Washington Week with The Atlantic full episode, July 31, 2026

[0:00] The war President Trump said would last just weeks [0:03] is now in its sixth month and expanding. [0:06] Why is the U.S. still fighting Iran, and to what end? [0:10] Straight answers are hard to come by. [0:12] The administration won't even provide accurate casualty figures. [0:15] Trust in government has declined rapidly in recent years, [0:18] and the consequences of this collapse are everywhere. [0:21] Tonight, in an age of poisonous partisanship [0:24] and social media clip-maxing, who can you believe? [0:28] Next. [0:29] This is Washington Week [0:34] with The Atlantic. [0:36] Corporate funding provided by... [0:39] In 1995, two friends set out [0:41] to make wireless coverage accessible to all [0:44] with no long-term contracts, nationwide coverage, [0:48] and 100% U.S.-based customer support. [0:51] Consumer Cellular. Freedom Calls. [0:54] Additional funding is provided by... [0:57] Koo and Patricia Ewan for the Ewan Foundation, [1:01] committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities. [1:04] Sandra and Carl DeLay Magnuson. [1:07] Rose Herschel and Andy Shreves. [1:10] Robert and Susan Rosenbaum. [1:12] Jay and Sharon Rockefeller. [1:15] Charles Hamowy, through the Charles Hamowy Fund. [1:19] Steve and Marilyn Kerman. [1:22] Leonard and Norma Chlorifying. [1:24] And by contributions to your PBS station, [1:27] from viewers like you. [1:29] Thank you. [1:30] Once again, from the David M. Rubenstein studio at WETA in Washington, [1:36] Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic and moderator, Jeffrey Goldberg. [1:40] Good evening and welcome to Washington Week. [1:44] Remember Congressman Tom Kane, [1:46] the one who disappeared from Washington for almost four months with no explanation? [1:49] It turned out that he was suffering from depression. [1:53] Everyone should be glad that he sought treatment, [1:55] but his disappearance, without telling his constituents anything? [1:58] Only in Washington. [2:00] And then there's Mitch McConnell, Schrodinger's senator, [2:02] who hasn't leveled with his constituents, [2:04] or possibly anyone else, about the true state of his health. [2:07] And the McConnell story reminds me of another politician, [2:10] Joe Biden, [2:11] who made believe he had another four years of public life in him, [2:14] even after it became stunningly clear that he didn't. [2:16] I raise these incidents because they illustrate a sad fact of political life today. [2:21] Only a small number of politicians seem capable of leveling with their fellow Americans. [2:26] The best example, of course, is the most powerful politician of them all, Donald Trump, [2:31] who can't find it in himself to be transparent with the American people [2:34] about the state of the war with Iran or about much else. [2:38] Maybe my mind is playing tricks on me, [2:40] but I do believe that we used to hold public servants to a higher standard. [2:44] Here to tell me I'm right about that, or wrong, [2:47] are my guests tonight, [2:49] Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent at The New York Times, [2:52] Susan Glasser is a staff writer for The New Yorker, [2:55] Stephen Hayes is the editor and CEO of The Dispatch, [2:59] and Nancy Youssef is a staff writer and Pentagon correspondent at The Atlantic. [3:04] Thank you for joining me. [3:07] Peter, how right am I? [3:08] You're right. You're so right, Jeff. [3:11] Very right or the most right? [3:12] The most right. [3:13] Okay, good. I just wanted to check. [3:15] So, let me start with Peter. [3:21] It's very hard to understand the Iran war at the moment. [3:25] Both governments seem to think that the other government is escalating. [3:29] And Trump himself said this week, according to Fox News, [3:32] that the U.S. would beat the effing shit out of them. [3:39] And by the way, I will note for the record [3:42] that this is a very interesting question [3:44] about whether on broadcast television [3:46] we can use words that are banned by the FCC, [3:50] even if they're spoken by the person who oversees and appoints the FCC. [3:54] That'll be a panel discussion at Columbia Journalism [3:57] starting this fall. [3:59] But he has threatened once again [4:03] to beat the living daylights out of Iran. [4:05] But at a certain point, these threats seem hollow. [4:09] I mean, he's been making a lot of threats, [4:10] but then nothing happens. [4:12] How do you explain this? [4:13] Well, look, he doesn't want to go, [4:15] he doesn't want to get back to the full-scale war [4:17] that he had at the beginning, right? [4:18] The 40 days of bombing and strikes that we had, [4:20] for a couple of reasons. [4:21] One is it didn't actually change Iran's calculus to begin with. [4:24] Secondly, of course, [4:26] it simply threw the world economy into, you know, upheaval. [4:30] And thirdly, we're heading into an election season [4:32] when people don't want to be talking about the Iran war. [4:34] He doesn't want to remind them about it [4:36] by having a much more robust, you know, assault. [4:39] So he makes these big threats. [4:41] He hasn't followed through on them. [4:42] And it's not clear that anything he can do at this point [4:45] is going to change Iran's calculation. [4:47] They've already come to a conclusion [4:48] about how they think this is going [4:50] and it's not the way Donald Trump thinks. [4:52] This is the nature, Susan, of deterrence. [4:54] Deterrence only works if you don't actually do anything. [4:58] Once you show your enemy what you're capable of doing [5:01] or not capable of doing, [5:02] the deterrent threat dissipates. [5:06] Yeah, that's exactly right, Jeff. [5:08] For years, I mean, literally 15 years, [5:10] I remember great pieces you wrote a long time ago [5:13] during the presidency of George W. Bush, Barack Obama. [5:16] It was the threat of American military action against Iran [5:20] that operated as a constraint limited, [5:23] though it may have been, against the Iranian government. [5:26] Now, not only is that dissipated, [5:28] but you could argue that while fearing the possible consequences [5:33] of a future Iranian nuclear bomb, [5:35] what has emerged is the present-day actuality [5:39] of something that is more geopolitically powerful [5:42] than the Iranians could have imagined, [5:43] which is the leveraging of their control [5:46] over the Strait of Hormuz. [5:47] So put aside the question [5:49] of a theoretical future nuclear around, [5:52] what they have is nuclear capacity [5:54] in a way to blow up the global economy at will, [5:57] and Donald Trump has shown them the path forward to it. [6:00] So the idea that they're going to negotiate that away [6:02] after essentially fighting [6:04] the world's greatest superpower to withdraw, [6:07] very unrealistic, [6:08] which is why I think we're seeing this on-again, [6:10] off-again conflict with no real prospect [6:12] of meaningful negotiated end. [6:15] Right. Steve, I mean, [6:16] this is a regional conflagration now, yeah? [6:19] Yeah, I mean, it is right now. [6:21] I think the concern has to be [6:22] that it grows to something more than that. [6:25] I mean, we had increasing reports [6:26] over the past several weeks [6:27] of Chinese support for Iran [6:31] providing potentially 400 shoulder-fired missiles to Iran. [6:35] You've had reporting, credible reporting [6:37] of the Russians providing more intelligence [6:40] about the targeting [6:43] of U.S. intelligence facilities in the region. [6:46] You have our allies in the region [6:48] getting involved in a more offensive way. [6:51] I think for a long time, [6:53] it's been, as much of a disaster as it has been, [6:56] it's been comforting to think, [6:57] like, he's just going to walk away at some point. [7:00] Yes, things are likely to be worse [7:02] than they were before [7:03] for the reasons that Susan suggests, [7:06] but it can end. [7:08] Now you think, if you're Russia, [7:09] if you're China, [7:11] your interest is in this being elongated [7:15] as long as you can. [7:16] The United States is bogged down [7:17] in this part of the world. [7:18] Absolutely. [7:19] As long as they're bogged down, [7:20] they're not messing with our own interests. [7:23] Right, and at the same time, [7:24] Europe and Asia. [7:25] The allies in the region [7:26] are looking at our sort of incapability [7:29] of making progress [7:30] or doing anything to change [7:31] the trajectory of the war [7:33] and thinking that they, too, [7:34] might have to be more involved. [7:35] Right, and there's another aspect of this. [7:37] It's a merger, in some way, [7:38] of two different wars. [7:40] You have the Ukrainians [7:42] attacking Iranian ships [7:45] that are moving weapons to... [7:48] Explain that. [7:50] I mean, it really is a merger [7:51] of different fields of battle. [7:54] Yeah, I mean, I can't explain it. [7:56] I can't explain it in any detail. [7:57] I would defer to Nancy on what exactly it means, [7:59] but I think the fact that these things [8:01] are coming together in this way [8:03] and seem to have over the past several weeks, [8:05] even as the President of the United States, [8:07] has very clearly demonstrated [8:08] that he's just not that interested anymore. [8:10] He's getting... [8:10] There's credible reporting [8:11] that he's getting bored [8:12] with what he's seeing. [8:13] He's frustrated that there are no easy paths [8:16] to victory for the United States. [8:18] Right. [8:18] Nancy, I will ask you [8:19] what that means in a moment, [8:20] but I want to read something [8:21] that you and Jonathan Lemire [8:22] wrote the other day. [8:25] The Trump administration's greatest mistake [8:27] in the Iran War [8:28] may be its persistent failure [8:29] to understand Tehran's priorities [8:30] and motivations [8:31] and how much punishment [8:32] the regime is willing to absorb to prevail. [8:35] Iran's decision Tuesday [8:36] to launch ballistic missiles [8:37] at U.S. troops in Jordan [8:38] was a prime example. [8:39] It befuddled Washington. [8:41] U.S. officials had come to expect [8:42] that their actions would drive the war [8:44] and Iran would react, [8:45] but here was Tehran escalating matters [8:47] just after the United States [8:48] has suspended its 13-day barrage [8:50] or strikes against Iranian defenses [8:52] and infrastructure. [8:53] It sounds like you think Iran [8:54] has the upper hand right now. [8:56] Well, as we've been discussing here, [8:58] the administration has been lurching [8:59] between economic, diplomatic, [9:01] and military responses to Iran. [9:04] And they're facing an adversary [9:05] that sees this war [9:06] as a very threat to its existence. [9:08] The Iranian regime [9:09] is willing to take hits. [9:11] It is willing to take escalation. [9:12] It is willing to do whatever [9:14] it needs to do to survive. [9:15] And so that gap between the U.S. aims [9:19] and the Iranian aims [9:20] means that Iran is willing [9:22] to do much more [9:22] and endure much more [9:24] than the United States. [9:25] The fact that the United States [9:26] was surprised by the Iranian decision [9:29] to launch ballistic missiles [9:30] at a base housing U.S. forces [9:31] tells me that the United States [9:33] doesn't understand [9:34] the kind of adversary [9:35] that they're facing [9:36] in terms of what they're willing [9:37] to endure to prevail as they see it, [9:40] which is in this case [9:41] their very survival. [9:42] That's not what the U.S. is trying to do. [9:44] The U.S. is trying to do [9:45] just enough such that the strait [9:47] remains open [9:48] and that it can claim [9:49] some sort of off-ramp [9:51] to get out of this war, [9:52] ideally before the November election. [9:55] In other words, [9:56] one of the conversations [9:57] that may not have happened [9:58] in the White House [9:59] February or before [10:02] was how much will we escalate? [10:06] How high on the escalatory ladder [10:08] will we go versus the Iranians? [10:11] Is that a fair way of looking at it? [10:13] The Iranians will go all the way [10:15] and President Trump [10:17] won't even commit troops. [10:18] Well, and you're dealing [10:20] with an enemy [10:21] that is now adapting [10:22] to U.S. tactics. [10:23] That's why I think [10:23] we saw the strikes that we saw. [10:25] You have a regime [10:26] that operates differently [10:26] than the one before. [10:27] It is willing to take more risks [10:29] than it was [10:29] under the previous Ayatollah. [10:31] And we have a government [10:34] in the United States [10:35] that doesn't even want to admit [10:36] that we're back at war. [10:38] You know, the Secretary of Defense [10:41] and the Chairman [10:42] of Joint Chiefs of Staff [10:43] went on Capitol Hill [10:43] asking for billions of dollars [10:45] for more money [10:45] to fund the war. [10:47] In their opening statement, [10:48] they didn't even use [10:49] the word Iran. [10:50] Hegseth described this [10:51] as an operation. [10:53] The President has addressed [10:54] the country [10:55] in a national address [10:56] during this period. [10:59] This was not about the war. [11:01] This was about election security [11:02] and only made a passing reference [11:04] to the war. [11:05] And the fact that we're categorizing [11:07] the troop deaths [11:07] since the resumption [11:08] of these strikes [11:09] as something other than [11:10] in support of Operation [11:11] of Epic Fury [11:12] is all part of this effort [11:13] to not acknowledge [11:14] that the United States [11:15] is back at a military campaign [11:17] minimally against Iran. [11:19] I would add to that. [11:20] The President has said [11:21] from the earliest days [11:23] of the conflict [11:23] that the United States [11:25] has already won. [11:26] He has said it repeatedly [11:27] again and again and again. [11:29] And then if you remember [11:30] when he signed [11:31] the Memorandum of Understanding [11:33] to the applause [11:33] of European leaders [11:34] in Versailles, [11:36] he said at the end... [11:37] I love that part, [11:38] in Versailles. [11:39] Right, in Versailles. [11:40] It's such a historical echo [11:41] that's very rich right now. [11:42] I'm resisting the temptation [11:43] to go further on. [11:43] I just resist. [11:44] At the very end, [11:45] at the very end, [11:46] he says, [11:48] oil down, [11:50] stocks up. [11:51] He's announcing [11:52] to the Iranians [11:54] and to the world. [11:56] He's done. [11:56] He doesn't want this anymore [11:58] in addition to all the things [11:59] that Nancy said. [12:00] So, Peter, [12:01] this goes to this point [12:03] that I was making [12:04] about trust [12:05] in leadership. [12:10] Historical... [12:10] Give us a little [12:11] historical context. [12:12] Can you think of [12:12] another presidency, [12:14] going back to Vietnam [12:16] or earlier, [12:17] in which the president himself [12:20] was not leveling [12:22] with the American people [12:23] about the consequences [12:24] of a war [12:24] in this style? [12:27] Because I don't feel [12:29] like he's telling us [12:30] why he did it, [12:32] what he will do to win. [12:33] Yeah, I mean, [12:33] look, there are other presidents [12:34] who've lied to us about war, [12:35] who have not been fully [12:36] forthcoming about war. [12:37] You talk about Vietnam, [12:38] obviously. [12:39] Go back and read [12:40] the Pentagon Papers. [12:40] You see president [12:42] after president [12:42] who was not forthcoming [12:43] with the American public [12:44] about what they were doing, [12:45] what they expected there. [12:46] Having said that, [12:47] this is different [12:48] in that this was a war [12:49] that the American public [12:50] never supported to begin with [12:52] and the president [12:52] never bothered. [12:53] Right, Vietnam was popular. [12:54] It was popular. [12:55] The presidents, [12:56] both JFK and LBJ, [12:58] at some point or another, [12:59] explained to the country [13:00] why it was important [13:01] that we go there, [13:02] what was happening [13:03] in the world [13:04] that made that matter. [13:05] President Trump [13:05] has never done that. [13:06] To your point, [13:07] they just had this, [13:07] he just had the [13:08] Oval Office speech, [13:08] not about war, [13:09] but about his own obsession [13:11] with the 2020 election. [13:13] This war started out [13:14] with more people against it [13:15] than were for it, [13:16] which is the only time [13:17] any war in our history, [13:18] polling at least, [13:19] that's happened. [13:20] And it's only gone down since then. [13:22] And he's made no effort, [13:24] it seems like, [13:24] to win people over [13:26] by explaining why it's important. [13:27] He's now narrowed his goals, [13:30] right, [13:30] which were kind of scattershot [13:32] at the beginning [13:32] to two things, [13:33] reopen the strait, [13:34] no nuclear weapon. [13:35] Okay, [13:36] those are pretty [13:36] straightforward messages [13:37] and that works, [13:37] I think, [13:38] for the public. [13:38] You hear people [13:40] interview on the street, [13:40] they say, [13:40] I don't want Iran [13:41] to have a nuclear weapon. [13:42] That shows part of his message [13:43] is getting through. [13:44] But he hasn't done anything [13:45] to say why this is important, [13:46] why it had to be done now, [13:47] and what we're going to do [13:49] about it in the future [13:49] if we can't get to [13:50] where we want to go. [13:51] Yeah, well, [13:51] and also he's not doing [13:52] anything right now [13:53] as far as we can tell. [13:54] And again, [13:54] they're extremely untransparent [13:56] about what's happening, [13:57] but he doesn't seem [13:58] to be pursuing militarily [13:59] at the moment [14:00] or via negotiations [14:01] anything that would ensure [14:03] that Iran was denuclearized [14:05] in the future. [14:06] So to point that out [14:06] is important. [14:07] But, you know, [14:08] again, [14:08] this reminds me [14:09] and this almost sort of [14:11] Orwellian inversion [14:12] of language [14:12] and, you know, [14:13] the degrading [14:14] of those service members [14:15] who did give their lives, [14:17] you know, [14:17] for a war that Trump [14:19] launched on his own [14:20] with no mandate [14:21] from the American people. [14:23] You know, [14:23] there's another superpower [14:25] engaged in an asymmetrical [14:27] conflict right now [14:28] that's called [14:29] a special military operation [14:30] where now years into [14:33] the Russian invasion [14:34] of Ukraine [14:34] that was supposed [14:35] to last a few days, [14:37] a couple weeks [14:38] at a maximum. [14:40] And, you know, [14:41] Vladimir Putin also [14:42] refuses to call it a war. [14:44] He also governs [14:46] in his own name [14:47] and not the name [14:47] of the Russian people [14:48] or institutions. [14:50] And I think [14:50] what we've seen [14:51] from the adaptiveness [14:52] of the Ukrainians [14:53] is a playbook [14:54] for the future [14:56] of military conflict [14:57] that's already here. [14:58] And that's what's [14:59] so striking to me [14:59] is that we've seen [15:00] not just our presidential [15:02] and you could say [15:02] our political system [15:03] that has failed [15:04] to account for this, [15:06] but also a national [15:07] security environment [15:09] in which the leaders [15:10] of the Pentagon, [15:11] even with asking [15:11] for more than [15:12] a trillion dollars [15:13] this year, [15:14] seem very, very unprepared [15:16] for this kind [15:17] of rapid warfare [15:19] where cheap drones [15:21] are no match [15:22] for our Patriot missiles. [15:23] It's interesting [15:24] because what we're [15:25] talking about here [15:26] is escalatory capability [15:28] or willingness [15:29] as the key variable [15:31] for all of these conflicts, [15:34] which is to say [15:35] Ukraine is in a fight [15:37] for its existence. [15:38] They will do whatever [15:39] they have to do [15:40] to exist. [15:41] The Iranian regime, [15:43] whether we like it or not, [15:44] and we don't generally [15:45] like it for all [15:46] the obvious reasons, [15:47] the Iranian regime [15:48] wants to save itself. [15:51] Here in America, [15:52] we're worried [15:53] about gas prices. [15:55] Ukrainians would love [15:57] to be able [15:57] to have the luxury [15:58] of worrying about [15:59] price of gasoline [16:00] at the pump. [16:02] But, you know, [16:02] there's another aspect [16:04] of the, another variable [16:06] that I find really [16:07] fascinating at this moment, [16:08] which is the lack [16:10] of planning [16:12] in warfighting. [16:15] One of the most [16:15] surprising aspects [16:16] of everything, Steve, [16:17] that I've been seeing [16:19] is that we went to, [16:20] we had a war of choice. [16:22] Yeah. [16:23] We picked the timing [16:24] of this war. [16:25] And we didn't plan [16:28] for the reduction, [16:30] the reduction that would [16:32] come in munition stockpiles. [16:33] And now we're, [16:34] we're, we're, [16:35] we're a little bit naked [16:37] before the world [16:39] and other adversaries [16:40] because we simply [16:41] don't have enough, [16:42] especially of defensive missiles. [16:44] We don't have enough [16:45] to, to protect America [16:48] and its allies [16:48] from other adversaries. [16:51] Yeah, I mean, [16:51] on the path [16:51] to being alarmingly naked, [16:53] if this were to continue [16:55] for a long period of time. [16:56] Look, I mean, [16:56] this is part of the problem [16:57] when you have a president [16:58] of the United States [16:59] who makes these decisions [17:01] not out of strategic [17:03] considerations, [17:03] but out of emotional impulse, [17:05] right? [17:05] I mean, I think he wanted [17:06] to be strong. [17:06] He wanted to do in Iran [17:08] what he had done [17:09] in Venezuela. [17:10] He liked the adulation [17:12] that he got [17:12] after the June 2025 strikes [17:15] when he, you know, [17:16] hit the nuclear facilities [17:19] in Iran. [17:20] And that's the reason [17:21] he makes these decisions. [17:22] I think it's, [17:23] there are people [17:23] who did planning [17:24] in advance of this. [17:26] Very serious people, [17:28] patriots, [17:28] who did this planning. [17:30] Unfortunately, [17:30] it was just disregarded [17:31] by the person [17:32] who matters most, [17:33] and that's [17:33] the commander-in-chief. [17:34] Right. [17:34] Nancy, [17:35] very difficult question. [17:37] But what would [17:38] the United States [17:38] have to do [17:39] to win in Iran? [17:43] How are you [17:43] defining winning? [17:44] You define it. [17:46] That's why you get paid [17:46] the moderate buck. [17:49] Well, I'll put it to you [17:50] this way. [17:51] There, there aren't [17:51] great options [17:52] for the president. [17:54] If the, [17:55] one option would be [17:56] to, to declare victory again, [17:58] say that the Ayatollah is dead, [18:02] Iran doesn't have [18:03] a nuclear weapon, [18:03] and the U.S. will come back [18:04] at, at Iran [18:06] should they try to, [18:06] to, to get a nuclear weapon again, [18:09] in his, in his estimation. [18:11] The question becomes, [18:12] will the stock market [18:12] embrace that thinking, [18:14] particularly when Iran [18:14] now retains control [18:16] of the Strait of Hormuz? [18:17] He could continue to escalate, [18:19] such that he believes [18:21] he reaches a point, [18:22] and he signaled, [18:23] by the way, [18:23] in his comments earlier today [18:25] at the cabinet meeting [18:26] that this is what he's thinking, [18:27] that he can, [18:27] he can keep escalating [18:29] to the point [18:29] that either the regime, [18:31] it sort of tips the regime [18:32] out of power, [18:33] or it becomes [18:33] an intolerable level [18:34] of destruction for them [18:36] that they start to capitulate. [18:38] He could continue [18:39] to do economic sanctions, [18:40] or he could try to come back [18:42] to the negotiation table, [18:44] but in doing so, [18:45] he would have to make [18:45] some kind of concession [18:47] to the Iranians [18:47] in terms of how they read [18:48] that memorandum of understanding [18:50] vis-à-vis the Strait of Hormuz. [18:51] And so, I think, [18:54] I don't know what winning is, [18:55] but I also don't know [18:56] what is a viable option [18:57] that gives, [18:59] that creates an exit ramp [19:01] or an off ramp [19:02] for him to declare [19:03] some kind of victory. [19:04] Let me give you [19:04] a traditional definition [19:05] of winning in this context, [19:07] which would be [19:08] defeating the Iranian regime, [19:10] seeing its replacement [19:11] or its overthrow [19:12] by Western-minded Iranian, [19:16] small-d Democrats. [19:18] Could that be done [19:19] without large numbers [19:22] of troops on the ground? [19:23] No. [19:24] Could it be done [19:24] with troops on the ground? [19:25] Maybe. [19:27] It's uncertain. [19:28] We're talking about [19:28] a country of 90 million people [19:29] that, as long as [19:30] the United States [19:31] has been discussing [19:32] and preparing for war, [19:33] the Iranians have been preparing [19:34] and discussing [19:35] the possibility [19:36] of coming under threat [19:37] from the United States. [19:38] So, it would be [19:39] a formidable task. [19:40] It would require [19:41] hundreds of thousands [19:42] of troops, [19:43] a major U.S. military commitment, [19:45] and, politically, [19:46] a commitment from the United States [19:47] to endure economic costs [19:49] through that time [19:50] for something that would take [19:51] months or years, [19:52] if that's the end state. [19:54] Right. [19:54] Let me switch topics. [19:55] And go to another war [19:58] in Washington, [20:00] a minor war by comparison. [20:03] But it's also an example [20:04] of something that's, [20:05] where politicians and everybody, [20:06] nobody seems to be on the level, [20:08] and that's the Rand Paul, [20:10] Anthony Fauci death match. [20:11] There are a couple of issues [20:13] to unpack here. [20:13] The Fauci diary, [20:15] which is excruciating to read, [20:16] and the actual reasons [20:18] that Fauci was brought [20:19] before the Senate. [20:21] Here's what Fauci said [20:23] about the hearing [20:24] the other day. [20:25] Watch this. [20:26] Given Senator Paul's [20:28] obvious obsession [20:30] with calling for my prosecution, [20:34] his repeated slanderous comments [20:36] about me, [20:37] and recently, [20:39] his publicly releasing [20:41] my unredacted personal diary [20:45] aimed at embarrassing [20:48] and intimidating me, [20:51] the only conclusion [20:52] I can reach [20:53] is that the sole reason [20:56] he is calling me [20:57] before this committee [20:58] is to get me [21:00] to say something, [21:02] anything, [21:03] that could vindicate [21:04] his repeated public pledges [21:08] that I end up, [21:09] in his words, [21:10] quote, [21:11] behind bars. [21:14] Steve, [21:15] in the few minutes [21:15] that we have left, [21:16] take us inside this. [21:19] What is the motivation [21:19] of Senator Paul, [21:22] and how do you judge [21:24] Anthony Fauci's response [21:25] to these attacks [21:27] that are made on him? [21:29] Yeah, I mean, [21:29] the hearing was [21:30] such a perfect encapsulation [21:32] of Washington [21:33] at this moment [21:34] with a lot of raised voices [21:35] and a lot of yelling [21:36] and virtually no new information [21:38] and nothing that gets us [21:40] any closer to the truth. [21:42] Look, I think Anthony Fauci's right [21:43] that Senator Paul [21:44] has been obsessed. [21:46] I think Senator Paul [21:47] is right that Anthony Fauci [21:48] took shortcuts [21:49] and lied about things [21:51] that he shouldn't have lied about. [21:53] In a better, [21:54] with a more serious government, [21:55] we would have gotten closer [21:56] to answers through that hearing. [21:58] I do want to point out one person, [22:00] we probably don't do this [22:01] very often enough, [22:02] Senator James Lankford [22:03] from Oklahoma, [22:04] he wasn't going to get answers [22:05] to the questions. [22:07] Anthony Fauci had already said [22:08] that he wasn't going to answer questions, [22:09] but he walked through [22:10] in a calm and dispassionate way [22:12] a series of questions [22:13] that if we got answers to them [22:14] we'd be a lot better prepared [22:15] for the next one of these. [22:17] He was unfortunately [22:18] the person who stood out [22:20] because he was really [22:21] the only one who did this. [22:22] Everybody else was yelling [22:23] and shouting. [22:23] Right, right. [22:24] Susan, in the old days, [22:26] in a less dysfunctional Washington, [22:29] maybe people would gather [22:31] to do a post-mortem [22:32] of a tragic event [22:34] and try to figure out [22:35] better government response. [22:36] This is a little bit [22:38] of a show right now. [22:39] How do you, [22:40] what does it say [22:41] about where we are [22:42] politically in partisanship? [22:45] Yeah, I mean, look, [22:46] the historical analogy [22:47] that leaps to mind [22:47] is not a reasonable [22:49] bipartisan commission [22:50] to look at lessons learned [22:52] from a national tragedy. [22:54] It's a witch hunt. [22:56] It's McCarthyism. [22:58] You know, we do unfortunately [22:59] have a long history [23:00] of that as well. [23:01] And to see an 85-year-old [23:03] public servant [23:04] who spent 50 years [23:06] of his life [23:06] combating terrible diseases [23:10] in this country [23:10] and around the world, [23:12] you know, it was, [23:13] it was a painful sight, [23:15] you know, [23:15] especially to see [23:17] a bunch of senators [23:18] accuse Fauci [23:20] of the best they could [23:20] come up with, [23:21] you know, [23:22] was a diary [23:22] in which he was dazzled, [23:25] you know, [23:25] to meet celebrities [23:27] and, you know, [23:27] admitted that he butt-dialed [23:29] Barbara Streisand, [23:30] you know, [23:30] if Josh Hawley [23:31] is saying, [23:32] you know, [23:32] oh my goodness, [23:33] you're a peacock [23:33] who's seeking attention [23:35] and a narcissist, right? [23:36] Like, you know, [23:37] I don't, [23:38] I think it doesn't reflect that. [23:39] Are you saying [23:39] that no one in the Senate [23:40] should accuse anyone [23:41] of being a peacock? [23:42] You know, Jeff, [23:43] what I'm saying is [23:44] I found it very painful [23:45] to watch, [23:46] as I'm sure many people did. [23:48] The person who was [23:49] accountable ultimately [23:50] for America's [23:52] failed initial handling [23:54] of the pandemic in 2020 [23:55] was someone named [23:56] Donald Trump. [23:57] Right, but Peter, [23:58] let me ask you this, though. [23:58] You know, [23:59] in the diary, [24:01] Fauci talks with nuance, [24:04] writes with nuance [24:05] and uncertainty [24:06] about the origin story [24:08] of COVID-19. [24:09] In public, [24:11] especially in the beginning, [24:12] he was more declarative. [24:14] I mean, [24:14] this is not [24:15] depending on papers, [24:16] but it seems like [24:18] there's a little bit [24:19] of space [24:20] between what he would [24:21] tell the public [24:22] and what he would [24:23] tell himself. [24:24] Yeah, yes and no. [24:25] I mean, [24:25] I think they're making [24:26] an awful lot [24:27] out of, you know, [24:29] what would be [24:29] pretty normal [24:30] in those early days [24:31] when we did not [24:31] know a lot, right? [24:32] Scientists were [24:33] of multiple opinions [24:34] about the origin of it. [24:35] They were of multiple opinions [24:36] about how it was transmitted [24:38] and they were of multiple opinions [24:39] about what the best [24:40] course of action was. [24:41] And yes, [24:42] he probably projected [24:43] more certainty [24:44] than he might have felt, [24:45] but if you actually, [24:46] you can find statements [24:47] he said in the diary [24:48] and see that he said [24:49] something pretty similar [24:50] in public [24:50] in an interview [24:51] several weeks later [24:52] or in some other public setting. [24:53] So I think they're trying [24:54] to slice and dice it [24:55] in a way [24:55] that is making uncertainty [24:58] in the beginning [24:59] of a pandemic [25:00] into a crime. [25:01] It's not just [25:01] that he was wrong, [25:02] it's that he is evil [25:03] and that he, you know, [25:05] should go to jail. [25:06] I mean, [25:06] he's literally prepared [25:07] to Hitler and Mengele. [25:08] This isn't a scientist [25:09] who just got things wrong [25:10] and maybe he did [25:11] get something wrong. [25:12] In this case, [25:14] in Rand Paul's world, [25:15] it's good and evil. [25:17] Well, [25:17] very interesting conversation. [25:20] That's all the time [25:20] we have tonight, [25:21] alas, [25:22] but I do want to thank [25:23] our guests for joining me [25:24] and I want to thank you [25:25] at home for watching us. [25:27] I'm Jeffrey Goldberg. [25:29] Good night [25:29] from Washington. [25:32] Corporate funding [25:33] for Washington Week [25:35] with The Atlantic [25:35] is provided by [25:37] Consumer Cellular. [25:40] Additional funding [25:41] is provided by [25:42] Ku and Patricia Ewan [25:44] for the Ewan Foundation, [25:46] committed to bridging [25:47] cultural differences [25:48] in our communities. [25:50] Sandra and Carl Dele Magnuson, [25:53] Rose Herschel [25:54] and Andy Schrie, [25:55] Robert and Susan Rosenbaum, [25:58] Jay and Sharon Rockefeller, [26:01] Charles Hamowee [26:02] through the Charles Hamowee Fund, [26:05] Steve and Marilyn Kerman, [26:08] Leonard and Norma [26:09] glorifying, [26:10] and by contributions [26:11] to your PBS station [26:13] from viewers like you. [26:15] Thank you.