Transcription
I said, "This is going to be devastating for the Trump administration." I'm thinking though, because, uh, Trump's whole bit, I think, was, you know, what he was able to appeal to. He was, he was looking at the US relative decline, that is, its power in the world, its military, its economy, the, the work of, well, position of people in society, and he essentially blamed this on weak and foolish leaders. So, the weakness of Obama, the weakness of Biden, and also the foolishness of engaging in all these wars. So, the solution was essentially strength. You needed a strong man, that was Trump. He was strong, that is, you know, if he was just tough, decisive, and assertive, this is, this is essentially the medicine that will bring America, you know, make it great again. And also, his toughness would be matched with, you know, this intelligence, his high IQ, as he always said, because he wouldn't do this hard, this foolish forever wars.
And, uh, but now, you know, he went in and the rhetoric was all about, "No one else dared to do this, Trump did it," but there's a reason why no one else did it. And now, of course, he's the war president, and he did something foolish. I mean, his whole persona, his whole, the core of making America great again seems to have been damaged, and even he lost his key supporters, and you probably saw him scolding Tucker Carlson and Alex Jones, Candace Owens, Candace Owens, all of these people who had supported him when he was a peace president. So, he essentially had a lot of problems already before this war, and all these problems are now much, much worse. So, how do you think this is going to, you know, the international economy, of course, is a mess. The military defeat was an embarrassment, but what do you think it's going to do to the political situation within the United States?
Well, I think that this is all going to destroy the Trump presidency. I mean, he may remain in office all the way to the end of his term, but he's damaged goods in a truly serious way. But you want to think about sort of where we stand on the world stage today. Before this war started on February 28th, the Trump administration had already done enormous damage to America's position in the world, in large part because the president, who is the ultimate unilateralist, was wrecking international institutions, paying no attention to the rules that underpin those institutions. Uh, he was disregarding, uh, and disrespecting international law, and he was treating allies with unmitigated contempt, especially the Europeans. He was talking about invading Greenland. Uh, he was talking about making Canada the 51st state. Uh, and if you went to East Asia, the Japanese and the South Koreans, this is before February 28th, uh, had real doubts about relying on the United States for security. And of course, in the course of 2025, he had seriously damaged what had been good relations with India. US-India relations went south during 2025. So, the United States before February 28th was in real trouble in terms of its foreign policy. And what's happened since February 28th has just damaged us further.
Uh, if you look at US-European relations, uh, you think about all the damage that was done over the Ukraine war, then all the damage that was done over Greenland, and now we have the situation where President Trump is effectively trying to blame the Europeans for the fact that we can't defeat Iran. He's implying that if only the Europeans had sent their military forces, especially their navies, to the Middle East, we would have been able to break through the Strait of Hormuz, and we would have ended Iran's stranglehold on the world economy. But that didn't happen. We failed, but why did we fail? Not because of the United States, but because of the Europeans. So, if you think about US-European relations today, uh, they're terrible. Uh, and what about other countries around the world? The Japanese and the South Koreans, the Indonesians, the Indians. I mean, the United States is a world elephant. Do you want to get too close to the Trump administration? No. You want to keep your distance. So, I think in terms of our foreign policy, uh, he has, you know, done even greater damage than he did before February 28th. And I, I don't see how he digs himself out of this hole. In fact, I think if anything, uh, his behavior will become more erratic with the passage of time. This is a man who thinks he's a genius. He thinks he has the Midas touch. He thinks anything he does works out well, and he always emerges victorious. He simply is not going to make, be able to make that argument in this case. Th- th- This is not like all the previous cases that he got away with. Um, and he's therefore seriously damaged goods as president of the United States, even if he manages to shut this one down reasonably, and that remains to be seen, as we were talking about before.
And in terms of his standing here in the United States, uh, there's no way he's not going to take a huge hit politically. And you see him already, as you pointed out, uh, going after people like Candace Owens, uh, Tucker Carlson, Alex Jones. These are all people who have been big supporters of his in the past. And he's now in a major league war with them, and this is not going to help his standing. And furthermore, if you just look at what's happening inside the MAGA base, you look at what's happening with Christian evangelicals under the age of 50, uh, I think he has, uh, he has truly profound political problems at home and on the foreign policy front as well. And also it's expecting that after this disaster there was such as this instead of going [clears throat] through this process you described before, that is, having some openness, where did we go wrong, air out the trouble, you know, learning something from the mistakes. I would assume that he would seek to blame others. I guess Europeans would, NATO would be a good fall guy, and also divert attention, maybe go for a quick victory, that is, seize Cuba or Greenland, something like this. Uh, such a shift focus as quick as possible, cuz you don't want to sit around thinking about all the things or having too many debates in the country about all the things you did wrong. Uh, this can't do anything well for him, so I guess erratic behavior moving forward is a pretty reasonable prediction.
Um, but if we take a step back to the wider picture, what do you think the world will look like after this? Because, uh, uh, you and I spoke in the past about, uh, uh, the emergence of a multipolar world, that is, simply the international distribution of power suggests the concentration of power we had in the '90s is now dispersed. Now we have many centers of power. The, the fact that, well, it it looks as if this would intensify this development.
Well, I think that, uh, the United States is obviously lost this war, and that will become manifestly clear to more and more people. That's for sure. Uh, I don't think it will diminish American power. Uh, I think American power is based on material capabilities, and I, I think losing this war will not affect how much power the United States has. Uh, in making this point, I like to point to the Vietnam War. We lost the Vietnam War. It was a catastrophic defeat. Um, it was a decisive defeat, but it didn't affect American power. We remained as powerful as ever. But this is not to deny for 1 second that losing a war in Iran will have a profound impact on our ability to project that power around the world, and to influence other states in ways that are favorable to the United States. Uh, so, this really matters. So, again, I just want to be clear, we will remain as powerful as ever. And we do live in a multipolar world, as you know, Glenn. My argument is we've lived in a multipolar world since 2017. And the other two great powers on the planet are China and Russia, and they're not going away. Uh, and in fact, one could argue, uh, that they're better off as a result of this war vis-à-vis the United States. But it's not that China and Russia have become more powerful relative to the United States because of the war. I don't think that's what's happened. I think that America's ability to project power and to influence other countries has been seriously damaged, and that works to China's advantage and to Russia's advantage. In other words, just to take the Russian case, uh, the Russian economy has benefited from the United States taking sanctions off of, uh, Russia in terms of selling oil. And furthermore, the Russians have benefited from the fact that there are less weapons available for us to give the Ukrainians to fight against Russia because we're using up weapons, uh, and munitions at such a rapid pace in Ukraine. Uh, excuse me, in Iran. So, this all works to Russia's advantage. Uh, and in terms of China, right? Uh, what's happening in East Asia is that we're pulling forces out of East Asia. We're pivoting away from East Asia because we have to move forces that are physically located in East Asia to the Middle East. This works to China's advantage. It doesn't change the balance of power, but it changes our ability to contain China in East Asia. It creates a situation where allies in East Asia really don't trust us very much anymore. Uh, not only are we pivoting away from East Asia, moving military forces out of the region, but also, can you trust American judgment? Do you think that the United States is a responsible ally that will take care of you in the crunch? I think if you're Japanese, a Japanese leader, or a South Korean leader, the answer to that question is no. Uh, you can't depend on the United States the way you once thought that you could or the way that you once could. Uh, so, again, you see the damage that we have done to ourselves. And again, to go back to our discussion of the Gulf and where we end up, we may end up losing those 13 bases, never returning to them, and having much less ability to project power in the Gulf after February 28th than we had before February 28th. So, you see our power position around the world in terms of our ability to project power, influence other countries, uh, has been badly damaged. And again, I, as we were saying, as we, you and I have said on numerous occasions, we have done enormous damage to international institutions, international law, and our treatment of allies before, uh, uh, before February 28th. So, the United States is in just so much trouble.
You know, I think, uh, you know, what I'm going to say is a relative decline as you have the rise of, uh, other, other powers because if Iran could have been knocked out, that would have been, uh, something that would have weakened the Russians, the Chinese, and, uh, uh, I guess, uh, strengthened the hand of the United States. So, um, but, uh, what measuring, uh, well, the ability to project power in terms of the alliance system as well is probably also a good approach because, as you said, the Gulf states, uh, are in a very vulnerable position now. I know their rhetoric now is a bit harsh towards the Iranians, but at some point, if the US presence is expected to diminish, then they're going to have to try to make some peace with the neighbors. I would say eventually the Europeans would have to do the same. We can't fight against the Russians on our own. If the Americans will, uh, reduce their presence, we're going to have to learn how to get along with the Russians. And, uh, you know, you can say this, this is might be some of the calculations they're having in East Asia as well.
Um, on, on NATO though, this is, uh, seems to be one of the, if not a casualty, but one of the organizations which has also been hit hard by the Iran war, simply by the mutual accusations. Uh, the, how, how do you think NATO will be affected by, by the way this war ended?
Well, I think this is all disastrous for NATO. Uh, or, or to put it in slightly different terms, for transatlantic relations. And I think the main reason is that, uh, President Trump is going to need a scapegoat, um, for this disaster. And I think that, uh, the Europeans will probably be the number one scapegoat because he won't blame Benjamin Netanyahu, who is the person he should blame. And he can't really blame his advisers because none of them were enthusiastic about this. Maybe Pete Hoekstra was. Maybe they'll get rid of Pete Hoekstra. But I think what he's going to do is he's going to blame the Europeans. And he's going to make the arguments, um, that, uh, if the Europeans had anted up, uh, if they had come to our rescue, uh, we would have won the war. The reason we lost was because our allies failed us. Uh, and given that situation, uh, what we should do is basically stop supporting them. Uh, will he end the alliance? Uh, just, uh, put an end to it? Uh, I don't think so. He might. Uh, but I think that he will so seriously damage the alliance, uh, that in the end, it'll be largely meaningless.
Uh, the other thing is, Glenn, he has what? 2 years and 3 months, uh, 2 years and 9 months left in his presidency, almost 3 years left. You know how much damage he's done in the first, uh, let's say 15 months? Uh, can you imagine how much damage he's going to do in the remaining 2 years and 9 months? Uh, it's going to be enormous, right? And in the meantime, in the meantime, the Europeans have to come up with some sort of defensive strategy for dealing with the Russians. Uh, I mean, you and I think their assessment of the Russian threat is completely overblown. But the fact is, the Russian elites, I mean, excuse me, the European elites do believe there's a serious Russian threat there. Let's take that as a given. And they also recognize that they can't rely on the United States anymore. The transatlantic partnership, uh, no longer exists. Call this a partnership? It's no longer there. So, the Europeans over the next 2 years and 9 months have to figure out how to deal with this situation. And that's going to push them to put NATO in the background, uh, and not take NATO seriously. So, I find it hard to believe that NATO will be a meaningful alliance, uh, in January of 2029 when President Trump, uh, steps down.
Now, one could argue he may step down before then. He could be impeached. He could have medical problems. And J.D. Vance could become president. And who knows what Vance would do. Uh, I tend to believe that Vance, uh, would have a more positive attitude towards NATO, uh, than Trump would. But how much more positive is hard to say. We all remember his Valentine's Day speech in Munich in, uh, February of 2025. I mean, Vance didn't look like he was friendly toward Europe then. Uh, and if he became president, maybe he wouldn't be, uh, once he was in the White House. Who knows for sure? But, uh, the future of NATO looks grim, to put it mildly.
Yeah. No, it seems to be heading towards an end. But, uh, but, but by extension, what, what will all of this mean? That is, um, the [clears throat] the, the loss in the Iran war as well as, uh, all the weapons and money that was spent, the economic, uh, further economic problems for the Europeans, uh, what does this mean for the Ukraine war? Because, uh, I see Zelenskyy's been taking to Twitter and, uh, and now that the Iran war is over, uh, encouraging everyone to shift focus back to Ukraine. But, uh, it's going to be hard to see the, uh, yeah, the appetite for Trump to deepen involvement there. Or how, how do you think, well, if you know, keep taking into account all of these different variables, what would you expect? How would you expect the Ukraine war to be affected by the loss of the Iran war, but also the fragmentation that we see of NATO?
Uh, I think first of all, I wish that Zelenskyy were correct and the Iran war was over and, uh, we could now focus on Ukraine. Uh, I think we're going to be focusing on Iran, uh, for the foreseeable future. Uh, I mean, this is a catastrophic situation. Um, and, uh, with regard to Ukraine, uh, let's assume that I'm wrong and that two weeks from now, the war is effectively over. Uh, I don't think that's going to happen. But let's assume that happens. Okay. And let's assume that we focus on, uh, Ukraine. What does that mean? Are we going to give Ukraine a whole bevy of weapons, uh, that are going to allow Ukraine to, uh, prevail on the battlefield or do well on the battlefield? I think the answer is no. I don't think they're going to get those weapons. We have run down the inventory to the point where the last thing we want to do is give precious, uh, weapons and precious, uh, military assets to the Ukrainians. Just not going to happen. And with regard to the Russians, uh, we need Russian oil in global oil markets. It, we just need it, right, to head off economic catastrophe. And so the Russians are going to continue to do well economically. At least in the short term. And I'm sure the Russians are getting ready to launch a major set of offensives against the Ukrainians. And the Ukrainians, as you and I have talked about many times, are in desperate straits. And we're not in any position to rescue the Ukrainians. And this is a perfect situation for President Trump to say the Europeans are responsible. As you know, he's been pushing in that direction for a long time. So let the Europeans deal with the Ukraine situation. Because you want to understand that if people like you and I are right, Glenn, and it's only a matter of time before the Ukrainians collapse on the battlefield and the Russians push them out of Donbas, and the Russians conquer even more territory on the eastern front, President Trump is going to want to avoid being blamed for that. And he's going to want to blame the Europe, the Europeans for Ukraine's defeat. So I'm sure he, in his head, is positioning himself to create a situation where if the Ukrainians lose to the Russians and the Russians win a victory in that war, that he can say it's the Europeans' fault. We were in the fight for a long time, and as long as we were in the fight, the Ukrainians did quite well, but we could not go on forever because we had other responsibilities around the world. And by the way, in those, in terms of those other responsibilities in places like the Middle East, the Europeans would not help us. So we were in a position where we had to turn the responsibility for dealing with Ukraine over to the Europeans, and they failed. They are responsible for this defeat. So what he'll do moving forward is he'll blame the Europeans for what's happening in Ukraine, while at the same time not giving the Europeans the necessary weaponry to give to the Ukrainians to hold their own on the battlefield. And furthermore, he'll blame the Europeans for the defeat in, in Iran. I mean, this is the way President Trump operates. He's not somebody who ever accepts responsibility. So I, I think that is what the future looks like.
I think in one tweet he was able to squeeze in both blaming the Europeans for Iran and also say bye-bye to Greenland or something. So he seems to be, yeah, but preparing both of the blame game as well as a destruction, it seems. But no, this, um, well, you can see what's going to happen, I think, in, in Ukraine. It's a bit strange the Europeans aren't, uh, preparing themselves, they're not sending more weapons, but preparing themselves in terms of picking up the phone. That would be a, a good first move before this whole thing begins to, begins to unravel. Uh.