Podcasts about jcpoa

Iran Amidst Geopolitical TensionsTopicsUS-Iran Nuclear TalksPezeshkian Visit to BakuIran-Armenia RelationsAbraham Accords for the South CaucasusGuestEhsan Movahedian - TW/@ultra_ehsanHostsHovik Manucharyan - TW/@HovikYerevanAsbed Bedrossian - TW/@qubriqEpisode 437 | Recorded: May 16, 2025Subscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

“This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you,” said one attendee following a powerful live conversation at AJC Global Forum 2025. This exclusive episode of AJC's People of the Pod, presented by AJC's Women's Global Leadership Network, features a candid discussion on the critical impact of Jewish women leaders in global diplomacy and conflict resolution. Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, joins former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mira Resnick and Dana Stroul, Research Director and Kassen Family Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, to share how they've navigated the corridors of power, shaped international policy from the Middle East to Europe and beyond, and opened doors for the next generation of women in foreign affairs. ___ Resources– AJC Global Forum 2025 News and Video AJC Global Forum 2026 returns to Washington, D.C. Will you be in the room? Listen – AJC Podcasts: Most Recent Episodes: A United Front: U.S. Colleges and AJC Commit to Fighting Campus Antisemitism What is Pope Francis' Legacy with the Jewish People? Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the PodFollow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Interview Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman:  Live from AJC Global Forum 2025, welcome to People of the Pod. For audience members who are not in this room, you are listening to a show that was recorded in front of a live studio audience on April 29 at AJC Global Forum 2025 in New York. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Thank you all for being here. In countries around the world, women are working more than ever before. But compared to men, they are not earning as much or being afforded an equal voice – at work, at home, or in the community. In no country in the world do women have an equal role. Let me repeat that. In no country in the world, do women have an equal role–when it comes to setting policy agendas, allocating resources, or leading companies.  With us today are three modern-day Miriams who have raised their voices and earned unprecedented roles that recognize the intellect and compassion they bring to international diplomacy. To my left is AJC Chief Impact and Operations Officer, Casey Kustin. Casey served as the staff director of the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for 10 years. She has worked on political campaigns at the state and national level, including on Jewish outreach for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Welcome, Casey.  To Casey's left is Dana Strohl. She is the Director of Research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. She was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. In this role, she led the development of U.S. Department of Defense policy and strategy for Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq–I'm not done–Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Prior to that, she also served on Capitol Hill as the senior professional staff member for the Middle East on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome, Dana. And last but not least, Mira Resnick. Mira was the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, in which she handled two crucial Middle East portfolios, usually helmed by two separate people. Previously, she oversaw the Department's Office of regional security and arms transfers, where she managed foreign arms sales and shepherded the Biden administration's military assistance to Ukraine and Israel after Russia's invasion and after the October 7 Hamas attacks. Like Casey, Mira has also served as a senior professional staff member with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, focusing on the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you for being here, Mira.  Welcome to all of you, to People of the Pod.  I think it's safe to say, this panel right here, and all the knowledge and experience it represents could solve the Middle East conflict in one day, if given the chance. Casey, you served for a decade as staff director for the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. A decade, wow. You witnessed a lot of transition, but what were the constants when it came to regional cooperation and security needs?  Casey Kustin: What's the saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that's the world that we're all trying to build. So, you know, from an American perspective, which we all came from in our government work, it was trying to find those shared interests, and trying to cultivate, where we could, points of common interest. And even with the challenges of October 7 now, perhaps stalling some of those areas of progress, you still see that the Abraham Accords haven't fallen apart. You saw when Iran launched missiles at Israel. You saw other countries in the region come to, maybe they wouldn't say Israel's defense. It was their airspace defense. But you saw that still working. You see that still working now. And it's every day when we come to work at AJC, we're thinking about how to increase and strengthen Israel's place in the world. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So Mira, your role encompassed both Israel and the Gulf for the first time, right? Mira Resnick:   That was the first time at my level. Yes.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so whose idea was that, and did that put you or the US in a position to work for the good of the neighborhood, rather than just Israel, or just the Gulf States? Mira Resnick:   Yeah, this was an opportunity for the State Department to be able to see all of the different threads that were coming throughout the region. This is something that Dana did on a daily basis. This is something that our colleagues at the NSC did on a daily basis. The Secretary, of course, needs to be able to manage multiple threads at the same time. When I was overseeing arms sales, of course, I would have to consider Israel and the Gulf at the same time.  So this wasn't a new idea, that our interests can be aligned within one portfolio, but it was particularly important timing for the United States to be able to see and to talk to and to hear our Gulf partners and our Israeli partners at the same time within the same prism, to be able to truly understand what the trends were in the region at that particularly critical moment, post-October 7. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Dana, in your role as Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense, you met with military leaders in the Middle East, around the world, and you were often the only woman at the table. What do women contribute to international conflict resolution that's missing when they're not given a seat at the table? Dana Strohl:   Well, let me start out by stating the obvious, which is that women make up 50% of the global population of the world. So if 50% of the world is missing from the negotiating table, from the peacemaking table, from conflict prevention mechanisms, then you're missing 50% of the critical voices. There's evidence, clear evidence, that when women are part of peace processes, when they are part of negotiations, the outcomes on the other side are 35% more sustainable. So we have evidence and data to back up the contention that women must be at the table if we are going to have sustainable outcomes.  When I think about the necessity, the imperative, of women being included, I think about the full range of conflict. So there's preventing it, managing it, and then transitioning to peace and political processes in a post-war or post-conflict situation. In every part of that, there's a critical role for women. As examples, I always think about, when you make policy, when you have a memo, when there's a statement that's really nice, in the big capital of some country, or in a fancy, beautiful palace somewhere in the Middle East or in Europe.  But peace only happens if it's implemented at a local level. Everyone in the world wants the same things. They want a better life for their kids. They want safety. They want access to basic services, school, health, clean water and some sort of future which requires jobs. Confidence you can turn the light on. You can drive your car on a road without potholes. Those are details that often are not included in the big sweeping statements of peace, usually between men, that require really significant compromises.  But peace gets implemented at a very local level. And at the local level, at the family level, at the community level, at the school level, it's women. So how those big things get implemented requires women to champion them, to advance them. And I will also just say, you know, generally we should aspire to prevent conflict from happening. There's data to suggest that in countries with higher levels of gender equality, they are less likely to descend into conflict in the first place.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you recall a particularly consequential moment during your tenure, when you were at the table and it mattered? Dana Strohl:   So my view on this is that it was important for me to be at the table as a woman, just to make the point. That women can serve, just like men. Do the same job. And frankly, a lot of the times I felt like I was doing a better job. So what was really important to me, and I can also just say sitting up here with Mira and Casey, is that all of us have worked together now for more than a decade, at different stages of, getting married, thinking through having kids, getting pregnant, taking parental leave, and then transitioning back to work. And all of us have been able to manage our careers at the same time. That only happens in supportive communities, in ecosystems, and I don't just mean having a really supportive partner.  My friends up here know, I ask my mom for a lot of help. I do have a partner who really supported me, but it also means normalizing parenthood and being a woman, and having other obligations in the office space. I would make a point of talking about being a parent or talking about being a woman. To normalize that women can be there. And often there were women, really across the whole Middle East, there were always women in the room. They were just on the back wall, not at the table. And I could see them looking at me.  And so I thought it was really important to make the point that, one, a woman can be up here, but I don't have to be like the men at the table. I can actually talk about, well, I can't stay for an extra day because I have a kindergarten, you know, theater thing, and I have to run back and do that.  Or there were many times actually, I think Mira was Zooming for parent teacher conferences after we were having the official meeting. But I think it's important to actually say that, at the table, I'm going to leave now and go back to my hotel room because I'm making a parent teacher conference. Or, I have to be back by Friday because I'm taking a kid to a doctor's appointment.  So all the women that come after us can see that you can do both, and the men at the table can understand that women have a right to be here. Can do the jobs just as effectively and professionally as the men, and do this other absolutely critical thing. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But your point about, it requires a supportive network, a supportive work community. You told me a story before we got up here about just how supportive your colleagues were in the Department of Defense.  Dana Strohl:   I will give a shout out to Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense. So one of the things you do in our positions is travel with the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. And these are not the kind of things where they get on a plane and you land in whatever country. There's a tremendous amount of planning that goes into these. So on a particular trip, it was a four country trip, early in 2023. Secretary Austin was going to multiple countries. He had switched the day, not he, but his travel team, of his departure, which then caused us to switch the day of my son's birthday party. And then they switched the time of his departure from Andrews Air Force Base, and we could not change the birthday party.  So I called Secretary Austin's office and said, Listen, I want to be at my son's birthday party. So I've looked and it looks like I can take this commercial flight. So I won't be on the Secretary of Defense's plane, but I can largely land around the same time as you all and still do my job in the region. And to their credit, they said, okay, and then one of the things that you do in my position is you get on the airplane and you talk to the Secretary of Defense about the objectives and the goals and the meetings. So they said, Okay, we'll just change that to earlier. You can do it the day before we depart, so that he can hear from you. You're on the same page. You can make the birthday party. He can do the thing. So we were actually going to Jordan for the first stop. And it turns out, in his itinerary, the first thing we were doing when we landed in Jordan, was going to dinner with the King. And it was very unclear whether I was going to make it or not. And quite a high stakes negotiation.  But the bottom line is this, I finished the birthday party, had my mother come to the birthday party to help me clean up from the birthday party, changed my clothes, went to Dulles, got on the airplane, sort of took a nap, get off the airplane. And there is an entire delegation of people waiting for me as you exit the runway of the airplane, and they said, Well, you need to go to this bathroom right here and change your clothes.  I changed my clothes, put on my suit, ran a brush through my hair, get in a car, and they drove me to the King's palace, and I made the dinner with the king. It's an example of a team, and in particular Secretary Austin, who understood that for women to have the opportunities but also have other obligations, that there has to be an understanding and some flexibility, but we can do both, and it took understanding and accommodation from his team, but also a lot of people who are willing to work with me, to get me to the dinner. And I sat next to him, and it was a very, very good meal. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I find that so encouraging and empowering. Thank you so much. Casey, I want to turn to you. Mira and Dana worked under particular administrations. You worked with members of Congress from different parties. So how did the increasing polarization in politics affect your work, or did it? Casey Kustin:   It's funny, I was traveling last week for an AJC event, and I ended up at the same place with a member of Congress who was on my subcommittee, and I knew pretty well. And he looked at me and he said, the foreign affairs committee, as you know it, is no longer. And that was a really sad moment for me, because people always described our committee as the last bastion of bipartisanship. And the polarization that is seeping through every part of society is really impacting even the foreign policy space now. As you see our colleague, our Managing Director of [AJC] Europe, Simone Rodan[-Benzaquen], who many of you know, just wrote a piece this week talking about how, as Israel has become to the progressive, when Ukraine has become to the far right.  And I think about all the years I spent when Ted Deutch, our CEO, was the top Democrat on the Middle East subcommittee, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), a great friend of AJC, was the chair of the subcommittee. And Ted and Ileana would travel around together. And when she was the chair, she always made a point of kind of joking like Ted's, my co chair, and we did so many pieces–with Mira's great support of legislation for the US, Israel relationship, for Syria, for Iran, that we worked on together, really together. Like at the table with my staff counterparts, trying to figure out, you know, what can your side swallow? What can your side swallow? And I hear from so many of our former colleagues that those conversations aren't really taking place anymore. And you know, the great thing about AJC is we are nonpartisan, and we try so hard to have both viewpoints at the table. But even that gets harder and harder. And Dana's story about the King of Jordan made me laugh, because I remember a very similar experience where I was on a congressional delegation and Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, and I was six months pregnant at the time, and I wanted to go on the trip, and the doctor said I could go on the trip. And we were seated around the table having the meeting.  And I, as you won't be able to hear on the podcast, but you in this room know, look very young, despite my age. And you're self conscious about that. And I remember Ileana just being so caring and supportive of me the entire trip. And I wasn't even her staffer, and I remember she announced to the King of Jordan that I was six months pregnant, and you could kind of see him go, okay. That's very like, thank you. That's very nice. But even just having that moment of having the chairwoman on the other side of the aisle. That whole trip. I think I've told some AJC people another funny story of on that same trip, we met with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Jerusalem, and she pulled me up to him, and she said to the patriarch, will you bless her unborn child? Knowing I'm Jewish, she leaned over and said to me: Can't hurt. So I hope that we return to a place like that on Capitol Hill. I think there are really good staffers like us who want that to happen, but it is just as hard a space now in foreign policy as you see in other parts of politics. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, I want to ask you another policy related question. How did the Abraham Accords change the dynamics of your combined portfolio, and how could it shape the future? Mira Resnik:   My first, one of my first trips, certainly my first trip to the Middle East, when I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security, overseeing security assistance and security cooperation, was to Dubai, as the State Department representative for the Dubai Airshow. And it is a huge event that showcases the world's technology. And I remember walking into the huge hangar, that every country that has a defense industry was showcasing their most important, their most important munitions, their most important aircraft. And I remember seeing the enormous Israeli pavilion when I was there. And I was staying at a hotel, and I get to the breakfast and they said, Would you like the kosher breakfast or the non-kosher breakfast. And I'm like, Am I in Israel?  And I was blown away by the very warm relationship–in the security space, in the humanitarian space. I agree with Casey that things have gotten a little tougher since October 7, and since the aftermath in Gaza. But what I would also point out is that April and October, during the time when when we witnessed Israel under cover, when we witnessed Iran's missiles and projectiles going toward Israel and going toward other regional airspace, our diplomats, our militaries, our intelligence officials, all had earlier warning because of the work of other Gulf governments, even those who have not joined the Abraham Accords. And that is a prime example of where this security cooperation really matters. It saves lives. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Casey, so much of what AJC does has to do with international diplomacy and maintaining that regional cooperation and security, and that sounds a lot like your previous role. So I'm really curious how much your job truly has changed since you came to AJC? Casey Kustin:   You're absolutely right. There are so many similarities in what we do at AJC and what we did in the government. And the core of that is really those relationships that you build with partners and interlocutors in other countries and other governments, and the foundation, over decades that AJC has laid. Particularly in the Middle East, thanks to 30 years of quiet travel to the region.  It struck me when I first came here, the access that AJC has is nearly the same that we had traveling as members of Congress. And the meetings and the quality and the level of meetings that AJC is afforded in these other countries.  Our missions, which many of you have been on, often feel like congressional delegation trips to me, and the conversations and the candor with which partners speak to AJC is almost the same that was afforded to members of Congress. And that has been comforting, in a way, as you said Manya, Because there feels like there's continuity in the work that we're doing, and it has made me realize that organizations, non-governmental organizations, advocacy organizations, play such a crucial role in supporting the work of a government, of your country's government. And in reinforcing the values and the interests that we as AJC want to communicate that very much dovetail, with hopefully any US administration.  I think that the role that an organization like ours, like AJC, can play in a particular moment, like we're in, where, as we've discussed, there's hyperpartisanship, and we hear a lot, Dana mentioned this. We hear a lot from foreign partners that the way our democracy works with a change in administration every four years is unsettling to some of them, because they don't know if a particular policy or agreement is going to continue the role that we can play, providing some of that continuity and providing a nonpartisan and thoughtful place to have conversations. Because they know that we have that kind of nuanced and thoughtful and nonpartisan insight. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I really appreciate your insights on the roles that you've played, and I think the audience has as well. But I want to pivot back to your role as women. Dana, I mentioned that you were often the only woman at the table. Would you discover that when you arrived at meetings and events? Dana Strohl:   In Washington, DC, and in particular, I'm very proud to have served in the Biden administration, where there were always women at the table. And I will also say that there was a network of women, and it was the same on the Hill. On the hill, there was actually a box of maternity clothes that was kept in then-Senate Leader Harry Reid's office.  And his National Security Advisor called me when she heard I was pregnant the first time, which was during the 2015 JCPOA negotiations on the Hill, which meant that I was super tired and doing all of those congressional hearings and briefings, but there was a network of women who were supporting each other and giving me clothes as I got bigger and bigger. And it continued into the Pentagon and the State Department, where there were always women and when we saw each other at the White House Situation Room or in the different meetings, there was always the quiet pull aside. How are you doing? How are your kids? Are you managing? What's the trade off on your day to day basis? Can I do anything to help you?  And in particular, after October 7, that network of people really kicked into high gear, and we were all checking in with each other. Because it was the most intense, most devastating time to work in the government and try to both support Israel and prevent World War III from breaking out across the Middle East. So that was DC. In the Middle East, I largely assumed that I was going to be the only woman at the table, and so I decided to just own it. There are some great pictures of me always in a pink jacket, but the point you know, was that I expected it, and there were always women, again, against the back walls. I made an effort whenever possible to make sure everyone at the table, regardless of your gender, had an opportunity to speak and participate, but I was also not just the only woman.  A lot of times, I was the co-chair with whatever partner it was in the Middle East, so I had a speaking role, and I felt was incumbent upon me to present a model of leadership and inclusivity in how we engage with our partners, spoke to our partners, listened to our partners concerns, and that that was part of the job. And only once, I remember it very clearly. We were at a dinner after a big meeting, and somebody looks at me, it's a meeting with all, y7all men, all men for a dinner. And they said, Is this what it's like for you all the time? And I said, Yes, it is. And you know, it took two and a half years for somebody to notice, so. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, what have you experienced? And have you ever worried as a woman that you weren't being taken seriously? Mira Resnick:   I think that every woman in one of these jobs has imposter syndrome every so often, and walking into the room and owning it, fake it till you make it right. That's the solution. I will. I agree with Dana wholeheartedly that in Washington, I was really proud to walk into the room and never fear that I was the only woman. And I even remember traveling where another delegation was all women, and our delegation was all women, and how surprising that was, and then how disappointing, how surprising that was, but to take notice of the moment, because they don't happen very often.  I think that in Washington and throughout diplomacy, the goal is to pay it forward to other women. And I wasn't the last person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory, and I wasn't the first person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory. But that is, that was, like, my moment where I was like, Oh, this is a strange place to be a woman, right?  But I do find that women really bring holistic views into our policy making, and whether it's meeting with civil society, even if your job is strictly security cooperation to understand the human impacts of your security decisions, or making sure that you are nurturing your people, that you are a good leader of people.  I remember post-October 7, I was looking for some way that I could nurture in the personal life. And I see Nadine Binstock here, who goes to my shul, and Stephanie also. Stephanie Guiloff is also in the audience. She's my neighbor, and also goes to my shul. And after October 7, I took on the Kiddush Committee Coordinator at my shul. So that every week, no matter what I was experiencing at the office and no matter where I was in the world, our community would be a little bit more nurtured. And it was a way for me to like to give back to the community, and at the same time be able to continue to do the hard power work of security cooperation. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Mira, Casey, Dana, thank you so much for joining us, sharing your modern-day Miriam experiences. I want to open it up for questions from the audience. Just raise your hand and someone will bring you a microphone. Audience Member: Hi, I'm Maddie Ingle. I'm a Leaders for Tomorrow alum. What is some advice that any of you have for young women like me in the advocacy space and in general. Casey Kustin:   First of all, thank you for taking the time to come to Global Forum and for joining LFT. You've already taken the first step to better arming yourself as an advocate. I think there is, I wish someone had said to me, probably before I met the two of them who did say it to me, that it was okay to take up space around the table. I remember sitting in secure facilities, getting classified briefings from ambassadors, male ambassadors who were 30 years my senior, and watching the two of you in particular i. Not be scared to challenge the back and forth when I as a probably still, you know, mid 20s, early 30s, did have fear of speaking up.  And I wish someone, when I was your age as a teenager, had, and obviously, I had supportive parents who told me I could do anything, but it's different. It's different than seeing it modeled by people who are in the same space as you, and who are maybe even just a couple years older than you. So I would just say to you not to ever be afraid to use your voice. This is a memory that has stuck with me for 15 years. I was in a meeting, sitting next to my congressman boss, with two men who were probably in their 60s, and a vote was called. And you never know on the Hill when a vote is going to be called. So it interrupts a meeting. And he had to go vote, and he said, Casey will finish the meeting with you. And they looked at him and said, Does she know what we're talking about?  Dana Strohl: We have all been there, Casey. Casey Kustin: We have all been there. So even if you're met with a response like that when you try to use your voice, don't let it deter you. Audience Member: Hi, guys. I'm Jenny. This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you guys. My mom is the first female, woman brakeman conductor on Amtrak. So you guys are just so empowering. As a long time Democrat, you guys talked about bipartisan issues. With how the Democratic Party is. I know you guys probably can't go fully into this. Do you have any inspiring words to give us hope when it feels very scary right now, as a Democrat, how divided our party is. Casey Kustin: I work for a nonpartisan organization now, so I'll let them handle that one. Dana Strohl:   I, so were we all on the Hill during the first Trump administration? And there was still bipartisanship. And what I'm looking for right now is the green shoots of our democracy. And I see them. There is thinking through what does it mean to be in this country, to be an American, to live in a democracy? What does democracy do? I think, first of all, it is healthy and okay for Americans to go through times of challenge and questioning. Is this working for us? And you know, the relationship between the government, whether it's legislative, judicial, executive and the people, and it's okay to challenge and question, and I think it's okay for there to be healthy debates inside both the Republican and the Democratic Party about what what this stands for, and what is in the best interest of our country.  And you can see both in polling data and in certain areas where there actually are members of Congress coming together on certain issues, like economic policy, what's in the best interest of our constituents and voters. That there is thinking through what is the right balance between the different branches of our government.  I was talking to somebody the other day who was reminding me this actual, you know, we are, we are in a time of significant transition and debate in our society about the future of our country and the future role of the government and the relationship. But it's not the first time, and it won't be the last. And I found to be that part of my job was to make sure I understood the diversity of voices and views about what the role of the government should be, general views about American foreign policy, which was our job, was just such a humble reminder of democracy and the importance of this back and forth. Audience Member:  [My name is Allie.] My question for you is, what are your hopes and dreams for generation alpha, who will be able to vote in the next election?  Casey Kustin:   I think we all have, all our kids are still in elementary, or Mira, your one is going into middle school now– Mira Resnik: To middle school. Casey Kustin:   So the vast majority of our children are still elementary school age. And for me, I have a very interesting experience of moving my family out of a very diverse community in Washington, DC to Jacksonville, Florida. And it's a very different environment than I thought that my children were going to grow up in, because at the time, we didn't anticipate leaving DC anytime soon, and it's made me realize that I want them to live in a world where no matter what community They are growing up in, they are experiencing a world that gives them different perspectives on life, and I think it's very easy now that I have gone from a city environment to suburbia to live in a bubble, and I just, I hope that every child in this next generation doesn't have to wait until they're adults to learn these kinds of really important lessons. Dana Strohl:   I have two additional things to add. I'm very concerned at what the polling suggests, the apathy of young people toward voting, the power of voting, why it matters. And participation, that you need to be an active citizen in your governments. And you can't just vote every four years in the presidential election, there's actually a ton of voting, including, like the county boards of education, you got to vote all the way up and down you continuously. And that it's okay to have respectful debate, discourse, disagreements in a democracy. So I would like this generation to learn how to have respectful discourse and debate, to believe that their votes matter and just vote. And three, on the YouTube thing, which is terrifying to me, so I'm hoping the educators help me with this is, how to teach our kids to separate the disinformation, the misinformation, and the fiction that they are getting because of YouTube and online. So mine are all elementary schoolers, and I have lost positive control of the information they absorb.  And now I'm trying to teach them well, you know, that's not real. And do I cut off certain things? How do I engage them? How do I use books and when? So they need to not just be active participants in their society, all up and down the ballot, multiple times every year, but they need to know how to inform themselves. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And Mira? Mira Resnick:   I do hope that our children, as they approach voting age, that they see the value in cooperation with each other, that they see the value of face to face conversation. I think that honestly, this is the value of Shabbat in my household. That you take a break from the screens and you have a face to face conversation. My children understand how to have conversations with adults now. Which is, I think, a critical life skill, and that they will use those life skills toward the betterment of their communities, and more broadly, our Jewish community, and more broadly than that, our global community. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone.

Friday Focus provides listeners with a focused, half-hour masterclass on the big issues, events and trends driving the news and current events. The show features Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and bestselling author, in conversation with Rudyard Griffiths, Chair and moderator of the Munk Debates. Rudyard and Janice open today's show with their key takeaway from the Canadian election: Mark Carney's functional minority was delivered to him by the Boomers who want to protect their assets and wealth accumulation, often at the expense of the younger generation who are faced with poor job prospects and an inflated housing market. Governments need to address these conflicting demographic interests and provide a pathway to financial security for our young people. In the second half of the show Rudyard and Janice turn to the ongoing nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran. The new agreement being discussed is very similar to Obama's JCPOA, a deal that Trump backed out of in his first term in office. Why does Trump want to pursue a deal with Iran at the expense of the security of their close ally Israel? How are the Saudis influencing Trump's foreign policy in the Middle East? And will Israel be forced to go against Trump and strike Iran's nuclear facilities on their own? To support the Friday Focus podcast consider becoming a donor to the Munk Debates for as little as $25 annually, or $.50 per episode. Canadian donors receive a charitable tax receipt. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue. More information at www.munkdebates.com.

Eliot and Eric welcome Edward Fishman, Senior Research Fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy and Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University's SIPA program and author of Chokepoints: American Power in The Age of Economic Warfare (New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2025). They discuss the American tradition of reaching for economic sanctions as an alternative to kinetic military action or war and how U.S. policymakers have weaponized the role of the dollar in international finance to U.S. advantage as well as export controls like the Foreign Direct Product rule that weaponize U.S. cutting edge technologies. They discuss how these tools, if used inappropriately, can backfire as they arguably did in the early 1800s with the Non-Intercourse Act and the Embargo under Jefferson and Madison as well as the scrap metal and oil embargoes against Imperial Japan in 1940-1941. They consider the record of economic warfare in bringing Iran to the table for the negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), as a deterrent to Russian military action against Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 and then as tools of attrition against the Russian war effort, as well as in the ongoing strategic competition with China. Finally, they consider whether we should see sanctions and economic warfare as limited tools that can achieve limited goals as opposed to fundamentally changing the behavior of America's authoritarian adversaries. Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare: https://a.co/d/fFkgUq7

Au menu de l'actualité :

Today, Martha, Les, Morgan, and Matt break down the major explosion at Iran's Shahid Rajaee port—a key hub for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that plays a crucial role in supplying proxies and moving sanctionable goods. With at least 40 dead, and early reports linking missile propellant sourced from China to the blast, the incident raises urgent questions about Iran's illicit networks, foreign support, and the growing ties between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing.Will this explosion reshape Iran's ability to supply its proxies? What are the geopolitical implications? As Iran remains weakened, is now the moment for a more aggressive approach to dismantle its nuclear ambitions, or will Trump return to a JCPOA-style deal?Check out the answers to these questions and more in this episode of Fault Lines.Check out these sources which helped shape our Fellows' conversation: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx251yyvwr3o https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/27/russia-sends-help-to-iran-after-deadly-port-explosionhttps://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-851637https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/world/middleeast/us-iran-nuclear-talks.htmlFollow our experts on Twitter: @marthamillerdc@lestermunson@morganlroach@WMattHaydenLike what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to follow @masonnatsec on Twitter!We are also on YouTube, and watch today's episode here: https://youtu.be/mau4aw6M94c Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Christina Ruffini and former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove unpack the proposed Iran nuclear deal discussed in Rome, following Trump's exit from the JCPOA. They also reflect on Pope Francis's recent death and the Catholic Church's ties to intelligence agencies. Later, Rep. Tim Burchett joins to weigh in on the strategic importance of U.S.-Greenland trade, his views on Putin, and U.S. aid to Ukraine. Episode produced by Situation Room Studios. Original music composed and produced by Leo Sidran.

Unul dintre dosarele deschise de președintele Donald Trump odată cu revenirea sa la Casa Albă este cel cu privire la programul nuclear al Iranului. Sîmbătă va avea loc în Oman a treia întîlnire dintre SUA și Iran pentru negocieri pe această temă. În 2015 a fost încheiat un acord nuclear internaţional între Iran, pe de-o parte, şi SUA, Rusia, China, Marea Britanie, Franța și Germania pe de altă parte (JCPOA). Acordul prevedea suspendarea unor sancțiuni în schimbul renunțării Teheranului la programul său nuclear. În 2018, în timpul primului său mandat, preşedintele Donald Trump a retras Statele Unite din acest acord şi a reintrodus sancţiuni pentru Iran. Care au fost consecinţele retragerii Statelor Unite din acordul nuclear cu Iranul? Cu ce se prezintă acum la negocieri fiecare parte, la ce nu sînt dispuşi să renunţe pe de-o parte americanii, pe de altă parte iranienii? Cum priveşte Israelul apropierea diplomatică dintre SUA şi Iran? Care sînt şansele să vedem un acord între SUA şi Iran? Am întrebat-o pe Ioana Constantin-Bercean, expertă în Orientul Mijlociu, cercetătoare la Institutul de Științe Politice și Relații Internaționale Ion I. C. Brătianu al Academiei Române (ISPRI).De ce a retras Donald Trump Statele Unite din acordul cu Iranul în 2018?Ioana Constantin-Bercean: „Cred că a fost o greşeală strategică a administraţiei Trump, pentru că acel acord controla programul nuclear al Iranului. Republica Islamică Iran, ca stat semnatar al Tratatului de Neproliferare Nucleară, la fel ca România şi toate cele peste 150 de state semnatare ale acestui NPT, au dreptul să-şi dezvolte programe nucleare civile. Singurele state care au legal voie să dezvolte program nuclear militar sînt acelea din grupul P5 (SUA, Rusia, China, Marea Britanie, Franța). Iranul era limitat, prin acel JCPOA, să îmbogăţească uraniu pînă la 3,67%, spre deosebire de toate celelalte state semnatare ale Tratatului de Neproliferare, care pot îmbogăţi uraniu în scop civil pînă la 20%. Acest acord se întindea pe o perioadă de 15 ani. A fost cel mai complex şi mai strict acord de control al programului nuclear semnat vreodată. Dar Donald Trump, pe de-o parte a spus că doreşte să pună pe masă un acord mai bun şi a explicat atunci de ce, în viziunea domniei sale, acel acord – semnat în timpul administraţiei Obama – nu este bun. Şi putem privi şi din perspectiva aceasta, că dorea să facă lucrurile mai bine decît Barack Obama, care primise Premiul Nobel pentru viziunea lui de neproliferare nucleară şi de remodelare pacifistă a Orientului Mijlociu. Dar, pe de altă parte, dacă ne uităm în urmă, în prima administraţie Trump erau foarte mulţi diplomaţi şi oameni politici foarte porniţi împotriva Iranului şi care îşi doreau foarte mult un război cu Iranul, din diverse motive. Influenţat probabil de ce se îtîmpla în jurul lui, influenţat de lobby-ul israelian, nu trebuie să ne ferim să spunem asta, Donald Trump a decis să retragă unilateral SUA din acord, în mai 2018, promiţînd că va pune pe masă un acord mai bun. Dar nu cîştigat un al doilea mandat şi nu a reuşit să facă acest lucru în termenul promis de domnia sa.”Cum se uită acum Israelul la aceste apropieri dintre SUA şi Iran?Ioana Constantin-Bercean: „Este una dintre cele mai bune şi necesare întrebări. Pentru că ştim că Israelul şi, în principal premierul Benjamin Netanyahu, s-a opus de la început semnării unui acord nuclear între SUA şi Iran. Dar să ne amintim de a doua vizită a premierului Netanyahu la Washington, acum două săptămîni şi de discuţia din Biroul Oval cu presa. Atunci a spus ceva foarte important, ceva ce nu a mai declarat niciodată public: a spus că în ceea ce priveşte Iranul este de acord cu o soluţie diplomatică, după modelul libian.”Apasă PLAY pentru a asculta interviul integral!O emisiune de Adela Greceanu şi Matei Martin  Un produs Radio România Cultural  

Ngày 12/04/2025 vừa qua, tức hơn hai tháng kể từ khi Donald Trump trở lại nắm quyền, Iran và Mỹ quyết định nối lại đàm phán để tìm cách đạt được thỏa thuận về một loạt các vấn đề đang khiến căng thẳng song phương có thể biến thành chiến tranh, trong đó căn bản nhất là chương trình hạt nhân quân sự của Iran. Vì sao Mỹ và Iran nhanh chóng nối lại đàm phán ? Đây là lần đầu tiên Mỹ và Iran khởi sự đàm phán kể từ năm 2018, tức là từ khi nước Mỹ - trong nhiệm kỳ Donald Trump đầu tiên - đơn phương rút hỏi Hiệp định về hạt nhân Iran, gọi tắt là JCPOA, ký kết năm 2015 giữa Iran và sáu cường quốc (Mỹ, Anh, Pháp, Đức, Trung Quốc và Nga), với nội dung chủ yếu là dỡ bỏ các trừng phạt quốc tế đổi lấy việc Iran ngừng chương trình phát triển hạt nhân quân sự.Đàm phán vừa được mở lại thông qua trung gian của quốc gia vùng Trung Cận Đông Oman, do Mỹ và Iran đã cắt đứt quan hệ ngoại giao từ 45 năm nay sau cuộc cách mạng Hồi Giáo. Quan điểm của lãnh tụ tối cao Iran là bác bỏ việc đàm phán trực tiếp với Mỹ.Chương trình tên lửa đạn đạo, hay chính sách của Iran đối với các lực lượng vũ trang thân Teheran trong khu vực, mà Mỹ và Israel lo ngại được Iran sử dụng để chống lại các lợi ích của mình tại khu vực, có thể là nội dung của các thương thuyết mà Mỹ muốn gây sức ép để buộc Iran phải có các nhân nhượng. Tuy nhiên, chương trình vũ khí hạt nhân của Iran được coi là điểm then chốt. Trong một phát biểu trên The Wall Street Journal, tổng thống Donald Trump nhấn mạnh « lằn ranh đỏ » của Washington là Iran không được « quân sự hóa năng lực hạt nhân ». Về phần mình, Ali Shamkhani, một cố vấn của thủ lĩnh tối cao Iran, giáo chủ Ali Khamenei, khẳng định : Iran tham gia đàm phán không nhằm mục tiêu « xây dựng hình ảnh », mà hy vọng đạt được « một thỏa thuận nghiêm túc và công bằng ».Trump có thể đã rút được bài học thất bại của nhiệm kỳ đầuTrong một cuộc trả lời phỏng vấn RFI vào thời điểm Iran và Mỹ mở lại đàm phán, ông Thierry Coville, nhà nghiên cứu tại Viện Quan hệ quốc tế và Chiến lược IRIS (Institut des Relations internationales et stratégiques), tác giả cuốn « Iran, une puissance en mouvement » (Nxb Eyrolles), nhận định có thể chính bài học được rút ra từ thất bại trong nhiệm kỳ đầu tiên, khi đơn phương rút khỏi thỏa thuận đã khiến tổng thống Trump nhanh chóng nối lại đàm phán với Iran :« Có thể giả định rằng, mặc dù Trump không thể nói ra nhưng ông đã nhận ra mình đã phạm một sai lầm lớn khi rút khỏi thỏa thuận vào tháng 5/2018. Có lẽ ông đã quá tin tưởng vào các cố vấn như John Bolton hay cựu ngoại trưởng Mike Pompeo, người có lập trường chống Iran rất cực đoan. Chúng ta có thể thấy rõ rằng kể từ khi tái đắc cử, một mặt đe dọa sẽ có hành động quân sự chống Iran, hoặc ban hành các lệnh trừng phạt mới, Trump vẫn liên tục nhắc lại ý muốn đàm phán một thỏa thuận mới với Iran. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng Trump có thể hiểu về thất bại này, vì Iran đã rút khỏi thỏa thuận và chưa bao giờ tiến gần đến năng lực sản xuất vũ khí nguyên tử như vậy. Rõ ràng là ông đã rút ra bài học từ nhiệm kỳ đầu tiên. »Tình hình khẩn cấp: Lượng Uranium gấp « 41 lần » được phép Theo nhà nghiên cứu Thierry Coville, tình hình căng thẳng hiện tại liên quan đến việc Iran đang tiến gần ngưỡng có uranium được làm giàu đủ mức và đủ lượng để chế tạo vũ khí hạt nhân, trong lúc báo chí Mỹ nói đến việc Teheran có thể sản xuất được vũ khí hạt nhân trong ít tuần lễ, là một lý do chính khiến Mỹ phải ráo riết thúc đẩy đàm phán :  « Iran được cho là có đủ lượng uranium làm giàu để có khả năng chế tạo ít nhất bốn quả bom nguyên tử. Vậy nên, thực sự là mọi người đều lo lắng. Hơn nữa, thỏa thuận trước sẽ hết hạn vào tháng 10/2025. Vì vậy, Hoa Kỳ đã đặt ra hai tháng để đạt được một thỏa thuận mới, đảm bảo rằng Iran không tiến tới chế tạo bom nguyên tử. »Trên làn sóng RFI, ông David Rigoulet-Roze, chuyên gia về Trung Đông và Bán đảo Ả Rập, tổng biên tập tạp chí Orients Stratégiques, giải thích : Hiện tại không có gì ngăn cản Iran về mặt kỹ thuật trong mục tiêu chế tạo được vũ khí hạt nhân. Iran đang bước vào giai đoạn có thể tăng mức làm giàu uranium từ 60% đến 90%, tức từ mức có chuyển sang chế tạo bom nguyên tử là rất nhanh chóng.Iran chưa rút hẳn khỏi Thỏa thuận hạt nhân 2015, cho dù Mỹ đơn phương rút. Nhưng hành động của Washington đã ảnh hưởng lớn đến việc Thỏa thuận được Iran tuân thủ theo các điều khoản ban đầu. Theo một báo cáo mật của Cơ quan Năng lượng Nguyên tử Quốc tế (AIEA), được France 24 trích dẫn hồi cuối tháng 2/2025, lượng dự trữ Uranium được làm giàu ở mức 60% trong hiện tại gấp đến « 41 lần » mức Hiệp định 2015 cho phép.Tính đến ngày 8/2, Iran sở hữu tổng cộng 274,8 kg, so với 182,3 kg ba tháng trước đó. Tốc độ sản xuất uranium làm giàu cao ở mức 60%, tức gần với mức 90% cần thiết để chế tạo vũ khí hạt nhân, đã gia tăng ở Iran. Cơ quan Năng lượng Nguyên tử Quốc tế (AIEA) xem đây là tình hình « rất đáng lo ngại ». Thậm chí, theo Ali Vaez, chuyên gia về Iran tại nhóm International Crisis Group, « nếu lượng uranium mà Iran đang có đã được làm giàu đến mức 90%, thì quốc gia này có đủ khả năng chế tạo vũ khí hạt nhân với tốc độ một vũ khí trong một tháng ».Đầu tháng 12/2024 vừa qua, Teheran cảnh báo sẽ đưa vào sử dụng các máy ly tâm tiên tiến mới. Quyết định này ngay lập tức vấp đã phải sự phản đối mạnh mẽ của Hội đồng thống đốc Cơ quan Năng lượng Nguyên tử Quốc tế. Tuy nhiên, vào thời điểm loan truyền báo cáo mật của Cơ quan năng lượng Nguyên tử quốc tế, Teheran vẫn khăng khăng bác bỏ khả năng đàm phán với Mỹ.  Đe dọa từ Mỹ tăng vọt, dân chúng mệt mỏi : Nguy cơ sụp đổ Vì sao chính quyền Iran đã nhanh chóng đảo ngược quan điểm khăng khăng không chấp nhận đàm phán với Mỹ ? Nhà nghiên cứu Viện IRIS nhìn thấy ở đây những lo sợ của chế độ Hồi Giáo Iran trước các áp lực ngày càng lớn từ bên ngoài cùng tình trạng phẫn nộ của dân chúng trong nước :« Đúng là chỉ một vài tuần trước, lãnh đạo tối cao Iran còn nói : không được, không được ! Sẽ không khôn ngoan và không hợp lý khi đàm phán với Mỹ. Tuy nhiên, ông ta đã thay đổi quyết định. Và nếu ông thay đổi quyết định thì đó là vì thực sự có một cuộc khủng hoảng chính trị ở Iran, kể từ năm 2022. Có một vấn đề về tính hợp pháp của chính quyền Iran. Có những khó khăn về kinh tế, mà chúng ta không nên phóng đại, nhưng rõ ràng có lạm phát, hiện vẫn ở mức 30%, và trên hết là dân chúng đã mệt mỏi. Vì vậy, chế độ Iran lo sợ nếu có lệnh trừng phạt mới của Mỹ, thì chắc chắn sẽ có các phong trào phản đối trong dân chúng, và sau đó, thực sự là có đe dọa về một cuộc tấn công của Mỹ hoặc Israel. Những điều này thực sự ảnh hưởng đến việc Iran quyết định đàm phán. »Chế được vũ khí hạt nhân phải mất từ một đến ba nămTrên thực tế, khả năng Iran sản xuất được vũ khí hạt nhân không còn nằm trong lĩnh vực kỹ thuật, mà ở quyết định chính trị, theo nhiều chuyên gia. Trong một chương trình tọa đàm của RFI về chủ đề này, nhà nghiên cứu Clément Therme, giảng viên tại Đại học Paul Valéry ở Montpellier và Học viện Sciences Po Paris, chuyên gia về thế giới Iran, nhấn mạnh rõ đến sự khác biệt này :« Nếu lãnh tụ tối cao, giáo chủ Ali Khamenei, ra quyết định thì Cộng hòa Hồi giáo Iran sẽ phải mất từ ​​một đến ba năm để có được vũ khí hạt nhân có thể sử dụng được. Vì vậy, đây chưa phải là vấn đề cấp bách. Chúng ta cần phân biệt giữa năng lực thực sự sản xuất vũ khí để có thể sử dụng và khả năng có đủ số lượng uranium để về mặt lý thuyết có thể sản xuất được vũ khí. Về điểm thứ hai này, thời hạn là ngắn hơn nhiều. Tôi nghĩ là các phương tiện truyền thông nhầm lẫn giữa việc có được vũ khí hạt nhân với việc có đủ lượng uranium để chế tạo vũ khí hạt nhân. Hai chuyện không phải là một. Chính vì vậy vẫn còn có khả năng đàm phán và trong hiện tại, công cụ được ưu tiên để kiểm soát tham vọng hạt nhân của Iran là con đường ngoại giao. »Đường cùng mới phải chế vũ khí hạt nhân: Nội bộ chế độ cân nhắc lợi hại Iran có thể đạt được một thỏa hiệp về chương trình hạt nhân quân sự với Mỹ trong thời gian tới hay không ? Đối với nhiều chuyên gia, mấu chốt của vấn đề nằm ở chỗ các phe nhóm chủ chốt trong chế độ Hồi giáo Iran nhìn nhận ra sao về vấn đề này. Trả lời RFI, chuyên gia về thế giới Iran Clément Therme giải thích :« Câu hỏi đặt ra là phát triển chương trình hạt nhân quân sự có phục vụ cho lợi ích của nước Cộng hòa Hồi Giáo Iran hay không và quyết định này có thể đe dọa đến sự tồn vong của chế độ Cộng hòa Hồi Giáo Iran hay không? Tổng thống Pháp Jacques Chirac, trong một cuộc trả lời phỏng vấn nổi tiếng với tờ New York Times hồi 2006, từng nói rằng nếu Teheran tìm cách sở hữu vũ khí hạt nhân, Iran sẽ bị nguyền rủa. Như vậy, nhìn chung có thể thấy nếu Iran phát triển chương trình hạt nhân quân sự, chế độ Hồi Giáo sẽ sụp đổ. Có một cuộc tranh luận trong nội bộ chế độ Iran về việc có nên phát triển chương trình hạt nhân quân sự hay không. Cuộc tranh luận này dựa trên ý tưởng chính: nếu Israel và Mỹ tấn công vào các cơ sở hạt nhân dân sự của Iran, thì chế độ Hồi giáo có thể sẽ quyết định nhanh chóng phát triển vũ khí hạt nhân. Tôi nghĩ là hiện tại có một nhận thức chung: Cái giá mà Iran phải trả, nếu quyết định thúc đẩy chương trình hạt nhân quân sự, sẽ lớn hơn các lợi ích mà chế độ Hồi giáo Iran có thể thu được từ việc phát triển vũ khí hạt nhân, mà rõ ràng là một mối đe dọa tồn vong đối với chế độ. »

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and host of The Iran Breakdown podcast, joins the show to discuss the Iranian nuclear program, where things stand with the Trump administration's pursuit of a deal, and the prospects of an Israeli attack. ▪️ Times      •      01:33 Introduction     •      02:04 Beginnings      •      04:25 A weapon is the purpose     •      07:31 Enrichment        •      12:32 JCPOA        •      16:54 “The worst deal…”      •      18:46 Can Iran reach the U.S.?         •      23:53 Dismantle the program      •      29:01 Splitscreen     •      34:09 Risky and futile        •      41:02 Pacing   Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find a transcript of today's episode on our School of War Substack

Editors' Picks:Rich: NR's webathonPhil: Ryan Mills's piece “North America's Auto Supply Chain Took Decades to Build. Trump's Tariffs Could Crush It”Ramesh: Vahaken Mouradian's magazine piece "American Becoming: The Making of a New U.S. Citizen"Dominic: Christian Schneider's piece “Universities Get Schooled on Federal Funding”Light Items:Rich: Going to MilwaukeePhil: Aaron JudgeRamesh: Books for Lent by Edward FeserDominic: Rest Is History club subscriptionSponsors:DonorsTrustFastGrowingTreesThis podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte.

Today, Martha, Les, Andy, and Jess unpack the Trump administration's latest mixed signals on Iran. After U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff publicly suggested the U.S. might accept uranium enrichment at levels allowed under the JCPOA, the statement was quickly walked back—raising major questions about whether the administration has a coherent strategy for talks with Tehran.What is the Trump administration's actual position on Iran's nuclear program? Is Witkoff—despite his lack of diplomatic experience—shaping U.S. foreign policy by default? Can the U.S. pursue negotiations without clear parameters, or should it return to a maximum pressure campaign?Check out the answers to these questions and more in this episode of Fault Lines.Check out these sources which helped shape our Fellows' conversation: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-softens-position-on-iranian-uranium-enrichment-5bf0953a https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/15/trump-envoy-steve-witkoff-demands-iran-eliminate-nuclear-programme https://www.ft.com/content/5fa3707d-7952-464f-a67c-37ddfc061ed5 Follow our experts on Twitter: @NotTVJessJones@lestermunson@marthamillerdc@AndyKeiserLike what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to follow @masonnatsec on Twitter!We are also on YouTube, and watch today's episode here: https://youtu.be/qqev_TnyGVk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

[00:30] Trump Administration Supports JCPOA 2.0 (51 minutes) The Trump administration's proposed deal with Iran is eerily similar to Barack Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which allowed Iran to quietly pursue its nuclear goals. President Donald Trump and his team are big on dialogue, but dialogue will not solve the Iranian nuclear threat, neutralize Hamas, or convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to retreat from Ukraine. Though President Trump recognizes that Iran is “tapping us along” to get its own way, other leaders are beginning to view him as a geopolitical bloviator who talks big but doesn't follow through. [51:30] Feedback (4 minutes)

Is Israel Prepared to Act Alone Against Iran's Nuclear Threat?In this explosive follow-up, Dr. Bob welcomes back Brigadier General (Res.) Jacob Nagel — former Israeli National Security Advisor and close confidant to Prime Minister Netanyahu — to deliver a sobering warning: Iran is 6 to 18 months away from a nuclear weapon.Nagel lays out the facts:

Michael Doran, senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at Hudson Institute, joins the show to discuss “restraintism” as a factor in Trump's choices in the Middle East. ▪️ Times      •      01:46 Introduction     •      02:20 What is it?      •      05:01 Left, right, center      •      06:56 Syria '07        •      11:47 Iraq Study Group        •      17:21 Populist expression      •      27:34 Balance         •      30:20 Obama v Trump      •      34:56 Oscillation     •      42:16 Back to JCPOA?         •      45:49 Snapback      •      47:44 Syria '25     •      52:09 Iran and Turkey Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find a transcript of today's episode on our School of War Substack

As new negotiations begin to tackle Iran's nuclear program, missile development, and support for terror proxies, tensions are escalating. Jason Isaacson, AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, joins us to unpack the legacy of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and withdrawal in 2018, and Iran's dangerous stockpiling of uranium, getting them closer to nuclear weapons capabilities. With U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff leading talks and key UN sanctions expiring soon, the stakes are higher than ever. Don't miss Jason's insights on what the U.S. is demanding, the potential for successful diplomacy, and the global risks posed by Iran. ___ Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran Social media influencer Hen Mazzig on leaving Tunisia Chef Einat Admony on leaving Iran Playwright Oren Safdie on leaving Syria Cartoonist Carol Isaacs on leaving Iraq Novelist Andre Aciman on leaving Egypt People of the Pod:  Latest Episode: This Often Forgotten 1929 Massacre is Key to Understanding the Current Israel-Palestinian Conflict Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother's Fight for Freedom and Justice Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.  

Upcoming Event Notice: Dan Senor will be delivering this year's “State of World Jewry Address” at the 92nd Street Y (92NY) on Tuesday May 13 at 7:30 pm: https://www.92ny.org/event/the-state-of-world-jewry-addressWatch Call me Back on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CallMeBackPodcastTo contact us, sign up for updates, and access transcripts, visit: https://arkmedia.org/Dan on X: https://x.com/dansenorDan on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dansenorArk Media on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/arkmediaorgIn response to escalating tensions with Iran, the US, over the past month, has been quietly — and not so quietly — ramping up its military presence in the region, signaling it's preparing for the possibility of direct confrontation with Iran. Six B-2 stealth bombers, capable of carrying bunker busting weapons, have been deployed to Diego Garcia, a remote base in the Indian Ocean that's well within striking distance of Iran. At the same time, while missile defense systems have been repositioned to guard against Iranian retaliation, the US Navy has extended the deployment of the Harry Truman carrier strike group and has sent in the USS Carl Vinson, adding serious firepower to the region.So, to many Israelis, it came as a surprise when President Trump, with Mr. Netanyahu sitting beside him, announced on Monday that the United States would engage in “direct” negotiations with Iran on Saturday, in a last-ditch effort to rein in the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. So we're looking at a very volatile situation, with military might being deployed on the one hand, and a diplomacy track underway on the other. How are Israeli decision-makers assessing the situation?With us today is Call me Back regular Nadav Eyal, senior analyst for Yediot Achronot, to help us unpack how we got here, and what Israelis expect to happen next.  CREDITS:ILAN BENATAR - Producer & EditorMARTIN HUERGO - Sound EditorYARDENA SCHWARTZ - Executive Editor, Ark MediaGABE SILVERSTEIN - ResearchYUVAL SEMO - Music Composer

Benyamin Poghosyan - US-Iran, Gyumri, Armenia MFA Blames Artsakh, Negotiations with AzerbaijanGroong Week in Review - April 6, 2025TopicsUS Iran EscalationAftermath of Gyumri and ParakarMFA blames Artsakh for Regional IsolationBullets and PeaceGuestBenyamin PoghosyanHostsHovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 426 | Recorded: April 8, 2025Subscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

Iran, US, Armenia, Fake Peace, Gyumri & Parakar Municipal ElectionsGroong Week in Review - March 30, 2025TopicsIran Rejects US Offer of Direct NegotiationsIran and Armenia TiesGyumri and Parakar Municipal ElectionsArtsakh Refugee Protests in ArmeniaGuestArthur Khachatryan, MP - Hayastan Dashinq/ARFHostsHovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 425 | Recorded: March 31, 2025Subscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

The original JCPOA agreement is set to expire on October 18, 2025, raising the question of whether it makes sense to restore the JCPOA as it was envisioned in 2015 or to draft a new nuclear agreement, with both the US and Iran signaling willingness to negotiate. Economic transformation in the Gulf requires stability and GCC countries have engaged with Iran, reducing support for aggressive US policies. Rebounding US inflation may also influence policy priorities. We forecast Iranian crude production to remain flat at 3.1 mbd in 2025, unchanged from 2024 levels.   Speaker: Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Research   This podcast was recorded on 21 February 2025. This communication is provided for information purposes only. Institutional clients can view the related report at https://www.jpmm.com/research/content/GPS-4906782-0 or more information; please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. © 2025 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This material or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. It is strictly prohibited to use or share without prior written consent from J.P. Morgan any research material received from J.P. Morgan or an authorized third-party (“J.P. Morgan Data”) in any third-party artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems or models when such J.P. Morgan Data is accessible by a third-party. It is permissible to use J.P. Morgan Data for internal business purposes only in an AI system or model that protects the confidentiality of J.P. Morgan Data so as to prevent any and all access to or use of such J.P. Morgan Data by any third-party.

You're Listening to Parallax Views https://parallaxviews.podbean.com/ Support the Show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews On this edition of Parallax Views, Robbie Martin, filmmaker behind the documentary A Very Heavy Agenda about the history of neoconservatism & co-host with Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio, returns to discuss the 2024 election and its fallout with a particular focus on what Robbie perceives as the psyop-ing or cognitive infiltration of so-called alternative media. Robbie expresses his annoyance with the state of alternative media and what he sees as alt media figures who claim to be antiwar and against the mainstream, but are smuggling pro-war, hawkish views into the political arena while claiming to be against U.S. militarism and interventionism. We'll also delve into the parallels between this cognitive infiltration of alt media and the trajectory of the 9/11 Truth movement. Robbie and I also discuss the state of conspiracy culture, RFK Jr.'s leaked call with Trump before he suspended his campaign in the 2024 election, the paranoid climate in the post-Jeffrey Epstein moment, antisemitism in alt media, nationalist sentiments in alt media, Trump's foreign policy record in his first term (arming Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, Ukraine and Russia, reneging on the JCPOA deal with Iran and assassinating Gen. Qassem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps., Latin America), the influence of Tucker Carlson, Trump's hawkish appointments (confirmed and unconfirmed at time of recording; Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, et al.), antiwar Libertarians getting sucked into the right-wing's culture war, the mainstream media's turn on Joe Biden,

The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which the United States was a signatory to but abandoned under former President Trump, is unlikely to be revived. Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center and journalist with extensive experience reporting from Iran, underscores Iran's desperate need for sanctions relief. She argues that the JCPOA is an outdated framework, given President Biden's refusal to sign an executive order to bring the U.S. back into the deal, and that current twisted American foreign policy greenlights Israel's maniacal plans to target Iran.  

Mike Braun, Jennifer McCormick, Donald Rainwater Debate Last Night. Another union choosing not to endorse in the presidential election. Iran is going to be a nuclear power because of the JCPOA, not in spite of it. FEMA doesn't have the money to take care of Americans ravaged by Hurricane Helene? Because it went to illegal immigrants?  Caitlin Clark was not the unanimous Rookie of the Year. The WNBA continues to be ridiculous. Jennifer McCormick Is Not Serious And Does Not Connect With Regular Hoosiers See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mike Braun, Jennifer McCormick, Donald Rainwater Debate Last Night. Another union choosing not to endorse in the presidential election. Iran is going to be a nuclear power because of the JCPOA, not in spite of it. FEMA doesn't have the money to take care of Americans ravaged by Hurricane Helene? Because it went to illegal immigrants? Caitlin Clark was not the unanimous Rookie of the Year. The WNBA continues to be ridiculous  Jennifer McCormick Is Not Serious And Does Not Connect With Regular Hoosiers.  Micah Mistake? Dems now love warhawk Liz Cheney. Japanese Dan bot for sale. FEMA cries poor. McCormick fighting White Christianalism. Dems believe that Cheney's endorsement moves momentum their way? Jobs numbers beat expectations, but will they revise down? Degenerate Rob Kendall makes his weekend picks  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Discussions about renewing or adopting something like the JCPOA to slow Iran's advance toward nuclear weapons should be tempered by the evidence. Justin Logan believes it's a dead letter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Ambassador Thomas R. Nides, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider (D-IL) joined us for the conversation. AJC's chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East, was moderating the program. AJC hosted a similar program on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention last month in Milwaukee. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides Show Notes: Watch: Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Democratic National Convention Listen – People of the Pod: Is Centrism the Antidote to Political Polarization and Extremism? A Conversation with Yair Zivan Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Joining us for the conversation was Ambassador Tom Nides, former US ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider. Moderating the program was AJC's chief policy officer Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East.  Just a reminder, AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization, and AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. Jason Isaacson:   I really wanted to begin by citing some passages from the Democratic platform and some passages from the Republican platform relating to the Middle East. I'll just mention very briefly that the Republican platform's Middle East language is short and to the point. It says, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East. We will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of stability, peace, stability and prosperity.  And it also promises, very quickly, to restore peace in Europe and the Middle East. The Democratic platform is much more extensive. It's an 80 page document, a long section on the Middle East. But it says that the administration opposes settlement expansion and West Bank West Bank annexation. Also opposes the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel. But it's very clear that the administration believes a strong, secure and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States.  It's also quite specific about the necessity of defeating Hamas. I want to start my questioning with Halie Soifer. The question that's been on the minds of political reporters and many of us in the community, Haley, as you very well know, over the last 10 months of the war in Gaza, and has taken on new meaning in light of the change at the top of the Democratic ticket.  How can a Democratic candidate for president in the current highly charged environment maintain the support of the party's pro Israel mainstream while also keeping or winning back the loyalty of the increasingly active pro Palestinian segment of its constituency. What have we heard from Vice President Harris, for whom you worked in the Senate, that suggests that she can balance these competing policy claims? Halie Soifer:   Well, thank you, Jason, thanks to everyone. I was told to project. And for those of you who are at the Global Forum, you know I know how to project, so I will try my best. But thanks for having me.  I did have the honor of working for then-Senator Harris, starting her first month in the Senate for two years as her national security advisor. And what I can tell you is, not only does she share the views of President Biden, we know that based on the past three and a half years, and their records standing with Israel in the lead up to and of course, in the aftermath of the horrific attacks of October 7.  Giving an unprecedented amount of military assistance to Israel, standing with Israel, not only in the aftermath of these attacks, but demanding the release of all of the hostages, and continuing to stand with Israel as it faces this threat from Iran, pre positioning military assets in the region, not once, but twice in the lead up to The attacks of April 13. But also, I can tell you from personal experience, her views on Israel didn't start from day one in the White House. I saw it from day one when she was in the Senate. She came to this role with over a decade of experience working on these issues. I traveled to Israel with her in November of 2017.  This is an issue that she feels deeply in terms of the importance of the US Israel relationship, Israel security, its right to self defense, and she is a staunch supporter of Israel. Have no doubt. I'm glad you started with the Democratic platform as well, because this also elaborates on what is the strongly pro Israel views of our party.  And make no mistake, it's not a coincidence that we have three pages detailing our support of Israel in our platform. It's pages 82-85 for those who would like to look it up. And it is no mistake that the Republican platform is empty platitudes. Two, two bullet points that barely say anything. Because this is an issue of which our party is deeply committed.  And it extends beyond Israel. It includes Israel's security in the Middle East and our platform, which has never been stronger. I testified before the platform committee. I was very happy to say this very strong pro Israel platform of 2020 not only should it not be diluted, it should be strengthened.  Because, of course, we have seen the horror of October 7, we should reflect the fact that we stand with Israel in this moment. We call for the release of the hostages, and of course, we unequivocally condemn Hamas.  All of that is reflected in this platform and more, including recognition of the horrific sexual violence that was perpetrated on that day, which the vice president herself has given voice to. So in terms of questioning how she can navigate this issue, she already has and she continues to stand with Israel.  I have no doubt that when she's elected in 78 days, with the strong support of the Jewish community, that she will continue to do so as President. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Haile. Brad, I'm going to turn to you. The Republican Party platform had no specific references to Iran, but the Democratic platform went on at length about the need both to halt the regime's progress toward nuclear weapons capability and to confront Iran's and its proxies, destabilizing activities across the region. The Democrats document also pointed to instances of the Trump administration's failure to respond to certain Iranian provocations. Unfortunately, the Democratic platform didn't mention the fact that Trump administration was responsible for taking out IRGC Quds Force Chief, General Soleimani.  Now talk about how you imagine a Harris administration confronting the Iranian threats differently from the Biden administration. We have seen over the last three years, Iran has continued to develop its nuclear weapons capability, although it's not yet passed that threshold apparently. Its proxies are on the march across the region. We haven't really been successful in confronting Iran. Do you see a Harris administration taking a different approach?  Brad Schneider   Great question. And before I start, let me just welcome everybody to Chicago, to our great city, and those from Chicago, can you raise your hand? And I'm also going to take the personal indulgence to say it's good to be home with Chicago AJC. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Brad. I should have said that. Brad Schneider   Look, Iran is the greatest threat to Israel, to the region, but also to the United States. Our interests here in the region, but also here at home, and so we need to stand up to Iran and understand Iran is a threat on many different aspects. It's not just their nuclear program. It is their support of the proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and more. It is their efforts to expand their reach, their influence across the region, and they do so not by building up states, but by tearing them down, creating instability across the region.  Their chant is not just Death to Israel, but Death to America. I have no doubt that the Harris-Walz administration will stay focused and understands the importance of first, ensuring that Iran never, ever gets a nuclear weapon. That has to be our number one priority. Because imagine where we would have been on April 13 if Iran had a nuclear weapon. Or this past couple of weeks, if Iran had a nuclear weapon.  The second thing I think you will see is the continuation of the policy. Reflecting on April 13, Iran launched 350 drones, rockets and missiles at Israel. It was Israel, the United States, and a arrangement or alliance of other nations that defeated that attack. That sent a very clear message that we will stand up to Iran, not leaving Israel to stand alone, or the United States and Israel standing without the support of allies, but allies throughout the region.  And just as important, if you look at who those allies are and what they believe in, they are countries, Arab countries, that are looking to the future. They're looking for a different dynamic in the Middle East. You mentioned that the Trump administration took out Soleimani. The Trump administration also laid the groundwork and helped establish the Abraham Accords. That is, I believe, the framework for the future that provides security and peace, not just to Israel, but to the other nations in the region.  And so what I believe the administration, that the Harris-Walz administration will focus on is isolating Iran, ensuring Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. Thwarting Iran's effort to expand its reach through proxies and failed states, but at the same time building up and working towards a path towards peace, security and prosperity for Israel and the region. I think that reflection of forward thinking, it's not just about Israel. It's about everything.  If you were watching last night, if you were there last night [Monday night], if you've been watching this campaign as it's unfolded. Now it'll be one month tomorrow. As it unfolds, what you're seeing is a view towards a different path that gives promise and hope to a better future that is absolutely dependent on the United States. United States leadership and US leadership on a global stage will empower and help us to ensure that Iran doesn't get that foothold on the global stage and doesn't have the ability to continue with threats to Israel in the region.  Jason Isaacson:   Well, let me stay on Iran for a second with you. Do you see a Harris administration try to return to the JCPOA? Brad Schneider  No. Jason Isaacson:   Or has that been totally discredited?  Brad Schneider   One thing you'll see is the Harris administration. I had a long conversation with Ilan Goldberg yesterday, the recognition that we are where we are now, we all would wish we were in a different place. 10 years ago, we were focused on getting to a place to move Iran back from the threshold of a nuclear weapon, and without relitigating the JCPOA, we moved Iran further away, a year away.  Now a year away is not eliminating Iran's capacity or capability to develop a nuclear weapon, but it is buying time. And what we should have done, I will relitigate this. We should have used that time to strengthen our position, our allies' position to improve our prospects of moving Iran further back. Instead, what happened was the Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA and Iran marched forward, and where they are today is far closer to a nuclear weapon than they were 10 years ago. Where they are today are talking about days away from having enough nuclear enriched uranium, highly enriched uranium, to build not one, but multiple nuclear weapons. And they just announced that they're working on developing the triggering mechanism, the ability to convert that enriched uranium into a nuclear weapon. So the stakes are higher. The risks are higher. Iran is closer. We've got to start where we are today, and I think the new administration coming in will start at that point and look for ways to push back, to create space, and to use that space to buy time, to use that time to get us to a place where we have more security. But we can only go there if the administration is clear. Congress is clear. It's not a partisan issue. This has to be Democrats and Republicans saying we will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and all options are available to us to ensure that Iran does not achieve their goal. Jason Isaacson:   Brad, thank you. Ambassador Nides. We were talking earlier this morning about the Abraham Accords, and of course, Congressman Schneider just talked about that as well.  How do you see a Harris administration, building on the Abraham Accords, success, building on what the Biden administration has tried to do in normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Will that be a priority for the Harris administration? What would be the obstacles that it will face as it tries to move forward in that direction. Thomas Nides: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. And let me give a little bit of shout out to Ted Deutch. Who is– Ted, you can't leave. I see you walking back there. Because when they decided to recruit Ted Deutsch to leave the Congress to come do this, that was your biggest, happiest day. So thank you very much for your leadership.  Let me just say there were not many things I agreed about with the Trump administration, to be clear. And when my when I was being confirmed as ambassador, one of the very nice members on the Republican side asked me, Sir, it seems to be that the Biden administration won't even talk about the Abraham Accords, and they don't even call them the Abraham Accords, I remember seeing the Senate because I'm a bit of a smart aleck, and I said, Can I explain to you something? I love the Abraham Accords, okay? I love the Abraham Accords.  The Abraham Accords was, in my view, then and is today, a foundational event. And as much as I believe that the Trump administration has done all sorts of other things, the Abraham Accords, in my view, has strengthened the State of Israel. So I congratulate them for doing it and supporting it as we have. So we should all applaud that. And as we think about the future. Because listen, what has happened here. Even after October 7, the Bahrainians, the Moroccans and the Emiratis, they didn't abandon Israel. Quite the opposite. They've stuck with, most all of them kept their ambassadors in Israel. Most of them continue to have long involved conversations with the Prime Minister about the strength of Israel. And in fact, several months ago, when the Iranians were attacking Israel, those same countries were indirectly helping with the United States and with Israel to protect the State of Israel, not directly, but indirectly. A lot of information sharing.  So the foundation for the Abraham Accords should be the foundation for what comes next. And what comes next. Number one, we got to get a hostage deal. For any of you – I'm leaving here to go with the hostage families. I was in Israel a couple weeks and spoke at hostage square. For all of us, for any of us, we should sit and pray to get these hostages out. And for those of you who know some of the families, it breaks my heart. We've got to get a hostage deal. The time is now, okay?  And this President and this Vice President are committed to get these hostages free, so once we can get that deal done, and that means putting pressure on Netanyahu and putting pressure on Hamas. Make no mistake, this idea that this is all about Bibi. Listen, I've got my issues with Bibi on occasions, but it's not only convincing Bibi to do what needs to be done, it also is pressuring Hamas, through the proxies, to get them to do a deal.  Once there is a hostage deal, everything starts coming into place. And what does that mean? Ultimately, would have to have a plan to rebuild Gaza. Because this fight wasn't with the Palestinian people. This fight was with Hamas, and we've got to help rebuild Gaza with a new PA, with a new group of international parties, including the Saudis and Emiratis. That's a $15 or $20 billion operation to build, rebuild Gaza. Yes, we need a new PA leadership, a new what PA leadership looks like in the future. Needs to be talked about and then, and then we need to have a conversation about normalization with Saudi Arabia.  Make no mistake, it is the single most important thing that we can do, including keeping in control of Iran, is getting a normalization with Saudi Arabia. Because it's not just Saudi Arabia, it's the rest of the Muslim world, and it's in our grasp. We can get this done. Now obviously it's a little dreamy. And how do you get the 67 votes? We'll let the geniuses on the Hill, including the congressman, figure that out.  But I do believe there is an opportunity, because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are completely committed to this. I will say one little note. Two years ago, when Joe Biden came for his 10th visit to Israel, I remember meeting him at the airport, and if you recall, it was the same it was middle of covid. It was the same time and where he decided to go to Saudi Arabia. And you remember Joe Biden during the campaign, said some fairly aggressive things about the Saudis during the Khashoggi thing and MBS.  But he was convinced by a lot of people, mostly his national security adviser and his vice president to go to Saudi Arabia. Why? Because it was good for the security of the State of Israel. He fundamentally believed that the Saudi normalization could be and should be the keys for the security of the State of Israel. So we've got to get these hostages out. We get a plan, and we need moving on a side, normalization as quickly as humanly possible. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Yair Zivan, foreign policy advisor to Israel's opposition leader, Yair Lapid, about his new book of essays “The Center Must Hold.” In that book, authors argue for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism around the globe today.

Iran znalazł się w trudnej sytuacji po niedawnej śmierci prezydenta Ebrahima Raisiego w katastrofie helikoptera. Wywodzący się ze środowiska twardogłowych duchowny i polityk kojarzony jest na Zachodzę przede wszystkim z brutalnym tłumieniem protestów po śmierci Mahsy Żiny Amini, które zakończyło się śmiercią przynajmniej 500 demonstrujących w ciągu roku i wieloma tysiącami aresztowań. Dzisiaj prezydentem Iranu jest jednak Masud Pezeszkian, polityk kojarzony ze środowiskiem reformistów, bliski współpracownik Prezydenta Hassana Rouhaniego i ministra spraw zagranicznych Mohammada Dżawada Zarifa, którzy doprowadzili do wprowadzenia w życie JCPOA, znanego szerzej jako umowa nuklearna z Iranem. Czy to oznacza, że za prezydentury Pezeszkiana można spodziewać się podobnych gestów? Czy w relacjach Iranu z Zachodem nadchodzi odwilż? Jaką realną władzę w Islamskiej Republice ma środowisko reformistów i jakie reformy chcieliby wprowadzić w kraju wciąż odwołującym się do dziedzictwa rewolucji z 1979 roku? O tym opowie mi i Wam dr Jakub Gajda, ekspert Fundacji im. Kazimierza Pułaskiego. SBW jest podcastem powstającym dzięki wsparciu Patronów. Jeśli uważacie ten projekt za wartościowy możecie pomoc w jego powstawaniu na kilka sposobów! 1. Stawiając mi wirtualną kawę na https://buycoffee.to/stosunkowobliskiwschod 2. Decydując się na stałe wsparcie przez https://patronite.pl/stosunkowobliskiwschod 3. Wykupując subskrypcję i pełen dostęp do moich tekstów na https://katulski.substack.com

Israel's right to self-defense and security, governance in Gaza, the Iranian regime and its network of terror, the Jewish state's relationship with Arab countries in the Gulf, and much more were among the topics of discussion at an AJC-convened panel discussion at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Listen to an excerpt of the panel, moderated by AJC's Chief Policy Officer and the head of AJC's Center for a New Middle East, Jason Isaacson, along with policy experts Dr. Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, Rich Goldberg Show Notes: Watch: Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Republican National Convention Listen – People of the Pod: Europe at the Ballot Box: Insights and Impact on Jewish Communities and Beyond Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg: Manya Brachear Pashman:  America's political parties are kicking off the 2024 convention season, starting this week with the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. AJC was on the sidelines of the RNC, with a live program titled Israel and the Path to Peace, moderated by AJC's chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson. Jason is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for A New Middle East.  Joining Jason was Dr. Ken Weinstein, former longtime CEO of the Hudson Institute and the Walter P. Stern Distinguished Fellow at Hudson;  Kirsten Fontenrose, the President of Red Six Solutions and Senior Director of Gulf Affairs in the National Security Council under President Trump; and Rich Goldberg, Senior Adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Director of Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction for the National Security Council, under President Trump.  Just a reminder: AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization and neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. A similar program will be offered at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago later this summer. Now onto today's episode: an excerpt from AJC's convention program. Jason Isaacson:   Let me begin by reading to you a couple of passages from the Republican platform, which was adopted yesterday at the Republican National Convention. This is what it said about Israel. Quote, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East, we will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of peace, stability and prosperity. And then there was, as you may recall, for the Republican platform, his list of 20 promises. And it's described as 20 promises that we will accomplish very quickly when we win the White House and Republican majorities in the House and Senate.  And number eight, on that list of 20 promises is the following, quote: restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East. So let's drill down with our panelists on those two statements in January 2025. That's more than six months away. It may be that the Israel Hamas war will be won over by them, and perhaps whatever conflict is so close to boiling over between Israel and Hezbollah, that that might not any longer be the case, might have boiled over, might be a thing of the past.  But let's say for the sake of argument, that hostilities are in fact, continuing, and let's assume that the Republican Party is victorious this fall. What are you expecting the Trump administration to do to, quote restore peace in the Middle East and to accomplish that, quote, very quickly. And let me begin Kirsten, with you. Kirsten Fontenrose:   Great, thanks so much for having us. All of us like to nerd out about these kinds of topics all the time when we're just grateful that there are other people who are as interested. What I expect to see in America is a revived peace plan. So you all remember the deal of the century, the vision for peace, we will see that come back. If there's a second Trump administration. Not in isolation, it will be part of a larger context.  That will also include assurances about Israel security and governance for Gaza and the like. Why have we not seen this yet? Because no one's asked the Trump team. But that will come back and you will see that. There's an expectation, whether it's naive or not, which we'll see, that there will be a greater receptiveness among the Palestinian population for an economic plan that offers improvements in livelihood after this conflict.  If there is a marginalized Hamas, there'll be more movement in this space for reviving these kinds of ideas. So we will definitely see a revived peace plan, you won't see less attention on this issue, you'll see very top level attention on the issue. You're also going to see, I think gloves off with the Houthis in the Red Sea. The US military has been very careful to make sure that all of our strikes so far had been from a defensive perspective. But you will see, I believe, because the world has not criticized any of these strikes, I think you're gonna see more latitude there. More room for movement for preemptive striking, for instance, because the perception is that for the whole world, this shipping interception problem is just out of hand. So I think we'll see more latitude there. And we'll see gloves come off a bit there.  And then I think you're gonna see some tough talk, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Trump has watched the US be yanked around a bit by the current Israeli government.  And I think you're going to see less tolerance for that recognition that Israel is a sovereign country, but more of an attempt to say the US is the superpower here, and we will be leading the ideas from hence. If we're expected to play a role, we will be leading in that role. What you will see, however, will be interesting to watch as there is division among Trump advisors about a two state solution. So you'll see that be debated out. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you for that. Ken, let me ask you, restoring peace in the Middle East and Europe and doing it very quickly, you've had a very broad focus on a whole range of foreign policy issues at the Hudson Institute and before and since. Tell me how you see that playing out under a second Trump administration? Ken Weinstein:   I'd say first of all, I think President Trump came to the conclusion early on, in his first term, he came in remember, talking about the deal of the century with you know, this peace agreement, he was booed at the Republican Jewish Committees event when he was a candidate.  And he quickly came into office and understood he could not trust Mahmoud Abbas, because of the incitement to terror by the Palestinian Authority and the tensions that were given out, and the pay for slay efforts that the Palestinian Authority has. Whereby people who kill Jews, kill Americans, were getting Palestinian Authority pensions in prisons, for their families and the like.  And so, Trump quickly came to understand that the challenge in the peace process wasn't bringing Israel and the Palestinians together, it was that the peace process itself was misconstrued. The peace process was being used by Middle Eastern governments, in particular, the Iranians, but also the Palestinians as a means to put leverage on Israel, exercise leverage on Israel, by a bunch of people who wanted to see the end of Israel's existence. And Trump quickly reversed that equation.  He understood that the best way to move forward was to remove items from the table such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, which didn't have any of the backlash that John Kerry and others predicted would happen. And he quickly understood the best way to move things forward was to put pressure on the Palestinians.  Trump's a real estate guy. And so he understands leverage, he understands how to put pressure forth, and how to deter. I think we're going to see much more of that moving forward. We're not going to have a vice president of the United States who's going to get up and say, the Israelis can't evacuate Rafah, it's going to lead to 10s of 1000s of deaths.  And here I actually disagree slightly, I think Trump will actually give the Israelis the latitude they need to finish the mission, which is to destroy Hamas, and eventually bring about a transformation in Gaza, with the assistance of the Saudis. Who were absolutely critical in de-radicalizing Gaza, they have done it successfully themselves, as has the UAE. And so I think we're going to look much more at a regional approach on these issues. Obviously, Iran is going to be, to borrow a term from Joe Biden, President Biden, in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, as they were before. You're gonna see massive sanctions again, we're gonna get them, we're gonna enforce those sanctions. And Rich can talk to this stuff far more deeply than I ever could.  And you're gonna have the Iranians on the run so that they don't feel that they can work with Hamas or work with Hezbollah, to do more damage to Israel. And already we're seeing a deterrent effect on the Northern Front. And also with regard to Hamas.  Because with regard to Hamas, we see that the fear of a Trump administration is leading to a greater willingness to negotiate with Israel. And on the northern front, I think it's less likely that the Israelis will take dramatic action before the US election, knowing that they will not be reined in by an administration that is somehow searching for a delusion of peace with Hezbollah and with Lebanon. Jason Isaacson:   What about peace in Europe? Is is that something that you see, that you can envision under a Trump administration? Ken Weinstein:   First, let me say something with regard to Europe and the Middle East. I think that the Trump administration, the Trump team has been infuriated by this notion of enforcing this ridiculous ICC policy with regard to Israel and those who threatened to arrest Netanyahu. I think you're going to see in places particularly, I can just think of the kinds of actions they'll take in Germany.  I think you can expect individual sanctions on the people who were behind Nord Stream as a sign to not dare mess with Netanyahu, period. And you'll see other actions like that. I know the Spanish ambassadors here with regard to Spain with that we will be taking numbers, as Nikki Haley did so effectively at the UN, and as the Biden team does not.  So with regard to Europe. Look, I think the situation with regard to Ukraine, as President Trump understands it, I think, Trump, you have to understand he comes to this. He's not a policy person. He thinks that policy people like the three of us, four us up here, we lack creativity, we have a sense the policy options run from the letter L or P to the letter Q or R. And in fact, for Trump, they run from A to Z. And so that meant fire and fury in Pyongyang, but it meant eventually potentially beachfront condominiums in North Korea and an economic vitality to North Korea, if it gave up its nuclear program. With regard to Iran, it was maximum pressure, but it was the new Iran deal that got rid of the nuclear program that got rid of the missile program that got rid of regional activities, and that internally reshaped Iran, and led to a new relationship with Iran, with not only the region but the rest of the world. And with China, it was massive tariffs on China, but a new trade deal in the phase one that was gonna get rid of intellectual property stuff, which was at the core of what President Trump saw correctly as the engine of the Chinese economy, and the engine of the China 2025 program. So I'd say with regard to Ukraine, the President is looking at options that will, as he himself has said, he would tell the, you know, the Ukrainians on day one, you've got to, you know, we've got to end the fighting, you would tell Putin, if you don't end the fighting, we're gonna arm the shit out of Ukraine, pardon my French, as he said something along those lines. And I think what we'll see at the end of the day, is a massive program to guarantee Ukrainian security, that is going to take massive security guarantees. But the Europeans are going to have to step up and step up in a very serious way. And we've seen since the announcement of the JD Vance nomination are ready to reaction in Europe, the Europeans, you know, have to understand they're not gonna be able to backchannel they're not going to be able to figure out some way out of this. They're gonna have to be big providers of security guarantees, we will do the same for the Ukrainians as well, but Europe has to take up a big portion of it. And Trump does not, he is not Joe Biden, he's not going to cut and run, as in Afghanistan, he doesn't want to be humiliated on the stage, he understands deterrence, he's going to send a very clear signal to the Russians, as he did to the Taliban. When they were talking about when they were negotiating with the Taliban, Trump was on a video call once with the Taliban leader, and said, I want to make this very clear, you're not to strike at any of our people. And if you do, and hit the button on Play, and he showed a video of I think, the Taliban leader's kid leaving their house to say we're watching you every moment, and we will take care of you. And  there'll be some kind of a version of that with regard to Putin, that's going to be very clear. He was very blunt with Putin behind closed doors, from the White House in particular. And I think there was a good reason why Putin didn't go into Ukraine during Trump's term. And so I think that there's going to be some kind of a square in the circle solution that's going to have to come together. And I've been telling European foreign and defense ministers for the last few months, think about this now, how to do it, how to implement it.  Jason Isaacson:   Ken, thank you so much. Rich, let me turn to you. We've been talking about Iran, and you are an expert on Iran. It happened for years. I didn't see a reference to Iran and the Republican platform. But of course, we know, former President Trump's record on Iran. And Ken has been talking about that. Should he return to the White House next January, what do you foresee on this front to return to maximum pressure, or something more kinetic? And what is your sense of our regional strategic partners priorities? Are our friends in the Gulf hoping for a decisive showdown with Iran? Or are they sufficiently risk averse that they prefer a less confrontational approach? What do you think? Rich Goldberg:   I think if you look at the top lines, right, and you compare the policy, the recipe, if you will, under the Trump administration: maximum pressure on Iran, maximum support for Israel gets you peace, gets you deterrence. And when you flip the narrative and you go to maximum deference to Iran and pressure on Israel, you get conflict in the Middle East. It's not disconnected from what Ken's just talking about in other regions of the world as well, whether in Europe, whether you're in the Indo-Pacific. This comes down to the ability to restore American deterrence. And then you have options. There are a lot of genies that are out of the bottle due to the last three and a half years. Iran today and its nuclear program is at the one yard line of nuclear weapons thresholds. They were not there four years ago. In fact, after the killing of Soleimani, in early 2020, the rest of the year the Iranians never escalated the nuclear program again. They waited until January of 2021. And that's when they started jumping to 20% high enriched uranium. And then they saw nothing's happening to us. So they went to 60% high enriched uranium. They started installing all the advanced centrifuges, they've advanced, so far accelerated to this incredible capacity to produce a dozen nuclear weapons in just a couple of months if they so chose. Plus Intel now coming in that the administration is trying to downplay work on weaponization. There's a lot of genies out of the bottle here that Donald Trump's going to have to try to put back into the bottle.  And that will not be easy. But the formula remains correct. Restore deterrence, have maximum pressure and isolation on the Iranian regime and provide support to your allies. Now, the Gulf Arabs, by the way, the Saudis, the Emiratis, they've made some strategic decisions due to the policies that they saw, sustained by Joe Biden. They've cut deals with the Iranians and sort of cut their own JCPOA. with Iran with the Houthis. I'm not sure they're going to be on board for what's coming next. And they need to make some preparations for the return of a Trump administration and hawkishness towards Tehran and understand that we also won't tolerate them hedging with the Chinese. Now, that comes from the fact that America is hedging on them.  And so there's going to be a lot of parts that have to come together like a puzzle, to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, actual restored turns and regain that peace through strength in the region. This is true in the Middle East. It's true in Europe, and it's true in the Indo Pacific. So what is deterrence? I think that's a major question. What is deterrence? Made up of two big things, capacity and will. Joe Biden and Donald Trump both have capacity. They were the commander in chief at some point of the most powerful military on Earth. Nobody doubts that you have capacity when you are the president of the United States. But our enemies do doubt the will. And they test the will early on.  Every single administration gets tested, whether it's China, whether it's Putin, whether it's Iran, they get tested. At some point, Donald Trump got tested by the Iranians and Soleimani is dead. And that changed a lot of things in the world. And over the course of time, the unpredictability, the some of the craziness of the media went hysterical over the red button with Kim Jong Un did get the attention of people like Vladimir Putin. The Taliban tested Joe Biden, and he failed the test. And Kabul fell. And then Ukraine was invaded. And then now in China, they're expanding and starting to harass and actually attack in some ways, the Philippines and Taiwan.  And what are we seeing? Nothing. So, the minute Donald Trump becomes president, when I hear Trump say, just my election is going to start bringing about a change on the Ukraine front, a change in the world. You might have laughed at that.  I think after Saturday, you're not laughing anymore. A picture that if you're Xi Jinping, the Ayatollah, Putin, Kim Jong Un, looking at that on your desk every day of Donald Trump with his fist in the air blood dripping, right after being shot, saying fight. You're not questioning will. And that will be, I think, the big game changer.  Now, they might still test it. And there's a Chinese proverb, which is, you have to kill the chicken to scare the monkey. And I think President Trump might have to kill a chicken. He'd have to pick the chicken wisely. I think it might be the Houthis. That makes no sense to me. There is a national interest, there's a strategic importance to it. And it will game change how you're trying to get the Gulf Arabs back on side, see that we are committed to the security in the Gulf in the broader Middle East, it will send a major signal to Tehran, and it'll be part of that pivot back to maximum pressure on Iran and maximum support for Israel.  Jason Isaacson:   Rich, thank you. But before I turn back to the Abraham Accords, let me ask you, what's your sense of the Saudi and UAE and Bahraini overtures to Iran? Are they just seeking some kind of stability, some kind of channel, but it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning, or what's your sense and how should the US respond? Rich? Rich Goldberg:   I think there is meaning to it. I think that Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia has changed his strategic calculus over the last three years. I think that there was a game changing moment for him when the Houthis were raining down missiles, next to a Formula One race he was hosting out in Jeddah. And you're talking about major investors, world leaders, important people all driving into a race course already there. And you're seeing a ballistic missile explode within your line of sight. And the United States does nothing.  And then Abu Dhabi comes under attack by the Houthis, and the United States does nothing. And they're saying, Wow, they're just at the table trying to give the Iranians whatever they can, they've taken the Houthis off the terror list. They're not defending us anymore. They've pulled the missile defense augmentation that Trump put in, in 2019-2020. And they're still trying to get this nuclear deal done.  What are we doing here? Why are we just waiting around for Godot? Why are we exposed? We should cut a deal here. And why if the United States can hedge on us, can't we hedge on them, and they start cozying up to the Chinese and doing things that we probably don't like very much I need to put an end to. So I think it's very real. These channels are real. They're in a hedge. I think it's taken a while for others that are far more suspicious of Iran, like Bahrain to get on board this strategy. But everybody sort of signed up to this. There's a normalization process with Assad that I think is partially connected to it as well. All of that's going to have to change. You have Donald Trump is back in office. And I don't know that they appreciate that very much. Jason Isaacson:   There's also a recollection of the Trump administration in this reaction or non reaction to this Iranian attack on Saudi Aramco facilities. So it's been a mixed bag. But But first, let me let me let me turn back to you. And we were talking about the Abraham accords before. That was a great foreign policy access success of the last months of the Trump administration, first of the UAE, then Bahrain and then with different terminology, but Morocco and Sudan. As you know, the Biden administration has been vigorously pursuing an effort to normalize Saudi relations with Israel, and objective that was also very much a part of the Trump administration's vision. What are your perspectives on the likelihood of that kind of a deal being closed in the last months of the current Biden administration, if they do move forward on such a deal with the Republicans getting the Senate joined with Democrats in the Senate to support such a deal before the election? Or perhaps in a lame duck session after the election?   Kirsten Fontenrose:   Well that's the big question. So I think if you have a deal that includes normalization with Israel, Saudi us still includes normalization with Israel, it has a shot of getting through, but the closer we get to the election, the smaller that shot gets, because the more Republicans Congress will want to hold out to grant that foreign policy when to potential Republican administration.  But if you have a deal that is being discussed now, as a Plan B, that is just a US-Saudi deal, without normalization. And this is because of the Israeli government's decision, perhaps not to grant that the Saudis are fully on board, you won't get it through, there's just not enough in it. For the US. There are lots of questions about why we'd be granting Saudi assistance with civilian nuclear technology. And a security guarantee, when we're not really getting much out of it. There's nothing in this deal in terms of concrete asks on the relationship with China. And we can really go quite far in blocking Chinese influence in the Gulf by just improving our own foreign military sales process. We don't need to grant security guarantees, the Israeli Saudi relationship is so close right now. It's normalization and everything but public statement and name and that public statement name is important for the follow on effects you have around the world globally and with other Muslim populations.  But in terms of their coordination, they're in a pretty good place. So we're not in some sort of crisis rush to make sure this happens in the next few months, unless you're the Biden team. And you're desperate for a foreign policy win, because your promises on other foreign policy fronts have not borne out.  So I think you will still see this continue, though we have doubled down on the Saudi discussion, if there is a second Trump administration. But you will not see this granting of a deal to Saudi Arabia, even though they are a phenomenal partner. And we are quite close, without more concrete asks that benefit U.S. goals as well. It's not the opinion that just having Saudi on side with nothing we've actually signed them up to, would they grant overflight rights, if things came down with Iran.  We need to make those more specific before we would do something that would require commitment of troops, large resources, equipment, perhaps to the detriment of other partners, we would be able to send those same troops and equipment. So I don't think we're going to see it in the last months of this administration. Manya Brachear Pashman: To hear the rest of the panel, head to the link in our show notes. Another reminder that AJC is a nonpartisan organization and will be at the DNC next month in Chicago. We hope to see some of you there.  Next week on People of the Pod, tune in for our sit down with two Jewish Olympians before they head to Paris for the Summer Olympic Games.

Following a shooting at a rally in Pennsylvania, Donald Trump's supporters have portrayed him as a so-called "threat to the US deep state". But in reality, Trump was a warmonger as president, and appointed top CIA officials and neoconservatives to run his foreign policy. Ben Norton reviews Trump's support for Israel and Ukraine and his aggressive policies against China, Russia, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wwm4OiYY5M Topics 0:00 (Clips) Trump on Syria, Venezuela, Ukraine 0:32 US politics & bipartisan war crimes 3:29 Alleged assassination attempt against Trump 7:13 Trump's warmongering foreign policy: a summary 11:35 Israel - Palestine 16:56 Trump proposed bombing Russia & China 17:27 Russiagate 18:01 Trump tore up 2 arms treaties with Russia 18:55 Ukraine 20:33 (Clip) Trump boasts of arming Ukraine 20:56 Trump vs Obama on Ukraine weapons 23:02 NATO 24:24 "We're at war with China" 26:24 Trade war & new cold war on China 28:44 Democrats vs Republicans on Russia & China 29:48 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) 30:44 Assassination of Qasem Soleimani 31:20 Trump's war on Iraq 32:48 US hypocrisy on "political violence" 34:31 Syria 35:00 (Clip) Trump brags of taking Syria's oil 35:27 Afghanistan war & minerals 37:06 Trump wanted to take oil from Libya & Iraq too 38:15 Yemen 39:24 Trump plans to attack Mexico 41:06 Bolivia coup 41:54 Elon Musk & Bolivia's lithium 43:24 Venezuela 44:06 (Clip) Trump on "taking over" Venezuela 44:18 Venezuela coup attempt 46:00 Nicaragua coup attempt 46:37 Elliott Abrams 47:53 Cuba blockade & sanctions 50:09 Tax cuts for the rich 51:54 Billionaires for fellow billionaire Trump 53:16 Outro

In AJC's signature AJC Global Forum session, the Great Debate, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Morgan Ortagus, former Spokeswoman for the Department of State under the Trump administration, engaged in a debate on the 2024 presidential election and its impact on the global Jewish community, Israel, and the future of democracy. Listen to this session, moderated by AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson, recorded live on the AJC Global Forum 2024 stage in Washington, D.C. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a 501(c)3 not for profit organization and does not endorse political candidates for elective office. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Morgan Ortagus, Halie Soifer Show Notes: Listen – People of the Pod: Seven Months In: What Israelis Think About the War Against Hamas, Campus Antisemitism in America, and More What Does it Mean to be a Jewish American Hero? A Jewish American Heritage Month Conversation with AJC CEO Ted Deutch Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Debate with Morgan Ortagus and Halie Soifer: Manya Brachear Pashman: In AJC's signature AJC Global Forum session, the Great Debate, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Morgan Ortagus, former Spokeswoman for the Department of State under the Trump administration, engaged in a debate on the 2024 presidential election and its impact on the global Jewish community, Israel, and the future of democracy.  Moderating the debate was AJC's Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer Jason Isaacson. Here's Jason now to explain the format. Jason Isaacson:   We had a coin toss, and Morgan won the coin toss, and will go first. Each of them will have two minutes to provide opening statements. There will be the opportunity for a minute of rebuttal afterwards, then we'll plunge into a series of questions that I'll be posing to each of them. Morgan, you're up. Morgan Ortagus:   Thank you so much for having me. I want to start this discussion today really telling a few stories from my time in the Trump administration, but also talking about this from a policy perspective.  For those of you who don't know me, I've actually served in multiple administrations, including in the Obama administration, as well. And I say that to provide the context that I think the State of Israel cannot have a relationship with just one political party in the United States, just as we pray for the success of Israel. I pray for the success of our leaders, whomever wins in November. And I think no matter what happens today, in this debate in November, we must stand with our ally, we must stand with the State of Israel.  You know, what's amazing is, I think about four years ago, I was standing in the Oval Office after many, many months of having worked with Secretary Pompeo, Jared Kushner, and the entire team on something that you all came to learn about called the Abraham Accords. And in that moment, I was pregnant with my daughter Adina Ann, this beautiful Jewish baby. And I thought to myself, the Middle East has entirely changed for her. This is going to be so radically different.  Fast forward three and a half years later, to see October 7th and what happened that day, the worst killing of the Jewish people in any single day since the Holocaust. It felt like everything I had worked on in Abraham Accords had been shattered. But I am here to say that there is hope, with the right president, with the right policies.  And that's what I really want to talk about today. With the right policies, we can get back to an era, not only have a strong America, a strong Israel, and a much stronger Middle East, happy to debate the policies. I'm not a campaign person.  But I do believe that under the Trump administration, under Mike Pompeo, we had the right policies that were best for Israel, and best for the Middle East. So I guess as the famous song goes, all I'm here to say is give Trump a chance. Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, thank you. Halie Soifer. Halie Soifer:   Jason, Morgan, AJC, thank you for having me. And thank you for your efforts advocating for the Jewish people for Israel and defending democratic values. I'm grateful for your work, which has made a difference, and particularly grateful for the leadership of your CEO, my friend, Ted Deutch.  This is the third time I've joined AJC's Great Debate in advance of an election with Joe Biden and Donald Trump on the ballot. The first was in 2019. The second was 2020. But 2024 is different for three reasons. First, the stakes of this election are higher. Second, the positions of the two candidates have never been more clear or divergent. And third, both candidates have been president before and can and should be judged on their records.  Unlike the last debate, this is no longer a hypothetical in terms of what kind of President Joe Biden or Donald Trump would be. We know the answer. Joe Biden has sought to restore the soul of America by taking unprecedented steps to combat antisemitism and bigotry, while Donald Trump has emboldened, echoed and aligned with dangerous extremists and antisemites.  Joe Biden is a self declared Zionist who has stood with Israel for more than five decades, including after October 7, when he pledged his staunch support of Israel and the Jewish people. While Donald Trump is a self declared dictator on day one, who marched Israel's leaders and praised Hezbollah after October 7.  Best summarized by his former national security adviser John Bolton, who told the New York Times, Trump's support of Israel is not guaranteed in a second term. Joe Biden is an ardent defender of democracy, while Donald Trump incited a deadly insurrection in order to stop the peaceful transfer of power in the last election, and is preparing to weaponize the US government as an act of political retribution. If he wins the next one. And let's not forget, he's also a twice impeached 34 Time convicted felon. So three times is clearly a charm. There's plenty to debate and I'm happy to be here. Thanks. Jason Isaacson:   Very good. Thank you, Halie. You can each rebut the others statements. Morgan, would you like to say a word?  Morgan Ortagus:   I think the only response I would have to that is do you feel safer as a Jew in America today than you did four years ago? That's it. Jason Isaacson:   Halie, would you like to say anything in response? Halie Soifer:   Sure. Four years ago, I mentioned I joined this debate. We did so via zoom, where we were in our home stuck for more than a year. It was an unprecedented pandemic that really epitomized Donald Trump's leadership. He was ignorant, chaotic or erratic, and demonstrated a reckless disregard for a fundamental Jewish value pickoff nephesh. The sanctity of life. Since Joe Biden has become president, we emerged from this dark period, the economy has grown. Unemployment is at a 50 year low. And yes, anti semitism has risen, including after the horrific attacks perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, and our unequivocal condemnation of this violence and of rising anti semitism is something on which I'm sure we agree, Morgan, and you know, who else agrees with us, Joe Biden. On May 2, he said in response to the campus protests, there should be no place on any campus or any place in America for antisemitism. It's simply wrong. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you. Okay. Let's get into the questions if I could begin with you, Morgan. As you know, in election after election over the last century, a substantial majority of Jews have voted for Democratic presidential candidates over Republican candidates, the sharpest differences were under FDR in the 1940s and the Johnson Goldwater election of 1964, when Democrats were reported to have scored 90% of the Jewish vote, but Harry Truman, Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Barack Obama weren't far behind, and Joe Biden was reported to have led Donald Trump four years ago, according to Pew by 70%, to 27%. AJC's latest polling shows a somewhat narrower gap, but still has President Biden beating former President Trump by more than two to one among American Jews. If these numbers are predictive and accurate, how does the Republican Party break through that traditional Democratic predisposition among Jewish voters and why does it matter? Morgan Ortagus:   I think there's a couple ways to unpack that first, I think there's a big difference between saying the right thing and doing the right thing. There's no doubt that the Biden administration, the Biden-Harris administration is great on the rhetoric. But I would say that the policy is lacking. First of all, I think most Jewish voters care about Israel care about antisemitism in this country. But let me just also say that I think Jewish voters, Jewish moms and grandmas in this audience, Jewish parents, you care about things that I care about in Nashville, Tennessee, which is the price of groceries, which is filling up your car with gasoline, which is all of the things that matter to all of us as consumers.  And it is not a good time in America for the American family. People are making real decisions, whether to fill up their gas tank or whether to fill up their cart full of groceries. That happens in real America in Nashville, Tennessee, where I live. I would also say that, you know, Lindsey Graham said this to me once and it really made me laugh. He said about Trump, I've never seen somebody so willing to cut off their own arm just to spite him. And he certainly incites a lot of heated emotion and passion.  But again, I would get back to the question that I asked you, do you feel more safe as a Jew in America today than you did four years ago? Do you think our policies are stronger at protecting Israel, with standing with our ally than they were four years ago, I would argue that we have turned the Middle East on its head in the past four years by beginning at the beginning of this administration to spend the past three and a half years, chasing the Islamic Republic around the world, begging and cajoling and pleading with them to get back into a nuclear deal, giving them billions of dollars in sanctions relief by not enforcing those sanctions. That was three and a half years of policies that led to events like October 7. We also saw multiple times at the UN, including yesterday, ways in which that I think the Biden administration has sold Israel down the river. has not stood up for them at the United Nations or on the world stage. And so I'm quite simply argue that the Middle East is chaotic today, specifically from the policies of the past three years that were put in place by the Biden Administration.  Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Morgan. Halie, you can respond if you wish. You have a minute.  Halie Soifer:   Well, as a Jewish mom, I can say I absolutely feel safer knowing that Joe Biden is in the White House because he shares our values, our fundamental values, our Jewish values, defending democracy, and of course, support of Israel.  A lot of Republicans mentioned Donald Trump's move of the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in 2017. Something we agree with–Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. What we don't mention enough is that in August of 2020, Donald Trump said he did that for the evangelicals, which demonstrates two things.  One, Donald Trump's Israel policy has always been based on his self interests. His own former national security adviser has revealed that in an article in The New York Times in early April, and also it's clear that Donald Trump has great animus toward the vast majority of Jewish Americans, those who vote for Democrats because of it.. He has called us disloyal. He has called us uninformed. He has said we hate Israel, we hate our religion, we should be ashamed of ourselves. We're loyal to our values, which is why the overwhelming majority of us support Democrats. Jason Isaacson:   Halie, I want to ask you a different version, or the pretty much the same version of the question that I asked Morgan at the beginning, why it matters where the Jewish vote is. Remembering that the Israeli newspaper Haaretz had a piece after the 2020 election, that maintained it was Jewish voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia and Arizona who actually made the crucial difference in that tight race moving those swing states and their deciding Electoral College votes into the Biden column. Although polling and voting history is obviously on your side, there are signs of slippage for President Biden in our own polling and in other samples. Some of that may have to do with the President's being seen as inappropriately pushing the Israeli government in ways that didn't want to go in the conduct of the war against Hamas. And in a post conflict path to Palestinian statehood. Some of it may be factors that have nothing to do with Israel or with the Jewish community, but reflect attitudes in the general population. Why the slippage and how are you addressing it? Halie Soifer:   Well, Jason, you're right. The Jewish vote absolutely matters. The states you mentioned, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona determined the outcome of the 2020 election and may do so again in 2024. Joe Biden won those three states in total by just over 100,000 voters. And in those states the Jewish vote, and even more said the Jewish vote that supported Joe Biden was exponentially higher than the margin by which he won. So where are Jewish voters in 2024? Well, 74% of Jewish voters supported Democrats in our last election in the 2022 midterms. It's the same amount approximately three quarters who have supported Democrats historically, and it's the amount I predict will support Joe Biden in this election for two reasons. One, Joe Biden represents the vast majority of Jewish voters on every key issue, domestic policy, democracy, abortion, access, guns, climate change the economy, antisemitism, and foreign policy, Israel, Ukraine and defending democracy abroad. And too, Jewish voters overwhelmingly disapprove of and oppose Donald Trump in 2016, in 2020, and they're going to do it again in 2024. Because there's even more reasons to oppose him now, going into a potential second term.  AJC's new poll only confirms this. The poll indicates that both Joe Biden and Donald Trump have essentially the same amount of support–61%/23%--among Jewish voters as they did among that same group of voters in 2020, when it was 64%/21%. Donald Trump has not broken 25%. It also shows that Jewish voters trust Biden more than Trump on Israel by a two to one margin and on antisemitism by three to one margin.  So AJC is consistent in its polling, and it's consistent with what we've seen in other polling as well that Jewish voters will continue to overwhelmingly support Democrats and Joe Biden, especially with Donald Trump on the ballot. Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, you may respond. Morgan Ortagus:   Again, you know, I'd say there's a big difference between rhetoric and policy action. The truth is, the reality is, there has never been a more unsafe time in America, for Jews, especially young Jews on college campuses. Today, the antisemitism unveiled and unchecked during the Biden administration should scare all of us. The fact that Jewish students have to make decisions if they want to wear a yarmulke, if they want to wear a Star of David, if they want to openly embrace Judaism in the United States of America is a stain on the Biden administration.  And something that I think that there has been no real action. In 2019, again, I'm going to keep going back to policy because when you have bad policy, you have to run on rhetoric. When you have good policy, you can talk about things that we did like the executive order to combat antisemitism in 2019. That executive order focused on criminalizing antisemitism, basically bringing it up to the level of any other persecution against, you know, sex, gender. We could go through everything in Title Six. That's incredibly important because we have real world ramifications for antisemitism that this administration has ignored.  Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Morgan. Let me ask you another question. And I'm going to turn to a foreign policy issue again. Since President Trump in May 2018 pulled the United States out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, calling it a horrible one-sided deal that should never ever have been made. Iran has marched closer and closer to becoming a nuclear threshold state with a stockpile of enriched uranium calculated to be more than 6000 kilograms as of last month, more than 20 times the limit that was set in the nuclear deal. But enough of that uranium enriched to a near weapons grade level to fuel at least three atomic weapons.  It's been said that the maximum pressure campaign waged in the last year and a half of the Trump administration had little effect on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. How would you answer the charge that pulling the US out of an unsatisfactory nuclear deal actually made the problem worse? How would a second Trump administration approach this threat from Iran? Morgan Ortagus:   Thanks, now we're getting to my favorite subject. So you don't even have to listen to President Trump on this. You can look at Senator Schumer, Majority Leader at the time in his speech and his debate why he did not support the JCPOA. We know of course, that the JCPOA was never brought before the Senate because it was a bad deal that would never get passed, including by Democrats. Let's also remember that under the JCPOA, we left the deal in 2018 in the Trump administration, at the time and during the entire Trump administration. Iran never exceeded the 5% enrichment. In fact, it didn't happen until the Biden administration and under Biden, they've gone up to an 84% enrichment strategy with zero ramifications. That's enough material to get a bomb within eight months if we wanted to.  More importantly, Americans and Israelis are dying at the hands of Iran. And why is that? Because once again, you have a Democratic administration who have not enforced sanctions, they got billions of dollars in sanctions relief. About three weeks before October 7, this administration negotiated a deal that I didn't think that could be worse than the JCPOA. But they actually managed to top themselves by promising to give Iran $6 billion for returning five American hostages home. Now, I love getting American hostages home. In fact, in the Trump administration, we got two American hostages home from Iran, guess how much we paid for those hostages, zero. And so there is a way to negotiate to be tough with Iran and to protect Americans.  But Americans are dying in places like Jordan, from Iranian made drones. We know that American ships are being taxed on a daily basis, again, from material that is supplied to the Hussein's by Iran. And so whenever you reward enemies, like the Islamic Republic of Iran and punish friends like Israel, the Arab states, then you end up with a chaotic Middle East. So the Middle East is on fire today principally because of the appeasement of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran will likely get a nuclear weapon in the next administration, if it isn't stopped. President Trump will stop it. President Biden will just beg and plead them to stop. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Morgan. Halie, you may respond. Halie Soifer:   We talked a lot about, of course, the horrific acts of what happened on October 7. What I don't think we talked enough about is what happened on April 13, when Iran launched over 300 projectiles at Israel and an unprecedented direct attack. In the end, Israel survived that attack relatively unscathed. Miraculously, because Joe Biden had deployed two aircraft carriers to the eastern Mediterranean preparing for such attacks, and had encouraged a coalition, Arab partners, to stand with Israel and directly intercepted over 100 ballistic missiles. It was the first time the US military had been deployed to prevent a direct attack on Israel.  Following the attack, Biden took steps to hold Iran accountable, including imposing new sanctions and exports control on Iran. The sanctions targeted leaders and entities connected to the IRGC, the Iran Revolutionary Guard Corps. During the Biden administration, the US has sanctioned over 600 individuals and entities including Iran and its proxies. And the President has directed the administration to continue to impose sanctions that further degrade Iran's military. This is on top of the Trump era sanctions against Iran that Biden kept in place. So Joe Biden has demonstrated great strength in defending against the threat of Iran, especially as it relates to the threat posed by Israel. Jason Isaacson:   There are increasingly loud and influential voices in the Democratic Party, expressing harsh criticism of Israel's conduct of the war against Hamas in Gaza and among constituencies on which democratic election victories have often depended. There's opposition to Israel more generally, not just to the current war, but to the legitimacy of the Jewish state. Over the last two years, according to Gallup sympathy for Israelis over Palestinians has slipped among Democrats from a majority to a minority position, although there is still a plurality with more favorable views of Israel versus Palestinian Authority. For comparison among Republicans sympathy for Israelis earlier this year was recorded by Gallup is more than 10 times that for Palestinians. How can President Biden and the party counter the critics and assure that US support for the Middle East's sole democracy remains bipartisan. And how do you respond to the charge that Trump criticism of Israel in progressive circles contributes to attacks on supporters of Israel and incidents of antisemitism?  Halie Soifer:   Antisemitic and anti-Israel views have been expressed by elected officials on both sides of the aisle. Neither party is homogenous in their view on either issue. When antisemitism and or anti-Israel views have emerged among Democrats in Congress, JDCA, our organization has condemned it, and in some cases endorsed a primary opponent to anti Israel, Democratic incumbents.  There are two such primaries that we're engaged in right now as we speak in New York and in Missouri, to elect Democrats who share our values. There are some Democrats who have opposed or proposed conditioning aid to Israel, something which JDCA opposes. But House Republicans, including their entire leadership, recklessly delayed essential military aid for Israel that Joe Biden pledged in October for six months, at a time when it could not have been needed more.  When it comes to antisemitism, there is a sharp difference between how it is handled by the two parties. The Democratic Party marginalizes those who have used antisemitic rhetoric, while the Republican Party has elevated extremists and antisemites, one of whom is at the top of the ticket in the past three election cycles, including this one. Leadership matters, and the words and actions of our leaders matter.  When the American people were faced with the same choice for president in 2020, on the debate stage, President Biden implored Donald Trump to condemn white supremacy, we all remember it. Trump blatantly refused, he could not, would not condemn this insidious ideology that motivated the perpetrator of the worst massacre of Jewish Americans in our history two years earlier at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh. What did he do instead, he incited dangerous right wing extremists, the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by from the debate stage. And less than four months later, they heated his call on January 6. This election is a binary choice. There are two names on this ballot, two men vying to be leader of the free world. One has been a staunch friend and ally of the Jewish people in Israel, since he was first elected to the Senate in 1972. And the other who has always done and will continue to only do what is good for himself.  Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, I think you may want to respond. Morgan Ortagus:   You know, I will concede, I don't watch MSNBC. And maybe they're just not covering what I see going on in America on a daily basis, which is a Charlottesville every single day in this country, which is the calling for not only supporting Hamas and other terrorist organizations, but calling for the genocide and the extermination of the Jewish people blatantly and openly every single day in this country. You also see yesterday in New York City, while there was a memorial to what happened on October 7, people there openly demonstrating support for more October 7, support for more terrorism.  And while that was happening, the United States was shamefully at the United Nations calling for a ceasefire resolution that made us look like we were Hamas' personal lawyer. If you're a party that doesn't have the moral clarity, to stand by the Jewish faith to just stay defending itself against terrorism, how can you claim to have the moral clarity on anything. I was in Israel three weeks ago Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu told me that in fact, the Biden administration is slow walking military aid that he needs. Just last week in the Congress, the Biden administration was whipping votes against bipartisan ICC sanctions, which are undermining again the leadership of a democratic elected Jewish state.  We'll remember famously that after the attack that he talked about a few minutes ago from Iran, Biden famously told Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu for Israel just to take the win essentially. At every turn, then not only tie one hand behind Israel's back, they tie both hands behind the back as they tried to defeat the terrorists that invaded them and by the way, killed Americans on October 7, and the last time I checked, we still have five Americans that are held captive eight months later by a terrorist organization behind enemy lines. Bring them home. Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, you're up. Your last question and President Trump and other leaders of your party had been harshly critical of a range of diversity and equity programs, affirmative action and college admissions and educational curricula that cast a negative light on aspects of American history. And these stances have earned the support and loyalty of among others, individuals and groups with extremist views on race and ethnicity. How do you answer critics, including President Biden, who charge that this so-called anti-woke agenda lends legitimacy and support to forces of intolerance? As you know, there are also accusations that divisive rhetoric can fuel antisemitism. And the example of Charlottesville, which we've been talking about is often cited. How do you counter that, in a minute, if you may. Morgan Ortagus:   I'll be very quick and say that I agree with Halie that there is antisemitic problems that happen on both the left and the right, and we must be countering them. And every time it happens, again, I'm a foreign policy professional. I look at the policies. I don't necessarily get involved in domestic politics. But I will say that what we have seen, especially on college campuses, is that DEI and intersectionality are the parents of antisemitism and fostering intolerance. Can anybody look at our college campuses and say this isn't true. I don't think President Biden and vice president Harris are doing enough to rein in anti-Jewish Jewish violence in this country.  Let's look at Biden's so-called efforts, is there more or less antisemitism in our universities? Are there fewer encampments? How about what's happening to the American flag? The last I've seen, the Iranian people have more respect for the American flag and the Israeli flag than liberals on university campuses today. Many students who had to start college online and COVID have gone back to going online because it's unsafe to be Jewish in America in an American university today. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Morgan. And Halie, we're not going to have rebuttals to these questions.  Halie, your last question: the Iranian threats, foreign policy question. The Iranian threat isn't confined to its accelerated nuclear program. Iranian proxies in Lebanon, Syria and Iraq firing missiles and drones at Israel sometimes with deadly effect. The Iranian supported Hutus in Yemen regularly attack ships in the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden and the Indian Ocean. In recent years, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have come under attack from Iran or its proxies and vessels of many nations, including the US Navy, have been targeted or damaged or seized. Iranian agents abroad from the IRGC, Hezbollah, Hamas and other groups have been implicated in assassination plots, including in our own country.  Critics charge the Biden administration, which yearned from day one to return to the 2015 nuclear deal has failed to confront Iran forcefully over these multiple threats. What's your response? In a minute, if you could?  Halie Soifer:   Ok, in order to answer this, you have to go back to May of 2018 when President Trump against the advice of many in the US intelligence community and Israeli security establishment, withdrew from the Iran nuclear agreement. While the JCPOA was not a perfect agreement, Iran was in compliance with it. According to international observers and American intelligence officials. It was effectively verifying restrictions on Iran's nuclear development, as AJC itself said at the time in its own press release, despite our many reservations, we had hoped to see the deal fixed, not next. It was with the same objective. And given the fact that Iran was at that time weeks away from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.  The Biden administration explored whether it was possible to reenter the JCPOA and reach a better deal if Iran came back into compliance. In the end, it wasn't possible because Joe Biden refuse to capitulate to Iranian demands, including lifting the terrorists designation on the IRGC, Joe Biden should be praised, not criticized, for working with our allies to explore whether the resumption of a multilateral deal that would contain Israel's nuclear aspirations was possible, and for standing up to Iran, not just by refusing to give in to their demands, but by continuing to implement sanctions against Iran. And as I mentioned, in an unprecedented act, defending Israel against an unprecedented direct attack by the Iranians on April 13. Jason Isaacson:   Halie, thank you. We're gonna go directly to closing statements and Morgan, having won the coin toss, you go first. Morgan Ortagus:   Okay. You know, Halie just talked about working with allies. How about last week at the IAEA, whenever the E three, the UK, France, Germany, had to actually go and beg and plead us to stand up against Iran at the IAEA which we didn't do. We just talked about the ICC in which bipartisan sanctions are before the Congress that the Biden administration is not only not supporting, they're whipping against and the multiple votes at the UN either abstaining or actually working on ceasefire, right. solutions that undermine the State of Israel.  Listen, I would say there's a far big difference between bad rhetoric and bad policy. If you want pretty tweets, vote for Biden, if you don't want dead Israelis and dead Americans vote for Trump. When you look at the people that Biden has empowered in his administration look no further than his Iran envoy, Rob Malley, who was fired, who was under FBI investigation, and also the State Department inspector general investigation because of his leaking of classified information and potential ties to Hamas.  These are not the people that we will promote and support in the Trump administration. President Trump will defend Israel, he will stand by Israel and things like October 7 won't happen under President Trump. You will have peace like under the Abraham Accords and you will have an Iran that is curtailed because we will actually stand up to them and we will stop them from getting a nuclear weapon. Jason Isaacson:   Morgan, thank you. Halie Soifer, your closing comment? Halie Soifer:   Well, you will soon hear from Joe Biden's National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, there is no stronger champion of the US Israel relationship. You will see that Maya Angelou famously said when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. Whether it's acquainting Neo Nazis with peaceful protesters declaring very fine people on both sides as Donald Trump did after Charlottesville, dining with white supremacists, Nick Fuentes and Kanye West in Mar-a-Lago, quoting Hitler, and reportedly saying he did some good things. Donald Trump has shown us exactly who he is, time and time again. Don't believe me listen to his own words. As has President Biden. And the contrast could not be more stark. This past weekend, President Biden welcomed the heroic rescue of four Israeli hostages and pledged to not stop working until all the hostages are home.  Donald Trump also mentioned those who he refers to as hostages. Are they the more than 100 Israelis and Americans and others being held by Hamas? No. He's referring to incarcerated January 6 insurrectionists. That's who he is. And the American people, the Jewish people, and Israel, deserve far better from a US president and we have far better. He's currently in the White House. President Biden recently said that democracy begins with each of us. He's right. It could also end with each of us. And we each have a responsibility to defend it at the ballot box in November. Jason Isaacson:   Halie, Morgan, thank you. That closes our great debate. Our community, our country have a big decision to make this November. AJC will continue to provide information on the issues that are at stake. And we thank you guys very much and we thank all of you for your attention to this important debate.

Filling in for host Cliff May this week is Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of FDD, and he's joined by Karim Sadjadpour. They cover the full gamut of U.S. foreign policy on Iran, from looking back at President Obama's 2015 nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic and President Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA to looking ahead and arguing for policies of maximum pressure on the regime and maximum support for the Iranian people.Karim is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. He's also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. Karim regularly advises senior U.S. officials and has testified numerous times before Congress. His analysis is widely published, and he frequents major media outlets including PBS NewsHour, NPR, and CNN. 

Filling in for host Cliff May this week is Mark Dubowitz, chief executive of FDD, and he's joined by Karim Sadjadpour. They cover the full gamut of U.S. foreign policy on Iran, from looking back at President Obama's 2015 nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic and President Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA to looking ahead and arguing for policies of maximum pressure on the regime and maximum support for the Iranian people.Karim is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. He's also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service. Karim regularly advises senior U.S. officials and has testified numerous times before Congress. His analysis is widely published, and he frequents major media outlets including PBS NewsHour, NPR, and CNN. 

On this episode of Reaganism, Reagan Institute Director Roger Zakheim sits down with Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat who is the former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and currently serves as the Special Advisor for Holocaust Issues, and is Senior Counsel at Covington & Burling LLP. They discuss modern diplomacy in America ranging from Vietnam to the JCPOA, Henry Kissinger's diplomatic legacy, and his new book entitled, The Art of Diplomacy.

In this episode of Mid Atlantic, dissects Iran's intricate power structures and its enduring protests, with significant implications for both Iran and the broader Middle East. The discussion pivots around the death of Ebrahim Raisi, Iran's president, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Supreme Leader since 1989. The episode features insights from Jason M. Brodsky, policy director of United Against a Nuclear Iran, and Henrik F. Rasmussen, executive director of the Institute for Science and International Security. The guests delve into the workings of the morality police, the enforcement of Islamic dress codes, and their impact on civil liberties. They also explore the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps' (IRGC) role in Iran's political and military strategies and Iran's technological and nuclear capabilities. Jason provides a comprehensive overview of Khamenei's rise to power, his extensive bureaucratic reach, and the supreme leader's strategic decisions. He also elaborates on the Iranian protests following the death of Mahsa Amini, the persistent dissatisfaction among the Iranian populace, and the cyclical nature of protests against the regime.Henrik offers a detailed analysis of Iran's nuclear ambitions, the JCPOA nuclear deal, and the international community's divided stance on Iran's nuclear program. He highlights Iran's technological advancements in missile and drone technology and its strategic cooperation with Russia, posing significant implications for regional and global security. The episode concludes with discussions on the "axis of resistance," Iran's alliances with militant groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, and the strategic interplay between Iran, Russia, and other regional actors.Quotes"Khamenei has been the glue of the system, holding it together through his extensive bureaucratic reach and strategic decisions." — Jason M. Brodsky"Iran's youth are completely alienated from this system, yearning for a different life free from oppression and economic hardship." — Jason M. Brodsky"Iran's nuclear program claims to be civilian, but the facts on the ground suggest a clear military intent." — Henrik F. Rasmussen"The axis of resistance is designed to encircle Israel in a ring of fire, exhausting its resources and deterring its operations." — Jason M. Brodsky"Iran's cooperation with Russia extends beyond military support, impacting European security through technological exchanges and nuclear developments." — Henrik F. RasmussenFurther ReadingUnited Against Nuclear IranInstitute for Science and International SecurityJCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action) OverviewInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Reports on Iran Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

From June 17, 2019: It's getting ugly in the Persian Gulf: Iran allegedly attacks two oil tankers. It announces that it's going to violate the JCPOA, the so-called Iran nuclear agreement. There's talk of military strikes. Europe is edgy, and the Secretary of State is on Sunday talk shows being edgier still.Benjamin Wittes sat down with Suzanne Maloney and Scott R. Anderson to talk it all through. They talked about whether the AUMF covers Iran, why Iran is doing this stuff, whether the Trump administration brought this all on itself, and where it's all going from here.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat discusses his excellent new book on the art of diplomacy. Our world today has become multipolar and is beset with conflicts seemingly incapable of resolution. Diplomacy is needed more than ever and his book provides examples and models of what has worked in the past. He provides examples of where the U.S. faltered (e.g. JCPOA with Iran) and where the U.S. succeeded in being reliable (e.g. SALT II). He describes the new world order as the postwar Bretton Woods "rules-based international order". He looks back at the Balkan Wars, the roots of the current Ukraine crisis, the failure of sanctions, and comments on the Israel-Gaza situation. He says you have to remain optimistic otherwise there's no sense in getting out of bed! Watch on BitChute / Brighteon / Rokfin / Rumble / Substack Geopolitics & Empire · Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat: World On Brink, Diplomacy Needed More Than Ever #430 *Support Geopolitics & Empire! Become a Member https://geopoliticsandempire.substack.comDonate https://geopoliticsandempire.com/donationsConsult https://geopoliticsandempire.com/consultation **Visit Our Affiliates & Sponsors! Above Phone https://abovephone.com/?above=geopoliticseasyDNS (use code GEOPOLITICS for 15% off!) https://easydns.comEscape The Technocracy course (15% discount using link) https://escapethetechnocracy.com/geopoliticsPassVult https://passvult.comSociatates Civis (CitizenHR, CitizenIT, CitizenPL) https://societates-civis.comWise Wolf Gold https://www.wolfpack.gold/?ref=geopolitics Websites The Art of Diplomacy: How American Negotiators Reached Historic Agreements that Changed the World (Rowman & Littlefield) https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538167991/The-Art-of-Diplomacy-How-American-Negotiators-Reached-Historic-Agreements-that-Changed-the-World The Art of Diplomacy: How American Negotiators Reached Historic Agreements that Changed the World (Amazon) https://www.amazon.com/Art-International-Diplomacy-Stuart-Eizenstat/dp/1538167999 About Ambassador Stuart E. Eizenstat Stuart E. Eizenstat has served as U.S. Ambassador to the European Union and Deputy Secretary of both Treasury and State. He is also the author of President Carter: The White House Years (2018), The Future of the Jews: How Global Forces are Impacting the Jewish People, Israel, and Its Relationship with the United States (2012), and Imperfect Justice: Looted Assets, Slave Labor, and the Unfinished Business of World War II (2003). He is an international lawyer in Washington, DC. *Podcast intro music is from the song "The Queens Jig" by "Musicke & Mirth" from their album "Music for Two Lyra Viols": http://musicke-mirth.de/en/recordings.html (available on iTunes or Amazon)

Irans Atomprogramm ist seit Jahren im Fokus der internationalen Öffentlichkeit. Seit dem Angriff der Islamischen Republik auf Israel in der Nacht auf den 14. April umso mehr. Seit Jahren warnen ExpertInnen vor der Atommacht Iran. Für die Entwicklung von Atomwaffen bräuchte das Regime zwischen zwei bis drei Jahren, sagt der Physiker Behrooz Bayat. Jahrelang hat er als Berater für die Atomenergiebehörde gearbeitet. Im Gespräch mit Solmaz Khorsand erklärt der Experte die technische Beschaffenheit des iranischen Atomprogramms, der nuklearen Doktrin der Islamischen Republik und die ideologische Haltung zu Atomwaffen  und Vernichtungsfantasien gegenüber Israel. Infos zu Behrooz Bayat und dem Berliner Think Tank "Center for Middle East and Global Order": https://cmeg.org/behrooz-bayat Wir würden uns sehr freuen, wenn Du "Ganz offen gesagt" auf einem der folgenden Wege unterstützt:Werde Unterstützer:in auf SteadyKaufe ein Premium-Abo auf AppleKaufe Artikel in unserem FanshopSchalte Werbung in unserem Podcast

- US representative Thomas Massie is being targeted by the #Zionists. (0:00) - Corruption in US Congress, focusing on #AIPAC and #Israel. (5:14) - Obama's Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and its implications. (15:13) - Iran secretly possesses nuclear warheads. (21:49) - US aircraft carriers' vulnerability to Chinese hypersonic missiles. (38:11) - AI and drone technology rendering only military tech obsolete. (49:57) - Weapons sales to Israel and ongoing #genocide. (1:00:42) - Politics, economics, and decentralization. (1:12:22) - Trump, travel, and body armor. (1:17:09) - Potential return of Trump, gold standard, and currency corruption. (1:33:07) - Implementing change in government under President Trump. (1:39:00) - Political corruption and potential solutions. (1:41:53) - Selecting Trump's inner circle based on business acumen and loyalty. (1:50:50) For more updates, visit: http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport NaturalNews videos would not be possible without you, as always we remain passionately dedicated to our mission of educating people all over the world on the subject of natural healing remedies and personal liberty (food freedom, medical freedom, the freedom of speech, etc.). Together, we're helping create a better world, with more honest food labeling, reduced chemical contamination, the avoidance of toxic heavy metals and vastly increased scientific transparency. ▶️ Every dollar you spend at the Health Ranger Store goes toward helping us achieve important science and content goals for humanity: https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ ▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html ▶️ Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport ▶️ Join Our Social Network: https://brighteon.social/@HealthRanger ▶️ Check In Stock Products at: https://PrepWithMike.com

In the wake of escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, MintCast brings you an exclusive interview with Seyed Mohammad Marandi, Professor of English Literature and Orientalism at the University of Tehran. Join MintPress as we delve into the unfolding events and gain insights into Iran's perspective.As the world's attention remains fixated on the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the subsequent global student protests, focus has shifted to the broader implications of Israel's actions, particularly concerning Iran. Recently, Israel's bombing of the Iranian Embassy in Syria, followed by retaliatory drone attacks from Iran, sparked fears of further escalation. However, despite hawkish rhetoric from certain quarters, both sides seemed inclined to avoid further confrontation.Against this backdrop, we sit down with Dr. Marandi to explore the mood in Iran amidst these turbulent times. Furthermore, we delve into the motivations behind Iran's missile strikes on Israel, shedding light on the strategic rationale behind these actions.Moreover, Dr. Marandi addresses Iran's support for various groups across the region, including Ansar Allah in Yemen and Hezbollah in Lebanon. We examine the extent of Iran's involvement and the underlying rationale guiding its foreign policy decisions.We revisit Dr. Marandi's recent debate with TV host Piers Morgan, highlighting the nuances of language and the implications of demonizing terminology such as "regime," offering valuable insights into the power dynamics shaping media discourse on Iran and its adversaries.In this episode, we also explore the complexities of Iran's nuclear program and the implications of its enrichment activities in the aftermath of the United States' withdrawal from the JCPOA. Dr. Marandi also analyzes Iran's economic strategies, including its burgeoning partnerships with Russia, China, and other BRICS nations, and the potential impact on its resilience against American sanctions.Support the Show.MintPress News is a fiercely independent. You can support us by becoming a member on Patreon, bookmarking and whitelisting us, and by subscribing to our social media channels, including Twitch, YouTube, Twitter and Instagram. Subscribe to MintCast on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and SoundCloud. Also, be sure to check out the new Behind the Headlines channel on YouTube and subscribe to rapper Lowkey's new video interview/podcast series, The Watchdog.

PREVIEW: #IRAN: Excerpt from a conversation with collague Cliff May of FDD re the state of the Biden Administration ambitiion to reignite the JCPOA from 2015 despite the Iran launched surrogate attacks on Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Ketaib Hezbollah and West Bank gangs -- and the powerlessness of the UN.  More details later of the Iran suspect nucear weapon program. 1965 North Yemen

Nikki Haley on "racism." Callers on "justice," Israel, studies, and trailer parks. "Christian" woman Beth Moore bashes Trump supporters! The Hake Report, Wednesday, January 17, 2024 AD TIME STAMPS * (0:00:00) Start/Topics* (0:01:37) Hey, guys!* (0:03:44) Nikki Haley: America was never racist (her past)* (0:11:15) Boomers book: Anti-discrimination, Supreme Court 1964* (0:17:02) JOE, AZ: drug use rates studies; safe black neighborhoods* (0:25:35) MARK, CA: Daniel Penny, justice in NYC subway* (0:30:30) MARK: An angry man, Satan's injustice * (0:34:45) MARK: Reid Hoffman (E Jean Carroll, Trump ballot), Boston's Wu* (0:36:22) MARK: Maj Gen Edwin A Walker, "Insurrection" dismissed* (0:38:05) MARK: Presidential immunity* (0:39:04) Supers: Vivek (pre-Iowa)* (0:42:11) Super: Affirmative Action?* (0:45:13) Super: Ghettos… Warrior, Priest, or etc.? * (0:47:25) GRAHAM, OH: Biden, Trump, anti-Israel awakening* (0:54:16) GRAHAM: Lloyd Austin, Centcom, Houthis, JCPOA, Saudis, Iran* (0:56:03) GRAHAM: Trump against war machine, bureaucracies* (0:58:00) GRAHAM: Ex-Catholic, atheist, Christian* (0:59:27) Starflyer 59 - "can you play drums?" (2001, Leave Here a Stranger)* (1:03:18) Supers: DLive chest, More on Affirmative Action vs Hake* (1:05:54) CJ, TX: Drug use studies/surveys, JD's joke, crime* (1:15:58) CJ: Studies, adjustments for income, change numbers* (1:20:24) Biden: I'm only one to beat Trump* (1:25:12) Beth Moore: "Christian" Trump critic* (1:35:26) MAZE, OH: crime and police and race* (1:38:54) MAZE: slaves, John Brown * (1:42:41) MAZE: Trump committed crimes* (1:43:33) MAZE: Trailer parks* (1:45:37) MAZE: Iowa Trump* (1:47:35) Supers tomorrow! * (1:48:15) Vollmar - "Dove for Sale" (2004, 13 or so people who need chances)BLOG https://www.thehakereport.com/blog/2024/1/17/the-hake-report-wed-1-17-24 PODCAST by HAKE SubstackLive M-F 9-11 AM PT (11-1 CT / 12-2 ET) Call-in 1-888-775-3773 – thehakereport.com  VIDEO  YouTube  |  Rumble*  |  Facebook  |  X  |  BitChute  |  Odysee*  PODCAST  Apple  |  Spotify  |  Castbox  |  Substack  (RSS)  *SUPER CHAT on asterisked above, or  BuyMeACoffee  |  Streamlabs  |  Ko-fi  SUPPORT HAKE  Substack  |  SubscribeStar  |  Locals  ||  SHOP  Teespring  All My Links  https://allmylinks.com/thehakereport  ALSO SEE  Hake News on The JLP Show  |  Appearances (other shows, etc.)  JLP Network:  JLP  |  Church  |  TFS  |  Hake  |  Nick  |  Joel   Get full access to HAKE at thehakereport.substack.com/subscribe

The National Security Hour with LTC Sargis Sangari USA (Ret.) – Join me as I engage with Michael Pregent, a leading Iran expert, to dissect Iran's shadow war via Hamas, analyze the dynamics of Middle East conflicts, and evaluate the Biden administration's foreign policy echoes from the past. We delve into the implications of the JCPOA, SCO's regional ambitions, and the unintended consequences of power plays that redefine allies'...

In this episode, policies, both foreign and domestic are tragic. JCPOA flushing Iran with cash through passive and weak leadership.

Original Air Date: 2/1/23 Fill out the DSR Listener Survey here: https://bit.ly/dsrsurvey2023 Secretary of State Antony Blinken traveled to a very different Israel than one might have expected a year ago. Benjamin Netanyahu is back in power with a more hard right government and an Israeli raid in the West Bank and a shooting in Jerusalem have raised the the temperature of Israel-Palestinian tensions. David discusses Blinken's visit and the larger relationship between the U.S. and Israel with Rosa Brooks of Georgetown University, Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute, and Alon Pinkas of Haaretz. What did Secretary Blinken say and do in Israel? How should the U.S. work with a hard right Israeli government? What do this mean for the future revival chances of the JCPOA? Find out during this insightful conversation. Don't miss it! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Subscribe to The Realignment to access our exclusive Q&A episodes and support the show: https://realignment.supercast.com/REALIGNMENT NEWSLETTER: https://therealignment.substack.com/PURCHASE BOOKS AT OUR BOOKSHOP: https://bookshop.org/shop/therealignmentEmail Us: realignmentpod@gmail.comFoundation for American Innovation: https://www.thefai.org/posts/lincoln-becomes-faiYonah Jeremy Bob, co-author of Target Tehran: How Israel Is Using Sabotage, Cyberwarfare, Assassination – and Secret Diplomacy – to Stop a Nuclear Iran and Create a New Middle East, joins The Realignment. Marshall and Yonah discuss the history of Israel's efforts to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program, the 2015 JCPOA nuclear agreement, the normalization of relations between Israel and Arab states following the Abraham Accords of 2020, where the Israeli-Palestinian conflict fits into the story of the modern Middle East, and the regional realignment against Iran.

Join Jim and Greg as they welcome a stunningly good poll from NBC News showing American voters trusting Republicans far more than Democrats to do a good job on the economy - the biggest edge for the GOP on this issue in 32 years. And Jim breaks down why Americans are very sour on the economy despite the Biden administration insisting that it's great. They also shudder at a Semafor report showing that Iran infiltrated the Obama and Biden administrations as well as the media to push for softer relations toward the mullahs in Iran and the pathetic Iran nuclear deal. Finally, they groan as two-thirds of Americans want to scrap the Electoral College and choose presidents based on the popular vote, and they are especially irked at the 47 percent of Republicans who say they want that. Plus, they explain the wisdom shown by our founding fathers in creating the Electoral College.Please visit our great sponsors:4Patriothttps://4Patriots.comUse code MARTINI to get 10% off your purchase.

Danny's on the road, but finds the time to slow down and hear Derek out! This week: humanity has breached 6 out of the 9 planetary boundaries for the climate (0:30); a Houthi delegation from Yemen visits Saudi Arabia (1:46); the Iran prisoner swap moves forward as the undead JCPOA (nuclear deal) persists (2:58); the Biden administration's purported priority on human rights again brought into question given some recent diplomatic partners (5:52); the DPRK's Kim meets Putin in Russia (10:13); catastrophic natural disasters in Libya and Morocco (13:00); a renewed uprising in the north of Mali (16:40); the US sends long-range artillery to Ukraine (19:10); the G20 summit in India (23:43); a New Cold War update featuring a proposed US-backed India-Europe shipping network (25:57), Biden visiting Vietnam (27:58), and Maduro in China (29:36); and the anniversary of 9/11 (30:48). Disaster Relief: * Morocco: https://shorturl.at/ipuK5* Libya: https://shorturl.at/klnsF This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.americanprestigepod.com/subscribe

Back in July, we dedicated an episode to the question of whether the U.S. was on the cusp of reaching a new deal with Iran. Or was an unofficial deal already hatched that nobody was talking about? According to Rich Goldberg, the answers to these questions are now becoming more clear. Rich has also been focused on another development that didn't get sufficient press attention this summer: the release of US hostages by Iran. Rich wrote an important piece for The Dispatch analyzing that deal, and in our conversation today we examine it in the context of the broader arrangement Rich believes we have with Iran right now. We also discuss what exactly is going on behind all the chatter about a U.S.-brokered normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. Rich Goldberg is a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. From 2019-2020, he served as a Director for Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction for the White House National Security Council. He previously served as a national security staffer in the US Senate and US House. Rich is an officer in the U.S. Navy Reserve with military experience on the Joint Staff and in Afghanistan. Item discussed in this episode: "The Disastrous Implications of the $6 Billion Iran Hostage Deal": thedispatch.com/article/the-disastrous-implications-of-the-6-billion-iran-hostage-deal/

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #Israel: The JCPOA in 2023 & What is to be done? Josh Gottheimer, Fifth Congressional District of New Jersey. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 Josh Gottheimer represents New Jersey's Fifth Congressional District in the northern part of the state, which includes parts of Bergen, Passaic, and Sussex counties. In Congress, Josh serves on two Committees, including the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where he is the Ranking Member of the National Security Agency and Cyber Subcommittee, and is a member of the National Intelligence Enterprise Subcommittee. Josh also serves on the House Financial Services Committee, where he is a member of the Subcommittee on National Security, Illicit Finance, and International Financial Institutions, the Subcommittee on Digital Assets, Financial Technology and Inclusion, and the Subcommittee on Capital Markets. Josh serves as Co-Chair of the bipartisan Problem Solvers Caucus, where he promotes common sense over extremism, and works across party lines on key issues, including lowering taxes, protecting our environment, making healthcare more affordable, protecting America's national security, and improving infrastructure to help the American people.