Why Trump 'would be LUCKY’ to secure Iran nuclear deal like Obama's: Fmr. Natl. Security Vet

[0:00] And Ben, you know, he obviously has been very critical of the Obama team's handling of Iran. [0:06] So let's let's get your thoughts on that and where you see this right now, where, you know, [0:12] Tehran seems emboldened and it seems like President Trump's the goals, maybe not plainly stated for [0:19] this war, but he has said what they were eventually were accomplished next to none of them. [0:25] No, we haven't. And look, I heard your conversation with David in the last segment. I mean, [0:30] we said back in 2015 that there are two ways to solve the problem with Iranian nuclear program. [0:35] One is a war and one is a diplomatic agreement and that a war is the worst way to do it because of [0:41] all the costs and uncertainties of a war, but also because unless you have a ground invasion of Iran [0:47] to literally dismantle its nuclear program on the ground, you're not actually even going to solve [0:51] the problem with the war. And I think what happened here is, you know, he pulled out of that deal [0:56] mainly because of his hostility to Obama. This is something Obama did. So I don't like it. [1:01] And then he believed that this war would quickly collapse the Iranian regime and force them to [1:07] completely capitulate on the nuclear program. And unsurprisingly, because every war game I was ever [1:12] in confirmed what Mika's dad said, which is the first thing the Iranians would do is close the [1:17] Strait of Hormuz, paralyze the global economy because 20 percent of the world's fossil fuel rolls through [1:22] there and essentially have a deterrent that is not a nuclear weapon, but has almost the same scale in [1:28] terms of its impact on the global economy. And so now the regime didn't collapse. In fact, [1:33] the regime got more hardline. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, they're the ones [1:36] that closed the Strait. They're the ones that run that regime right now. And they have the leverage [1:40] because they know that Trump needs that straight open. He needs the appearance of some victory, [1:45] but he's not going to get it because they are the ones that are sitting with more of the leverage. [1:49] All predictable. That's what's so tragic about this. And the reality is he would be lucky to get [1:55] something approximating the nuclear deal in which they ship out their stock and submit to inspections, [2:00] but he's not going to get more than that. Gene. So Ben, what do you think he could get? I mean, [2:06] how do you think he could end this war? Obviously he will claim, President Trump will claim victory no [2:13] matter what, when he finally gets an off ramp. But is there a kind of best possible outcome at this [2:21] point, given all the mistakes that have been made so far? Yeah, I think the best possible deal, [2:29] Eugene, that he could get is essentially you've got to get that highly enriched uranium stockpile out [2:34] of the country. You have to get strict limitations on Iran's nuclear program for a verifiable period of [2:41] time. And importantly, you need an inspections regime, because if the Iranians just say, hey, [2:46] we won't do certain things for a certain period of time, obviously you're not going to trust that [2:50] under the nuclear deal that he pulled out of. You had the strictest inspections ever negotiated of [2:54] their nuclear facilities, of their uranium mines and mills. So we could literally see where the [2:59] material that went into their program was coming from and how it was being handled. So that's that's [3:04] what he needs. But the reality is he's going to have to pay for that. And I think this is probably [3:10] what is holding up the negotiations is the sequencing. The Iranians want revenue, I'm [3:14] sure, on the front end. Revenue from tolling the strait, revenue from sanctions relief. I think Trump [3:20] probably recognizes how that's going to look, given all the things he said about the revenue they got [3:25] under the Iran nuclear deal that he's been blasting for a decade. And so I think where we are is nobody's [3:31] blinking on who moves first. You know, Trump wants a straight open before that revenue comes in, [3:37] and I'm sure the Iranians want the revenue coming in first. And I think that's probably [3:40] what the holdup is in negotiation. Ben, let's talk about your book. It's just absolutely [3:45] fascinating. And of course, you are not a historian. You say you're a speech writer. You've obviously [3:53] helped President Obama. But I love when you talk about how a speech is history in present tense. [4:00] And you take us back to some of the most remarkable speeches in American history, [4:05] whether it's Lincoln's second inaugural, whether it's FDR's for freedom speech, [4:12] whether it's composite nation, which, of course, remarkable Frederick Douglass speech, [4:17] are Reagan's evil empire speech. Talk about it had to be very difficult for you to pick these [4:25] speeches. It took you a year. Talk about the process and what you, as a speech writer who [4:32] wrote history in present tense, learned through this process. [4:37] Yeah, I wanted to understand, Joe, how we got here, the kind of toxic, dysfunctional moment that [4:44] we're in, by going back and looking at how Americans have debated and argued with one another [4:48] throughout history. And as a speech writer, I kind of had an instinct that we could learn [4:54] something about ourselves by looking back at this whole sweep of American history through speeches. [5:00] It took me a year. I start with Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention. He wrote the [5:05] closing argument speech on behalf of the Constitution. And what's interesting about that speech, Joe, [5:10] is he doesn't even mention the Constitution itself. It's a speech about the virtue of compromise. [5:14] If we're going to live together as people with different interests and different views, [5:18] we have to start with compromise. That's what made the country possible. But it also set in motion [5:23] all the conflict and competition we've had since because we compromise about big things. [5:28] And then what I learned in choosing these speeches is that because we're a country that no matter what [5:34] J.D. Vance and Donald Trump says, we are an idea. I mean, we were 13 states at the beginning on the [5:40] East Coast and look at us today. You know, we have transformed ourselves time and again. [5:46] And speeches are where we have adjudicated American identity, like who we are. What kind of nation do [5:53] we want to be? If you talk, if you, you know, I heard you talking about how Trump has talked about [5:57] this war. You know, FDR's for freedom speech, for instance, which I put in here, that is FDR speaking [6:04] into being an American identity. This is who we are. This is what we stand for. We're not just [6:10] going to war because we don't like the fascists. We're not just going to war because of a set of [6:14] interests. We're going to war because we believe in a set of things for freedoms, freedom of belief, [6:20] right? Freedom from fear, freedom from want, right? FDR is literally telling Americans, [6:25] here's who we are versus against who they are. And every speech, that's what Reagan was doing too, [6:30] a moral basis for how we defined ourselves in opposition to communism. So every speech in the [6:35] book dealt with this question from different perspectives, left, right and everything in [6:38] between, about what is American identity. So Ben, you just mentioned that speech by Reagan. Joe [6:46] mentioned it too, the evil empire speech from 1983. Let's take a quick listen to that and talk about [6:50] it on the other side. That shrewdest of all observers of American democracy, Alexis de Pocqueville [6:58] put it eloquently, after he had gone on a search for the secret of America's greatness and genius. [7:04] And he said, not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with [7:10] righteousness, did I understand the greatness and the genius of America. America is good. [7:20] And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. Ben, I mean, it's known as the evil [7:28] empire speech and a rejection, of course, of everything that the USSR represented there. He's [7:34] talking about American goodness. But what was remarkable about Reagan was that he went into [7:39] all of his negotiations with the USSR and with Gorbachev saying, actually, there cannot be a loser [7:46] here. We can't define this as one empire defeating another empire, even if it had been labeled the evil [7:53] empire in that speech. His understanding of the process of getting there was so much more complex [7:59] than the name given to that speech might have suggested. [8:04] Well, first of all, what's so interesting about that speech in each chapter, I talk about the [8:08] person and the movement that made the speech possible. And what Reagan represented was a movement [8:12] over 20 years to join together religious evangelical Christians in this country with people who cared [8:19] about national security. You can hear Reagan speaking into being what was really the Reagan [8:24] coalition. And that buttressed what his argument was against the Soviet Union. You know, he's [8:28] representing a certain view of American that believes in goodness and is rooted in Christian values. [8:36] But also, Cady, what's also really interesting about Reagan compared to Trump is he was also pragmatic [8:41] because while the evil empire created part of the leverage that he was building on the Soviet [8:46] Union, creating a moral contrast. Later on, when he was able to find a partner in Gorbachev, [8:51] he pivoted. And when he went to Moscow, he was asked, do you still believe this is an evil empire? [8:56] And he said, no, that was something I said at a different time. And so one of the things I learned [9:00] about Reagan is not just that he was willing to speak this coalition into being and kind of knit [9:07] together different constituencies, free market conservatives, national security hawks and Christian [9:11] conservatives. But then he was able to be pragmatic when he saw an opening because he was not [9:16] as dogmatic as the current occupant of the White House. If he saw the ability to shift course, [9:21] to accomplish something he believed in, he was willing to do that. [9:24] Jen? [9:25] I'm so excited. I mean, I'm just like so into it. The whole concept. And the fact, I mean, [9:30] as Ben and I worked with him in the Obama White House and a lot of times speechwriters, [9:33] you less so would be like, you can't solve all the problems with the speech. Don't keep coming to me. [9:38] You were one of the people. Yes. And as it turns out, they really, like, all we say, [9:43] what we say really does matter. I'm wondering, you know, I know you have Trump's speech, [9:47] Trump's speech, at least one Trump speech in there. Is there a speech in sort of real time from [9:53] Trump's second administration or first administration from a Democrat that you think [9:58] about America that we are, that does matter? Might Bruce Springsteen be this person? [10:04] Well, I mean, but no, but seriously, you know, seriously, you know. [10:07] Honestly, like, Jen, one of the things I was struck by, and I did not originally intend to end with [10:12] Trump. It's sad that you have to, but it's fair. Yeah. And I think we had to confront it, [10:16] so I ended with his second inaugural address, which in many ways, look, I found a lot of origins of [10:21] Trump in American populism and isolationism. I read about America First Movement in the 1930s. [10:26] But Trump is a deviation because he stands up in the second inaugural and says, [10:30] I won. The debate is over. And it's about me. It's not even about something I built like what [10:35] Reagan did. And I think with the Democrats, one of the problems that we've dealt with [10:39] as communications people is we're constantly trying to figure out, like, what's the social [10:43] media strategy? How do we show up and tell a pithy story? How do we package our talking points [10:47] better? What is the story that we're telling? Because as you know, the story, which is usually a speech, [10:54] is the best way to get your story right, that becomes the trunk of the tree. And all the other [10:59] communications are the branches, the interviews, the social media clips. And I think Democrats have [11:04] lost sight of the fact that maybe the counter-programming of Trump, and this is hard in [11:08] an era of social media, is to get back to storytelling. And now when I look at the Democrats today, [11:13] though, I see some hopeful signs. I see John Ossoff making a very coherent case about corruption and [11:18] how that's the reason that you're not getting the government you deserve. Or James Tallarico talking [11:22] about how his faith connects to what he's doing. And so I think it's that ability to stand out [11:26] authentically and say, here's my motivation. Here's the movement I come out of. Here's where [11:31] this country is and where it needs to go. I think that's what's missing in politics today. And that's [11:36] another thing I found in writing the book.