Podcasts about secretary pompeo

Eric and Eliot welcome former U.S. Ambassador to Moscow John J. Sullivan. John was Deputy Secretary of Commerce in Bush 43, Deputy Secretary of State under Secretary Pompeo and served as Ambassador to Moscow for both Presidents Trump and Biden. They discuss his terrific account Midnight in Moscow: A Memoir From the Front Lies of Russia's War Against the West (New York:  Little Brown and Co., 2024). They talk about the importance and difficulty of maintaining reciprocity in diplomatic representation with Russia the declassification of intelligence to deter Russia and DCI Bill Burns's role in the run up to Putin's invasion, the nature of Russian society and the national character and Russia's imperial hangover, Ambassador Sullivan's never sent valedictory telegram from Moscow and his final judgments about Russia and its war on Ukraine and the west, Putin' readiness to negotiate and his criticisms of the Biden Administration's approach to the war in Ukraine. Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

"Preview: PRC: TRUMP: Colleague Mary Kissel, former State Department official under Secretary Pompeo, looks ahead to a second Trump administration confronting Xi in 2025. More later." 1898 Shanghai

Ambassador Robert O'Brien, former Trump National Security Advisor, joins Liberty & Justice with Matt Whitaker, Season 3, Episode 16.  Presented by American Cornerstone Institute.  Learn more about ACI at https://americancornerstone.org/  Watch every episode of Liberty & Justice at www.whitaker.tv. Robert O'Brien is co-founder and chairman of American Global Strategies LLC. He was the 27th United States National Security Advisor from 2019 – 2021. O'Brien served as the President's principal advisor all aspects of American foreign policy and national security affairs. O'Brien brought a renewed focus to defense and industrial base issues to the NSC. A long-time advocate of a sea power and a 355 ship Navy, O'Brien visited leading shipyards during his tenure. He also spent time at defense plants and with our troops at bases around the world. During O'Brien's time as National Security Advisor, the United States orchestrated the historic Abraham Accords in the Middle East, brokered economic normalization between Serbia and Kosovo, achieved significant defense spending increases among our NATO allies and increased cooperation with America's allies across the Indo-Pacific.Prior to serving as NSA, O'Brien was the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs with the personal rank of Ambassador. He was directly involved in the return of over 25 detainees and hostages to the United States. O'Brien previously served as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan under both Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton. O'Brien was also a presidentially appointed member of the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee from 2008-2011. In 2005, O'Brien was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as a U.S. Representative to the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. Earlier in his career, O'Brien served as a Senior Legal Officer for the UN Security Council commission that decided claims against Iraq arising out of the first Gulf War. He was a Major in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the U.S. Army Reserve. O'Brien is partner emeritus at Larson LLP in Los Angeles, a nationally recognized litigation boutique that he co-founded in 2016. Over his career, he has served as counsel and arbitrator in dozens of International proceedings. O'Brien is the recipient of the National Security Medal, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, the National Defense Medal, the Legion d'honneur (chevalier) and the Kosovo Presidential Medal of Merits.  In July 2022, O'Brien was elected as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Richard Nixon Foundation. He also serves as co-chair with Secretary Pompeo of The Nixon Seminar on Conservative Realism and National Security.O'Brien holds a J.D. from the U.C. Berkeley School of Law. He received his B.A. degree in political science, cum laude, from UCLA. Matthew G. Whitaker was acting Attorney General of the United States (2018-2019).  Prior to becoming acting Attorney General, Mr. Whitaker served as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. He was appointed as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa by President George W. Bush, serving from 2004-2009. Whitaker was the managing partner of Des Moines-based law firm, Whitaker Hagenow & Gustoff LLP from 2009 until rejoining DOJ in 2017. He was also the Executive Director for FACT, The Foundation for Accountability & Civic Trust, an ethics and accountability watchdog, between 2014 and 2017.   Mr. Whitaker is the Author of the book--Above the Law, The Inside Story of How the Justice Department Tried to Subvert President Trump.  Bu

Shownotes and Transcript Dr. Shea Bradley-Farrell joins Hearts of Oak to discuss Hungary's triumph over communism and the importance of nationalism in preserving sovereignty.   She draws parallels between Hungary's history and current US events, emphasizing faith's role in preserving societal values.  Dr. Shea discusses the conservative gap in foreign policy, her book, "Last Warning to the West," and the significance of faith in upholding principles.  She highlights Hungary's resistance against the EU's narrative, praises CPAC Hungary for conservative collaboration, and calls for a revival of faith to counter liberal agendas, stressing unity in upholding fundamental principles.  'Last Warning to the West: Hungary's Triumph Over Communism and the Woke Agenda' available in paperback and e-book on Amazon  https://amzn.eu/d/02lNB8Ma Shea Bradley-Farrell, PhD is President of Counterpoint Institute for Policy, Research, and Education (CIPRE) in Washington, D.C.  Dr. Shea is an expert in foreign policy and aid, national security, international development, and women's issues. She is the author of Last Warning to the West: Hungary's Triumph Over Communism and the Woke Agenda, published in December 2023.  Dr Shea worked directly with the Trump administration, including Sec. Mike Pompeo and Senior Advisor Ivanka Trump, on multiple issues while serving as the VP of International Affairs for Concerned Women for America. Most recently she was professor and subject matter expert for the Defense Security Cooperation University (DSCU) of the U.S. Department of Defense. Dr. Shea possesses an active U.S. security clearance. Dr. Shea publishes Op-eds in outlets such as RealClear Politics, Human Events,  NewsMax,  National Review,   Daily Signal,  The Washington Times, The European Conservative,  Daily Caller, The Hill, Washington Examiner,  the Federalist and many others.  She is a weekly contributor to SiriusXM Patriot Stacy on the Right (Wednesdays 10 p.m.), and a contributor to Victory News TV. She is a regular guest on multiple TV news and radio shows. Dr. Shea presents at conferences all over the world such the Wilson Center for International Scholars, U.S. Department of State, the Foreign Services Institute,  the Heritage Foundation, CPAC Hungary 2022 and 2023, and the Gulf Studies Symposium. Dr. Shea holds a Ph.D. and M.S. from Tulane University, where she was Adjunct Lecturer in the International Development Studies Program in 2015. In 2014, she was Visiting Research Fellow at the Center for Gulf Studies at the American University of Kuwait.   She is a member of the Texas Public Policy Foundation's Border Security Coalition and former Affiliated Faculty and Policy Fellow at George Mason University Schar School of Policy and Government.  As an international development professional, Dr. Shea has traveled extensively throughout the Middle East, Africa, and Latin America delivering capacity building and training assistance to international partners. She has hands-on experience with project design and management, budgeting, curriculum design and development, recruitment, and grants management. She is well-schooled in USAID programming and policies has worked with a variety of international donors including World Bank, Exxon, FedEx, and Kuwait Foundation for the Advancement of Science. Connect with Dr Shea and Counterpoint Institute... X/TWITTER        x.com/DrShea_DC                            x.com/CounterpointDC WEBSITE           counterpointinstitute.org INSTAGRAM      instagram.com/counterpointinstitute Interview recorded  18.6.24 Connect with Hearts of Oak... X/TWITTER        x.com/HeartsofOakUK WEBSITE            heartsofoak.org/ PODCASTS        heartsofoak.podbean.com/ SOCIAL MEDIA  heartsofoak.org/connect/ SHOP                  heartsofoak.org/shop/ TRANSCRIPT (Hearts of Oak) I'm delighted to have Dr. Shea Bradley-Farrell with us. Shea, thank you so much for your time today. (Dr Shea Bradley-Farrell) It's an honor to be with you, Peter. Thanks for having me. Not at all. Lots to talk about. And of course, your book to start off with. Let me just, actually, let me ask you a little bit about yourself. And then we will bring up the book. And this last warning to the West, all the links are in the description. Hungary's Triumph Over Communism and the Woke Agenda. because you've got some phenomenal recommendations on the back that I read those and thought, actually, I'll just give the recommendations and then that's enough. That's literally enough. With Tucker, with Lou Dobbs, with Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and Congressman Paul Gosser so much. We will get into that in a couple of minutes. And don't forget, Kari Lake wrote the foreword. Trust me, we're getting to Kari Lake. She's not on the back, but she's on the front. We're getting to Kari Lake. I read that and thought, wow. But we'll get into the book. And the warning that is, I think, to the West, and I've been to Hungary many, many times. But, Shea, firstly, with you, you are, I mean, you're an expert in so many areas. In the foreign policy and aid, international development, you work directly with the Trump administration. You're regularly in the media with video appearances and lots of op-eds. And you've been instrumental, I think, in setting up CPAC Hungary, which is so needed. And of course, you head up Counterpoint Institute for Policy Research and Education. We'll get into all of those. The links are there @drshea__dc is your Twitter handle and counterpointinstitute.org is the website for the work you do. And our US audience, Shea, will know who you are from your many media appearances. Our UK side probably don't. So could I ask you to take a moment and introduce yourself, especially to our UK audience? Yeah, absolutely. You know, I actually, my background is as an international development professional. You mentioned that and a professor, an academic, traveled throughout the Middle East, Africa. Some in South America, doing development work, mainly focused on helping women better their businesses, whether it was a very small business of maybe harvesting salt, you know, once waters receded in Africa to a very big multi-million dollar companies because economic development is the best, in my opinion, the best form of foreign aid because then people really learn how to take care of themselves. And it builds great relationships between our country and other countries. So anyway, when I came to D.C., that's what I was doing. But being here just for a very short time is when I finally figured out that if I did not get myself into this real battle for our freedom, that I was going to eventually lose my country and lose my freedom. So the story kind of goes on from there. But yes, I worked with an organization called Concerned Women for America. It's the largest public policy organization run by women in the US. And I built an international affairs department there. And I worked alongside, as you said, the Trump administration in that position, working with Secretary Pompeo and Ivanka Trump on different issues having to do with economic development and human rights. And it was a great learning place for me and continued with policy. And I decided to start my own organization, Counterpoint Institute, because there are so few conservatives in the foreign policy realm. I only know one other development professional who is a conservative, which is very interesting. But there was a real hole there in our policy, in our country, in the guidance and leadership of our country. And so I have focused on myself on foreign policy and national security as is my background. And we're doing quite well, Peter. So thanks for having me on again. We want to get on the book. And at the beginning, your image was mirrored. We're not going to stop it because I know your time is short, Shea. You're in very big demand because of all the work you're and especially the book. And you mentioned Kari Lake did the foreword. Let me bring up... And this is an image of the book, Last Warning to the West, Hungary's Triumph over Communism and the Woke Agenda. As I said, you've got Tucker Carlson on the back. You've got Lou Dobbs, Lieutenant General Michael Flynn and Congressman Paul Gosser, all household names recommending what you're putting in as a call, as a warning call to the West on what Hungary has been in over its thousand year history. And, of course, you mentioned Kari Lake has written the foreword. Maybe you begin the book talking about your trip to Hungary. You were there 2019. You talk about the first time and your experiences. I was actually, because I worked in Bulgaria for two and a half years, and I actually was in Hungary for the first time in 1998 and many times since. And I shared the experiences you mentioned of driving through the suburbs, seen that communism blocks and think, wow, in Bulgaria, I got that 10 times to that degree. But you've traveled extensively. Why has your heart settled on Hungary? Well, you know, the Hungarians have a real will to survive and I'm a survivalist also, a survivor. And so I take great pride in that, in them. I think that they've, they're amazing. They became a Christian country over a thousand years ago, and since then they've had the Ottoman Turks in, the Mongols, the Habsburgs, you know, the Nazis occupied them, the Soviet Union, and still they retain their very unique Hungarian identity. I mean, that is even reflected in the fact that no other country in the world, no other people in the world speak Hungarian. But Hungarians, right? It's very interesting. And I think that they're a real example of holding on to their true nationalism. And nationalism in the purest sense of the word means just pride in your own country. It's a collection of people who come together and agree on the same sort of laws and economic systems and the way we're going to do our society. That's what nationalism is. And it's been perverted, of course, by Nazis, for one. But the sense of nationalistic pride in its purest form is not a bad thing. It's a good thing because it strengthens a country. And that's a real reflection of what Hungary is and the people. And they have fought for their survival for so long. And I'm sure you know, to reference somebody probably that you know well, Peter, is Sir Roger Scruton, who is well-loved in Hungary. Because during the Soviet occupation, you know, he worked in the underground bringing information and books to people in those Soviet satellites. He was arrested, actually, also during that time. He helped bring networks together of communication. And anyway, I quote him in my book, and I can't remember the quote. Maybe I could pull it around and read it to you. But it pointedly says, you know, this is a big paraphrase, Hungary went through occupation, and then the wall came down after 46 years of the Soviet Union being in there telling them what to do, being that authoritarian power, right? Well, what he says in this quote is, you know, just because the wall came down, it doesn't make it any less true if the EU is doing the same thing to Hungary. This top-down decision-making, telling them that they must accept this radical gender theory nonsense and teach it to their children, telling them that they must accept mass influx of immigration into their country. They must enter, you know, in their way of thinking, giving money to the Ukraine war to weapons is entering the war. And there are many reasons they don't want to do that. And the EU has sanctioned Hungary for all of those, all of those things, keeping money, billions of dollars away from them because of their sovereignty and what they believe is right for their own country. And we can talk about that and explain it. But the point is, is that the EU has become, you know, what it was never meant to be. It wasn't meant to be a decision making body over the sovereignty of other countries in the EU. And Hungary has fought back against that. And I think that they're a real example to the United States. And that's where the book ended up coming from. Oh, last point. This is what kicked it off. I was over there doing research about the national identity and the survival of the Hungarians, not really knowing where the book was going to go. And people kept saying to me, Shea, you understand that the rhetoric coming out of the United States reminds us of our Soviet era, right? I mean, what a gut punch. No, really. And walking that back, and I'd love to talk more about this, but I'm going to shut up and pause for a minute, Peter. But walking that back, you know, for the past hundred years, the Marxism coming out after the Bolshevik Revolution, the communism that the U.S. was fighting in the 50s. Everything is very much parallel to what's going on in the United States today. And so that's why the book became a warning, the last warning to the West, and written specifically for Americans, really, and others from Western nations that are dealing with the same things we are. Right. There are so many threads to pick up from there. Let me start with, I mean, Hungary should be an insignificant country. It's just got 10 million people, and I love your mug. (Shea shows her British Union Flag drinking mug) It's beautiful. It's beautiful. Mine is a spitfire, so I go… This was actually not on purpose, but I'm hoping it gets me a few points. Oh, it does. You don't need any more, trust me. But I mean, Hungary should be insignificant. Small country, 10 million people on the edge of the Balkans in Eastern Europe, yet everyone knows who Victor Orban is. It's taken a position which is much larger than it actually should have. I mean, as an American, how do you see that as actually happened? You know, and I started the book out talking about that, because who, really, Americans are so isolated. Most of them had no idea where Hungary was, right, or anything about them. And all of a sudden, they're on the world stage. Victor Orban is a friend of Trump. Trump is shaking his hand and inviting him to have meetings. And it's really because of, really the bullying of the EU, I believe, is where it started, because there were so many articles and news stories written that maligned Hungary and these sanctions. And Hungary stood up and fought back. I mean, Orban was part of the movement that pushed the Soviets out of Hungary. He started the Fidesz party back then, before the Soviets ever left. He was actually a youth alliance at that time, a youth party, a party of the youth that was anti-communist. So he is a real fighter and he has a lot of people in his administration who are real fighters and they don't want the woke agenda. They feel like, hey, we just got our freedom back in 1991. Stop telling us what to do. So I think it has a lot to do with the press maligning them and then Trump hugging them, embracing Orbán and looking at Hungary as an ally in this fight against Marxist nonsense. This woke Marxist cultural nonsense. And that has increased because our own administration now under the Biden administration. Our ambassador in Hungary is very antagonistic against Hungary. So I just think their will and their will to do what they believe is right for their own people. And on all three of those issues I mentioned earlier, they've done a citizen referendum. Do you want to be involved in the war? Do you want mass immigration? Do you want radical gender theory in your schools? And the overwhelming majority of people voted no. So in my way of thinking, that is real sovereignty, respecting the sovereignty of your people, of your country, if the EU would stop this. But the Biden administration continues this antagonizing, I call it, because it truly is. And I think that's had a lot to do with it. We'll touch on your ambassador and it kind of shows where America currently sits. But you mentioned the EU and Orban's stand, I think, against cultural Marxism and the woke agenda has made him an absolute enemy of the EU, like no other figure I've seen within the EU. And I think he's now getting fined so much per day because of the stand against mass migration. And he's a target of the Western media and of all the organs of the deep state. And you see them working across. I mean, tell us how you view that. This is one man, small country, standing up against the EU. 10 million people in Hungary, half a billion in the EU. And everything that Orbán stands for is different than the entity of the European Union. I think that's a lesson for Americans to learn to be very careful who you actually place yourself under. Yeah, that's exactly Exactly right. And, you know, it really goes back to something that you mentioned, you know, this guy Daniel Frund, I believe is how you say his last name, in the EU. I mean, he's taken it on himself. It's made... He's made it his business to post things on his social media that are clearly very discriminatory against Hungary. And he's made it, he's an example, I think, of the anger that many on the liberal left, the radical left get simply because you don't do what they want you to do, simply because you don't believe what they believe. And Hungary was perfectly fine with not trying to change them, but they're trying to change Hungary. And as I said before, they've had the Ottoman Turks, the Habsburgs, the Nazis, the Soviets. They want to protect their beliefs. Like I said, they respect God. They're a Christian country. They respect the family. They actually put in their constitution a few years ago that the woman is the mother and the father and the man is the father, you know, against this gender nonsense. And it made the EU extremely angry. And that's been part of the problem. And yeah, so a lot of this comes from anger. But I will touch on something else you said that I worked a lot against, during the Trump administration, trying to unravel the Obama years on this. The United States got way out of line on foreign aid. And what we've ended up doing, I believe it started under Obama. I don't know that it went a lot further back, but we've begun pushing our own progressive social agenda through our foreign aid with things called like being LGBT in Asia, being LGBT and whatever. And so, I wrote an article a couple months ago and it was in Peru, that's where it was, that we are funding transgender ballroom dancing in Peru. I mean, this kind of nonsense instead of real help, real development help, humanitarian help. We are pushing our social progressiveness, I always do this because it's actually backwardsness, onto other countries. And in my job, you know, for years now, I've had people come from Africa, from the Middle East, from Eastern Europe, from South America, come and say to me, can you help us? Because your country has told us we can't have this money unless we do this, which is against our religion, whether it's something that's promoting abortion, promoting homosexuality. It's not what our people want to do. But your country is pushing this. And it's a real problem. And we're doing it again under the Biden administration. And that's what's going on in Hungary and other countries, for sure, all over the world. And I'm sorry, I apologize. Well, actually, that fits into what the EU and the UK are doing, that we tie a lot of our aid, especially to abortion being healthcare, and you need to abort as much as you can, and the whole LGBT agenda, especially in the education and media. So we are doing exactly the same. But you mentioned the ambassador, and you talk about him being a big advocate and representative of LGBT community. And that must be a slap in the face to a country that is a conservative Christian country. And the left put that in place, obviously Biden put them in place purposefully, knowing that we are going to push our agenda as America and it's irrelevant to what you think. But we have exactly the same issues in the EU and UK, pushing that agenda on developing countries. Yeah. And it's stepping out of line. It's stepping over the sovereignty of other countries, over their religious freedom, over their scientific freedom when you get down to the transgender stuff. Our ambassador, David Pressman is his name. Evidently, there was a small story about it. It was part of Obama's LGBT. Obama promised to spend millions and billions on promoting ideology. And I, can I make this clear? Because this is something I've worked on as well. Obama and Biden are spreading an ideology, teaching children in some of these programs, you know, here's the color purple, we're celebrating transgender stuff. It's ideology they're pushing. What they should be doing is looking and seeing in the countries, if homosexuals, if whatever, are being imprisoned or persecuted for some, you know, in some way. That should be addressed as a human rights issue. You know, ISIS beheading homosexual men. This is where the U.S. should be involved, not in spreading an ideology. And I was going to tell you something else, Peter, but I've gotten off on that tangent. What was.. It's like the Matt Walsh documentary, What is a woman, talking to people in Africa and they're saying, what do you mean a man can be a woman, it's madness, It's madness, yes and I had a friend who spoke at the UN from Africa who grew up in this village, you know, where, here was her point at the UN, we need roads so I can get my children to the doctor, we need hospitals. We need water where we live. We don't need abortion. That's not development. Going back to our ambassador. So first of all. He helped Obama with this. Second of all, in his confirmation hearing, he was already calling Hungary a democratic backsliding country, aligning them with China and Russia. And if you look at his social media, most of this is because of the LGBT thing. And he promotes that agenda far more than anything else on his social media. He's militant about it. He's hung up and obsessed on it. He is married to a man. He has two little boys, I believe, with this man. Now, I've spent lots and lots of time in Hungary, been there many times at this point. I've seen homosexuals walking around. Nobody cares if that's what you want to do. But he was put in there as an antagonizing aspect for his beliefs alone and, you know, his obsessive promotion of it. And the real thing that clinches this is that he uses that to say that Hungary is backsliding in democratic values, that Hungary is a human rights abuser. There is no put your finger on anything that Hungary has done to abuse human rights. In fact, you know, ironically, I think this was on the Human Rights Council Committee, whatever the name of the organization website, this uprising of LGBT people in Hungary. So, oh, it's terrible because Hungary is oppressing them because here's this uprising. Well, the point, you know, that I was trying to make during this time was these people have the freedom to uprise and say we don't like things. That's a democratic society. So what's happening is the Biden administration wants everybody to agree with them. You know, that's the real issue. If you don't agree with them, then you're a human rights abuser. And that's wrong. It's deceptive and it's taking the focus off of real needs, you know, around the world that the U.S. could be focused on. I know, exactly. A key part of, if you go go through Hungary's history from its establishment in the 9th century, so you've got 1,000 years of history, all the way up to the Ottoman Empire, 1800s, you go up to communism in the 1900s and how Hungary was able to overthrow that, along with the rest of Eastern Europe. And that's 1,000-year history. It's, I mean, four times longer than the US has been there, and they fought for their national identity over that time. It does seem as though Hungary is a kind of roadmap for successfully preserving your national identity. Is that what you've seen in your time looking at Hungary? Yeah, I believe so, Peter. And, you know, I did interviews for the Bucs, some with senior government officials and some with just regular people out in the country. And there was an older gentleman I talked to in his late 80s that had been there during the Soviet siege of Budapest, where they fought against the Nazis and pushed the Nazis out. He was just a little boy at the time. And he and his family were in one of the basements there where the castle is, now where the castle is in Hungary. And, you know, he recounts some really terrible things like the soldiers raping women just as a matter of method even to keep the people pressed down. But, you know, I asked him, in fact, he had this great attitude and he had lived most of his life up until 1991 under Soviet occupation. And I asked him, how is it that Hungarians are still so positive? How is it that they hold so fast to their family because the Russians, the communist ideology, was to divide people from family, to divide people from religion, to divide people from their national identity. They took Hungarians' holidays away from them, their national holidays. They told them they had to take crosses down off the walls and put the communist leader pictures up there. These are are just some small examples, but they tried to recreate Hungarian history and identity according to what the communists wanted it to be. And I said, how are you guys still so Hungarian, so family oriented, so focused on God and your country? And he said it really went back to Christianity and their families, that when he was a little boy, his mother, you know, would teach them in the house about their religion, about their faith, about right and wrong, freedom and liberty. And then they would go to school and under the eyes of the communists, they would act a different way. But always at home, it was still being imparted to them, you know, the national identity of the Hungarians, their freedom, the importance of their sovereignty. And I had some other gentlemen that were older say pretty much the same thing. So I think it's something, I think it's that, and I think it's this will to survive. They've been through it for centuries, and they keep having to do it. And as somebody said to me, a few people said to me, is that America doesn't remember what it's like not to be free. We've been around like you said a lot less time than Hungarians have and they were dealing with this until recent history in 1991. So there are many people still alive that remember what it was like under the sovereignty of the Soviet Union. You talked about faith, and I think the position of God is quite central. And of course, the EU have rejected God, and whenever they wrote the Constitution, they specifically and purposely removed any references to Christian history in Europe and any reference to God. And that puts it at odds with Hungary. I mean, there are many nations in Europe that are still very strongly, devoutly Christian. You've got Malta, Finland, Austria, Bulgaria, where I lived, and the Orthodox Church there is very strong. Italy, well known for their strong faith. Slovakia, you go to Greece, and the Orthodox Church is so strong, Greece. But sadly, I guess none of those countries have an Orban. But how do you look on it as an American where Christianity is still a central part? I know times are changing. How do you look on it in not only Hungary, but many of those countries across Europe where faith, where your relationship with God is quite central in culture, not necessarily in politics? I mean, how did you see that as an American, as a Christian? In relating it to Hungary, you mean, or in Europe? Yeah, just generally your time there and how you as a Christian, as a conservative, and your parts of Hungary and Europe that are traditionally Christian, and yet the leadership doesn't necessarily represent that. But Hungary does seem to be different. You know, they say that they're a Christian nation. I mean, even the government will say that. It's not, you know, it's not like a theocracy or anything like that, but they're very proud of the fact that a thousand years ago, King Istvan made them the easternmost western country of the empire, a Holy Roman Empire, and they took on Christianity. He thought it would be good for the alliances and the economic prosperity of Hungary, and they've continued to hold on to that. You know, my experience going through Europe is sometimes I'm very surprised at how there are many people there that still have a real relationship as Christians with Jesus Christ. They have a real relationship as Jews with God, and they're really holding fast those principles. In other places that I've been, I think I've been a little bit disappointed that the religion has has turned in sort of this secular kind of religion. Like this is what our morals are based on, yet we're not really practicing any sort of religion where we are saying there is a power that's more important than we are. And while I still think that it's good that some societies are still based on this moral approach, understanding of Christianity or Judaism, I'm concerned that generations will go by if people are not actually practicing that religion, reading their Bibles, praying, that generations will go by and even that moral foundation will slip away. Am I explaining that right? No, you are. You're right. There is a disconnect between the history and people's personal relationship with Jesus. And you see the church, especially in the Nordic countries, in Germany, and many parts, have become woke and have abandoned that clarion call they should have. But yet many parts of Eastern Europe still hold on to that. And Christianity, whether that's a personal relationship with Christ, part of it is cultural Christianity, but that is still embedded in the culture, where in many other parts of Europe that's been rejected. That's exactly right. But what I'm concerned about is that in those places where it's still based on Christianity, if people still are not praying and reading their Bibles and learning what their religion is and what it should mean to them in their lives, that eventually that moral fabric will leave. And I think that is what is happening in America, is so few people are going to church now as generations ago. So few people think about praying when they have a problem, you know, before they go off and do whatever it is. And we've gotten to the point where cutting children's body parts off is okay. That is moral depravity. So that's what I'm concerned about, Peter. I've seen it happen here. And I actually, I was talking to, I think it was an official, a government official, yes, about this. Like, are you concerned that the secular, because this person even said to me, it's more of a secular religion, secular Christianity. It's like a foundation of it. That was just his point of view. There are other people that were practicing. But I said, you know, aren't you concerned that eventually this moral fabric will be broken up? And he didn't seem to be too concerned about it, but I am. I agree. Whenever the church begins to promote and advocate abortion and sexualization of children, you know that we are in a difficult, dangerous pit. And I get that. We need a huge revival. Tell me how it's been welcomed in America, this book, because there are many books about, you know, Republicans, Red Wave, MAGA. You've got thousands and thousands of them. This book is quite different. It's looking outside, which maybe is different from the traditional conservative books that are available in the US. Tell me how it's been received and some of the conversations you've had with people as you've gone around and promoted the book. It's actually been received very well. I've been on tons of media for it. People reaching out to me such as yourself that wanted to hear more about it. I think because they're fascinated by the fact that I'm showing the parallels of Hungary under communist control. And actually, I want to go go back to that in just a second. But even like C-SPAN, C-SPAN came and recorded my, I had a book launch in New York and a book launch in DC in February. The New York one was December, 2023. But in February at the Hungarian embassy, C-SPAN came and recorded it and put it on, you know, their book TV, their Washington journal, and even on their radio. Because I think that, I'm an academic, I'm a researcher. So some people find the book a little daunting, a little heavy because of all the sources and citations and documentation that I use in it. But that's what I do. There are many people that appeal to a different crowd, I think, in America that just say, they're more like someone who impart a message that people need to hear. But I'm trying to say, look at the history, look at the history, and you know that we're in trouble. I put in the book, Peter, the 11 points of communist psychological warfare, which were written, published by our Department of Defense in 1959, so that our professionals would recognize communist psychological warfare and combat it, 1959. I put these in the book because every point is parallel to the United States today. And I wanted to show that, you know, the fact that the Hungarians were saying that we are, the rhetoric coming out of the U.S. reminds them of the Soviet days. If you even just walk that back to the Bolshevik revolution and the Marxism during that time, even I did not know that they were pushing abortion at that time as health care. This is not anything new, that that was coming out of their division between, parents and their children, was coming out of that, the Marxism at that time, between people and religion. But looking, just let me give you a couple of points from the communist psychological warfare points. Like I said, they're all in my book, and then I put up just a little brief description underneath of how it relates to the United States. One of the points is using a crisis to gain control. And we saw during the COVID pandemic, vaccine mandates where thousands of people lost their jobs because they wouldn't put an unknown substance into their body, their own body. Vaccine mandates, lockdowns all over the world, actually. The detention camps in Australia were the ones that really freaked me out. But other examples, the government gaining control of propaganda bodies, that was actually one of the first steps of Sovietization that the Soviet Union would do in satellite countries. But it's also one of those points where the government will control the information going out. And certainly in the United States, the mainstream media is led and influenced by our administration. It is so far left. It is so, in my lifetime, it's never been so un-journalistic. But even farther than that, you know, the Biden administration is going through litigation right now because it's been accused of suppressing entire bodies of ideas of Americans on social media, collaborating with with Facebook and X or Twitter at the time, and other platforms to suppress people's views on the 2020 election, COVID-19, on Hunter Biden's laptop. And we find out just a couple of weeks ago that they're doing it again. So I'll stop there. Those are just two examples of the points. But it's really concerning. I find it actually is an easy read. It is 350 pages, but you've got a thousand years of history to touch on. So you go through, I think, marvellously well. And it is available. I read it as an e-book. It is available as a paperback. Let me just... That is Last Warning to the West, Hungary's Triumph over Communism and The Woke Agenda, with a foreword by Kari Lake, as you mentioned. Just very last point on CPAC Hungary, because it's been fascinating your involvement with that, and I think that brings what is, it's a fascinating connection between Hungary and the US, because it's the first time CPAC has launched in Europe. I think Hungary is a fantastic country to start that in. And maybe just to end off, just mentioning that, because that brings up to the current present tense and also shows that bridge between Hungary and America, which I think can be key whenever, whenever Trump regains the White House. Yeah, I think it's a good point. So CPAC Hungary started three years ago. I spoke the first two years. I wasn't able to go this year. But the organization that started CPAC Hungary is the same organization that published my book, the Center for Fundamental Rights. They're a conservative think tank there in Hungary. And I was a fellow for them for about a year and a half, senior fellow. And it was a great experience. And they have done a fantastic job with CPAC Hungary. Strange that there's no other CPAC in Europe. But they really set out to build collaboration between countries and certain aspects of the countries that were conservative. And they've done a fantastic job with that because, you know, they've also built relationships in Spain, in Italy with different conservative organizations. And we see that all over the world now. In fact, we go back a couple of weeks ago. It seemed that the EU in the elections for the European Parliament went a bit to the right. So I do believe that things going on like CPAC Hungary help influence that. And, you know, I have conservative friends now down in Argentina and in Italy. And like I said, Spain and Hungary and all these different places. And we collaborate together, help each other, support each other. And I believe, this is my theory, that in many countries, the majority of the people are still wanting to support family, are still respecting their religion, still love their homeland. And I think the liberal left in the form of the European Union and the Biden administration and the media all over the world is announcing to the world that they don't matter. The political and media elites of the left have the power, the control. So it makes it seem like the whole world is that way. And we do have a lot to fight against on legislation and crazy things that are going on in the EU and in my own capital where I am here. But I just believe that people all over the world need to know there are sane people out there working for these foundational principles, because Europe was also founded on Christian principles. And the United States most certainly was, you know, like you said, the EU is voting this constitution to take that out. But that's not what the original fathers of the EU were doing. So I'm sure you know more about that than I do. And I talk about that some in my book. But it's this real change from, you know, humility before a higher power in your lives, to thinking that you can do it all yourself. You know, you're giving yourself your rights now, these rights that God have given us, he didn't give them to us. In fact, we had a commentator in the United States about a month or so ago say that, that Christian nationalists, Christians who love their country, were crazy because we thought that our rights were God-given, and how silly that was. And we're like, well, lady, it's actually in our founding documents. So anyway, it's this real reliance on self, Peter, And that's dangerous. And there are those of us that are fighting for the right kind of principles like you, like yourself. And it's good that outlets such as you are getting that word out there. I think it encourages people is what I'm trying to say with a lot of words. Well, 100%. We'll bring it last warning to the West. Fantastic read and counterpoint institute I encourage your viewers listeners to make sure and click on that and follow and sign up to all you're doing and I just saw that Hungary take over the commission, EU commission and their tagline is Make Europe Great Again so you're going to have MEGA and MAGA together, MEGA MAGA for the second half of this year, but Dr Shea thank you so much for coming on and sharing about your experiences, your work with Counterpoint Institute. It's fascinating. So thank you so much for your time today. Thank you, Peter. And if your listeners would like to follow our work, just sign up for our newsletter on counterpoint.institute.org. It only comes out a couple of times a month, but it just gives the basics on all these issues that you and I have talked about in the work we're doing. So thank you so much for having me. Not at all. Sign up counterpointinstitute.org make sure and sign up to that newsletter Shea thank you so much for your time Thanks Peter.

#Iran: Selection not Election. Gabriel Noronha is the executive director of Polaris National Security and a fellow with the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA). He previously served as the special advisor for Iran at the State Department under Secretary Pompeo. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 https://www.timesofisrael.com/irans-leaders-mulling-nuclear-weapons-nyt-says-citing-iranian-officials/ 1925 Persia

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.

PREVIEW: Excerpt from a conversation with Mary Kissel, former senior adviser to Secretary Pompeo at State, re the report that State Secretary Blinken and the Biden Administration seek to revieve the decades old Two-State Solution for peace in the Middle East -- and how the horror of the Hamas attack on October 7 has altered the opinion of the deeply troubled Palestinian Authority. https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/blinken-meets-arab-leaders-in-bid-to-prevent-war-from-spreading-across-middle-east-de1ac76c?mod=middle-east_news_article_pos4 1898 Gaza

Today Hugh reviews the David Ignatius column from the Washington Post which has rocked the Beltway and talks with former Secretary of State Pompeo about the dangerous situation the United States faces with an infirm president.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Former Secretary of State and CIA Director, Mike Pompeo, author of Never Give an Inch, gives us his take on the global perception of Biden, what he thinks of a Biden 2024 run and the threat we face as a nation due to his weak leadership.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

What is the relationship between America's Founding principles and her foreign policy? What are unalienable rights and how do we know they exist? How have other nations responded to the final report of the U.S. Department of State's Commission on Unalienable Rights? Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and Mary Ann Glendon, Chair of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, join Madison's Notes to answer these questions and others.  The Final Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

What is the relationship between America's Founding principles and her foreign policy? What are unalienable rights and how do we know they exist? How have other nations responded to the final report of the U.S. Department of State's Commission on Unalienable Rights? Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and Mary Ann Glendon, Chair of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, join Madison's Notes to answer these questions and others.  The Final Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

What is the relationship between America's Founding principles and her foreign policy? What are unalienable rights and how do we know they exist? How have other nations responded to the final report of the U.S. Department of State's Commission on Unalienable Rights? Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and Mary Ann Glendon, Chair of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, join Madison's Notes to answer these questions and others.  The Final Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What is the relationship between America's Founding principles and her foreign policy? What are unalienable rights and how do we know they exist? How have other nations responded to the final report of the U.S. Department of State's Commission on Unalienable Rights? Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and Mary Ann Glendon, Chair of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, join Madison's Notes to answer these questions and others.  The Final Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/world-affairs

What is the relationship between America's Founding principles and her foreign policy? What are unalienable rights and how do we know they exist? How have other nations responded to the final report of the U.S. Department of State's Commission on Unalienable Rights? Secretary of State Michael R. Pompeo and Mary Ann Glendon, Chair of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, join Madison's Notes to answer these questions and others.  The Final Report of the Commission on Unalienable Rights is here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Tuesday, March 7th, A.D. 2023. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard at www.TheWorldview.com. I'm Adam McManus.  (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Kevin Swanson Chinese Commies have closed/demolished 48 churches in last 4 years International Christian Concern has issued their annual report on the Chinese Communist government's persecution of churches.    A total of 48 churches have been closed or demolished between 2019 and 2022. Plus, the Communists have arrested 89 church leaders, 13 of which occurred in the first six months of 2022. Pray for faith in the fire for our Chinese brothers and sisters. Trump wins CPAC 2023 poll Former President Donald Trump won the CPAC poll again on Saturday as the favored Republican candidate for the 2024 U.S. presidential race — this time with 62% of the vote.  Florida Governor Ron DeSantis came in second place with 20%.   Trump laid out his vision. TRUMP: “In 2016, I declared, ‘I am your voice.' Today, I add, I am your warrior. I am your justice. And for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your retribution.” His talk included promises to do something about drugs and illegal immigration. Recent YouGov polls still have Donald Trump well above DeSantis and former South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley by an average of 18-20%.   Should Trump win the 2024 election, he would be the only president since Grover Cleveland to serve two non-consecutive terms.  Pompeo: Adding trillions of dollars in debt is “deeply un-conservative” Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, who served under President Trump, spoke at the CPAC gathering, calling the addition of trillions of dollars by both Democrats and Republicans as “deeply un-conservative.” POMPEO: “You know, I stared today at $31 trillion in debt and tell my son, ‘Make sure you work hard because Social Security may just not be there for you.' “Every recent administration, Republican and Democrat alike, added trillions in dollars to our debt. That is deeply un-conservative. The Trump administration, the administration I served,  added $8 trillion in new debt. “This is indecent and can't continue earning back that trust will be hard work. It won't just be a campaign speech. It won't just be talking about it. We need demonstrated seriousness, people who will explain to the American people, and to their kids and grandkids, why this matters. “These will require tough choices, difficult choices, but the risks required are worthy.” Secretary Pompeo also challenged conservative voters not to settle when choosing the next president. POMPEO: “Over the last few years, I've heard some, who claim to be conservative, excuse hypocrisy by saying something like, ‘Well, we're electing a president, not a Sunday school teacher.'  That's true, but having taught Sunday school, maybe we could get both!” Second housing bust of millennium The second housing bust of the millennium looks like it is worse than the first, so far.   Wolfstreet reports that San Francisco Bay Area housing median prices have plunged by 35% in 10 months.  That compares to a 21% plunge over the same time period in 2008.   And the average 30-year mortgage rate is 7.08%, up from 6.36% in early February.  Obesity is number one threat to human health Obesity is the greatest threat to human health, impacting longevity worldwide. The newly released World Obesity Atlas 2023 suggests that more than half the world will be obese or overweight by 2035.  This will cost the world about $4.32 trillion in increased medical costs or about 3% of the Gross World Product.   At present trends, childhood obesity is expected to double with boys and more than double with girls leading to a total of 1.5 billion adults and nearly 400 million children who will be obese. That's up from 650 million obese as of 2016. Among the larger nations, the most obese nations in the world are Kuwait, United States, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Turkey, Egypt, Bahamas, New Zealand, and Iraq.  COVID dropped life expectancy Life expectancy has dropped worldwide — the only significant dip since the Chinese famines of 1959. The numbers indicate equal drops in 2020 and 2021, equating to about one year,  Anarchists attack Atlanta Police training facility Sunday's anarchical attack on an Atlanta Police training facility, derisively referred to as “Cop City,”  resulted in 35 arrests, reports Reuters.   The coordinated attack on the police apparently included people from France and Canada.  Steven Curtis Chapman's 50th #1 song Steven Curtis Chapman chalked up his 50th number one song on the Contemporary Christian Music charts with his latest single “Don't Lose Heart,” reports BMI.   Don't lose heart Don't you dare let go I've been where you are You are not alone I know it gets dark I know it gets hard But we're gonna make it home (we're gonna make it home) So don't lose heart "Don't Lose Heart” is a cut from Chapman's 2022 album entitled Still which is themed on the struggles the family faced upon the loss of Chapman's 5-year-old daughter, Maria Sue, in 2008.  The only musicians that captured this accomplishment in other genres include Conway Twitty and George Strait, on the country charts, and Madonna on the pop charts. Raquel Welch, an active churchgoer in last 20 years, died at 82 And finally, actress Raquel Welch died several weeks ago at 82 years of age. For about 20 years, Welch was a faithful member of Calvary Presbyterian Church in Glendale, California, a part of the Presbyterian Church in America denomination. According to a tribute to Welch's life and testimony, written by Christopher and Denada Neiswonger, she was “a wonderful lady and a fine Christian. She fully embraced the Reformed and Presbyterian faith as described in the Westminster standards." In her autobiography, written in 2010, Welch described how she found a small church “on the way to Pasadena, where the pastor and congregation were very devout and really knew their Scripture. I had come there because I'd heard the pastor speak on the radio.”   Considered the “definitive sex symbol of the 1960s and 1970s,” her life was dotted with divorces until 2003. We'll close with John 4:16-18, 25-26 today with the woman at the well. [Jesus] told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband.  The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When He comes, He will explain everything to us.” Then Jesus declared, “I, the one speaking to you—I am He.” Close And that's The Worldview on this Tuesday, March 7th, in the year of our Lord 2023. Subscribe by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com. Or get the Generations app through Google Play or The App Store. I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has seen a lot. He graduated from West Point, served in the Armed Forces, was elected to Congress, ran the CIA and became America's chief diplomat. Many speculate he intends to run for President. With all of that in mind, his opinion on China, Iran, Ukraine and here at home carries a lot of weight. Hear him chat with Tim about all of that and more. 

Chris Li, director of research of the Asia-Pacific Initiative and fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University, leads the conversation on U.S. strategy in East Asia. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to today's session of the Winter/Spring 2023 CFR Academic Webinar Series. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach at CFR.  Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/academic, if you would like to share it with your colleagues or classmates. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.  We're delighted to have Chris Li with us to discuss U.S. strategy in East Asia. Mr. Li is director of research of the Asia-Pacific Initiative, and a fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, where he focuses on U.S.-China relations, Asia-Pacific security, and technology competition. Previously, he was research assistant to Graham Allison in the Avoiding Great Power War Project, and coordinator of the China Working Group, where he contributed to the China Cyber Policy Initiative and the Technology and Public Purpose Project, led by former Secretary of Defense Ash Carter.  Chris, thanks very much for being with us today. I thought we could begin with you giving us your insights and analysis of the Biden administration's foreign policy strategy in East Asia, specifically vis-à-vis China.  LI: Great. Well, first of all, thanks, Irina, for the invitation. I'm really looking forward to the conversation and also to all the questions from members of the audience and, in particular, all the students on this seminar. So I thought I'd start very briefly with just an overview of how the Biden administration's strategy in the Indo-Pacific has shaped up over the last two years, two and a half years. What are the key pillars? And essentially, now that we're about halfway through the first term—or, you know, if there is a second term—but President Biden's first term, where things are going to go moving forward?  So as many you are probably familiar, Secretary of State Tony Blinken laid out essentially the core tenets of the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy, of which China, of course, is a focal centerpiece. And he did so in his speech last summer at the Asia Society, where he essentially described the relationship between the U.S. and China as competitive where it should be, cooperative where it can be, and adversarial where it must be. So sort of three different pillars: competition, cooperation, a sort of balance between the two. And in terms of the actual tenets of the strategy, the framing was three pillars—invest, align, and complete.  And so briefly, just what that meant according to Secretary Blinken was really investing in sources of American strength at home. Renewing, for example, investment in technology, investment in STEM education, infrastructure, and many of the policies that actually became known as Build Back Better, a lot of the domestic spending packages that President Biden proposed, and some of which has been passed. So that first pillar was invest sort of in order to o compete with China, we need to first renew our sources of American strength and compete from a position of strength.  The second element was “align.” And in this—in this pillar, I think this is where the Biden administration has really distinguished itself from the Trump administration. Many folks say, well, the Biden administration's China policy or its Asia policy is really just Trump 2.0 but with a little bit—you know, with essentially a nicer tone to it. But I think there is a difference here. And I think the Biden administration's approach has really focused on aligning with both traditional security partners—our allies, our alliances with countries like the Republic of Korea, Japan, the Philippines—but also invigorating those nontraditional partnerships, with India, for example.   I think another part of this strategy, another part of this dimension, has also been reinvigorating U.S. presence and U.S. leadership, really, in multilateral organizations. Not only, for example, taking the Quad and reestablishing some of the leader-level summits, the ministerials, proposing, for example, a COVID cooperation regime among new members of the Quad, but also establishing newer frameworks. So, for example, as many of you have read about, I'm sure, AUKUS, this trilateral security pact between Australia, the United Kingdom and the U.S. when it comes to sharing of nuclear submarine technology. That's been a new proposed policy. And I think we're about to see an update from the administration in the next couple of weeks.  And even with elements of the region that have been unappreciated and perhaps under-focused on. For example, the Solomon Islands was the focal point of some attention last year, and you've seen the administration propose the Partners in the Blue Pacific Initiative, which seeks to establish greater cooperation among some of the Pacific Island nations. And there was actually a summit hosted by President Biden last fall with leaders of the Pacific Island countries. So that alignment piece I think has really been significant as a cornerstone of the Biden administration's Indo-Pacific strategy.  The third element, of course, competition, I think is the most evident. And we've seen this from some of the executive orders on semiconductors, the restrictions on advanced chips, to elements of trade, to even sort of advocacy for human rights and greater promotion of democracy. You saw the Summit for Democracy, which has been a pillar of the administration's foreign policy agenda. So that's basically what they've done in the last two and a half years.  Now, in terms of where that's actually brought us, I think I'll make four observations. The first is that, unlike the Biden—unlike the Trump administration, where most of the policy pronouncements about the People's Republic of China had some tinge of inducing change in China—that was the phrase that Secretary Pompeo used in a speech on China policy—I think the Biden administration largely has said: The assumption and the premise of all of our policy toward China is based on the idea that the U.S. government does not seek fundamentally to change the Chinese government, the Chinese regime, the leadership, the administration, the rule of the Chinese Communist Party.  So that is both a markedly important difference, but it's also a part of the strategy that I believe remains ambiguous. And here, the problem is, you know, invest, align, and compete, competitive coexistence, where does that all actually take us? And I think this is where analysts in the strategic community and think tank world have said, well, it's great to invest, of course. You know, there's bipartisan support. Alignment with partners and allies is, of course, a pretty uncontroversial, for the most part, approach. And competition is, I think, largely a consensus view in Washington, D.C. But where does this actually take us?  You know, for all of its criticisms, the Trump administration did propose a specific end state or an end objective. And I think the Biden administration has just sort of said, well, it's about coexisting. It's about just assuming to manage the relationship. I think there are, of course, valid merits to that approach. And on an intellectual level, the idea is that because this is not necessarily a Cold War 2.0, in the words of the Biden administration, we're not going to have an end state that is ala the Cold War—in essence a sort of victory or demise, you know, the triumph of capitalism over communism, et cetera. In fact, it's going to be a persistent and sustained rivalry and competition. And in order to harness a strategy, we essentially need to manage that competition.   So I think that's—it's an intellectually coherent idea, but I think one of the ambiguities surrounding and one of the criticisms that has been proposed is that there is no clear end state. So we compete, we invest, we align, but to what end? Do we just keep—does the administration continue to tighten up and enhance alliances with partners and allies, and then to what end? What happens next? And sort of where does this lead us—leave us in ten years from now? So I think that's the first comment I'll make about the approach to the Indo-Pacific.  The second is that one of the tenets, of course, as I describe, is this compartmentalization of compete, cooperate. In essence, you know, we will compete—we, being the United States—with China on issues of technology, issues of economics, but we will also cooperate on areas of shared concern—climate change, nonproliferation. I think what you've seen is that while the Biden administration has proposed this idea, we can split—we can cooperate on one hand and also compete on the other—the People's Republic of China, the Chinese government, has largely rejected that approach.   Where you've seen statements from senior officials in China that have said, essentially, we will not cooperate with you, the United States, until you first cease all of the behavior, all of the negative policies that we don't like. In essence, if you will continue to sell arms to Taiwan, if you continue, the United States, to restrict semiconductors, to crackdown on espionage, to conduct military exercises in the region, then forget about any potential cooperation on climate, or forget about any cooperation on global health, et cetera.   So in essence, being able to tie the two compartments together has prevented a lot of what the Biden administration has sought to achieve. And we've seen that very clearly with Special Envoy John Kerry and his relentless efforts to conduct climate diplomacy. And I think largely—for example, last summer in the aftermath of Speaker Pelosi's visit to Taiwan, you saw a lot of those collaborative efforts essentially derailed. That's the second comment I'll make, which is while this approach, again, logically to most Americans would seem sound, it's actually met a lot of resistance because the Chinese reaction to it is not necessarily the same.  The third is I think we've seen increasingly, even though there has been an increased alignment since the Trump administration with allies and partners, there's still a degree of hedging among countries in the region. And that makes sense because from the perspectives of many of those leaders of countries in the region, the United States is a democratic country. We have an election coming up in 2024. And there's no guarantee that the next president, if President Biden is no longer the president in 2024 or even in 2028, will continue this policy.   And I think all of you, as observers of American politics, know the degree to which American politics has become largely one that is dysfunctional, is almost schizophrenic in a way. And so one would imagine that if you are a leader of a country in the Asian-Pacific region, to support the Biden administration's engagement, but also to maintain a degree of strategic autonomy, as this is often called. And so what I think we'll continue to see and what will be interesting to watch is how middle powers, how other countries resident in the region approach the United States in terms of—(inaudible). I think India will be key to watch, for example. Its defense relationship with the United States has increased over the years, but yet it still has close interests with respect to China.  The final comment I'll make is that on the military dimension I think this is another area of concern, where the Biden administration has said that one of its priorities is creating guardrails, constructing guardrails to manage the potential escalation in the event of an accident, or a miscommunication, miscalculation that could quickly spiral into a crisis. And we needn't—we need not look farther than the 2001 Hainan incident to think of an example, which was a collision between a(n) EP-3 aircraft and a Chinese intelligence plane. And that led to a diplomatic standoff.  And so I think the United States government is very keen on creating dialogue between militaries, risk reduction mechanisms, crisis management mechanisms. But I think they've encountered resistance, again, from the People's Republic of China, because the perspective there is that much of the U.S. behavior in the region militarily is invalid, is illegitimate. You know, the Chinese government opposes, for example, U.S. transits through the Taiwan Strait. So the idea therefore that they would engage and essentially deconflict and manage risk is sort of legitimizing American presence there militarily. And so we've encountered that obstacle as well.  So I think going forward on all four elements, we're going to continue to see adjustment. And I think, as students, as researchers, I think these are four areas where there's fertile room for discussion, for debate, for analysis, for looking at history. And I look forward to a conversation. Hopefully, many of you have ideas as well because there's no monopoly on wisdom and there are many creative proposals to be discussed. So I look forward to questions. I'll stop there.  FASKIANOS: Fantastic. Thank you, Chris. That was great. Now we're going to go to all of you.  (Gives queuing instructions.)  Our first written question comes from Grace Wheeler. I believe a graduate student at the University of West Florida. Kissinger proposed the future of China-U.S. relations be one of coevolution instead of confrontation. Is it still realistically possible for the future of China-U.S. relations to be one of cooperation instead of confrontation?  LI: So terrific question. Thank you for the question. It's a very interesting idea. And I think Henry Kissinger, who I know has long been involved with the Council on Foreign Relations, has produced through his many decades,strategic frameworks and new ways of thinking about cardinal challenges to geopolitics. I have not yet actually understood or at least examined specifically what the concrete pillars of coevolution entail. My understanding on a general level is that it means, essentially, the United States and the People's Republic of China adjust and sort of mutually change their policies to accommodate each other. So a sort of mutual accommodation over time to adjust interests in a way that prevent conflict.  I think on the face—of course, that sounds—that sounds very alluring. That sounds like a terrific idea. I think the problem has always been what would actually this look like in implementation? So for example, on the issue of Taiwan, this is an issue where the Chinese government has said: There is no room for compromise. You know, the refrain that they repeat is: Taiwan is an inalienable part of Chinese territory. It is part of sovereignty. And there is no room for compromise. This is a red line. So if that's the case, there's not really, in my view, much room for evolution on this issue, for example. And it's an intractable problem.  And so I don't necessarily know how to apply the Kissinger framework to specific examples. And, but, you know, I do think it's something worth considering. And, you know, I would encourage you and others on this call to think about, for example, how that framework might actually be adapted. So I think it's an interesting idea, but I would—I think the devil's in the details. And essentially, to think about how this would be applied to specific issues—South China Sea, human rights, trade—would be the key to unpacking this concept.  I think the second part of your question was, is cooperation possible? And again, I think, as I stated in my remarks, the Biden administration publicly says—publicly asserts that they do seek to maintain a space for cooperation in climate, in nonproliferation, in global health security. I think, again, what we've encountered is that the Chinese government's view is that unless the United States ceases behavior that it deems detrimental to its own interests, it will not pursue any discussion of cooperation.   And so I think that's the problem we're facing. And so I think there are going to be discussions going forward on, well, given that, how do we then balance the need for cooperation on climate, in pandemics, with, for example, also concerns about security, concerns about military activity, concerns about Taiwan, et cetera? And I think this is the daily stuff of, of course, the conversations among the Biden administration and senior leadership. So personally, my view, is I hope cooperation is possible, of course. I think there are shared issues, shared vital interests, between the two countries and, frankly, among the global community, that require the U.S. and China to be able to work out issues. But I'm personally not optimistic that under this current framework, this paradigm, there will be a significant space open for cooperation.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. Going next to Hamza Siddiqui, a raised hand.   Q: Thank you. Hi. I'm Hamza Siddiqui, a student from Minnesota State University, Mankato.   And I actually had two questions. The first was: What kind of role does the U.S. envision Southeast Asian states—especially like the Philippines and Vietnam—playing in their U.S. strategy when it comes to Asia-Pacific security issues, specifically? And the second is that for the last few years there's been some discussion about Japan and South Korea being formally invited to join the Five Eyes alliance. And I wanted to get your take on that. What do you think are the chances that a formal invitation would be extended to them? Thank you.  LI: Great. Thank you for the question. Two terrific questions.  So, first, on the role of countries in Southeast Asia, I think that under the Biden administration they have continued to play an increasing degree of importance. So you've seen, for example, even in the Philippines, which you cited, I think just last month Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin made a visit there. And in the aftermath of the visit, he announced a new basing agreement. I haven't reviewed the details specifically, and I'm not a Philippines expert, but in short my understanding is that there is going to be renewed American presence—expanded American presence, actually, in the region.   And the Philippines, just based on their geostrategic location, is incredibly important in the Indo-Pacific region. So I think that the administration is very active in enhancing cooperation on the defense element, but also on the political and economic side as well. So with the Quad, for example, in India, you've seen cooperation on elements of economics as well, and technology. I think there's an initiative about digital cooperation too. So I think the answer is increasingly an important role.   On Japan and Korea, there have, of course, been discussions over the years about expanding the Five Eyes intelligence alliance to other countries in Asia as well. My assessment is that that's probably unlikely to occur in a formal way in the near term. But I could be wrong. And that assessment is primarily based on the fact that the countries that currently are part of the Five Eyes agreement share certain elements of linguistic convergence. They all speak English. There are certain longstanding historical ties that those countries have. And I think that to necessarily expand—or, to expand that existing framework would probably require a degree of bureaucratic sort of rearrangement that might be quite difficult, or quite challenging, or present obstacles.  I think what you will see, though, is enhanced security cooperation, for sure. And we've seen that even with Japan, for example, announcing changes to its military, its self-defense force, and increased defense spending as well in the region. So I think that is a trend that will continue.  FASKIANOS: Next question I'm taking from Sarah Godek, who is a graduate student at the University of Michigan.   What do guardrails look like, from a Chinese perspective? Thinking how China's foreign ministry has consistently put out lists of demands for the U.S. side, I'm wondering how guardrails are formulated by Wang Yi and others.  LI: Great. Thanks for the question.  So I guess I'll step back first and talk about what guardrails, in my view, actually entail. So I think the idea here is that in the event of a crisis—and, most of the time, crises are not planned. (Laughs.) Most of the time, crises, you know, occur as a result of an accident. For example, like the 2001 incident. But an accidental collision in the South China Sea between two vessels, the collision accidentally of two planes operating in close proximity. And as Chinese and American forces operate in closer proximity and increasing frequency, we do have that risk.   So I think, again, the idea of a guardrail that essentially, in the military domain, which is what I'm speaking about, entails a mechanism in place such that in the event of an accident or a crisis, there are ways based on that mechanism to diffuse that crisis, or at least sort of stabilize things before the political leadership can work out a solution. In essence, to prevent escalation because of a lack of dialogue. And I think for those of you who've studied history, you know that many wars, many conflicts have occurred not because one power, one state decides to launch a war. That has occurred. But oftentimes, because there is an accident, an accidental collision. And I think many wars have occurred this way.  So the idea of a guardrail therefore, in the military domain, is to create, for example, channels of communication that could be used in the event of a conflict. I think the easiest parallel to imagine is the U.S. and the Soviet Union, where there were hotlines, for example, between Moscow and between Washington, D.C. during that era, where the seniormost national security aides of the presidents could directly reach out to each other in the event of a crisis.   In the China context, what has been difficult is some of those channels exist. For example, the National Security Council Coordinator for Asia Kurt Campbell has said publicly: We have hotlines. The problem is that when the Americans pick up the phone and call, no one picks up on the other side. And in short, you know, having just the structure, the infrastructure, is insufficient if those infrastructure are not being used by the other side.   I think with respect to the U.S.-China context, probably, again, as I mentioned earlier, the largest obstacle is the fact that guardrails help the United States—or, in the Chinese perspective—from the Chinese perspective, any of these guardrails would essentially allow the U.S. to operate with greater confidence that, in the event of an accident, we will be able to control escalation. And from the Chinese perspective, they argue that because the United States fundamentally shouldn't be operating in the Taiwan Strait anyway, therefore by constructing that guardrail, by, for example, having dialogue to manage that risk, it would be legitimizing an illegitimate presence in the first place.   So that's always been perennially the problem. And I think the argument that the United States has made is that, well, sure, that may be your position. But it is in your interest as well not to have an accident spiral into a conflict. And so I think we've seen not a lot of progress on this front. I think, for example, in the aftermath of Speaker Pelosi's visit, there—you know, a lot of the defense cooperation ties were suspended.   But the last comment I'll make is that that doesn't necessarily mean that all dialogue has been stayed. There are still active channels between the United States and China. We have embassies in each other's countries. From public remarks, it seems like during moments of enhanced tension there are still ways for both governments to communicate with each other. So I think the good news is that it's not completely like the two countries aren't speaking to each other, but I think that there are not as many channels for reducing risk, managing potential crises, in the military sphere that exist today, that probably should exist.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next question from Michael Long. Let's see. You need to unmute yourself.  LI: It looks like he's dropped off.  FASKIANOS: It looks like he put down his hand. OK. So let's go next to Conor O'Hara.  Q: Hi. My name is Conor O'Hara. And I'm a graduate student at the Pepperdine University School of Public Policy.  In one of my classes, titled America's Role in the World, we often talk about how America really does not have a comprehensive understanding of China. Not only China's military and state department, but really China as a society. How can Americans change that? And where does America need to focus its efforts in understanding China? And then also, one other thing I think of, is, you know, where does that understanding begin? You know, how early in someone's education or really within, say, the United States State Department do we need to focus our efforts on building an understanding? Thank you.  LI: Great. Well, thanks for the question. It's a great question. Very hard challenge as well.  I think that's absolutely true. I think the degree of understanding of China—of actually most countries—(laughs)—around the world—among senior U.S. foreign policy practitioners, I think, is insufficient. I think particularly with respect to China, and also Asia broadly, much of the diplomatic corps, the military establishment, intelligence officers, many of those people have essentially cut their teeth over the last twenty-five years focusing on the Middle East and counterterrorism. And that makes sense because the United States was engaged in two wars in that region.  But going back farther, many of the national security professionals before that generation were focused on the Soviet Union, obviously because of the Cold War. And so really, you're absolutely correct that the number of people in the United States government who have deep China expertise academically or even professionally on the ground, or even have the linguistic ability to, you know, speak Mandarin, or other countries—or, languages of other countries in East Asia, I think is absolutely limited. I think the State Department, of course, has—as well as the intelligence community, as well as the Department of Defense—has tried to over the last few years reorient and rebalance priorities and resources there. But I think it's still—my understanding, today it's still limited. And I think there's a lot of work to be done.  I think your question on how do you understand China as a society, I think with any country, number one, of course, is history. You know, every country's politics, its policy, its government is informed by its history of, you know, modern history but also history going back farther. And I think China is no exception. In fact, Chinese society, and even the Communist Party of China, is deeply, I think, entrenched in a historical understanding of its role in the world, of how it interacts compared with its people, its citizens, its foreign conflicts. And so I think, number one is to understand the history of modern China. And I think anyone who seeks to be involved in discussions and research and debate on China does need to understand that history.  I think the second point is linguistics is actually quite important. Being able to speak the language, read the language, understand the language is important. Because so much of what is written—so much of our knowledge as, you know, American think tank researchers, is based on publicly available information in China. And a lot of that primarily is in Mandarin. So most speeches that the senior leadership of China deliver are actually in Mandarin. And some of them are translated, but not all of them. A lot of the documents that they issue, a lot of academics who write about—academics in China who write about foreign policy and international relations, write in Mandarin.  And so I think that an ability to be able to read in the original text is quite important. And in fact, you know, a lot of the nuances, and specifically in the Communist Party's ideology, how it sees itself, its role in the world, a lot of that really is best captured and best understood in its original language. Some of the—you know, the ideology, the campaigns of propaganda, et cetera.  And I think the last part of your question was how early. I am not an education scholar. (Laughs.) I don't study education or developmental psychology. But, you know, I imagine, you know, as with anything, linguistics, language, is best learned—or, most easily learned early on. But I think that does not mean that, you know, someone who's in college or graduate school can't begin to learn in a different language. So I'd answer your question like that.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to take the next written question from Lucksika Udomsrisumran, a graduate student at New York University.  What is the implication of the Biden administration's three pillars of the Indo-Pacific strategy on the Mekong and the South China Sea? Which pillars do you see these two issues in, from the Biden administration's point of view?  LI: OK. I think, if I'm understanding the question correctly about South China Sea, you know, I think in general the South China Sea probably would most easily fall into the competition category. There are obviously not only the United States and China, but other countries in the region, including the Philippines, for example, are claimants to the South China Sea. And so I think there's always been some disagreement and some tensions in that region.  I think that that has largely been—the U.S. response or U.S. policy in South China Sea is just essentially, from the military perspective, has been to—you know, the slogan is, or the line is, to fly, sail, operate, et cetera—I'm not quoting that correctly—(laughs)—but essentially to operate wherever international law permits. And so that means Freedom of Navigation Operations, et cetera, in the South China Sea. I think that, of course, raises objections from other governments, mainly China, in the region.   So I would say that probably belongs in the competition category. And we spoke about earlier the idea of managing some of the risk that occurs or that emerges when the PLA Navy and the United States Navy operate in close proximity in that region. So from that perspective, if you're talking about risk reduction and crisis management, that actually could fall into collaboration or cooperation. But I think primarily it's competition.   FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Joan Kaufman. And, Joan, I know you wrote your question, but if you could ask it that would be great.  Q: Yes, will. Yes, certainly. Hi, Chris. Really great to see you here during this talk.  LI: Yeah, likewise.  Q: A proud Schwarzman Scholar.  I wanted to ask you a question about Ukraine and China's, you know, kind of difficult position in the middle almost, you know, as sort of seemingly allied with Russia, or certainly not criticizing Russia. And then just putting forth this twelve-point peace plan last week for—and offering to broker peace negotiations and a ceasefire for Ukraine. You know, there's no love lost in Washington for China on, you know, how it has positioned itself on this issue. And, you know, frankly, given China's own kind of preoccupation with sovereignty over the years, how do you see the whole thing? And what comments might you make on that?  LI: Right. Well, first of all, thanks so much, Joan, for joining. And very grateful for all of—all that you've done for the Schwarzman Scholars Program over the past. I appreciate your time very much.  The Ukraine problem is an incredibly important one. And I think absolutely China is involved. And it's a very complicated position that it's trying to occupy here, with both supporting its security partner, Russia, but also not directly being involved in the conflict because of U.S. opposition and opposition from NATO. So I think it's—obviously, China is playing a very delicate balancing role here.  I think a couple points. So the first is that I think my view is that, for the Chinese leadership, Ukraine—or, the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a deeply uncomfortable geopolitical situation, where there is essentially not a—there's no good outcome, really, because, as you mentioned, Ukraine is a country with which China has diplomatic recognition. It recognizes it. It has an embassy there. And the Chinese foreign ministry, Chinese foreign policy, has long very much supported the concept of sovereignty, and being able to determine your own future as a country. And I think, in fact, that's been one of the pillars and one of the objections to many American actions in the past. So on one hand, it says: We support sovereignty of every country, of which Ukraine is a country that is recognized by China.  And on the other hand, though, Russia, of course, which has had long complaints and issues with NATO expansion, is a partner of China. And so it's obviously supporting Russia. It has alignment of interests between Russia and China in many ways, in many dimensions, including objections to, for example, U.S. presence in Europe, U.S. presence in Asia. So it's a delicate balancing act. And I think from what we've seen, there hasn't been sort of a clear one-sided answer, where you've seen both statements, you know, proposing peace and saying that, you know, all sides should deescalate. But on the other hand, the U.S. government, the Biden administration, is now publicly stating that they are concerned about China potentially lending support to Russia.  So, you know, in short, I think it's very difficult to really understand what exactly is going on in the minds of the Chinese leadership. But I think that we'll continue to see sort of this awkward back and forth and trying—this purported balancing act between both sides. But I think, you know, largely—my assessment is that it's not going to go very clearly in one direction or the other.  I think the other comment I would make is that I think, from Beijing's perspective, the clear analogy here is one for Taiwan. Because—and this has been something that has been discussed in the think tank community very extensively. But the expectation I think among many in Washington was that Ukraine would not be able to put up much resistance. In short, this would be a very, very easy victory for Putin. And I think that was a—you know, not a universal consensus, but many people believed that, in short, Russia with all of its military might, would have no issues subjugating Ukraine very quickly.  I think people have largely found that to be, you know, a strategic failure on Russia's part. And so today, you know, one year after the invasion, Ukraine is still sovereign, is still standing, is still strong. And so I think—from that perspective, I think this—the war in Ukraine must give many of the leaders in China pause when it comes to thinking about a Taiwan continency, especially using force against Taiwan. Because, again, I think the degree of support, both militarily, politically, economically, for the resistance that Ukraine has shown against Russia among NATO members, among other Western countries, I think has been deeply surprising to many observers how robust that support has been. And I think that if you're sitting in Beijing and thinking about what a potential response to a Taiwan contingency might be, that would absolutely inform your calculus.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Lindsey McCormack, a graduate student at Baruch College.  How is the Biden administration's compete, cooperate, limited adversarial approach playing out with climate policy? What are you seeing right now in terms of the Chinese government's approach to energy security and climate?  LI: Yeah. It's a great question. Thanks for the question.  You know, we mentioned earlier, you know, I think the Biden administration's approach has been, you know, despite all of the disagreements between the United States and the Chinese government, there should be room for cooperation on climate because, as the Biden administration says, the climate is an existential risk to all of humanity. It's an issue of shared concern. So it's one that is not defined by any given country or constrained to one set of borders. I think it's largely not been very successful, in short, because China has not seemed to display much interest in cooperating on climate with the United States. And, again, China has largely coupled cooperation, linked cooperation in climate—or, on climate to other issues.  And so, you know, I think it's been reported that at several of the meetings between Secretary Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan, and their Chinese counterparts, the Chinese officials had essentially given the American officials a list saying: Here are the twenty-something things that we object to. Why don't you stop all of these, correct all of your mistakes—so to speak—and then we'll talk about what we can do next. And so I think, again, that—you know, that, to me, indicates that this framework of compartmentalizing cooperation and competition has some flaws, because the idea that you can simply compartmentalize and say: We're going to cooperate at full capacity on climate, but we're not going to—you know, but we'll compete on technology, it just—it actually doesn't work in this situation.  I think the other comment I'll make is that what the Biden administration has done is—which I think has been effective—is reframed the notion of cooperation. Where, in the past, cooperation was sort of viewed as a favor that the Chinese government did to the Americans, to the American government. That if we—if the United States, you know, offered certain inducements or there were strong elements of the relationship, then China would cooperate and that would be a favor.   And I think the Biden administration has reframed that approach, where cooperation is now presented not as a favor that any country does to another, but rather sort of is shared here. And that this is something of concern to China, to the United States, to other countries, and so all major countries need to play their part, and step up their game, to take on. I think, unfortunately, it hasn't been extremely successful. But I think that there—I hope that there will be future progress made in this area.  FASKIANOS: Great. I'm going to go next to Jeremiah Ostriker, who has raised—a raised hand, and also written your question. But you can ask it yourself. And you have to accept the unmute prompt. Is that happening? All right. I think I might have to read it.  Q: Am I unmuted now?  FASKIANOS: Oh, you are. Fantastic.  Q: OK. First, I'll say who I am. I am a retired professor from Princeton University and Columbia University and was an administrative provost at Princeton.  And our China policies have puzzled me. I have visited China many times. And I have wondered—I'll quote my questions now—I have wondered why we are as negative towards China as we have been. So specifically, does the U.S. foreign policy establishment need enemies to justify its existence? Is it looking around the world for enemies? And why should we care if other countries choose to govern themselves in ways which are antithetical to the way that we choose to govern ourselves? And, finally, why not cooperate with all countries on projects of common interest, regardless of other issues?  LI: Great. Well, first of all, thank you for the question—or, three questions, which are all extremely important. I'll do my best to answer, but these are very difficult questions, and I think they touch on a more philosophical understanding of what is American foreign policy for, what is the purpose of America's role in the world, et cetera. But I'll try to do my best.  I think on the first part, does the United States need enemies, is it looking to make enemies? I think if you asked any—and these are, of course, my own assessments. I think if you asked any administration official, whether in this current administration or in previous administrations—Republican or Democrat—I don't think anyone would answer “yes.” I think the argument that has been made across administrations in a bipartisan fashion is that foreign policy is fundamentally about defending American interests and American values. In essence, being able to support the American way of life, which obviously is not necessarily one clearly defined entity. (Laughs.)  But I think, therefore, all of our policy toward China is sort of geared at maintaining, or securing, defending U.S. interests in the region. And where the argument about your question comes into play is that I think a lot of—the Biden administration, the Trump administration, the Obama administration would argue that many of the concerns that the United States has with China are not fundamentally only about internal issues, where this is a question of how they govern themselves. But they touch upon issues of shared concern. They touch upon issues that actually affect U.S. interests.   And so, for example, the South China Sea is, again—is a space that is—contains much trade. There are many different countries in the region that access the South China Sea. So it's not necessarily just an issue—and, again, this is Secretary Blinken's position that he made clear—it's not just an issue specific to China. It does touch upon global trade, global economics, global rules, and global order. And I think this is the term that has been often used, sort of this liberal international rules-based order.   And while that's sort of an amorphous concept, in essence what I think the term implies is the idea that there are certain standards and rules by which different countries operate that allow for the orderly and for the peaceful and the secure exchange of goods, of ideas, of people, of—so that each country is secure. And I think this—again, this broader concept is why I think successive U.S. administrations have focused on China policy, because I think some of, in their view, China's behaviors impinge on U.S. interests in the region.   I think the second question is why should we care about how other countries govern themselves? I think in a way, the answer the Biden administration—this current administration has given to that question is: The U.S. government under President Biden is not trying to fundamentally change the Chinese system of governance. And I think you've seen Jake Sullivan and Tony Blinken say that publicly, that they are not seeking the collapse or the fundamental change in the Communist Party's rule of China. So I think in that sense, they have made that—they have made that response. I think, again, where there are issues—there are tensions, is when actions that the Chinese government take then touch upon U.S. interests. And I think we see that in Taiwan. We see that with economics. We see that with trade, et cetera.   And then finally, why not cooperate with every country in the world? I think obviously in an ideal world, that would be the case. All countries would be able to only cooperate, and all concerns shared among different nations would be addressed. I think unfortunately one of the problems that we're seeing now is that large major powers, like China and Russia, have very different worldviews. They see a world that is very different in its structure, and its architecture, and its organization, than the one that the U.S. sees. And I think that's what's led to a lot of tension.  FASKIANOS: So we have a written question from Julius Haferkorn, a student at California State University and Tübingen University, in Germany.  Ever since the escalation of the Ukraine war, there are discussions about the risk that, should Russia be successful with its invasion, China might use this as a template in regards to Taiwan. In your opinion, is this a realistic scenario?  LI: Great. Thanks for the question.  I think there are definitely analogies to be drawn between Ukraine and Taiwan, but I think there are also significant differences. The first is the relationship between Russia and Ukraine is one of two sovereign nations that the United States and international community recognizes. I think with Taiwan, what has—going back to our history question—Taiwan is a very complicated issue, even with regard to U.S. policies. The United States does not recognize Taiwan formally as an independent country. The United States actually does not take a position on the status of Taiwan. Briefly, the One China Policy, as articulated in the three communiques, the three joint communiques, essentially says that the United States government acknowledges the Chinese position that there is one China, and Taiwan is part of China, et cetera, et cetera.  And that word “acknowledge” is pretty key, because in essential its strategic ambiguity. It's saying, we acknowledge that the PRC government says this. We don't challenge that position. But we don't necessarily recognize or completely accept. And, obviously, the Mandarin version of the text is slightly different. It uses a term that is closer to “recognize.” But that ambiguity, in a way, permitted normalization and led to the democratization of Taiwan, China's economic growth and miracle, its anti-poverty campaign. So in essence, it's worked—this model has worked for the last forty-something years.  But I think that does mean that the situation across the Taiwan Strait is very different, because here the United States does not recognize two countries on both sides of the strait. Rather, it has this ambiguity, this policy of ambiguity. And in short, the only U.S. criterion for resolution of issues across the Taiwan Strait is peace. So all of the documents that the U.S. has articulated over successive administrations essentially boil down to: As long as the resolution of issues between Taiwan and the PRC and mainland China are peaceful, then the United States is not involved. That the only thing that the United States opposes is a forceful resolution—use of military force, use of coercion. And that's what is problematic.  I think what you've seen increasingly over the last few years is a sort of—it's not a formal shift away from that policy, but definitely slowly edging away from that policy. Now, any administration official will always deny that there are any changes to our One China Policy. And I think that's always been the refrain: Our One China Policy has not changed. But you've actually seen within that One China Policy framework adjustments, accommodations—or, not accommodations—but adjustments, recalibrations. And the way that the successive U.S. administrations defend that or justify it, is because it is our—it is the American One China Policy. Therefore, we can define what that One China Policy actually means.  But you have seen, in essence, greater increased relations and exchanges between officials in Taiwan, officials in the United States. I think it was publicly reported just a couple weeks ago that some of the senior national security officials in Taipei visited the United States. Secretary Pompeo at the end of his tenure as secretary of state changed some of the previous restrictions on—that were self-imposed restrictions—on interactions between the government in Taiwan and the government in the United States. So we're seeing some changes here. And I think that has led to—or, that is one element that has led to some of the tensions across the Taiwan Strait.   Obviously, from Beijing's perspective, it sees that as the U.S. sliding away from its commitments. Now, on the other hand, Beijing, of course, has also started to change its policy, despite claiming that its policy is exactly the same. You've seen greater military incursions in Taiwan's air defense identification zone, with planes, fighter jets, that are essentially flying around the island. You've seen greater geoeconomic coercion targeted at Taiwan in terms of sanctions. So you've seen essentially changes on all sides.  And so the final point I'll leave here—I'll leave with you is that the refrain that the United States government articulates of opposing any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side, to me, is actually quite ambiguous. Because there's never been a status quo that has truly existed. It's always been a dynamic equilibrium between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington, D.C. Where Beijing is seeking to move Taiwan toward unification. Taiwan, at least under its current leadership, under Tsai Ing-wen, is obviously seeking, in a way, to move from at least—at least to move toward de facto or maintain de facto independence. Whether it's moving toward de jure is a topic of debate. And then the United States, of course, is enhancing its relationship with Taiwan.  So there's never been a static status quo between the three sides. It's always been a dynamic, evolving and changing equilibrium. Which is why the concept of opposing unilateral changes to the status quo, in my view, is almost paradoxical, because there has never been a status quo in the first place.  FASKIANOS: There has been some talk that Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House, is planning a trip to Taiwan. Given what happened with Speaker Pelosi, is that a—what do you think of that musing, to go to Taiwan, to actually do that?  LI: Mhm, yes. I think that's obviously been reported on. I think it's an area of close attention from everyone watching this space. I haven't seen any reports. All I can say is based on what I've seen reported in the media. And it seems like, based on—because of domestic preoccupations, that trip, whether it happens or not, is right now, at the moment, on the back burner. But I think that if he were to go, I think it would certainly precipitate a quite significant response from China. And I think whether that would be larger or smaller than what happened after Speaker Pelosi's visit, I think is something that is uncertain now.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. We'll go next to Autumn Hauge.  Q: Hi. I'm Autumn Hauge. I'm a student at Minnesota State University, Mankato.  So my question is, since a focus of the Biden administration's foreign policy is the relationship between the United States and China, and another focus is to invest and grow a presence in the Indo-Pacific region, specifically looking at the relationship between the United States and the Micronesian country of the Republic of Palau, whose government has openly shared their support for Taiwan, do you think that the United States' long history with the Republic of Palau, and their connection to their support—the Republic of Palau's support to Taiwan, halters the ability for the U.S. to grow a positive relation with China? Thank you.  LI: Great. Thanks for the question. It's a great question.  I am not an expert on Palau or its politics. I do know that Palau has enhanced its exchanges, it relationship with Taipei, over the last few years. I think we saw Palau's president, I think, visit Taipei. I think the U.S. ambassador to Palau actually visited Taipei. And there have been increasing—during COVID, there was a discussion of a travel bubble between Taiwan and Palau. So there's definitely been increasing exchange.  I think in general this has always been a key obstacle to U.S.-China relations, which is any country that still recognizes the Republic of China—that is the formal name of the government currently in Taiwan—I think presents a significant issue. Because for the PRC, recognition of the One China—what they call the One China Principle, the idea that there is one China, Taiwan is part of that China, and the legitimate government of China is the People's Republic of China, is a precondition for any diplomatic normalization with Beijing. And so I think certainly, you know, there are a small handful of countries that still recognize the ROC, but I think that they—you know, for those countries and their relationships with the PRC, of course, that's a significant hindrance.  In what you've seen in the U.S. government in the past few years is that for countries that derecognize Taipei and sort of switch recognition to Beijing, the PRC, there's been discussion—I think, there have been several bills introduced, in essence, to punish those countries. I don't necessarily think that those bills have ended up becoming law, but I think there is, given the current political dynamics, the sort of views on China in Washington, D.C., there is this sense that the U.S. needs to support countries that still recognize Taiwan, the ROC, and be able to provide support so that they don't feel pressured to switch their recognition.  My personal view is that I think that that is, on the whole, relatively insignificant. I won't say that it's completely not significant, but I think that in general issues around the Taiwan Strait, cross-strait relations, I think military issues, I think political issues related to exchanges between Taiwan and Beijing, I think those issues are much more important and much more critical to driving changes in the relationship across the Taiwan Strait.  FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to try and sneak in one last question from Wim Wiewel, who's a student at Portland State University.   Given your pessimism about cooperation combined with competition, what do you think is the long-term future for U.S.-China relations?  LI: OK. Well, thanks for the question. I'm not sure that I can provide a satisfying answer. And, in fact, I don't have the answer. You know, I think if anyone had the answer, then they should immediately tell the Biden administration that they've solved the problem.  Even though I am pessimistic about this current framework, just because of its demonstrated effects, I still think that in general the likelihood of a real war, which I think people have floated now—you know, Professor Graham Allison, who I used to work for, wrote a book called Destined for War? I still believe that the probability of all-out great-power conflict in a kinetic way, a military way, is still relatively low. I think that there are significant differences today compared to the era during World War I and World War II era.   I think that the degree of economic interdependence between China and not only the United States but the rest of the world, I think is a significant gamechanger in how countries position themselves vis-à-vis China. I think Europe is the great example here of how there are many countries that invest, have business relationships, have trade with China. And so therefore, their policy on China has been a little bit more calibrated than what the United States has been doing.   And so on the whole, I think most people still recognize that any great-power war between the United States and China would be utterly catastrophic. And I think that despite all the tensions that exist today, I think that that recognition, that consensus is pretty universally held, that a great-power war between the U.S. and China would be extremely bad. I think that is—that is probably something that is understood by Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, folks in Beijing, folks around the world, in the region. And so I think that, hopefully, that idea, that despite disagreements, despite political tensions, the need to prevent all-out global conflict is quite important, is a vital interest, I think, hopefully, to me, provides some optimism. And hopefully we'll be able to continue to carry our relationship with China through.  And I'm hopeful especially that all of you students, researchers, who hope to study, and write about, and even perhaps participate in American foreign policy, will continue to think. Because so much of the future of the U.S.-China relationship and U.S. foreign policy is going to be determined by your generation. So with that, I guess this would be a perfect place to stop. And I thank you for the question.   FASKIANOS: Absolutely. Well, Chris, this has been fantastic. I apologize to all of you. We had many more—many questions in the written part and raised hands. And I'm sorry that we could not get to all of them. We'll just have to have you back and continue to cover this issue. So we really appreciate your insights, Chris Li. So thank you again.  The next Academic Webinar will be on Wednesday, March 22, at 1:00 p.m. (EDT). Brian Winter, editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly will lead a conversation on U.S. relations with South America. And in the meantime, please do learn more about CFR paid internships for students and fellowships for professors at CFR.org/careers. You can follow us at @CFR_academic, and visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. And I'm sure you can also go to the Belfer Center for additional analysis by Chris Li. So I encourage you to go there as well.  Thank you all, again, for being with us, and we look forward to continuing the conversation on March 22. So thank you, all. Thanks, Chris.  LI: Thank you.  (END) 

On this episode, Trey is joined by former Secretary of State and NYT Best-selling Author of Never Give An Inch, Mike Pompeo to discuss political influence and anecdotes from his memoir. Secretary Pompeo shares his thoughts on the Biden Administrations' handling of the Chinese balloon circulating the Americas this past weekend. Trey asks Secretary Pompeo what the most significant threat plaguing the American people is. Later, Secretary Pompeo reveals what's next for the Pompeos. Follow Trey on Twitter: @TGowdySC Trey's book Start, Stay, or Leave is available NOW! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Never Give An Inch - the new book by Former CIA Director and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo - was recently released. Aside from recounting his tactics in the Trump administration, the former Secretary also sheds light on key foreign policy priorities under his tenure. These include his dealings with Turkey and President Erdogan, his visit to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, his views on the deepening ties between the US and Greece, and his relationship with Prime Minister Mitsotakis. Lena Argiri, the DC Correspondent for ERT - the Greek Public Broadcasting Company, joins Thanos Davelis to break down former Secretary Pompeo's latest revelations. Read Lena Argiri's review of former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's book (in Greek): Βιβλίο Πομπέο: Το τρίωρο βίντεο για το πραξικόπημα, η οργή της Άγκυρας και η ΕλλάδαYou can read the articles we discuss on our podcast here:Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo on CBS discussing his new book, 2024 plansPolitical books are often bland. Mike Pompeo's is savage.Greek government wins no-confidence vote over wiretapping scandalGovernment should ‘stick to the budget targets'

On this episode, Bret sits down with former CIA Director and former Secretary of State in the Trump administration, Mike Pompeo, to discuss his new book, Never Give An Inch.  Secretary Pompeo details what he accomplished as the only national security official to serve a full four years in the Trump administration and addresses the news Vice President Pence was also in possession of classified documents. Plus Secretary Pompeo defends his comments about former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley and the murdered Washington Post columnist, Jamal Khashoggi. Follow Bret on Twitter: @BretBaier Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode, Ben sits down with former CIA Director and Secretary of State under President Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, to discuss his new book, Never Give An Inch. Secretary Pompeo details why he believes China is the United States' greatest geopolitical threat. Plus, he outlines the importance of the work he did on Iranian and North Korean nuclear proliferation, as well as preventing Russian President Vladimir Putin from invading Ukraine while President Trump was in office.  Secretary Pompeo explains what a new Republican president could do in 2025 to reform the careerist bureaucratic nature of the State Department and sheds light on whether he may be planning a run for the presidency.  Later, Ben discusses the recent birth of his second child and the importance of attentive parenthood. Follow Ben on Twitter: @BDomenech Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Amb. Robert C. O'Brien, the Former Trump National Security Advisor, joins Liberty & Justice episode 44. Matt and Robert discuss the Brittney Griner prisoner swap, the current state of global affairs and the Ukraine war.  Learn more about Amb. O'Brien at https://americanglobalstrategies.com/team_member/robert-c-obrien/Watch every episode of Liberty & Justice at www.whitaker.tvCo-founder and chairman of American Global Strategies LLC. He was the 27th United States National Security Advisor from 2019 – 2021. O'Brien served as the President's principal advisor all aspects of American foreign policy and national security affairs.O'Brien brought a renewed focus to defense and industrial base issues to the NSC. A long-time advocate of a sea power and a 355 ship Navy, O'Brien visited leading shipyards during his tenure. He also spent time at defense plants and with our troops at bases around the world.During O'Brien's time as National Security Advisor, the United States orchestrated the historic Abraham Accords in the Middle East, brokered economic normalization between Serbia and Kosovo, achieved significant defense spending increases among our NATO allies and increased cooperation with America's allies across the Indo-Pacific.Prior to serving as NSA, O'Brien was the Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs with the personal rank of Ambassador. He was directly involved in the return of over 25 detainees and hostages to the United States. O'Brien previously served as Co-Chairman of the U.S. Department of State Public-Private Partnership for Justice Reform in Afghanistan under both Secretaries of State Rice and Clinton.O'Brien was also a presidentially-appointed member of the U.S. Cultural Property Advisory Committee from 2008-2011. In 2005, O'Brien was nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as a U.S. Representative to the 60th session of the UN General Assembly. Earlier in his career, O'Brien served as a Senior Legal Officer for the UN Security Council commission that decided claims against Iraq arising out of the first Gulf War. He was a Major in the Judge Advocate General's Corps of the U.S. Army Reserve.O'Brien is partner emeritus at Larson LLP in Los Angeles, a nationally recognized litigation boutique that he co-founded in 2016. Over his career, he has served as counsel and arbitrator in dozens of International proceedings.O'Brien is the recipient of the National Security Medal, the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal, the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, the National Defense Medal, the Legion d'honneur (chevalier) and the Kosovo Presidential Medal of Merits. In July 2022, O'Brien was elected as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Richard Nixon Foundation. He also serves as co-chair with Secretary Pompeo of The Nixon Seminar on Conservative Realism and National Security.O'Brien holds a J.D. from the U.C. Berkeley School of Law. He received his B.A. degree in political science, cum laude, from UCLA.Matthew G. Whitaker was acting Attorney General of the United States (2018-2019).  Prior to becoming acting Attorney General, Mr. Whitaker served as Chief of Staff to the Attorney General. He was appointed as the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa by President George W. Bush, serving from 2004-2009. Whitaker was the managing partner of Des Moines-based law fTalkin' MAGAMAGA Mike talks everything MAGA from Politics to Culture for all of MAGA world!Listen on: Apple Podcasts Spotify

"Putin knows if he uses nukes, the cost will be extortionary." Says Secretary Pompeo

Attempts to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have stalled, as Iran pushed for additional economic incentives and demanded that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency end their investigation into Iran's nuclear activities. Former Secretary of State and FOX News Contributor Mike Pompeo joins the Rundown to explain why making this nuclear deal with Iran would be a mistake, arguing that “the Iranians had no intention of complying with this deal.” He also discusses the Chinese Communist Party's recent moves to shore up alliances with Russia and other anti-Western foreign powers, what steps America can take to protect Taiwan, and his analysis of the FBI and DOJ search of Mar-a-Lago.   Florida's Ron DeSantis is the latest Republican governor to transport migrants to blue states, after he sent two planes of illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts earlier this week. The move is intended to bring attention to the border crisis and put pressure on Democrats and the White House to address the problem. Immigration is only one of the issues voters will be concerned about this November. FOX News Sunday host Shannon Bream joins the Rundown to discuss the 2022 midterms and how the debates over the economy, abortion and the border could impact races across the country.   Don't miss the good news with Tonya J. Powers.   Plus, commentary by host of ‘The Janice Dean Podcast' and FOX News Senior Meteorologist, Janice Dean. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Attempts to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have stalled, as Iran pushed for additional economic incentives and demanded that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency end their investigation into Iran's nuclear activities. Former Secretary of State and FOX News Contributor Mike Pompeo joins the Rundown to explain why making this nuclear deal with Iran would be a mistake, arguing that “the Iranians had no intention of complying with this deal.” He also discusses the Chinese Communist Party's recent moves to shore up alliances with Russia and other anti-Western foreign powers, what steps America can take to protect Taiwan, and his analysis of the FBI and DOJ search of Mar-a-Lago.   Florida's Ron DeSantis is the latest Republican governor to transport migrants to blue states, after he sent two planes of illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts earlier this week. The move is intended to bring attention to the border crisis and put pressure on Democrats and the White House to address the problem. Immigration is only one of the issues voters will be concerned about this November. FOX News Sunday host Shannon Bream joins the Rundown to discuss the 2022 midterms and how the debates over the economy, abortion and the border could impact races across the country.   Don't miss the good news with Tonya J. Powers.   Plus, commentary by host of ‘The Janice Dean Podcast' and FOX News Senior Meteorologist, Janice Dean. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Attempts to revive the 2015 Iran nuclear deal have stalled, as Iran pushed for additional economic incentives and demanded that the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency end their investigation into Iran's nuclear activities. Former Secretary of State and FOX News Contributor Mike Pompeo joins the Rundown to explain why making this nuclear deal with Iran would be a mistake, arguing that “the Iranians had no intention of complying with this deal.” He also discusses the Chinese Communist Party's recent moves to shore up alliances with Russia and other anti-Western foreign powers, what steps America can take to protect Taiwan, and his analysis of the FBI and DOJ search of Mar-a-Lago.   Florida's Ron DeSantis is the latest Republican governor to transport migrants to blue states, after he sent two planes of illegal immigrants to Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts earlier this week. The move is intended to bring attention to the border crisis and put pressure on Democrats and the White House to address the problem. Immigration is only one of the issues voters will be concerned about this November. FOX News Sunday host Shannon Bream joins the Rundown to discuss the 2022 midterms and how the debates over the economy, abortion and the border could impact races across the country.   Don't miss the good news with Tonya J. Powers.   Plus, commentary by host of ‘The Janice Dean Podcast' and FOX News Senior Meteorologist, Janice Dean. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Les, Matt, Rob, and Carmen discuss Finland and Sweden's willingness to join NATO, the $40B assistance for Ukraine, and China's intellectual property theft. Did President Putin misjudge NATO's strength? Will the $40B assistance for Ukraine lead to a reordering of our domestic politics on national security issues? What does the intellectual property theft from Chinese government hackers have to say about China's economy? These questions and more are answered on the latest episode of Fault Lines!Be sure to join NSI for our next event with former Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, on Thursday, May 26 at 5 PM ET. Secretary Pompeo will share his insights on how the U.S. can maintain its leadership in an every evolving world. You can register for this event here. Like this episode? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Secretary Pompeo joined Governor Ricketts to discuss his experience in the Trump administration, how to deal with the People's Republic of China, and his opinion on the Russian Federation's invasion of Ukraine.

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo joins Governor and Kendel Ehrlich for an in-depth discussion on China, Russia and U.S border security.  A must-hear interview! Don't forget to order your copy of Governor Ehrlich's new book Original, Unconventional & Inconvenient — Donald J. Trump and His MAGA Movement.  Order here. For real time updates during the week follow Governor and Kendel Ehrlich.  On Facebook or Twitter.  Love this podcast? Would you leave us a review on Apple or Spotify? 

To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/707/29 On today's edition of Family Talk, former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a devout Christian and a man whose life has been defined by public service, shares the story of his conversion to Christ as a young cadet at West Point.Not surprisingly, Pompeo became a champion of religious liberty and, during his time at the State Department, he even helped to create the Unalienable Rights Commission concerning international human rights matters. In this exclusive one-on-one interview with Dr. Tim Clinton, Mike recalls that one of the highlights from his time as Secretary of State was negotiating the release of three Christians from North Korea in 2018. Secretary Pompeo reveals his distaste for the secular line of thinking that predominates today's politics. Despite that reality, he is confident that we can once again restore the vision that America is a light on a hill.

On today's edition of Family Talk, former U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, a devout Christian and a man whose life has been defined by public service, shares the story of his conversion to Christ as a young cadet at West Point. Not surprisingly, Pompeo became a champion of religious liberty and, during his time at the State Department, he even helped to create the Unalienable Rights Commission concerning international human rights matters. In this exclusive one-on-one interview with Dr. Tim Clinton, Mike recalls that one of the highlights from his time as Secretary of State was negotiating the release of three Christians from North Korea in 2018. Secretary Pompeo reveals his distaste for the secular line of thinking that predominates today's politics. Despite that reality, he is confident that we can once again restore the vision that America is a “light on a hill.”

Mike Pompeo reflects on his years at the CIA and the White house while discussing foreign policy from Iran, China, Cuba and beyond. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The rapid takeover by the Taliban blindsided the Biden administration. Biden is set to address the nation today at 3:45PM ET, after the planned withdrawal of American forces turned deadly at Kabul's airport as thousands tried to flee the country after the Taliban's takeover. It will be his first public remarks on the Afghanistan situation in nearly a week. Meanwhile in Washington, the blame game is in full swing.  Pressed by ABC News' Jonathan Karl on why the president was drastically wrong in his assessment, Blinken said they've maintained that the Taliban "was in a position of strength," and he blamed Afghan security forces for failing to defend their country. But Rep Liz Cheney (R-WY)placed blame squarely on the shoulders President Biden and on former President Trump, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Trump administration. “Absolutely President Biden bears responsibility for making this decision. But there's no question that President Trump, his administration, Secretary Pompeo, they also bear very significant responsibility for this. They walked down this path of legitimizing the Taliban, perpetuating this fantasy, telling the American people that the Taliban were a partner for peace. President Trump told us the Taliban was going to fight terror. Secretary Pompeo told us the Taliban was going to renounce Al Qaeda. None of that has happened.”

On this episode, Jason revisits Democratic criticism of a Georgia voting law that resulted in moving the MLB All-Star game from Atlanta to Denver. Then, he brings on the stupid with the Texas House Democrats who flew to Washington, D.C. in order to keep Republicans from passing new election laws. Later, Jason is joined by Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Secretary Pompeo discusses how attending West Point at 18-years-old changed the trajectory of his life, his most fond memories from Serving in Congress, and his most proud accomplishments from serving in the Trump administration.  Keep up with Jason on Twitter: @jasoninthehouse Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Join America's Roundtable co-hosts Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy for a conversation with special guest Honorable Mike Pompeo, former U.S. Secretary of State (2018-2021), former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (2017-2018) and member of the U.S. Congress (2011 to 2017). This discussion focuses on US leadership in foreign policy led by the Trump administration and through Secretary Pompeo's principled approach in securing peace through strength in the Middle East. The importance of affirming the Abraham Accords and institutionalizing this significant endeavor is brought to the forefront. Secretary Pompeo raises serious concerns about the Biden administration's rush to sign an Iranian nuclear deal which threatens Israel, the region, and beyond. The conversation also highlights the measures undertaken by the Trump administration to hold to account Iran, a state-sponsor of terrorism. Secretary Pompeo also weighs into the urgent work at hand to address communist China's striving for economic, technology and military dominance through intellectual property theft, creating vassal states around the world through its Road and Belt initiative, and military encroachments in the South China Sea. Secretary Pompeo announces the launch of Champion American Values to promote shared values and principles: https://cavpac.com/ https://ileaderssummit.org/services/americas-roundtable-radio/ https://ileaderssummit.org/ | https://jerusalemleaderssummit.com/ America's Roundtable on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/americas-roundtable/id1518878472 Twitter: @ileaderssummit @NatashaSrdoc @JoelAnandUSA America's Roundtable is co-hosted by Natasha Srdoc and Joel Anand Samy, co-founders of International Leaders Summit and the Jerusalem Leaders Summit. America's Roundtable radio program - a strategic initiative of International Leaders Summit, focuses on America's economy, healthcare reform, rule of law, security and trade, and its strategic partnership with rule of law nations around the world. The radio program features high-ranking US administration officials, cabinet members, members of Congress, state government officials, distinguished diplomats, business and media leaders and influential thinkers from around the world. America's Roundtable is aired by Lanser Broadcasting Corporation on 96.5 FM and 98.9 FM, covering Michigan's major market, SuperTalk Mississippi Media's 12 radio stations and 50 affiliates reaching every county in Mississippi and also heard in parts of the neighboring states, including Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana and Tennessee, and through podcast on Apple Podcasts and other key online platforms.

In Episode 183 of District of Conservation, Gabriella exclusively teases a clip of her forthcoming interview with former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo dropping Friday. Secretary Pompeo discusses this viral tweet of his about climate change, thoughts on the Biden's administration's War on Energy, what sustainable clean energy options are, true conservation, firearms, the nomination of David Chipman for ATF Director, and public safety. Pompeo served as the 70th Secretary of State from April 2018 through January 2021. Before that, he was CIA Director. Prior to working in the Trump administration, he was a four-term Congressman representing Kansas' 4th Congressional District. Before his career in public service, he ran several small businesses. He currently serves as a Distinguished Fellow at Hudson Institute and a Fox News Contributor. Follow Secretary Pompeo on Instagram and Twitter. Bookmark Gabriella's Townhall column to read the full interview this Friday, June 11th, and subscribe on YouTube to watch the premiere Friday morning. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/district-of-conservation/support

Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, joins Newt to talk about leading the State Department and CIA under President Donald J. Trump. Prior to joining the Trump Administration, he served as Congressman from Kansas’ 4th District. Secretary Pompeo talks about his extraordinary career path, and some of the most historic moments and challenges in foreign policy decision making, as well as future threats facing the United States. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

In May 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced formation of the Commission on Unalienable Rights, tasked with reexamining human rights in U.S. foreign policy. The very concept of “unalienable rights” proved immediately controversial with “traditional” human rights organizations, and four of them sued the State Department in federal court, claiming the Commission was unbalanced in its view on human rights. The Commission completed its work in August with a report outlining how “unalienable rights” – the rights inherent in all persons – inform the Declaration, and the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights, and how unalienable rights should inform U.S. foreign policy.Human Rights organizations continue to write that they are alarmed by the Commission, arguing that it is the basis of a “pick-and-choose” version of human rights. Mary Ann Glendon, the Commission’s chair, recently stated, in a curated discussion with Secretary Pompeo, that human rights should be independent of sovereign decision making: “[I]f there are no rights that exist independently of the sovereign, then we are in a world where the strong do what they will and the weak and the vulnerable suffer the consequences.” Are the Commission’s concerns different from the concerns that have been traditionally expressed in international human rights law, and, if so, what does the future hold for the Commission’s report? Featuring:-- Dr. Peter Berkowitz, Director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. Department of State

Join Zuhdi this week as he looks at the long overdue push by Republican members of Congress to label the Chinese Communist Party crimes against humanity perpetrated against the Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang a “genocide”. The timing is just right as the Biden administration will be cornered in to defending the designation or completing it. A leading Pakistani cleric also just openly called upon Muslims to recognize the state of Israel as “belonging to the Jews” acknowledging what many reformists have long said is actually stated in the Qur’an. What can this mean for Pakistan and for the ideas of reform against Islamist anti-semitism? Last, Iran has long become the new global headquarters for Al Qaeda leadership. Secretary Pompeo on departure explains what that means to global security.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was asked how the how State Department transition planning was going and he answered the transition to 'a second Trump term' is going smoothly which set off a barrage of comments by Democrats. While it was uncertain if the Secretary was joking, the White House and  Biden transition teams are not on the same page. FOX's Trey Yingst speaks with FOX's Rich Edson, who asked Secretary Pompeo the transition question that caused the backlash, about the comments Pompeo made and what policies a Joe Biden State Department may follow. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On this episode of Unregulated Tom & Mike discuss what the recent vacancy on the Supreme Court means for this November's election and how it changes President Trump's path to victory. Links: • AEA's 2020 election hub: www.americanenergyalliance.org/vote-energy-2020/ • Biden "used to be a good driver" clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQVpzCxumGY • AOC saying the vacancy must radicalize Democrats: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2020/09/19/alexandria_ocasio-cortez_on_ruth_bader_ginsburgs_death_let_this_moment_radicalize_you.html • More on Joe Biden's kowtow to the radical green left: https://www.americanenergyalliance.org/2020/09/biden-bows-to-keep-it-in-the-ground-activists/ • McKenna's column on Secretary Pompeo: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/18/mike-pompeo-deserves-credit-for-the-abraham-accord/ • McKenna's column on Donald Trump's potential path to victory: https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/sep/16/donald-trump-still-has-pathways-to-electoral-colle/ • More about Pennsylvania and the RGGI: https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/pennsylvania-legislature-has-issues-with-the-states-rggi-entry/

Secretary Pompeo press conferenceSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Townhall Review – November 16, 2019 Sebastian Gorka and Ari Fleischer, former Press Secretary for President George W. Bush, talk about the beginning day of the House impeachment hearing. Hugh Hewitt talks with Senator Tom Cotton about the U.S. Supreme Court's pending decision on the future of DACA – Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Hugh Hewitt and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talk about Chinese relations and Hong Kong. Sebastian Gorka talks with Candace Owens about her conversion from liberal to conservative. Dan Proft and Amy Jacobson talk with former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley about her book, “With All Due Respect – Defending America with Grit and Grace.” Mike Gallagher and Ed Morrissey, of HotAir.com, talk about the Northwestern University newspaper’s coverage of a speaking appearance by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the firestorm that followed.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Townhall Review – July 20, 2019 Hugh Hewitt talks with Wisconsin Representative Mike Gallagher about the Iranian attacks on oil tankers and what the U.S. response might be. Dennis Prager talks with Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal about Nike’s decision to discontinue the Betsy Ross Flag shoe following complaints from their spokesperson, Colin Kaepernick. Dennis Prager testifies before a U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee about YouTube’s censoring many of PragerU’s videos. Sebastian Gorka and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talk about the State Department’s initiative on “inalienable” rights. Hugh Hewitt talks with Oklahoma Senator James Lankford about his efforts to halt government shutdowns due to budget impasses. Dennis Prager talks with Brent Bozell, founder and head of the Media Research Center, about his new book, “Unmasked: Big Media’s War Against Trump.” Hugh Hewitt and U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo talk about Iran’s attacks on oil tankers and the State Department's Second Annual Ministerial on Religious Freedom demonstrating that America still believes religious freedom is worth fighting for. Mike Gallagher talks about a YouTube executive in San Francisco who is being called racist because he challenged a stranger, who happened to be black, who “tailgated” him into his apartment complex.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hugh Hewitt with Townhall journalist Katie Pavlich on what it was like to go with a small media pool to Bagdad led by Secretary Mike Pompeo.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The latest from AG Barr and espionage against the Trump campaign......Spekaer Pelosi vs AOC.......Secretary Pompeo traveling to South America.........Truman-McArthur 1951....................and other stories..... Please check our blog  or follow me on Twitter....... Check Carlos Guedes' schedule this week in Dallas........  

Guest:  Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda..........The politics of the shutdown and border security turn again.........An independent running for president?........The Covington high school boys and hate from the left.......First Lady Melania Trump and fake news....Secretary Pompeo and Venezuela.......Who voted in Texas and wonder how many illegals voted in California?.......The Stone arrest and where is this investigation going?........Apollo I fire 1967.......Vietnam Peace Accords 1973........National Geographic Society 1888......and other stories............     Please check our blog or follow me on Twitter.

Guest:  Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda...........The politics of the shutdown after President  Trump's statement..........Another black eye for the media over the "Trump told Cohen to lie" story.....Secretary Pompeo emerging as a wonderful voice ....Reagan 1981 and the hostages released........and other stories............     Please check our blog or follow me on Twitter.

Guest:  Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda...........The shutdown week 3.........Media coverage of border issue........The Democrats are miscalculating public opinion over border security......Secretary Pompeo hits a HR with that speech....Trump and Russia according to The New York Times.......Indians in space?......Is every Democrat running for president?.....South Africa yesterday and today.....Red vs blue babies......and other stories............ Please check our blog or follow me on Twitter.

Guest:  Bill Katz, the editor of Urgent Agenda......The Kavanaugh story and justice........My guess is that most women are outraged at these attacks on Kavanaugh--it could be their husband or son next?........Rosenstein and the NY Times story........Secretary Pompeo vs former Secretary Kerry........Warren Commission report about JFK 1964.........and other stories............ Please check our blog or follow me on Twitter. See Carlos Guedes' schedule!