Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: We efforted Richard Haas yesterday we are unable to get him.
Speaker 2: We have him today and we extend out here commercial
Speaker 2: free for you. In a conversation with the President Emeritus,
Speaker 2: the consult Foreign Relations and of course senior counselor was
Speaker 2: sent of you partners with Paul. Far more than that.
Speaker 2: The single best clarity before the attack I put out
Speaker 2: on Twitter and LinkedIn Ambassador Has's essay in the Financial
Speaker 2: Times of It's forever ago. Richard, it was three or
Speaker 2: four days ago, go to Jewel of short clarity of
Speaker 2: what to do, what to hope for? If you wrote
Speaker 2: that essay now, how would you change it?
Speaker 3: Well, good morning, Tom, and thank you. Look, the United
Speaker 3: States based difficult decisions the aftermath of the Israeli actions.
Speaker 3: We chose the path of acting in this case to
Speaker 3: do an intense but idealistically or optimally narrow military strike
Speaker 3: against Iran. What's so interesting to me if I had
Speaker 3: to say one thing at this point, if you think
Speaker 3: about this crisis over the last ten or so days,
Speaker 3: the first week was dominated by israel It deciding in
Speaker 3: the aftermath of October seventh, the weakening of Iran's proxies.
Speaker 3: It was going to act against the Iranian nuclear program
Speaker 3: and more broadly against the Iranian political leadership. Then the
Speaker 3: United States decided this was the moment to set back
Speaker 3: the Iranian nuclear program. But now initiative has passed to
Speaker 3: Iran for the first time in this crisis. It's the
Speaker 3: Iranian leaders who control as much as anybody. How this
Speaker 3: unfolds from this point on. And that's what's different. If
Speaker 3: I were writing today, indeed I will be writing later today.
Speaker 3: That's what's different. For the first time since this phase
Speaker 3: of the crisis began, decision making, if you will, is
Speaker 3: in the hands of Iran more than Israel, more than
Speaker 3: the United States.
Speaker 2: Investador has And I want to make clear here that
Speaker 2: Richard Hass redefined the international relations debate with the invention
Speaker 2: of the Internet. At the Council Unfeigned Relations John Bellinger
Speaker 2: at CFR, Richard Hass writes a blistering essay with his
Speaker 2: legal expertise. Does President Trump have the authority to strike Iran?
Speaker 2: From where you sit with all your work back to
Speaker 2: Northern Ireland? Did the President have the ability to act
Speaker 2: from the executive branch? Or did he need to use
Speaker 2: a different process with Congress.
Speaker 3: Now, the president had the authority, like go all of
Speaker 3: his predecessors. If you look at the history of a
Speaker 3: modern American foreign policy initiative, and foreign policy has decidedly
Speaker 3: passed to the executive I mean, Tom what was it
Speaker 3: sixty years ago? Author Slessiger Junior wrote his essay and
Speaker 3: book about the impurial presidency. This is nothing new. Congress
Speaker 3: virtually never ever fulfills its constitutional obligation to declare war,
Speaker 3: and we have used military force hundreds of times in
Speaker 3: the absence of anything so formal. So I just flat
Speaker 3: out disagree with that kind of a narrow legalist interpretation.
Speaker 3: That said, if I had been advising President Trump, I
Speaker 3: would have said, take a page out of the book
Speaker 3: of President Bush, the father Bush forty one. Do things
Speaker 3: with the internationally, with building on the International Atomic Energy
Speaker 3: Agency Skating report of Iran, Do things with the Congress,
Speaker 3: do things with the American public. If you're going to
Speaker 3: use military force, people should come to conclude that you
Speaker 3: tried to do diplomacy and at the end of the
Speaker 3: day you reluctantly had to use it. But also, by
Speaker 3: the way, would have helped this president with his magabase.
Speaker 3: So I think he should have gone about this differently.
Speaker 3: But did he under American political tradition? Did he yes
Speaker 3: the authority to do what he did?
Speaker 1: Absolutely, Richard. As the world awaits some type of response
Speaker 1: from Morn, do we have any good information as to
Speaker 1: their capabilities today from just their military capabilities and to
Speaker 1: their leadership, because Israel has dealt a blow to their leadership,
Speaker 1: what should we expect?
Speaker 3: No, they're both good points. I actually think they're unlikely
Speaker 3: to retaliate. My reading of the Iranians is they're focused
Speaker 3: on regime survival. In some ways. This is the second
Speaker 3: great difficult period crisis for Iran's leadership since their nineteen
Speaker 3: seventy nine revolution, the first one being a decade later
Speaker 3: during the Iran Iraq War. So my guess is they're
Speaker 3: going to focus on regime consolidation. Down the road, they
Speaker 3: may focus on reconstituting their nuclear program. We have no
Speaker 3: idea how much of their nuclear program is intact, but
Speaker 3: I think it is difficult for the Iranian leadership to act.
Speaker 3: They're trying to stay off the net because they don't
Speaker 3: want to give signols for Americans or Israelis to target them.
Speaker 3: They obviously have lost control over the airspace of their
Speaker 3: own country. Their proxies are much diminished, so I don't
Speaker 3: think they have very good options. That said, they can
Speaker 3: still lob missiles at the forty thousand American soldiers in
Speaker 3: the region. They can play havoc with shipping. It doesn't
Speaker 3: take a lot to drive insurance raids up. They can
Speaker 3: do asymmetrical warfare using cyber or terrorism, so they actually
Speaker 3: have lots of capability. You don't have to compete with
Speaker 3: US be two stealth fighters in order to be militarily effective.
Speaker 3: But I just think the Iranians right now their priority
Speaker 3: in the short run is not to retaliate against the
Speaker 3: United States.
Speaker 2: Richard Hass With this, we continue with Ambassador House Paul Sweene,
Speaker 2: and I welcome all of you across the nation. Are
Speaker 2: continuing that coverage here a difference this morning. The markets
Speaker 2: are open. We will consider the markets across the arc
Speaker 2: of the show. We thank Golder mount a Vali from
Speaker 2: London for being with this. Jimani sent you from Dubai.
Speaker 2: And we continue here on YouTube and all of our
Speaker 2: commute our audio radio affiliates as well, and we say
Speaker 2: good morning.
Speaker 1: Paul, Richard For many observers, the American strike on the
Speaker 1: nuclear facilities in Iran was a bold strike, a surprising strike.
Speaker 1: Does that have an impact in other parts of the world.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking about Ukraine and Russia, thinking about China. How
Speaker 1: do you think those actors are viewing this?
Speaker 3: It was surprising more in the tactical rather than strategic sense.
Speaker 3: We've been talking for years that we weren't going to
Speaker 3: letter on gain nuclear weapons or even get close to them.
Speaker 3: What was surprising, perhaps tactically, was when the President talked
Speaker 3: about is two week last chance for diplomacy to work.
Speaker 3: That turned out to be a faint or a ruse.
Speaker 3: I think it was surprising tactically, not strategically. I think
Speaker 3: the rest of the world took note both that the
Speaker 3: United States acted, as well as how effectively the US
Speaker 3: military looked. What was brought together was criite extraordinary. My
Speaker 3: guess is the Russians probably have liked this crisis. Anytime.
Speaker 3: They like when energy prices go up. They like when
Speaker 3: the United States expends munitions in other parts of the world.
Speaker 3: That means we don't have to give to Ukraine. People
Speaker 3: aren't talking as much about Ukraine. I thought it was
Speaker 3: quite interesting at the G seven that Ukraine almost seemed
Speaker 3: to be something of an afterthought. So the Russians have
Speaker 3: to like that. My guess isn't. The Chinese are probably
Speaker 3: concerned about on the opposite side of the coin, as
Speaker 3: a massive energy importer, they don't much like instability in
Speaker 3: the Middle East, but all of them have to be happy.
Speaker 3: I would think that the United States is once again
Speaker 3: involved in the Middle East. That means we have less bandwidth,
Speaker 3: less ability to focus on say East Asia or Taiwan,
Speaker 3: or on helping Ukraine.
Speaker 2: Richard has with US and folks. I can't say enough
Speaker 2: about This is a book you can throw at your
Speaker 2: smart Alec kids, the college brats. They're home from Oberlin
Speaker 2: and you throw this book at I mean you won't
Speaker 2: because it's beautifully brief. Bill of obligations. I can't say
Speaker 2: enough about Richard Hass's cry for citizenship in America. Again,
Speaker 2: I can't say enough about it. I'll put that out
Speaker 2: on Twitter and LinkedIn as well. Part of our bill
Speaker 2: of obligations, Richard Haass is to have a coherent foreign policy.
Speaker 2: We can go back to Clash of civilizations, staggered a
Speaker 2: Zakaria in a post American world Roberty cap and coming
Speaker 2: up in a bit maybe with a Kissingerian realist theory.
Speaker 2: What's the host theory you observe at the State Department
Speaker 2: Right now?
Speaker 3: The State Department is very little to observe. It's actually
Speaker 3: a sad story over the last decade or two of
Speaker 3: the weakening of an institution, the hollowing out of the
Speaker 3: Foreign Service, more broadly, the hollowing out of our interest
Speaker 3: or capability in terms of diplomacy, in terms of the
Speaker 3: whole mission of the Agency for Internet Development, the whole
Speaker 3: promotion of democracy and American values around the world. We
Speaker 3: have dramatically weakened one of the principal instruments of American
Speaker 3: national security. We've then compounded a top with the hollowing
Speaker 3: out of the National Security Council. This is an administration,
Speaker 3: I would argue that is in some ways it's put
Speaker 3: itself dangerously dependent on a top down approach to foreign policy,
Speaker 3: where the president does things and quite honestly, the rest
Speaker 3: of the administration falls in behind. I don't see an
Speaker 3: awful lot of ground up analysis, but I do worry
Speaker 3: about what's been now more than what decade and a
Speaker 3: half of the weakening of the diplomatic dimension diplatic instrument
Speaker 3: of American foreign policy and national security, Richard.
Speaker 1: Some folks who even discussing probably a small chance, but
Speaker 1: still discussing regime change in a rent How do you
Speaker 1: think about that topic?
Speaker 3: A couple of ways. One is I find regime change
Speaker 3: in the category of wish, not a strategy. If bb Netsignahu,
Speaker 3: the Prime Minister of Israel or Donald Trump said to
Speaker 3: their generals, I want regime change, they wouldn't know how
Speaker 3: to implement it. Regime change is not something you can
Speaker 3: design an operation to bring about. Colin Powell used to say,
Speaker 3: the military military instruments do two things. They destroy and
Speaker 3: they kill. Regime change is not is not on the menu.
Speaker 3: So that's one thing. Second of all, you never know
Speaker 3: if you can bring about you also never know what
Speaker 3: comes of it. You know what would follow this this regime?
Speaker 3: Is it necessarily something that you want? For all? You know,
Speaker 3: nuclear materials, which it clearly still exists in around could
Speaker 3: get into the hands of all sorts of groups that
Speaker 3: might be in the Be careful what you wish for.
Speaker 3: So I take I take regime changes unserrious foreign policy
Speaker 3: if it comes about it's going to come from within Iran.
Speaker 3: It's not going to come, if you will, from Israeli
Speaker 3: or American bayonets.
Speaker 2: Do we underestimate, ambassador, has the military violence of the
Speaker 2: theocracy in Iran? The news flow to me, Ambassador, with
Speaker 2: respect to my colleagues is so simplistic. Iatola theocracy, the
Speaker 2: people of Iran. What's in between them? And the answer
Speaker 2: is a harsh dictatorship.
Speaker 3: Right, You've got that, You've got all sorts of citizen
Speaker 3: groups that are uh listened to them, the so called basis,
Speaker 3: you know, the the guys who used to come out
Speaker 3: with the sticks and beat beat up on the Green
Speaker 3: Movement protesters. And then you've got formal authorities, the military
Speaker 3: and and and so forth. So this is this is
Speaker 3: a regime that has tools, if you will, time of
Speaker 3: repression in addition to what it can do as a
Speaker 3: more traditional military, in addition to its its proxies. But
Speaker 3: this is a this is a system, it's been in
Speaker 3: place now for more than half a century, that has
Speaker 3: instruments of repression and coercion.
Speaker 2: Paul, I remember exactly where it was in the shock
Speaker 2: the hostages. Are you ready a country road in Pittsfield, Vermont,
Speaker 2: and a cold, cold November day walking down the road
Speaker 2: trying not to slip in my two tone Tony Lahma
Speaker 2: cowboy boots, and we were in shock. Is a nation
Speaker 2: over the failed hostage event?
Speaker 1: Yep, absolutely, Richard. Give us the point of view of
Speaker 1: Israel here. A lot of folks are saying this might
Speaker 1: be a special time for Israel to kind of reset
Speaker 1: the Middle East as it takes care of, you know,
Speaker 1: many of what it perceives to be its enemies, including
Speaker 1: obviously a Ran most recently, can Israel change its position
Speaker 1: in the Middle East or the balance of power in
Speaker 1: the Middle East?
Speaker 3: Well, I would argue Israel has much improved its strategic position,
Speaker 3: mainly through the weakening of Iran's proxies as Bola first
Speaker 3: and foremost Hamas secondarily, then through regime change what we
Speaker 3: saw in Syria. Israel has improved its position against Iran,
Speaker 3: but hasn't result. By that, I mean Iran remains hostile
Speaker 3: to Israel, has capabilities, and again we don't know how
Speaker 3: much of their nuclear components survived. For all we know
Speaker 3: a lot of them were parked in undisclosed location. So
Speaker 3: Israel is not out of the woods there, and even more,
Speaker 3: Israel's not out of the woods dealing with Gaza or
Speaker 3: with the three million Palestinians in the West Bank. And
Speaker 3: I think that's still the biggest strategic question. So Israel
Speaker 3: has the Iranian dimension and still has the Palestinian dimension
Speaker 3: very much.
Speaker 2: Richard has one final question Paul and I in our
Speaker 2: broadcast yesterday, Paul, please help me. I agree that we
Speaker 2: were thunderstruck by the acuity and concision of our Chairman
Speaker 2: of the Joint chief of Staff. I was blown away
Speaker 2: by his report. Richard Hass you're the grizzled veteran. What
Speaker 2: did you think of the press conference of our Chairman
Speaker 2: of the Joint chiefs of Staff.
Speaker 3: Tom He was impressive. General career of the head of
Speaker 3: Central Command is impressive. Let me just make a larger point.
Speaker 3: When I look at American society, I think there's two
Speaker 3: great pools of talent. One is in the American military.
Speaker 3: The professionalization there is awesome. And the other is something
Speaker 3: you guys you in boll deal with all the time,
Speaker 3: which is the best of American corporate leadership. These are
Speaker 3: people who know how to run big operations and do
Speaker 3: it in a really responsible, accountable way. So I'm not
Speaker 3: surprised when I see great talent in the military rise
Speaker 3: to the top. It is a meritocracy. These people are
Speaker 3: tested and they are responsible for large numbers of lives.
Speaker 3: So I find the post Vietnam American military is quite
Speaker 3: an extraordinary institution.
Speaker 2: Richards, thank you so much. Just send of your partners,
Speaker 2: and of course is definitive work the Council on Foreign
Speaker 2: Relations Ambassador huts Back decades to the diplomacy of a
Speaker 2: Northern Ireland solution