-Monitor Gulf Pulse columnist Bruce Riedel joins this week’s podcast to give his expert insight into Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s recent shakedowns in the Saudi royal palace, what happens next and the reality of his big plans for the kingdom. Also, Phil’s out and Cooper talks about sports. 09:48 - High stakes as Saudi crown prince tries to remove opponents (Bruce Riedel) “Kings and Presidents: Saudi Arabia and the United States since FDR” by Bruce Riedel (available now on Amazon) Music: Qusai - Kattiyour (feat. Hamza) (iTunes | Spotify)

Saudi Arabia flew off the rails this weekend when a number of well-known Saudi princes and businessmen were arrested in an anti-corruption sweep, and the royal family may have even forced Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri to resign. Phil and Cooper recap and reflect on the weekend’s whirlwind of events. Also, Osama Bin Laden’s cyber life. 05:27 - High stakes as Saudi crown prince tries to remove opponents (Bruce Riedel) 13:32 - After Hariri’s resignation, what’s next for Lebanon? (Joe Macaron) 13:32 - US sticks by Lebanese army despite Hariri resignation (Jack Detsch) 13:32 - Saudi Arabia’s call for international coalition against Hezbollah faces obstacles (Ali Rizk) Music: Haifa Wehbe – El Wawa (iTunes | Spotify)

On August 2nd, President Trump signed a new law that passed Congress with the overwhelming support of both political parties, which imposes sanctions on three countries: Russia, North Korea, and Iran. In this episode, we examine the new sanctions and the big-picture motivations behind them. In the process, we jump down the rabbit hole of the U.S. involvement in the 2014 regime change in Ukraine. Please support Congressional Dish: Click here to contribute using credit card, debit card, PayPal, or Bitcoin Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Mail Contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North #4576 Crestview, FL 32536 Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD041: Why Attack Syria? CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine? CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD108: Regime Change CD150: Pivot to North Korea Episode Outline H.R. 3364: Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act Title I: Iran Sanctions Gives the Executive Branch additional power to block property or exclude from the United States both companies and people who materially contribute to Iran's ballistic missile program. Orders the President to enact sanctions that block property and financial transactions for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard-Corps Quds Force and it's affiliates starting 90 days after enactment, which is November 1, 2017. Orders the President to block property and prohibit from the United States any person or company that materially contributes to the transfer to Iran any battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, artillery systems, combat planes, attack helicopters, warships, missiles, or parts of those items. Sanctions prohibiting travel to the United States and financial transactions are exempted for humanitarian purposes. The President can waive the sanctions for two 180-day periods by notifying Congress. Title II: Russia Sanctions Subtitle A: Sanction related to terrorism and illicit financing Sense of Congress "It is the sense of Congress that the President should continue to uphold and seek unity with European and other key partners on sanctions implemented against the Russian Federation, which have been effective and instrumental in countering Russian aggression in Ukraine" Part 1: Trump Report Orders the President to submit reports outlining his reasons to Congress before terminating or waiving sanctions relating to Russia, Ukraine, and Syria The President can not terminate or waive the sanctions on Russia, Ukraine, and Syria within 30 days of submitting his report unless a branch of Congress passes a resolution to allow it. Part 2: Sanctions on Russia Makes state-owned companies in the rail, metals, and mining sectors subject to sanctions. Limits financial loans to Russian industries. Prohibits the transfer of goods & services (except banking) that support new Russian deepwater oil drilling, Arctic offshore drilling, or shale projects. Russians need to be have a 33% share or more in the company for the sanctions to apply. Forces the President to enact sanctions in situations when it was previously optional. Gives the President the option to enact sanctions on companies and individuals who provide materials to Russia for energy export pipelines valued at $1 million or more. Forces the President to block property and deny visas to anyone who provides the government of Syria financial, material, or technical support for getting almost any kind of weapon. The sanctions do not apply to products for Russia that are for space launches. Subtitle B: Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Appropriates $250 million for a "Countering Russian Influence Fund" which will be used for "protecting critical infrastructure and electoral mechanisms" for members of NATO, the European Union, and "countries that are participating in the enlargement process of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the European Union, including Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Macedonia, Moldova, Kosovo, Serbia, and Ukraine." The money can also be used to information distribution. There is a list of nongovernmental & international organizations eligible to receive the money. The Secretary of State will work with the Ukrainian government to increase the amount of energy produced in Ukraine. This will "include strategies for market liberalization" including survey work need to "help attract qualified investment into exploration and development of areas with untapped resources in Ukraine." The plan will also support the implementation of a new gas law "including pricing, tariff structure, and legal regulatory implementation." and "privatization of government owned energy companies." American tax money is contributing $50 million for this effort from the 2014 Ukraine aid law and $30 million more from this law. The money will be available until August 2022. Title III: North Korea Sanctions Subtitle A: Sanctions to enforce and implement United Nations Security Council sanctions against North Korea Expands existing mandatory sanctions to include anyone who provides North Korea with any weapons or war service, aviation fuel, or insurance or registration for aircraft or vessels. Also expands sanctions to include anyone who gets minerals, including gold, titanium ore, vanadium ore, copper, silver, nickel, zinc, or rare earth minerals from North Korea. Expand optional sanctions to include anyone who purchases above-the-U.N.-limited amounts of coal, iron, textiles, money, metals, gems, oil, gas, food, or fishing rights from North Korea. Also sanctions anyone who hires North Korean workers, conducts transactions for the North Korean transportation, mining, energy, or banking industries, or participates in online commerce, including online gambling, provided by the government of North Korea. Prohibits North Korean ships from entering US waters. Additional Reading Article: Iran could quit nuclear deal in 'hours' if new U.S. sanctions imposed: Rouhani, Reuters, August 15, 2017. Article: The Nation is reviewing a story casting doubt on Russian hack of DNC by Erik Wemple, The Washington Post, August 15, 2017. Article: Iranian Parliament, Facing U.S. Sanctions, Votes to Raise Military Spending by Thomas Erdbrink, The New York Times, August 13, 2017. Article: A New Report Raises Big Questions About Last Year's DNC Hack by Patrick Lawrence, The Nation, August 9, 2017. Article: North Korea's missile tests by Joshua Berlinger, CNN, August 7, 2017. Article: Iran Says New U.S. Sanctions Violate Nuclear Deal by Rick Gladstone, The New York Times, August 1, 2017. Article: Iran Reports Successful Launch of Missile as U.S. Considers New Sanctions by Thomas Erdbrink, The New York Times, July 27, 2017. Article: Trump Ends Covert Aid to Syrian Rebels Trying to Topple Assad by David E. Sanger, Eric Schmitt and Ben Hubbard, The New York Times, July 19, 2017. Article: Trump Recertifies Iran Nuclear Deal, but Only Reluctantly by Peter Baker, The New York Times, July 17, 2017. Article: Russians targeted election systems in 21 states, but didn't change any results, officials say by Joseph Tanfani, Los Angeles Times, June 21, 2017. Article: Top-Secret NSA Report Details Russian Hacking Effort Days Before 2016 Election by Matthew Cole, Richard Esposito, Sam Biddle and Ryan Grim, The Intercept, June 5, 2017. Article: The $110 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia is fake news by Bruce Riedel, Brookings, June 5, 2017. Article: Iran Nuclear Deal Will Remain for Now, White House Signals by Gardiner Harris and David E. Sanger, The New York Times, May 17, 2017. Report: Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections, National Intelligence Council, January 6, 2017. Article: Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking by David E. Sanger, The New York Times, December 29, 2016. Article: Murphy leads CT delegation in official overseas travel by Ana Radelat, The CT Mirror, March 13, 2015. Article: Major Study Finds The US Is An Oligarchy by Zachary Davies Boren, Business Insider, April 16, 2014. Article: Ukraine wins IMF lifeline as Russia faces growth slump by Natalia Zinets and Elizabeth Piper, Reuters, March 27, 2014. Article: Ukraine orders Crimea troop withdrawal as Russia seizes naval base by Marie-Louise Gumuchian and Victoria Butenko, CNN, March 25, 2014. Article: Defense Ministry: 50% Of Ukrainian Troops in Crimea Defect to Russia, Ukrainian News Agency, March 24, 2014. Article: European Union signs landmark association agreement with Ukraine by Adrian Croft, Reuters, March 21, 2014. Article: Crimea applies to be part of Russian Federation after vote to leave Ukraine by Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, The Guardian, March 17, 2014. Article: The February Revolution, The Economist, February 27, 2014. Article: Ukrainian MPs vote to oust President Yanukovych, BBC News, February 22, 2014. Article: Ukraine: Yulila Tymoshenko released as country lurches towards split by Conal Urquhart, The Guardian, February 22, 2014. Transcript: Ukraine Crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call, BBC, February 7, 2014. Article: Putin: Russia to buy $15 billion in Ukraine bonds by Vladimir Isachenkov and Maria Danilova, USA Today, December 17, 2013. Article: EU suspends trade talks with Ukraine, crowds rally against govt, Reuters, December 15, 2013. Article: Senators McCain, Murphy join massive Ukraine anti-government protest, threaten sanctions, Fox News, December 15, 2013. Article: Ukraine parliament rejects proposed laws to release Tymoshenko by Richard Balmforth and Pavel Polityuk, Reuters, November 21, 2013. Article: Ukraine suspends talks on EU trade pact as Putin wins tug of war by Ian Traynor and Oksana Grytsenko, The Guardian, November 21, 2013. Article: Ukraine signs $10 billion shale gas deal with Chevron by Pavel Polityuk and Richard Balmforth, Reuters, November 5, 2013. Article: Exclusive - EU, IMF coordinate on Ukraine as Russia threat looms by Luke Baker and Justyna Pawlak, Reuters, October 31, 2013. Press Release: Statement by IMF Mission to Ukraine, International Monetary Fund, October 31, 2013. Article: Ukraine's EU trade deal will be catastrophic, says Russia by Shaun Walker, The Guardian, September 22, 2013. Article: U.S. Repeals Propaganda Ban, Spreads Government-Made News to Americans by John Hudson, ForeignPolicy.com, July 14, 2013. Article: Ukrainian tycoon Firtash takes over bank Nadra, Reuters, May 4, 2011. References GovTrack: H.R. 3364: Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act Overview House Vote Senate Vote GovTrack: H.R. 4152: Support for the Sovereignty, Integrity, Democracy, and Economic Stability of Ukraine Act of 2014 Overview GovTrack: H.R. 5859: Ukraine Freedom Support Act of 2014 IMF Report: Ukraine 2012 Article IV Consultation CSPAN Video: Iran's Response to U.S. Sanctions, July 18, 2017. CSPAN Video: British Prime Minister Camerson Question Time, December 18, 2013. CSPAN: Victoria Nuland Profile CSPAN: Anne W. Patterson Profile Executive Orders Executive Order 13757: Taking Additional Steps to Address the National Emergency With Respect to Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, December 28, 2016 Annex to Executive Order 13757 Executive Order 13694: Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious Cyber-Enabled Activities, April 1, 2015 Executive Order 13685: Blocking Property of Certain Persons and Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Crimea Region in Ukraine, December 19, 2014 Executive Order 13662: Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 20, 2014 Executive Order 13661: Blocking Property of Additional Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 16, 2014 Executive Order 13660: Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Situation in Ukraine, March 6, 2014 Visual References Image source Sound Clip Sources House Debate: House Debate on Russia, Iran and North Korea Sanctions, July 25, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 1500 Rep. Pete Sessions (TX): The bill that was passed by the Senate risked giving Russian energy firms a competitive advantage across the globe by inadvertently denying American companies access to neutral third-party energy markets where there would simply be a small or diminished Russian presence. The bill before us today prevents Russia from being able to weaponize these sanctions against U.S. energy firms. And I want to thank Chairman Royce for his hard work on this issue. I also want to ensure that we have an understanding of the definition of the word controlling in Section 223(d) of H.R. 3364. For purposes of clarification and legislative intent, the term controlling means the power to direct, determine, or resolve fundamental, operational, and financial decisions of an oil project through the ownership of a majority of the voting interests of the oil project. 1515 Rep. Tim Ryan (OH): What’s happening with these sanctions here in the targeting of Russian gas pipelines—their number one export—I think is entirely appropriate. The Nord Stream 2, which carries gas from Russia through the Baltics to Germany—and I know Germany isn’t happy about it, but this is something that we have to do. And the point I want to make is we have to address this issue in a comprehensive way. We must continue to focus on how we get our gas here in the United States, our natural gas, to Europe, to our allies, so they’re not so dependent on Russia. We’ve got to have the sanctions, but we’ve also got to be shipping liquid natural gas to some of these allies of ours so they’re not so dependent on the Russians, which is part and parcel of this entire approach. Senate Session: "Skinny Repeal" vote down, July 27, 2017. Transcript Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY): Mr. President, and last year we know the United States was victim of an attack by a foreign power on the very foundation of this dear democracy: the right of the people to a free and fair election. The consensus view of 17 agencies is that Mr. Putin interfered in the 2016 election. Hearing: North Korea Policy, Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on East Asia, the Pacific and International Cyber Security, July 25, 2017. Witnesses Bruce Klingner: Senior Research Fellow of the Heritage Foundation Leon Sigal: Director of Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council (SSRSC) Susan Thornton: Acting Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Screenshot: No other Senators in the room Timestamps & Transcripts 3:48 Sen. Cory Gardner (CO): Last Congress, I lead the North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act, which passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to nothing. This legislation was the first stand-alone legislation in Congress regarding North Korea to impose mandatory sanctions on the regime’s proliferation activities, human-rights violations, and malicious cyber behavior. According to recent analysis from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, North Korea’s sanctions have more than doubled since that legislation came into effect on February 18, 2016. Prior to that date, North Korea ranked 8th behind Ukraine, Russia, Iran, Iraq, the Balkans, Syria, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. Even with the 130% sanctions increase after the legislation passed this Congress, North Korea is today still only the 5th most sanctioned country by the United States. 21:22 Sen. Cory Gardner: Could you talk a little bit about the timing of the travel ban? Susan Thornton: Yeah. So, we believe that within the coming week we will publish a notice in the Federal Register, outlining the period of consultation and what we’re proposing, which is a general travel restriction, that will be in the Federal Register for a 30-day comment period. And the proposal is to, I think as you know, make U.S. passports not valid for travel into North Korea unless you get—an application is made for a one-time trip, and you get a license or sort of a permission to make that trip. And so that’ll be in the Federal Register for 30 days. Gardner: Is that trip allowable under a humanitarian exemption? Is that the purpose of that allow— Thornton: Right, right. For the subsequent appl— you’d have to make an in-person application for a trip to— Gardner: And are we encouraging other nations to do the same, and have others made the same decision? Thornton: We have encouraged other people to make decisions about restricting travel and other—because tourism is obviously also a resource for the regime that we would like to see diminished. I don’t think so far there are other people that have pursued this but this will be sort of the initial one, and we will keep talking to others about that. 1:12:32 Leon Sigal: A policy of maximum pressure and engagement can only succeed if nuclear diplomacy is soon resumed and the North’s security concerns are addressed. We must not lose sight of the fact that it’s North Korea that we need to persuade, not China, and that means taking account of North Korea’s strategy. During the Cold War, Kim Il Sung played China off against the Soviet Union to maintain his freedom of maneuver. In 1988, anticipating the collapse of the Soviet Union, he reached out to improve relations with the United States, South Korea, and Japan in order to avoid overdependence on China. That has been the Kims’ objective ever since. From Pyongyang’s vantage point, that aim was the basis of the 1994 Agreed Framework and the September 2005 six-party joint statement. For Washington, obviously, suspension of Pyongyang’s nuclear and missile programs was the point of those agreements, which succeeded for a time in shuttering the North’s production of fissile material and stopping the test launches of medium- and longer-range missiles. Both agreements collapsed, however, when Washington did little to implement its commitment to improve relations, and, of course, Pyongyang reneged on denuclearization. That past is prologue. Now there are indications that a suspension of North Korean missile and nuclear testing and fissile material production may again prove negotiable. In return for a suspension of its production of plutonium and enriched uranium, the Trading with the Enemy Act sanctions imposed before the nuclear issue arose could be relaxed for yet a third time, and energy assistance unilaterally halted by South Korea in 2008 could be resumed. An agreement will require addressing Pyongyang’s security needs, including adjusting our joint exercises with South Korea, for instance by suspending flights of nuclear-capable B-52 bombers into Korean airspace. Those flights were only resumed, I want to remind you, to reassure our allies in the aftermath of the North’s nuclear tests. If those tests are suspended, B-52 flights can be, too, without any sacrifice of deterrence. North Korea’s well aware of the reach of U.S. ICBMs and SLBMs, which, by the way, were recently test launched to remind them. The U.S. can also continue to bolster, rotate, and exercise forces in the region so conventional deterrence will remain robust. The chances of persuading North Korea to go beyond another temporary suspension to dismantle its nuclear missile programs, however, are slim without firm commitments from Washington and Seoul to move toward political and economic normalization; engage in a peace process to end the Korean War; and negotiate security arrangements, among them a nuclear-weapons-free zone that would provide a multilateral legal framework for denuclearization. In that context, President Trump’s willingness to hold out the prospect of a summit with Kim Jong-un would also be a significant inducement. 1:23:06 Sen. Ed Markey (MA): We “convinced” Qaddafi to give up his nuclear-weapon program, we “convinced” Saddam Hussein to give up his nuclear-weapon program, and then subsequently we participated in a process that led to their deaths. Emergency Meeting: U.N. Security Council Meeting on North Korea Sanctions, August 5, 2017. Timestamps & Transcripts 3:47 Nikki Haley (US Ambassador): This resolution is the single largest economic sanctions package ever leveled against the North Korean regime. The price the North Korean leadership will pay for its continued nuclear and missile development will be the loss of 1/3 of its exports and hard currency. This is the most stringent set of sanctions on any country in a generation. 6:30 Matthew John Rycroft (British Ambassador to the U.N.): Make no mistake: as North Korea’s missile capabilities advance, so too does their contempt and disregard for this security council. We must meet this belligerence with clear, unequivocal condemnation and with clear, unequivocal consequences. Today, Mr. President, we have banned North Korean exports of coal, iron ore, lead, and seafood. These are the lifeline exports that sustain Kim Jong-un’s deadly aspirations. In simple terms, should the North Korean regime continue its reckless pursuit of an illegal missile program and a deadly nuclear program, they will have vastly less [unclear]. We’ve also capped the number of foreign workers from North Korea. Every year, DPRK sends thousands of ordinary workers overseas. They often endure poor conditions and long hours, and their toil serves to provide critical foreign currency for North Korean government coffers. This is undoubtedly a form of modern slavery, and today we have taken the first step to ending it. The world will now monitor and curtail work authorizations for these desperate ex-patriots. 28:11 Vasily Nebenzya (Russian Ambassador): We share the feeling of neighboring states in the region. The ballistic missiles, which were launched without warning from North Korea, pose a major risk to marine and air transit in the region as well as to the lives of ordinary civilians. We call upon the North Korean government to end the banned programs and to return to the NPT, nonproliferation regime, and the IAEA oversights as well as to join the Chemical Weapons Convention. All must understand that progress towards denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will be difficult so long as the DPRK perceives a direct threat to its own security, for that is how the North Koreans view the military buildup in the region, which takes on the forms of frequent, wide-ranging exercises in maneuvers of the U.S. and allies as they deploy strategic bombers, naval forces, and aircraft carriers to the region. Another destabilizing factor in the region is the scaling up in North Korea of the THAAD, the U.S. antimissile defense elements. We repeatedly noted not only this constitutes an irritant, but this also undermines the overall military balance in the region and calls into question the security of neighboring states. We would like to hope that the U.S. secretary of state’s assurances were sincere, that the U.S. is not seeking to dismantle the existing DPRK situation or to forcibly unite the peninsula or militarily intervene in the country. However, we are concerned that our proposed, our paragraph in the draft resolution was not supported. The possible military misadventures by any side are liable to cause a disaster for regional and global stability. Discussion: Senator John McCain on Ukraine, December 19, 2013. Witness Frederick Kempe: President & CEO of the Atlantic Council Transcripts Frederick Kempe: Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on Tuesday said he had agreed to loan Ukraine $15 billion and cut the price of critical natural gas supplies. Ukraine’s Prime Minister Azarov called the deal historic. In Brussels a draft EU document, reported this morning by the Wall Street Journal, indicated Ukraine could have gained even more from the West, though with different conditions and perhaps not as plainly put. Had it signed the EU pact, it might have had $26 billion of loans and grants from the EU over the next seven years, and if it had also agreed to the IMF package. While the Ukraine pivots economically eastward, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians continue to pivot westward, standing together in protest for their continued desire to be part of a Europe, whole and free. And it’s in that context that we welcome back a great friend of the Atlantic Council, Senator John McCain, who visited these protestors over the weekend with Senator Chris Murphy, and continues to play a consistent and leading and principled role in supporting democratic change both in Eastern Europe and around the world and thinking through what role the United States should be playing in these challenging times. Sen. John McCain (AZ): If Ukraine’s political crisis persists or deepens, which is a real possibility, we must support creative Ukrainian efforts to resolve it. Senator Murphy and I heard a few such ideas last weekend. From holding early elections, as the opposition is now demanding, to the institution of a technocratic government, with a mandate to make the difficult reforms required for Ukraine’s long-term economic health and sustainable development. Sen. John McCain (AZ): And eventually, a Ukrainian president, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choices facing the country, which is this: while there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine’s economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be born by one person alone in Ukraine, nor should it be. It must be shared, both the risks and the rewards, by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF, and the United States. YouTube: Victoria Nuland call with the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, February 7, 2017. Click here to see the full transcript Transcripts Victoria Nuland: What do you think? Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we’re in play. The Klitschko piece is obviously the complicated electron here, especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister. And you’ve seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now, so we’re trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you’ll need to make, I think that’s the next phone call you’ll want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats. And I’m glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario, and I’m very glad he said what he said in response. Nuland: Good. So, I don’t think Klitsch should go into the government. I don’t think it’s necessary, I don’t think it’s a good idea. Pyatt: Yeah, I mean, I guess. In terms of him not going into the government, just let him sort of stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I’m just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys, and I’m sure that’s part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all of this. I kind of— Nuland: I think Yats is the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience. What he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know? I just think Klitsch going in—he’s going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk; it’s just not going to work. Victoria Nuland: Can’t remember if I told you this or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman this morning, he had a new name for the U.N. guy, Robert Serry. Did I write you that this morning? Geoffrey Pyatt: Yeah. Yeah, I saw that. Nuland: Okay. He’s not gotten both Serry and Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. Pyatt: Okay. Nuland: So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and have the U.N. help glue it, and, you know, fuck the EU. Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we’ve got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. Geoffrey Pyatt: I think we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. And then the other issue is some kind of out reach to Yanukovych, but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place. Victoria Nuland: So, on that piece, Geoff, when I wrote the note, Sullivan’s come back to me VFR, saying, you need Biden, and I said, probably tomorrow for an “atta-boy” and to get the deets to stick. Pyatt: Okay. Nuland: So, Biden’s willing. Pyatt: Okay, great. Thanks. Briefing: State Department Daily Briefing, February 6, 2014 Witness Jen Psaki: State Department Spokesperson Timestamps & Transcripts 0:19 Male Reporter: Can you say whether you—if this call is a recording of an authentic conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt? Jen Psaki: Well, I’m not going to confirm or outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports out there, and there’s a recording out there, but I’m not going to confirm a private diplomatic conversation. Reporter: So you are not saying that you believe this is a—you think this is not authentic? You think this is a— Psaki: It’s not an accusation I’m making. I’m just not going to confirm the specifics of it. Reporter: Well, you can’t even say whether there was a—that this call—you believe that this call, you believe that this recording is a recording of a real telephone call? Psaki: I didn’t say it was inauthentic. I think we can leave it at that. Reporter: Okay, so, you’re allowing the fact that it is authentic. Psaki: Yes. Reporter: “Yes,” okay. Psaki: Do you have a question about it? 7:40 Female Reporter: This was two top U.S. officials that are on the ground, discussing a plan that they have to broker a future government and bringing officials from the U.N. to kind of seal the deal. This is more than the U.S. trying to make suggestions; this is the U.S. midwifing the process Hearing: Ukraine Anti-Government Protests, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, January 15, 2014. Witnesses Zbigniew Brzezinski Carter’s National Security Advisor 77-81 Center for Strategic & International Studies, counselor & Trustee Thomas Melia: Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Rights & Labor at the Department of State Victoria Nuland: Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Timestamps & Transcripts 32:27 Thomas Melia: Our approach to Ukraine complements that of our EU partners and what they sought in their association agreement, a Ukraine that is more responsive to its citizens, that offers its people opportunities that a growing free-market economy would provide based on the rule of law. 34:19 Victoria Nuland: The point that we have made repeatedly to Russia, and that I certainly made on my trip to Russia between two trips to Ukraine in December, was that a Ukraine that is economically stable and prosperous should be no threat to Russia, that this is not a zero-sum game that we are playing here, and that, in fact, the same benefits that the EU was offering to Ukraine—benefits of association and economic integration—are also available to a Russia that wants to take the same market opening and democratic reform steps that Ukraine has already taken, 18 pieces of legislation having already been completed. 58:43 Senator John McCain (AZ): This is a country that wants to be European. They don’t want to be Russian. That’s what this is all about. 59:52 Senator John McCain (AZ): I’m somewhat taken aback by your, “well, it’s sort of up to the Ukrainian people.” We ought to be assisting morally the Ukrainian people for seeking what we want everybody on this earth to have, and so it’s not just up to the Ukrainian people. They cry out for our assistance. Panel: Internet and Democracy, Aspen Ideas Festival, June 26, 2017. Witnesses Ory Rinat: White House Interim Chief Digital Officer Farhad Majoo: New York Times Correspondent Transcripts Ory Rinat: What drives social engagement? What drives Internet engagement? It’s shares. And that’s not a social-media thing; that’s back to forwarding chain emails. It’s when people share, that’s the source of engagement. And what drives people to share? It’s anger. It’s sadness. It’s inspiration. It’s really rare; it happens, but it’s rare that somebody says, wow, I just read an objective, fascinating piece that represents both sides; let me share it on Facebook. That’s not what people share. And so what happens is we’ve incentivized, as a society, sensationalism in journalism. I was giving an example earlier: during the transition, there was an article in a publication that should not be named that said something along the lines of, Trump transition website lifts passages from nonprofit group. Okay. Doesn’t sound that great. Couple of paragraphs in, they mention that the website actually sourced and cited the nonprofit. Couple of paragraphs later, they quote the CO of the nonprofit saying it was okay. Couple of paragraphs later, they quote a lawyer saying even if it wasn’t okay, even if they didn’t have permission, and even if they didn’t cite it, it was probably still legal. But that headline was so sensationalized, and people want to click on something that makes them angry, and so everybody just needs to take a breath, and it’s not the Internet’s fault. Farhad Manjoo: Well, it’s the Internet ad model’s fault, right? It’s the fact that those sites—Facebook, every news site you can think of—is getting paid based on clicks. So is sort of the fundamental fix here some other business model for online news and everything else? Ory Rinat: Sure, I just can’t think of one. Farhad Manjoo: Right. Panel: U.S. Global Leadership, The Aspen Institute, August 4, 2017. Witnesses Nick Burns: Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs (Bush) Condoleezza Rice: Former National Security Advisor (Bush) Tom Donilon: Former National Security Advisor (Obama) Stephen Hadley: Former National Security Advisor (Bush) Susan Rice: National Security Advisor Timestamps & Transcripts 9:00 Condoleezza Rice: The liberal order was born, it was an idea, designed after World War II, when people looked out at the world that they had inherited after World War I and said, let’s not do that again. And it had two important elements, and it had one important fact. One element was they really believed that the international economy did not have to be a zero-sum game. It could be competitive, but it could be a growing economy and a positive-sum game, so my gains were not your losses, and that’s why they wanted to have free trade, and they wanted to have a comparative advantage among countries. And as you said, they set up institutions to do it, an International Monetary Fund and exchange rates, a World Bank eventually starting as a European Bank of Reconstruction and Development, which would rebuild economies and actually would become a source of capital for countries coming out of colonialism. And in some ways the most remarkable one, the general agreement on tariffs and trade, which was not a set of trade agreements but rules of the road to level the playing field so that the international economy could grow. So it was by its very nature supposed to get us away from conflict in the international system. They hated the fact that there’d been beggar-thy-neighbor trading policies and competition over resources. It was violent. So they weren’t going to do that again. Then, the important fact: they were going to try to create the democratic peace where they could, so they rebuilt Germany as a democracy, Japan as a democracy, and it was all going to be protected by American military power. And so that was the liberal order. 12:00 Condoleezza Rice: It is being challenged by Russia because Russia unfortunately doesn’t really have a foot in the economic side and, therefore, uses its military power for its respect. But it’s also being challenged by the four horsemen of the Apocalypse—populism, nativism, isolationism, and protectionism—and they tend to run together. And so one of the questions that we ought to be asking is not just the challenge to the liberal order from transnational terrorism or cyber warfare or from big powers like Russia and China but how do we deal with the fact that it does seem that there are those who believe that they were left behind by the global order, and they’re fighting back. They found people who will give them an answer as to why they didn’t succeed. Populists always have an answer: it’s the other—the Chinese; the illegal immigrants; if you’re from the Left, the big banks. And, oh, by the way, the other this time around is not just taking your jobs; the other is dangerous—so refugees and immigrants—and so I think the challenge is this time not just one that we foreign-policy people can understand but one that has to go internally to these societies and see what’s happening. That’s why I’m glad for the Aspen Strategy Group, that we are having this wonderful session that _____(01:30) will help to lead, because this is a really big challenge from the inside and from the out. And, yes, I’m worried that the liberal order might not survive it. 31:00 Condoleezza Rice: Leading differently obviously means finding a role for others—that’s very important—but it also means—and I know we can’t retire from this role, but there is a weariness among the American people, and we can’t ignore it. We can’t as foreign-policy people simply say, look, we’ve had to get back there and lead. We have to say, we’re going to lead because it’s in our interests, it’s with our values, and our allies have to appreciate it, right? And they have to be a part of it. That’s my point. I think we really haven’t gotten from the allies. What we get mostly from the allies is criticism for not leading, because the only thing the world hates more than unilateral American leadership is no American leadership, but we do need our allies to step up, and some of them have. On Minsk, for instance, the Germans stepped up to try and settle the Ukrainian circumstances. But let’s not underestimate outside of foreign-policy leads, the degree to which the American people are asking questions about how much more we can do. Unknown Speaker: Well, this is a good transition point to Russia. Let me just frame it this way: since Putin’s invasion and annexation of Crimea, 20 of the 28 allies have raised their defense spending, and they feel the threat. And I would even say right now, Merkel is leading NATO, not so much the United States; she’s leading NATO on this. So, Condi, you studied the Russians and the Soviets your life; we’ve got a dilemma here. Putin attacked our election and tried to discredit our democracy. We know he did that. Putin annexed Crimea. He still has troops in the Donbass and Eastern Ukraine, dividing that country. He has been a malevolent force in Syria. So, what’s the strategy for President Trump here? How does he respond to this? And we saw this extraordinary situation where the president was essentially repudiated by the Republicans in Congress on this big vote in the Senate and House to sanction Russia. If you were to give advice to him, what would it be? Not to put you on the spot too much. Rice: Well, thanks. Well, the first advice I would give is, be sure you know who Vladimir Putin is, right? And Vladimir Putin is someone who likes to humiliate, someone who likes to dominate, and someone who essentially understands power. And so don’t go into a room with Vladimir Putin unless you are in a pretty powerful position, and that means when you go to talk to Vladimir Putin, first let’s continue the policy that the Obama administration began, maybe even accelerate the policy of putting forces, at least on a rotating basis but possibly on a permanent basis, in places like Poland and the Baltic states so that you say to him, this far and no further. Secondly, I like raising the defense budget as a signal to the Russians. Third, I think you have to say to the Russians, we know you did it on the electoral process; we will, at a time of our choosing, by means of our choosing, we will deal with it, but we have confidence in our electoral system, so don’t think that you’re undermining American confidence by what you’re doing, because he feeds on the sense that he’s succeeding in undermining our confidence. And the final thing I’d say to him is, stop flying your planes so close to our ships and aircraft; somebody’s going to get shot down, because once you’ve established the kind of ground rules with Vladimir Putin, now you can talk about possible areas of cooperation. By the way, there’s one other thing I’d do: I’d arm the Ukrainians. I think that you have got to raise the cost to the Russians of what they’re doing in Ukraine, and it’s not on the front pages anymore, but in Eastern Ukraine, people are dying every day because of those little Russian green men, the Russian separatists, who, with Russian military training and Russian military intelligence and Russian military capability, are making a mess of Eastern Ukraine and making it impossible for Kiev to govern the country. And so I think it’s time to arm them. 33:30 Nick Burns: I think President Obama actually put in place a lot of what Condi’s saying. Is there bipartisan agreement on this tough policy? Susan Rice: I think there’s certainly bipartisan agreement on the steps that Condi described that we characterized as the European Response Initiative, where we got NATO with our leadership to put in those four countries, the three Baltics, plus Poland, a continuous, rotating, augmented presence and _____(00:26) deployed not only personnel but equipment, and we have reversed the trend of the downsizing of our presence in Europe, and that’s vitally important. 36:00 Tom Donilon: It’s important to recognize some of the fundamentals here, right, which is that we are in an actively hostile posture with the Russians right now. And it’s not just in Europe; it’s in Syria, it’s in Afghanistan, it’s in Syria, and it was in our own elections, and it’ll be in the European elections going through the next year as well, and it’ll probably be in our elections 2018 and 2020 unless we act to prevent it. So, we’re in, I think, in an actively hostile posture with the Russians, coming from their side. 40:00 Stephen Hadley: We’re putting battalions—we, NATO—putting battalions in the three Baltic states and in Poland and in Bucharest. Battalions are 1200 people, 1500 people. Russia is going to have an exercise in Belarus that newspaper reports suggest maybe up to 100,000 people and 8,000 tanks—I think I’ve got that number right— Unknown Speaker: This month. Hadley: —more tanks than Germany, France, and U.K. have combined. And we have to be careful that we don’t get in this very confrontational, rhetorical position with Russia and not have the resources to back it up. 58:00 Condoleezza Rice: Democracy promotion—democracy support, I like to call it—is not just the morally right thing to do, but, actually, democracies don’t fight each other. They don’t send their 10-year-olds as child soldiers. They don’t traffic their women into the sex trade. They don’t attack their neighbors. They don’t harbor terrorists. And so democracies are kind of good for the world, and so when you talk about American interests and you say you’re not sure that we ought to promote democracy, I’m not sure you’ve got a clear concept, or a clear grasp, on what constitutes American interests. Speech: Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton National Security Address, Council of Foreign Relations, November 19, 2015. Transcript Hillary Clinton: So we need to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well. To support them, we should immediately deploy the special operations force President Obama has already authorized and be prepared to deploy more as more Syrians get into the fight, and we should retool and ramp up our efforts to support and equip viable Syrian opposition units. Our increased support should go hand in hand with increased support from our Arab and European partners, including Special Forces who can contribute to the fight on the ground. We should also work with the coalition and the neighbors to impose no-fly zones that will stop Assad from slaughtering civilians and the opposition from the air. Hearing: U.S. Policy and Russian Involvement in Syria, House Foreign Affairs Committee, November 4, 2015. Witnesses Anne W. Patterson: Assistant Secretary Department of State, Near Eastern Affairs Transcript Rep. David Cicilline (RI): Who are we talking about when we’re speaking about moderate opposition, and do they, in fact, include elements of al-Qaeda and al-Nusra and other more extremist groups? Anne Patterson: Well, let me take the civilian moderate opposition, too, and that’s the assistance figure that you’re referring to, and that is groups within Syria and groups that live in Turkey and Lebanon and other places; and what that project is designed to do is to keep these people, not only alive physically, but also keep them viable for a future Syria, because we have managed to, even areas under control of ISIL—I won’t mention them—but we have managed to provide money to city councils, to health clinics, to teachers and policemen so these people can still provide public services and form the basis for a new Syria. So that’s—a good portion of that money goes into efforts like that. There’s also the opposition on the ground, and I think they’ve sort of gotten a bum rap in this hearing because I think they are more extensive than it’s generally recognized, particularly in the south, and they, yes, of course, in the north, some of these individuals have affiliated with Nusra because there was nowhere else to go. Anne Patterson: Moscow has cynically tried to claim that its strikes are focused on terrorists, but so far eighty-five to ninety percent of Syrian strikes have hit the moderate Syrian opposition, and they have killed civilians in the process. Despite our urging, Moscow has yet to stop the Assad regime’s horrific practice of barrel bombing the Syrian people, so we know that Russia’s primary intent is to preserve the regime. Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio) Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations

After nearly 27 years of diplomatic stasis, Saudi Arabia is reaching out to Iraq. Phil and Cooper shed some light on the little-discussed relations between these two countries, as well as Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's second inauguration this past week. Also, Frankenstein in Baghdad and other spooky stuff. 03:41 - Saudi Arabia engages Iraq after a quarter century (Bruce Riedel) 15:14 - Rouhani uses inauguration to send message of moderation (Ali Hashem) 15:14 - Rouhani officially begins second term (Ali Hashem) 15:14 - Iranian MPs face backlash over selfies with Mogherini (Al-Monitor Staff) 20:49 - 'Frankenstein in Baghdad' to come to life in film (Omar al-Jaffal) Song: Husam Al Rassam - Habibti Mnin (iTunes | Spotify | YouTube)

Tensions are building between the US and Russia regarding the Syrian conflict, so Phil and Cooper speak with Al-Monitor's Russia-Mideast editor, Max Suchkov, to get the lowdown. Also, the Saudi Arabia has a new crown prince, and what that spells for the rest of the Middle East. 03:25 - The long-term cost of Saudi succession shake-up (Bruce Riedel) 04:53 - Gulf rift sends tremors through Yemen (Maysaa Shuja Al-Deen) 05:23 - Influence-rich Saudis blow through Sunni unity (Bruce Riedel) 08:48 - US attack on Syrian jet puts Putin under pressure (Max Suchkov) 25:35 - Russia picks 'bull terrier' as new ambassador to US (Max Suchkov) Music: Ya Soshla S Uma (All the Things She Said) by t.A.T.u. (Spotify | iTunes | Facebook)

After this week's diplomatic brouhaha in which much of the Gulf cut off ties with Qatar, Phil and Cooper go behind the music on the small country, its background and the controversy. They also discuss "The Ottoman Lieutenant" and its box office flop status after producers spent half their budget getting Ben Kingsley on board and the other half paying screenwriters who would pen a drama that denied the Armenian Genocide. 03:26 - In wake of Trump visit, Saudi-led Sunni bloc already splintering (Bruce Riedel) 03:26 - 'Fake news' sparks real crisis in the Gulf (Giorgio Cafiero) 18:57 - 'The Ottoman Lieutenant' loses box office war (Riada Asimovic Akyol) Song: Ali Abdul Sattar - Hayya Taal (iTunes)

Phil and Cooper kick off the inaugural podcast with a breakdown of the Syrian Civil War, as well as the fallout from last week's sarin gas attack and the subsequent US missile strike on a Syrian air base. Also, Turks angry with a candy bar give United passengers a run for their money. 9:03 - 3 Russian theories on why the US hit Syria (Maxim Suchkov) 12:47 - Russia 'furious' with Assad over gas attack (Laura Rozen) 13:58 - Iranian officials give 'muted' response to US missile strike in Syria (Arash Karami) 15:22 - After chemical attack, Turkey renews calls for Assad's ouster (Barin Kayaoglu) 17:00 - Saudis have high hopes for Trump following Syria airstrike (Bruce Riedel) 19:36 - Following gas attack, Israel reassesses Syrian threat (Ben Caspit) 23:36 - Turkish candy giant gets not-so-sweet reaction to April Fools' Day ad (Mustafa Akyol)  Song: Omar Offendum - Damascus

Brookings experts discuss Election 2016 and the transition ahead. David Wessel, senior fellow in Economic Studies and director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, moderates a conversation with Stuart Butler, senior fellow in Economic Studies, John Hudak, senior fellow in Governance Studies and deputy director of the Center for Effective Public Management, Elaine Kamarck, senior fellow in Governance Studies and founding director of the Center for Effective Public Management, and Bruce Riedel, senior fellow in Foreign Policy and director of the Intelligence Project, on the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election and what to expect from President-elect Donald Trump. Special thanks to the event moderator, David Wessel, and the events team, Eric Bull, Adrianna Pita, and Camilo Ramirez. Additional thanks to audio producer Gaston Reboredo and producer Vanessa Sauter, and also thanks for additional support from Eric Abalahin, Jessica Pavone, Nawal Atallah, Basseem Maleki, and Rebecca Viser. Subscribe to the Brookings Cafeteria on , listen in all the usual places, send feedback email to , and follow us and tweet us at  on Twitter. BCP is part of the .

Click Here Or On Above Image To Reach Our ExpertsSecurity Expert Says, "Latest Trend Is Truck-Based Terrorism" Terrorists have long used vehicles as bomb-delivery weapons to kill people inside buildings: the U.S. Marines barracks in Lebanon in 1983, the World Trade Center in New York a decade later, then a federal office building in Oklahoma City in 1995.But vehicles have rarely been used to mow down pedestrians to such devastating and tragic effect as in Nice, France.The attack highlighted a vexing challenge to law enforcement: How to protect throngs of people in an open society. It is far more difficult to prevent that type of attack, and taking such measures could be far more debilitating and inconvenient to everyday life and commerce, officials said.“You can't harden every target,” said Eugene O'Donnell, a professor of law and police studies at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. “Ultimately, it's a democracy and that's our ultimate vulnerability.”Law-enforcement experts said the Nice attack would likely heighten alert for potential copycats and lead to increased security at public events, potentially including new limits on vehicle access.PRO-DTECH II FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)“Before, we were conditioned to look for bombs,” said George Venizelos, the former top FBI official in New York who is now a senior executive at a private security firm. “Now you've got to worry about a truck driving into people, so it's a whole new twist to things.”Terrorists have used vehicular assaults in the past. In 2011 in Tel Aviv, a truck plowed into people on a busy street, killing one person and injuring 16 others, according to news reports. The driver denied intentionally causing the wreck.In December 2014, France was the scene of two such incidents. About a dozen people were injured in each, according to news reports.CELLPHONE DETECTOR (PROFESSIONAL)(Buy/Rent/Layaway)“We've seen similar vehicle attacks by individual Palestinians against Israelis, which have gotten enormous attention in jihadi circles, and al Qaeda has called for people to imitate them,” said Bruce Riedel, who spent 30 years at the Central Intelligence Agency, including posts in the Middle East and Europe. “Adding an armed driver is more deadly.”PRO-DTECH III FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)Groups like Islamic State and al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula have urged such attacks in the past, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors militant websites.In a widely distributed 2014 speech, Islamic State spokesman Abu Muhammad al-Adnani urged followers to kill Westerners and nonbelievers any way possible.“Smash his head with a rock, or slaughter him with a knife, or run him over with your car, or throw him down from a high place, or choke him, or poison him,” he said, according to SITE.In a 2010 article in the al Qaeda magazine “Inspire,” a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula urged followers to pursue “individual jihad” by using pickup trucks to run down civilians, mounting sharp blades on the front to maximize deaths and injuries. “The idea is to use a pickup truck as a mowing machine, not to mow grass, but mow down the enemies of Allah,” he wrote.PRO-DTECH III FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)Autonomous Trucks As New Terrorists WeaponOn July 14, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel drove a 19-ton cargo truck into a crowd at a Bastille Day celebration in Nice, France, killing 84 people. He carried out the attack on behalf of the Islamic State terrorist organization.Bouhlel was shot dead by police, a typical consequence for those who carry out jihadist attacks. However, an emerging technology seems as though it could take the suicidal terrorist out of the equation entirely: the autonomous truck.Autonomous trucks operate in much the same way as self-driving cars, using Wi-Fi-connected artificial intelligence. Anything that uses Wi-Fi can theoretically be hacked, including vehicles, as revealed last year in St. Louis, Missouri, when hacker duo Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek demonstrated how easy it was to hijack a Jeep Cherokee's brakes, dashboard functions, steering and transmission by remotely hacking into its Wi-Fi-connected entertainment system from a laptop 10 miles away.Does this mean that it's possible an attack such as the tragedy in Nice could happen again, this time carried out by someone controlling the vehicle from a remote location?There are currently only a few hundred of these trucks in operation, and the prevailing concern is not that they could be used in terrorist attacks but that they will put many truck drivers out of work. Still, as the technology becomes more prevalent, it's worth asking what the risks might be in the future.The Growing Road To AutonomyAutonomous trucks are predominantly in operation overseas. The Tokyo-based heavy-equipment company Komatsu Ltd. has been operating a small fleet at Codelco's Gabriela Mistral copper mine in Chile since 2008. Last year Alberta-based Suncor Energy signed an agreement to buy 175 trucks from Komatsu, with plans to make its entire fleet autonomous by 2020.There are also approximately 50 autonomous trucks in use in the mines of Pilbara in Western Australia. And last year the Nevada Department of Transportation granted the first license for an autonomous commercial truck to operate in daylight on the state's public highways in order to test its real-world capabilities. Although this truck operates at autonomy level 3, meaning a human driver still needs to be behind the wheel to take full control in critical traffic and environmental conditions, it is expected the driver will be needed only for occasional control. Michelle Culver, a spokesperson for industry research firm IHS Markit, said these numbers will likely grow in the coming years, particularly when it comes to trucks in the Class 8 segment, whose weight exceeds 33,000 pounds when hauling freight.PRO-DTECH III FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)"Within the next 10 years, IHS Automotive analysts expect that autonomous heavy trucks will gradually grow into the market and potentially hit the 20,000-unit annual sales mark in the United States by 2025, most of which will be expected in the Class 8 segment," she said. "Autonomous truck sales could reach 60,000 annually by 2035. That would amount to 15 percent of sales for trucks in the big Class 8 weight segment."In Other Words, The Trucks Are ComingA Whole New Level of RiskSo how worried should we be about the possibility of a terrorist using one as a remotely guided weapon? According to Jeremy Anwyl, CEO of Trucks.com, the scenario is not entirely likely, but even if it's the product of baseless paranoia, it couldn't hurt to give it some thought, he said."Paranoia is a good thing, because it will cause technology providers to take the risk seriously and prevent it from ever happening," he told DPL-Surveillance-Equipment.com. "It's one thing to protect our phones, but this is a whole other level of risk."Anwyl said that well over 50 percent of new vehicles being sold today have some form of connectivity, and he cited the St. Louis, Missouri, Jeep Cherokee "hijacking" test as a good case study in demonstrating the risk of this reality.WIRELESS/WIRED HIDDENCAMERA FINDER III(Buy/Rent/Layaway)"More and more vehicles today have some form of access to the internet, and somebody could hack into that signal," he said. "If a truck communicates its location, speed and fuel level to headquarters, somebody could intercept that message and trick the truck into thinking the person was fleet headquarters. It's not an easy thing to do, but anything's possible."Anwyl explained that the autonomous vehicle's wireless safety features present hackers with their biggest, juiciest opportunities. The technology that allows an autonomous vehicle to wirelessly inform another that it's coming around a blind corner is, ironically, where hackers would find the most vulnerabilities."Anytime you have wireless technology like that, there's an opportunity for a bad actor to hack into that system," he said. "In theory it would be possible for someone to take over a 70,000- or 80,000-pound vehicle.… If it was a fuel tanker, they could drive into anything and cause a big explosion."Chris Finan, former director for cybersecurity legislation and policy under President Obama and current CEO and co-founder of Manifold Technology, a start-up that offers security technology to financial institutions, agreed this scenario shouldn't be dismissed.PRO-DTECH IV FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)"We've seen vulnerability researchers in the last year or so prove that this technology can be hacked," he told us. "Really great hackers aren't always the smartest people, but the most creative. You succeed because of cleverness, not because you have the best technology. They always have the most clever ways of finding vulnerabilities."When we asked him if the Nice attack could be replicated elsewhere with an autonomous truck, his answer was an unequivocal "yes.""The hypothetical of remote reprogramming is plausible," he said. "You could have a malicious actor or group that would reprogram a truck and use it as a missile as a way to target bystanders."Finan added that one way of preventing such hacks was to use open-source technology, which is available to be viewed and updated by anyone from the general public, in a truck's programming."If you use open-source technology, you get millions of eyes on it, instead of just a few, on the type of bugs that hackers would exploit," he said. "In general, open-source code tends to be more secure, because you have so many people looking at it and finding flaws more quickly."Finan hastened to add that while the scenario is possible, it's unlikely to transpire anytime soon, due to jihadists' attitude toward technology."This isn't something people need to freak out about happening tomorrow with radical Islamists," he said. "They view cyberspace as a recruiting space, not as a threat delivery system. It's very possible that in the future that could change, but they've got very many people willing to be programmed to die carrying out these attacks."RECENT TRUCK ATTACKSDec. 21, 2014 Dijon and Nantes, France: A driver shouting Islamic phrases ran down 13 pedestrians in a half-hour span, seriously injuring two. The next day, another man drove into a crowd of holiday shoppers, wounding 11 people.Wireless Camera Finder(Buy/Rent/Layaway)Oct. 28, 2013 Beijing: Five people were killed after a Jeep crashed in front of the Forbidden City. Chinese police described it as a terrorist attack.MAGNETIC, ELECTRIC, RADIO ANDMICROWAVE DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)May 15, 2011 Tel Aviv: One man was killed and 16 others injured after a truck crashed into several vehicles and pedestrians on a crowded Tel Aviv roadway. The driver denied intentionally causing the collision.COUNTERSURVEILLANCE PROBE / MONITOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)June 8, 2008 Tokyo: A man drove a truck into a popular shopping street, killing three men with the vehicle before stabbing 14 people. Four of the stabbing victims died.PRO-DTECH FREQUENCY DETECTOR(Buy/Rent/Layaway)April 19, 1995 Oklahoma City: Timothy McVeigh parked a rental truck packed with explosives in front of a federal building in downtown Oklahoma City. The detonation killed 168, including 19 children, and injured more than 500 people.RF SIGNAL DETECTOR ( FREQUENCY COUNTER)(Buy/Rent/Layaway)Your questions and comments are greatly appreciated.Monty Henry, Owner (function () { var articleId = fyre.conv.load.makeArticleId(null); fyre.conv.load({}, [{ el: 'livefyre-comments', network: "livefyre.com", siteId: "345939", articleId: articleId, signed: false, collectionMeta: { articleId: articleId, url: fyre.conv.load.makeCollectionUrl(), } }], function() {}); }()); Additional Resources: * Prevention and Detection of Electronic Harassment and Surveillance* Electrical Hyper-Sensitivity: The-Truth!!* How Do I Know If I've Been Bugged? &l

During a public program at the Museum, SPY Historian Vince Houghton sat down with Bruce Riedel, author of JFK's Forgotten Crisis: Tibet, the CIA, and Sino-Indian War. Riedel, who is a senior fellow and director of the Brookings Intelligence Project, joined Brookings following a thirty-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, serving as a senior adviser to the last four U.S. presidents on South Asia and the Middle East. His book is a story of war, diplomacy, and covert action, told with authority and perspective. He draws on newly declassified letters between Kennedy and Indian leader Jawaharlal Nehru, along with the diaries and memoirs of key players and other sources, to make this the definitive account of JFK's forgotten crisis.

On September 24th, Hudson Institute hosted a panel discussion on security, political, and economic relations between India and the United States. Moderated by Hudson Institute Director for South and Central Asia, Ambassador Husain Haqqani, the expert panel featured Bruce Riedel and Tanvi Madan of the Brookings Institution, Alyssa Ayres of the Council on Foreign Relations, Sadanand Dhume of the American Enterprise Institute, and Ambassador Pradeep Kapur.

On September 24th, Hudson Institute hosted a panel discussion on security, political, and economic relations between India and the United States. Moderated by Hudson Institute Director for South and Central Asia, Ambassador Husain Haqqani, the expert panel featured Bruce Riedel and Tanvi Madan of the Brookings Institution, Alyssa Ayres of the Council on Foreign Relations, Sadanand Dhume of the American Enterprise Institute, and Ambassador Pradeep Kapur.

 It’s already made the headlines, but earlier this week, Matt Olsen, Director of the National Counterterrorism Center delivered a keynote threat assessment of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to the Brookings Institution. Olsen’s assessment stood out among the many others that have been released into the Washington echo chamber: it was alarming yet measured; it addressed the structural factors both propelling and limiting ISIL; and it outlined a series of steps the United States could take to limit the threat to the U.S. homeland and its interests abroad. Overall, Olsen paints a picture of a radical group with unnerving capabilities, but one that he says is certainly not “invincible.” Bruce Riedel, Director of the Intelligence Project and Senior Fellow at Brookings, introduced Olsen and moderated the discussion. 

As the election crisis in Afghanistan comes to a head, all eyes are once again on the future of Afghan democracy. But, America’s history in the region extends back much further than its nation-building efforts since September 2001. On Tuesday,  at a Brookings launch of his newest book entitled, “What We Won: America’s Secret War in Afghanistan, 1979-1989,” Bruce Riedel, Senior Fellow and Director of the Intelligence Project at the Brookings Institution, discussed lessons the United States can learn from its successful efforts in the 1970s and 1980s in Afghanistan. In his talk, Riedel discusses the why the American intelligence operation in Afghanistan in the 1980s was so successful, and what, if any lessons, the United States can apply to its ongoing operations in the country. Riedel also explored the complex personalities and individuals who shaped the war, and explains how their influence still affects the region today. Brookings Institution President Strobe Talbott provided introductory remarks and moderated the conversation. 

The Brookings Intelligence Project hosted Foreign Service Officer Yaniv Barzilai on January 23, 2014 to discuss his new book, 102 Days of War---How Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and the Taliban Survived 2001. Bruce Riedel moderated the discussion.

Bruce Riedel, Director of the Intelligence Project at Brookings, hosted Matt Apuzzo of the AP for a discussion of his new book with Adam Goldman, entitled “Enemies Within: Inside the NYPD’s Secret Spying Unit and bin Laden’s Final Plot Against America.” The book is about the 2009 plot to attack the New York City subway system, led by Afghan-American Najibullah Zazi. During this conversation, Bruce and Matt discussed the plot, the current state of Al Qaeda, and whether the NSA’s surveillance programs directly led to thwarting this terrorist attack.

Daniel Byman of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy and Ben Wittes of the Governance Studies program at Brookings launched their report entitled “Tools and Tradeoffs: Confronting U.S. Citizen Terrorist Suspects Abroad.” The paper describes the wide range of tools the United States has employed in dealing with citizens suspected of engaging in terrorist activities abroad, and examines the costs and benefits of these various options for policymakers. The event was moderated by Bruce Riedel, director of the Intelligence Project at Brookings, and was followed by an audience discussion.

Brookings Senior Fellow Bruce Riedel interviews before an audience Philip Mudd, former CIA and FBI counterterrorism official and author of a new book on the the hunt for Al Qaeda.

When Barack Obama stood before a 200,000-strong crowd in Berlin in 2008 his declaration that "now is the time to build new bridges across the globe" was met with jubilation by a crowd which believed the future American president would pursue a gentler foreign policy, completely unlike that of George W Bush. This liberal enthusiasm extended to the Nobel Committee, which awarded Obama its Peace Prize in his first year of office. The man himself accepted the Prize, and the warm feelings, but did he ever intend to pursue the sort of foreign policy which his well-wishers in Europe and on the American left expected of him? And what - when set against their expectations, or indeed his own promises - has President Obama actually achieved on the world stage? Interviewees include: Bruce Riedel, former adviser on foreign policy to Barack Obama Ann Marie Slaughter, former Director of Policy Planning for the U.S. State Department under Barack Obama Daniel Drezner, Professor of International Politics at The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University James Fallows, The Atlantic magazine Gregory Johnsen, Near East Studies Scholar, Princeton University Jameel Jaffer, lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union Presenter: Mukul Devichand Producer: Richard Knight.

Brookings Senior Fellow Bruce Riedel talks with Lawfare's Ritika Singh about the state of Al Qaeda and its allies.

"Pakistan is the most dangerous country in the world today," asserts Bruce Riedel, a 30-year CIA veteran and currently a senior fellow at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution. Bruce discusses the various threats emanating from Pakistan, including the rise of the Taliban, the security of the country’s nuclear weapons, the murky role of its Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI), and the precarious relationship with neighboring India.