Steve Witkoff’s Critical Role in Negotiating Global Peace, and the Warmongers Trying to Stop Him

Steve, thank you so much, uh, for coming. So I think you've had one of the most, maybe the most remarkable life trajectories of anyone I've ever met, um, and you wind up, you know, close to Trump. You campaigned with Trump; you've known—I mean, you're an intimate friend of the presidents—and you could have had any job. You don't want any job, um, because you're doing your own thing. And then he taps you as a as a as a diplom—as a negotiator on behalf of him, and you wind up becoming, you know, probably the most effective negotiator in my lifetime. And you have, you know, you speak for the president. I think everyone acknowledges that you're honest, and people like you personally. So those are obviously the foundations of effective diplomacy, but what have you learned about negotiating at a, you know, on behalf of a country in the last couple of months?

[Music] [Applause] [Music] [Music] [Applause] [Music]

Well, first of all, I think, uh, uh, President Trump sets the table for all of us. He really does. This whole piece through strength, uh, thing—it's not just a slogan; it actually works. And so when he dispatches you, he, uh, to go to the Middle East, people are almost a little bit intimidated before I—before you get there. And this goes for me and, you know, other people who are doing, uh, similar jobs. So he sets the table in a pretty powerful way. But, but negotiating is is being outcome-oriented. I I talk about this a lot; it's it's figuring out where you want to get to. That's Trump's game plan all the time. I I sit with the president, and we talk often about what the endgame is. Where does he want to get to? And once you decide where you want to get to, then it's all about tactically figuring out what that pathway is. With, um, the Middle Eastern, you know, Tucker, when I first got in and I was talking to Brett McEr, who was the uh Envoy on behalf of Biden, he was a smart guy. Yes, he just didn't have a great boss giving him direction, so he couldn't really speak on behalf of, uh, of Biden. I was able to speak on behalf of Trump because we talked about it; we had a great conversation about it. He said, "This is where I want to get to, Steve." And so when I went in there, I went in with the imprimatur of the president, and it became a, you know, that's the Difference Maker. But I mean, clearly, and no one doubts that you speak for the president, that you know what the president wants, because you know the president; you talk—you actually talk to him; you're not some guy he just hired, um, and that makes a huge difference. But it also seems like you think through where the whoever you're negotiating with is coming from, like what do they want.

Well, there's no doubt I'm always trying to put myself in in the shoes of the other person, because a good deal has to work for for everybody. But I but I want to just say this: when I say I speak for the president, it's not because I presume what he what he what he's thinking. Yes, it's because I ask what he's thinking. He is the president. I'm in my job only because of him, and to me, I I give him the respect of ask—of always asking the question, "Where do you want to get to, Mr. President?" And so that that's critical. So now I know where he stands, and now it's about tactics. From the—as you talk about—from the other side standpoint, it's important for me to know or to have a feeling of where the Israelis want to get to. What about the Qataris? They're the mediators at the table. What what do they want to accomplish here? What about Hamas? Where are they? Will they really demilitarize? Is that something they'll do? Will they take the golden bridge out of Gaza? All of these considerations, but first I have to find out where the boss wants to end up, and the boss is President Trump.

It it almost feels forbidden for you to say what you just said. So what does Israel want? Obviously a critical—the key question, but there are other players. Mh, and what do they want? Mhm. And I don't know that I've heard anybody say that out loud ever—any American say that out loud—and I think you've been criticized for saying that out loud.

Well, I think it's important to recognize that that that everybody may want something. I think in the case of the Qataris, they're criticized for, uh, not being well-motivated. It's preposterous. They are well-motivated; they're good, decent people. What they want is a mediation that's effective, that gets to a peace goal. And why? Because they're a small nation, and they want to be acknowledged as as a peacemaker. And I think the president realizes that, and I realize that today. But we have to know that if they had a different agenda, it would be important for us to know that different agenda. I think if they had a different agenda, it would be fine as long as we weren't operating blind, and operating blind is really the problem in a negotiation like this. You have to know where everybody stands.

I'm just laughing because what you're saying is so obviously true; it's prerequisite to getting a deal, um, and yet it is so different from the posture that the last couple of generations of diplomats have have taken, which is like, "Here's what we want; shut up and do it." And I just don't think—leaving aside like moral considerations—I don't think that's been very effective.

Well, you know, here's an example: Gaza and and what the president, uh, set forth as what he wanted to do with Gaza. I came back from my first trip—this is before he was inaugurated—where we had permission from the Biden Administration to collaborate with them. Yes, and the president said, "When do you think Gaza can be, uh, reconstructed?" Fifteen years was my answer, maybe 20. And he said, "Why?" I said—and I gave them the battlefield conditions I was in Gaza, actually—that it's been decimated; it's been destroyed; there are tunnels underneath—so think Swiss cheese underneath—and then they got hit with bunker-buster bombs, so there's no rock there anymore; there's no place to put footings if you're going to build, uh, buildings. And yet the whole world thought that this was a 5-year reconstruction plan. And why? Because the Biden May 27th protocol, which is the operating agreement pursuant to which the ne-negotiation between Hamas and the US government and Israel happen, talks about a 5-year plan. But it's those are—that's a false set of facts. Level-setting the facts: you have to acknowledge that it's a 15- to 20-year plan. When we first started talking—15 to 20 years—everyone said that that we didn't know what we were talking about, till the Journal wrote an article and said 15 to 20 years. Yes. So, uh, the president's plan about Gaza was all about how do we how do we put people back in a battle zone where there are munitions all over the field or where there are these latent conditions, so that a kid could fall into a hole and go 40, 50, 60 feet down, and you'd never know that he that he was there. Who would who would do such a thing? If we had buildings in those conditions in New York, there would be yellow tape all around it; no one would be allowed in. So and then, of course, he got criticized for that, as if he was looking to create a beachside community with gleaming towers and, uh, and casinos. It was preposterous; he was being realistic about what Gaza needs, how you needed to consider Gaza. So I think it's really important that when you're making these decisions that you level-set the facts, and that was my instructions from President Trump: "Go out there, level-set the facts, figure out what it is, and then we'll make decisions about where we want to see Gaza going to." And I think we've got a better—we got—that's a better program. It's definitely a better program.

I mean, operating on the basis of honesty works. Yeah. So okay, can—I think the the president's goal is pretty clear; he said it many times; he campaigned on it; he was elected on it, which is: we want stability and peace in the world. It's not good for anybody when we don't have that, um, but to the extent that you understand it, and since you're one of the few people who seems willing to say it out loud, can you just describe the three the three players in the current conflict—the Middle East—the big ones? Can you go through and tell us what you think each one wants—what's their goal? So Israel, yes; Hamas, yes; and Qatar. And Qatar.

So I think Qatar is a small nation; probably has the, um, highest GDP per capita per person, right, of anyone in the world. Huge, huge reserves. I think they want stability; I think they want a peace treaty from the United States. Why? Because—and all the—and all the Middle East—all the GCC countries want—by the way, this is an interesting point—everybody thinks the peace treaty is about about physical defense; what it's really about is the United States providing a security wrapper so that they're all financeable. Today, you can't borrow money in those countries. So if you want to go do a deal in Saudi Arabia, in the UAE, JP Morgan—if they are the hypothetical bank—has to underwrite war risk; they have to underwrite, "Will the Houthis in Saudi Arabia fire in a hypersonic missile and destroy that AI data center that you just bought for $200 billion?" That's a real problem. So a lot of these countries want defense treaties so that they're not just building out of their pocket; they're taking their oil money, and they're actually leveraging it and creating a better economy, uh, long term. So I think the Qataris want stability, and they don't get enough credit for for that motivation. It's a good motivation for their people. Amen. So there—but they're often accused—why—almost universally accused in the US media of being agents of Iran. Yeah, it's collabor—it's preposterous. They are—look, they're a Muslim nation, uh, in the past they've had, um, some views that are a little bit more, um, uh, radical, y, um, from an Islamist standpoint than they are today, but it's moderated quite a bit. Yeah, there there's no doubt that they're an ally of the United States; there's no doubt about that. They have a huge air base there. I mean, you—by the way—and they pay for every dollar of it; they don't have their hand out for a thing. There is nothing that the United States has to fund with regard to that air base. That's pretty unusual.

It's amazing, right? So they fund everything; they don't ask for much. I think I had a conversation with General Killa—Eric Killa—who runs CENTCOM—an amazing man—and I said to him, "What do you think the—" He says, "They're special people." So the people in the know know—know that that that they're good, decent people. What does Hamas want? Well, I think they want to stay there till the end of time, and they want to rule Gaza. Yes, and that's unacceptable. So we have to know that—we had to know what they wanted. What they want is unacceptable. What's acceptable to us is they need to demilitarize; then maybe they could stay there a little bit, right, be involved politically, but they can't be involved—we can't have a terrorist organization running running, uh, uh, Gaza, because that won't be acceptable to Israel. Then we'll just have the same exact experiences every every five, 10, 15 years; we're going to have an October 27th. Yes, October 7th, pardon me. So that's what Hamas wants; that that's not possible.

What do they like to deal with? I've never really—I've never been in in, um, in the same room as them, um, which is a little bit weird, wouldn't you say? Like a negotiation where you don't have the other party—like you you don't even know if if the guy behind the wall is The Wizard of Oz or he's not The Wizard of Oz, right? So, uh, so how do you—I mean, without you know, giving away anything you can—I think you—we trust the Qataris. If if I didn't trust the Qataris, then that would be really problematic—not meeting with Hamas. And of course, you know, we read—so you can communicate with Hamas through the Qataris, right? And Sheikh Muhammad, the prime minister of Qatar, is a good man; he's really—certainly is a—he's a special guy; he really is. And he cares, and I've spent a lot of time with him and broken bread with him, and he's he's just a good, decent human being who who wants what's best for his people. But also, like like you were alluding to before, he's able to put himself in the shoes of the Israelis, of the United States States, and I think explain to the Qataris—excuse me—explain to Hamas where they're going to have to get to to make a deal. And do—I mean, from an American perspective, like it's it's just hard to even understand what Hamas is thinking, or do you—but it's essential to understand. I mean, just as a procedural matter, we need to know. Correct.

So, um, is it hard for you to understand? Like, do you feel like you can effectively communicate with them, even through proxy, and understand what they want and what their, you know, what their red lines are or whatever? Help—can you negotiate with them?

Well, it's hard. You know, I'll I'll give you an example of what makes it hard. I went to Gaza, and then, uh, I had this fabulous lunch with CENTCOM people—you military guys. I shook hands of everybody I met, cuz who doesn't want to shake the hand of these guys who were out in the field, you know? They they they protect our country, um, I'm talking about our military guys. And then they showed me—this is Southern Command of Israel—then showed me a film of what happened on October 7th. Y, and the film is horrific. Yes, it is about, uh, mass rapes. Yeah, there's pictures of, uh, of Hamas, uh, people cutting the head off of an Israeli soldier. I watched them—saw the head off. I mean, it's it's really terrible stuff, and, um, it's beyond what I've ever seen, and it can taint you, right? It can it can taint the way you're going—going to, you know, the way you're going to, um, feel about these people. And I think sometimes as a as a, um, negotiator, you have to be dispassionate. Yes, it's not easy to be to, uh, to, um, to make decisions if you're going to. But I had to see that film, Tucker. I mean, that film is a reality. I mean, we can't ignore the reality of what happened on October 7th. Right now, they would tell you that they've got justification, but there's no justification for what happened that day. There just—what—there just isn't. And unfortunately, there were security lapses that day that shouldn't have happened, that accentuated what happened that day. Yes, which shouldn't have happened. But, um, do we understand that? I think we understand that there was security lapses, that there was some mistakes that were made. Yes, but we're humans; we're not robots, right? We're not—we're not, you know, we're not completely overwhelmed by AI right now. So people will make mistakes; there were intelligence mistakes. But, um, but there's some really good people who were involved, uh, here. I, you know, I met some—I met some exceptional people in Israel. I mean, really some exceptional people who—yes—and it's a difficult situation. But, um, I think you have to know what Hamas wants, just to go back to your question. Yes, and then you've got to figure out what you can give them that allows them to walk out, because that's what's needed here. You know, what we heard in the beginning of this conflict is: Hamas is ideological; they're prepared to die for a whole variety of reasons. I personally—and I talk to the president about this—there's nothing I don't talk to the president about before we're going to make a decision. Yes, because he's he's he is the guy. Yes, he was elected; I was not; none of the other people were; he was elected. And I think that's how we have to function. With that said, I said to him, "I don't think that they they are as ideologically locked in; they're not ideologically intractable." I don't—I I never believe that, by the way. I believe they strap on the suicide vest onto young kids who don't know what they're doing, right, and they tell them a story. And once you understand that—once you understand that they wanted to live—then you were able to talk to them in a more effective way.

Smart. Smart. That is—that is smart. Um, but it's—how hard was it to come to that conclusion? I, you know what? I get a lot of intelligence reports, so I'm able to read things, and it just felt to me that the rhythm and the cadence of the negotiation—that's part of it, too, right? If I'm not there all the time, I'm getting secondhand information. I had to feel it for myself; I had to be able to sort of live it in in, um, in, uh, in real time. And that's when I I sort of came to the conclusion that they wanted alternatives. We're in a negotiation right now to maybe stop some of these Israeli strikes and maybe finish this conflict with dialogue. And if I don't have a feeling that, uh, that we can accomplish that, why would I waste my time or the United States' time, or—and worse yet—why would I put the—why would I come to the president—recommend to him that we could finish something with dialogue and then effectively we can't, and then we can't be that effective? That's a that's a bad policy prescription if if if I'm not in this thing making those sort of assessments and being able to come back to the president and say, "I think we can finish it with dialogue or not." It's—and those, by the way, those calculations are going to be the same with the Iranians, and they're going to be the same with the Russians and the Ukrainians, and they're going to be the same with Azerbaijan and Armenia. So it—those principles apply to all of these conflicts that that, uh, that that we're going to maybe talk about today. So it's not a conspiracy theory. It turns out to say there's fraud in the government, whether it's mysterious 150-year-olds cashing checks or dead people on the voter rolls—the system is filled with fraud, and its perpetrators are slipping through the cracks. Who's protecting you exactly? Unless you're actively monitoring your personal data, you are leaving yourself and your family exposed. Data hawks are constantly looking for ways to exploit your information, which is why we recommend Identity Guard. Identity Guard's real-time alerts let you know if your information—whether it's your social security number, your phone number, anything—is under attack; someone's trying to grab it on the internet, so you know before they can. And when you need help, you'll not be stuck with frustrating, inhuman phone bots. "Hello, man, I help you," says a computer. Identity Guard's US-based customer care team is available at all times, 24/7—real people who will help you. With Identity Guard, you get $1 million in identity theft insurance; you get monitoring for your social security number, bank and investment accounts, home and auto titles, and more. And it's cheap. Identity Guard is offering a 30-day free trial plus over 60% off to this show's listeners. Go to identityguard.com/tucker to claim this deal. Sign up before your identity is stolen and the damage is done. identityguard.com/tucker.

I'm just going to say this for a third time—I won't keep repeating myself—but that's just such a different way of looking at the conflict, not just in Gaza, but in all the places you just mentioned—acknowledging that, you know, we're on—we're sympathetic to one side, but both sides have an interest, and like, reason can still play a role in this negotiation—can play a role; dialogue can play a role. I I just—I I haven't heard anybody say that in so long. And you've taken an enormous amount of abuse—I don't even know if you're aware of it because you're always on an airplane—but like, in US media, um, and social media, attacking you as like an agent of all kinds of different foreign powers—"He's working for Hamas; he's working for the Qataris"—he's like—does that penetrate it all?

You know, in the beginning, I didn't like it. Yeah, I bet. But, um, one night I was reflecting on what someone told me after my, uh, my son Andrew died, and they said to me, "You're never going to have a bigger hit than that in your life—losing a child. It's a bad club to be a member of." Oh, there's nothing—nothing worse—nothing worse. And then I began to get like President Trump—not caring what people said. I'd wake up in the morning, read the paper, they—I'd read some sort of explanation about why I said something or did something, and it was preposterous, Tucker—just preposterous. So one day, what's that movie? There was some movie where, um, they kept—won the Academy—I can't remember the name—I just stopped caring. Yes, I just stopped caring about what the news media—news media said about me. So I—it—I I've experienced a little bit of this myself—nothing compared to what you've just experienced—but it does seem like some of these criticisms of you are not actually sincere; nobody really thinks you're like pro-Hamas or working for the Qataris. But the point is to throw you off balance and to sort of put a leash around your neck and and control you.

No doubt, right? That's the agenda; that's the agenda. No doubt. And it seems to have had no effect—from all sides—from all sides, of course.

Oh, absolutely. I I had a—I've had a couple of experiences where first I was attacked as being pro—pro-Qatar sympathizer. By the way, Qatar is a mediator here; not—they're not a party to the conflict; they're a mediator. And by the way, mediated all over the world—no different than the Swiss and the Norwegians. They've mediated in Russia; they've mediated in Afghanistan—God bless them—I know—and they've done an effective job; they're they're good at it. So I am—how could I not collaborate with the mediator? And and and be—if I'm not collaborating with the mediator, I'm bound to be ineffective; it's not even possible that I could, um, that I could do the job. I had to know everything that they knew, so that means collaboration. And that's how President Trump operates, too. You know, I learned the business from from him; I I went into the business because of him—the real estate business—and this is his ethos; this is how he operates. And so I'm really following him in a in in a certain respect. I didn't really—you—into—that's—so I didn't know—I knew you'd known him forever. I didn't know that.

Oh, no. I wanted to be him, by the way. Everybody wanted to be him. He'd come to 101 Park Avenue where I was a lawyer; he had this swashbuckling style. I used to—I used to see him come in, and I used to say, "God, I want to be him. I don't want to be—I don't want to—I don't want to be the lawyer; I don't want to be the scrivener; I want to be that man." Yeah, I can remember saying that. Yeah, he was—he was like the Michael Jordan to me, you know, of the real estate business. It's incredible—the turns your life has taken; it's just incredible. When you have a chance to sort it out—when all this is over—I think you're going to look at your own life and say, "Well, that was amazing."

Well, I've been blessed. I mean, it used to be that I couldn't use the word blessing because because of my boy. Yes, but of his death. But now I can say I was blessed, but for this overwhelming tragedy. And I think my son, Tucker, allows me to be—to have this sense of—I I relate to a lot of the hostage families. You know, many of these families are never going to get their children back. Yes, their children's—their children have e-either been killed or may in fact get killed if we don't successfully get to a peace program in in Gaza. So I think that, um, this, um, sense of, um, sensitivity or empathy that I have—I can relate to them. They all have my telephone numbers; I talk to them, uh, on a daily basis. And I think that's been a big, um—it's been a big help for them. But interestingly enough, it's been a big help for me. I believe that. And I talked to the president about this. I had hostage families in the Oval Office the other day. The president was tired, and he said to me, "BR—they"—he knew they were at my office—and he said, "Bring them up; let me, you know, at least say hello to them and, uh, and and get connected to them. But but let them know I only have a couple of minutes," because it was a hectic day. He spent an hour and a half with them, talked to every one of them, gave them his challenge coin—every one of them—listened to their stories—people who talked about children who might not come home. Many of them—many of these people were captives themselves—hostages. You know, it's a very, um, real experience when when—and you sit there and you listen to what it was like—some of these people lived in cages, were were were chained 24 hours a day, had, you know—we talked about what what it was like to find a bathroom, right, or or what it was like to live in the dark or to be starving to death, you know, as some of them were, or to have watched people be murdered. And the president—as a president—he doesn't have to do that if he doesn't want to; he could sort of get the information just from me. But he's—it's it's up-close and personal for him, and that way of doing things guides people like me who work for him. Now, I want to get up—up close and personal—that's why I went to Gaza. I was the first US official to go to Gaza in 22 years. But how would you implement a peace deal if you didn't go to the place where the peace deal was being implemented? I mean, it's curious, right? Like, who would not—who would try to get—who would get—try to get a peace deal done and then the imp—it's all in the implementation. So what what the contract says—what the writing says—now we have to figure out the the the battlefield conditions. Nobody had been there; it's it's kind of crazy.

Well, it is crazy, and it's connected to what you've been saying, uh, for the last 20 minutes, which is: you have to understand all sides if you want to affect the outcome that you've decided you want. And correct. Yes. But again, that's a revolutionary, uh, development in American diplomacy, um, and I just am thrilled to see it. So finally, the biggest player in all of this, of course, is the government of Israel, um, what do they want? What is the government of Israel—leaving aside the population of Israel—I have no idea—but what is the government making these decisions want?

Well, I think that's complicated, um, I think they're well-motivated; I think they they, uh, there are things that they're trying to get done. You know, as an example, we would not be as effective in what we're doing there if Bibi did not get Hezbollah out of the picture in Lebanon; if he did not decapitate—because he's effectively decapitated Hezbollah; if he did not do what he did with Hamas—he's decapitated Hamas. Hamas is nowhere close to the terrorist organization that they were beforehand. Both of those, um, events inform on our on his relationship with Iran and Iran continuing to use proxies and so forth; they're less prone to do those sorts of things today, right? And so that that sort of Iranian crescent or that Islamist crescent that everybody thought was was, uh, was going to be effective—it's it's been largely eliminated. So he's he's done an exceptional job with that. But of course, the rap he gets is that he's more concerned about the fight than he is about the hostages. I think in some respects, um, I I understand how people make that assessment, but I don't necessarily agree with it, uh, I think that he does want to get hostages home if he can, but he believes that that, um, pressur—pressuring, uh, Hamas is the only way to do it. I think in some respects, he's…

Right, look at the nuances here, the changes that happen there on a day-to-day basis. We were in at the Arab Summit a week and a half ago. We made a proposal to the uh, to Hamas. They considered it; they rejected it the next day. We thought it was unacceptable that they rejected it. Three days later, the Israelis went in. Guess what? They’re talking again. Stuff changes there, Tucker, um, um, hour to hour. Uh, you really have to stay on top of it. I think Bibi feels that he’s doing the right thing. I think he goes up against public opinion, mostly because public opinion there wants those hostages home. That’s what public opinion in Israel, in Israel, yeah. You don’t get that sense, I don’t think, from American media, but Israel has always been, you know, there’s been a robust debate since, you know, I started going to Israel. You know, they have a very vigorous debate internally about their government, like, like it’s, you know, people feel free to say.

I went to I went to Hostage Square, and I went with a detail, and my guys were afraid for me to get out there. Were I don’t know, four or five thousand people there, and I we were passing by, and I and I said, “Let’s stop.” You know, it was there was no plan to go there. Let’s stop. We didn’t have a lot of security with us. I knew it was going to be fine. I knew it. I came in there; I spent almost an hour there. It was spiritual. All the families were there; hostages who had been released were there; people were crying. It looks like getting this has infected uh, Israel. It’s it’s it’s fractured Israel. It’s like a seam cutting right through the soul of the country. We’ve got to get these people back. I I talked to, by the way, I talked to Bibi about it. I talked to Durmer about it, but you know, they also have a view strategically about Hamas, how they have to be dealt with. I’m not sure I in some respects there are times that I we agree with each other; there are times we slightly disagree, but I think they’re well-motivated is is is my point.

And our policy is that Hamas cannot cannot continue to exist here. That’s the president’s policy, and I’m a I’m a I’m a, you know, I’m someone who follows the president um, because he’s the one who got elected, and and I believe in his policy, and he got elected on I think a pretty clear vision of how he wanted to manage the world, to the extent that we can. And again, it was, you know, and no more chaos, and to the extent you can avoid it, no more wars. Y and Americans really responded to that, and the world understands that, like everyone kind of knows that’s the agenda. And you said many times we talk through what we want the outcome to be before we begin the tactical considerations. I just in my travel um, there are a lot of Gulf countries that are um, you know, have extensive, very much more than people understand, relations with Israel. MH Some have signed the Accord; others haven’t, but they all deal with the Israelis all the time. They’re not hostile to the Israelis, but not one person I’ve spoken to understands what the long-term vision is, like what’s the plan here, what are we, you know, if you get everything you want, what does it look like?

Right? Do you understand it? Well, I understand we have to have that notion. I understand that we have to be outcome-oriented. What what would be how we’re operating myopically if we if we’re not outcome-oriented? If we don’t I mean, peace, stability. The Gulf Coast could be one of the most undervalued opportunities if we get peace and stability throughout the region; if we solve Iran, and you can finance in that market. The Israelis are brilliant from a technological standpoint; they’ve got a huge technological um, uh, indust a base there. Yes, uh, they’re in AI, robotics, blockchain. That’s where the UAE is today. I know that’s where Saudi Arabia is today; that’s where Qatar is today. Can you imagine all these countries working collaboratively together and creating that type of market? It could be much bigger than Europe. Europe is dysfunctional today. Imagine if they became functional, and everybody’s a business guy there. It could be amazing. Completely agree. I think the core question is the map. You know, for thousands of years, it’s been about the land. What does the map look like? Who controls what? And it’s clearly had a destabilizing effect on some of the poorer, more populated countries, in specifically Jordan and Egypt. 100 million people in Egypt um, I think it might be helpful for everybody if there was just a clear picture of, when this is all done, here’s what we want the map to be, and then we can debate that.

Do you have any sense of what the map would look like from Israel’s perspective? When you say the map, you mean what what countries uh, well what, okay, so Israel’s moved into Lebanon and Syria. Those they’re not part of Israel, but they control them. So when all this is over, what does the Israeli government hope to control? And then if that were clear, then I think people would say, you know, they could either live with it or they can’t, but you could it would have a calming effect if people knew what the goal was. So I would say the goal begins with how do we deal with Iran. That’s the biggie. Yeah, so the first is nuclear. We cannot have that, right? And and we can talk about it in this session, how how bold it was for the president to send that letter, because many would not, and that’s an important thing, but but I’ll leave it to the end. So the it begins with Iranian nuclear, but most importantly, because Iranian nuclear, if they were to have a bomb, that would create North Korea in the GCC. We cannot have that. North Korea, where they are, has outsized influence as a very small nation. We can never allow someone to have a nuclear weapon and have outsized influence. That doesn’t work.

So if we can solve for that, which I’m hopeful that we can, and we can talk about that too, yes, the next thing we need to deal with Iran is that the they being a benefactor of these proxy armies, because we’ve proven that that’s not existential. We they for all intents and purposes destroyed Hezbollah, so they’re not really exist an existential risk. Hamas, same thing. The Houthis, we’re having, you know, we’re in a conflict with them today. I think we’ll prove that they won’t be an existential risk either, but if we can get these terrorist organizations eliminated as risks, not existential, but still risks, they’re destabilizing risks, then we’ll normalize everywhere. I think Lebanon could normalize with Israel, literally normalize, meaning a peace treaty with the two countries. That’s really possible. Syria too. The indications are that al-Assad is a different person than he once was, and people do change. You at 55 are completely different than when than how you were at at 35. That’s for sure. And I say to myself, I’m a different person today at 68 years old. I’m I’m not the person I knew 30 years ago. So maybe al-Assad in Syria is a different guy. They’ve driven Iran out. Imagine if Lebanon normalizes, Syria normalizes, and the Saudis sign a normalization treaty with Israel, because there’s a peace in Gaza. They must have that as a without question as a prerequisite, that’s a conditioned precedent to Saudi normalizing. But now you’d begin to have a GCC that all work together. I mean, that would be it would be epic, it would be, and I think it’d be good for the world um, for sure it would be good for the world, because Europe is dying unfortunately, and so the United States needs allies abroad, and those are those are all potential allies. Well, they are allies already.

I couldn’t agree with you more. I and remember, Tucker, one more thing, as a as a condition in that region, you have young leadership. You have young leadership in MBS; you have relatively young leadership in the UAE; you have relatively young leadership, new leadership in Qatar, people who who don’t have the old sensibilities, people who want to have want to do business, who realizes like Trump’s way is people vote their pocketbook, right? So he wants to bring the bacon home to the United States. I think everybody’s bought into that over in the GCC. I agree. I mean, we’re reverting to like human nature. People want stability and prosperity. For sure. Correct. But looming over all of these countries and their remarkable success, both economically and socially, they’re just like great countries uh, in my opinion um, is this is, you know, is the conflict in Gaza, and not just Gaza, but the idea that wow, this could all blow up tomorrow because we don’t know what the Israeli plan is, and even people who should know don’t seem to know. And do you think at some point they will articulate, like, “Here’s our plan”?

I think so. First of all, I think that the president, President Trump’s um, approach to Gaza has engendered a lot of um, lively discussion about different ways to deal with Gaza. We’re now seeing an Egyptian plan; we’re seeing us the Saudis put together a white paper. So I think what we’re going to do with Gaza is going to become much more apparent over the next uh, six to twelve months. But Gaza is a flashpoint, and we got to figure that out. And I agree with the president when he said the old plans don’t work. The old plans, the last 40, 50 years of policy prescription in in Gaza meant war, rebuild, more war, more rebuilding. It just that’s not something that made any made any sense, and which is why the president began to say, maybe we need to think about it in a different way. Now we got criticized for it, because that’s what happens when you begin to go up against uh, you know, the old way of thinking, and you you want to sort of um, introduce a new way of thinking. Well, a new way of thinking is definitely needed, and I think everybody realizes that. So we’re not positive if cryptocurrency is the future of finance, but we do know that what we have now is broken and dangerous. Debt has never been higher in this country. Many of our so-called leaders are getting rich serving you. It’s a scam. So where does it go? Well, thankfully, there are options. Donald Trump has said repeatedly he wants the United States to be the crypto capital of the world. He’s already created the crypto advisory council and recently signed an executive order to establish a Bitcoin strategic reserve. This could give normal people an alternative to the government’s failing system and frankly to the US dollar. I’m not saying put all your money outside the US dollar, but like don’t be crazy, don’t be stupid here. You can see where it’s going. So the people at I Trust Capital can help you get in to this. It’s complicated for people who aren’t following it; they make it easy. They’re based 100% in the United States of America. We looked into this; they service only American investors, and they operate the only platform that allows you to buy and sell crypto 24/7, both inside and outside of your tax-advantaged IRA, and it all happens on one easy-to-use dashboard. They also operate a closed-loop system, meaning that bad actors can’t access your account and steal your money. So if you’re considering adding Bitcoin, if you want to, or some other cryptocurrency to your portfolio, I Trust can be trusted, and it’s easy to understand. Itrustcapital.com or click the link below.

One question, I don’t know if it’s answerable. I’ve just noticed it. I was talking to some um, some Israeli government people yesterday, and so here you have, you know, October 7th, obviously traumatic to Israel um, but you get the destruction of the leadership of Hamas; you expelled, you broke Hezbollah; Nasrallah is dead. No one ever I was there for the 2006 war; no one ever thought that was going to happen. I didn’t anyway. That happened, and Bashar al-Assad’s gone from Syria, and there’s a more kind of pro-Israel al-Assad uh, leader in Syria. So that seems like, from an Israeli perspective, those seem like massive wins that nobody thought were were possible, and yet I detect in the people I know in Israel a feeling like they feel more under threat almost. Do you feel that? Well, I think, you know, I go to Israel quite often, and I think there’s a feeling of, with some, when does the violence end? At what point have we had enough of it? And I think that’s the issue. And you know, maybe the Israeli government needs to do. Look, I understand where they’re coming from; they they’re they’re their central premise or thesis is that Hamas cannot be allowed right to live on um, and and and I think we’re talking about now demilitarizing. That’s the big thing. I don’t think anyone has a has a feeling that you can just sort of kill off uh, Hamas. It’s an idea, right? That’s that’s what Hamas is about; it’s an ideological idea, but they can’t be allowed to ever again ferment um, alongside of the Muslim Brotherhood, alongside of Islamic Jihad. These are all groups that are operating in Gaza today. We just can’t have an October 7th ever again. Now October 7th was like 9/11, what what 9/11 was in the United States, October 7th was the Israeli’s version of. But what’s interesting is it happened at exactly the moment that it felt like things were on track to get better. I mean, Abraham Accords have been signed; Saudi didn’t sign, right? But you know, there was some thought that they might. I think I mean it was and so like the trajectory was like that, and all of a sudden it just went in the opposite direction. And so then the question becomes, well, like how do you ensure how do you build a framework where there’s like enduring peace, and everyone can just go on with living their lives and building their businesses and all that? Well, we’re going to need a very good plan on Gaza. That’s it’s going to begin with that. We’re going to need stability on Gaza. Stability on Gaza could mean mean some people come back; it could mean some people don’t come back, but I believe we have to get to a place where people can live a better life in Gaza, and we have to have a plan for that that involves housing, but it also involves these people’s aspirations. Where are they? Where what is going to happen for their children? Are their children children like our children? You want better for your kids; I want better for my kids; I want them to have um, to go and get an education, to to be self-sufficient. I don’t think Gazan people have ever really felt that way about. We have felt that way. No, they don’t; they don’t; they don’t have that opportunity for their families. We have to give them that opportunity or find pathways for them to pursue those opportunities. That’s what President Trump was talking about when he talked about a new way of thinking about Gaza. So and we’re going to we’re going to attempt to um, you know, to ascertain different development plans for Gaza. Could involve the word two-state; could not involve the the word to. What about that? You don’t hear that anymore. I mean, for my whole life, the the stated aspiration was a Palestinian state, like an actual state, and then the debate was over what it would look like and who controls the utilities and airports and all that stuff, but lots of details to hammer out. But man, I haven’t in the past five or six, ten years, heard anybody in authority even mention it, because when you use those words, yeah, it’s like it’s like a flashpoint, right? So I use the word; I could be attacked for it. To me, it’s just a word, right? What what two-state to me means is, how do we have a better living prescription for Palestinians who were living in Gaza? Let’s get it; let’s get to that place. But it’s not just about housing; maybe it’s about AI coming there; maybe it’s about hyperscale data centers being seeded into that area, because we need to have that, and these people can now take advantage, and we can create jobs for them there. Maybe it’s about blockchain and robotics coming there; maybe it’s about pharmaceutical manufacturing coming there. We need we can’t rebuild Gaza and it be based on a welfare system. We have to give people prospects, economic and financial prospects. That’s exactly right. You have to treat them like human beings, adults, you know, where they have nothing interesting um, so you think by saying two-state, I mean, that’s a controversial thing to say now. M, yeah um, but obviously you don’t care um, so do you think the ceasefire that you, on the president’s behalf, got the ceasefire, that was my read anyway, you went to Israel and said the president wants this, and and you got it um, but then it ended. What are the prospects now? What do you think happens next?

Well, let me say this: we got it because they didn’t want to defy him. He’s a bad guy to defy. The Israelis? No. President Trump. No. But the Israelis did not want to defy Trump, but not just the Israelis; it was the Israelis, it was Hamas, it was Qatar wanting, you know, everybody had to know that we needed to to to pull in the right to pull in the same way, and we got there was a lot of miscommunication in that deal. Lots. We we cleaned up the miscommunication; that was the game plan. And uh, but it was the president’s his sort of overarching personality it and and in and and letting everybody know that o that success was not an option; it had to be; it was a it was a mandate. And that’s that’s how we got to that place. I mean, it would take me a ten-hour interview to explain to you the ins and outs of how we actually got there, but I can’t even imag but the story was that you just kind of rolled in and said, “Here’s what we’re doing; this what the president wants.” Well, that’s what he would do. Yeah, so that’s what I did, because that’s what he would do. He would roll in and say, “This is unacceptable; this is what we need to have happen,” and that’s effectively what I did. I, by the way, why not? Why why reinvent the wheel? Why not copy the master? He’s the master. Yeah, so why not copy the strategy? It’s worked effectively. When I saw uh, you do that on his behalf, my first thought was, “Why didn’t the Biden people do this?” I mean, they they lost for a lot of reasons, but one of the reasons they lost was the ongoing Gaza conflict, and that alienated a ton of their voters. I mean, that was a crisis for them. You know, Muslims in southeast Michigan voted for Trump in part because of that. Y and like a lot of them did. Never thought I’d live to see that. And Orthodox Jews voted for him too, which was like amazing. So why didn’t and they knew it was hurting them. Why didn’t they do that? Because Joe Biden is not Donald Trump. It’s as simple as that. So you think about it, when his policymakers walked into the Oval Office, were they going to get that sort of direct mandate from him? And my I was not there, so so this is just a a thesis. My bet is not I walk into the Oval Office uh, uh, Tucker. It’s purposeful; that’s what it feels like. We’re there to get solutions uh, uh, to agree on solutions, and then to decide on how tactically we’re going to get to that place. That’s what we do. We sit in the Oval Office. I could be sitting there with Susie, WS, John Radley, Mike Waltz, the um, uh, uh, Secretary of State, Marco Rubio. I mean, exceptional human beings um, Tulsi Gabbard and yeah, we have some fun together, because it’s a very tight-knit team. I he’s got he’s got a great team this year uh, uh, you know, that he’s put into place this year, and hopefully they’ll all be there for the entire term, but um, we’re there to be solution-based, and it’s a collaborative conversation with with the president. Le in the conversation, he’s interested in a lot of different opinions, which I think is the you know, underscores what a great leader he is. He’s not um, he’s not stuck on a view; he’s prepared to consider different things. I think that makes him a great leader. I think people have that misconception about him, that you know, he wakes up in the morning, and you know, this is the way it’s going to be. No, he listens; he’s intent on understanding different viewpoints. That’s for sure. He’s prepared to be flexible in his thinking. I think that’s what comes from a lifetime of experience, and I think it’s a great example to all of us who work for him, because we go out with that way of thinking too, for the most part.

Do you do you think there’s a hope for a cessation of violence in Gaza, like soon? I do. I do. I mean, I’m not at liberty at this moment to talk about. I bet you’re not. But I think there have been signs. I think um, the Israelis going in is in some respects unfortunate, and in some respects falls into the had to be um, uh, U uh, bucket. It it kind of had to be. Hamas was not responding; they were not, and what and their responses were unreasonable, and I you know, look, I warned um, I warned everybody at the Arab Summit. We we we presented a proposal at the Arab Summit uh, ten days ago or two weeks ago that was reasonable, that was a bridge to get to a peace deal, a bridge to get to demilitarization of Hamas and a discussion about an enduring truce. That’s what I was presenting ten days ago, and Hamas uh, their their reaction was uh, completely inappropriate. Oh, that’s inappropriate is probably a light word, but um, I warned everybody that uh, this was going to this was going to result in some sort of military action, not because I know I did not know before the Israelis went in. I just sensed that that was going to be the only alternative based on Hamas’s reaction. Now that may not we may be able to reverse things. Well, we may use this; we may be able to use this to get Hamas to be a whole lot more reasonable, because they have a lot of sway there, and they impose that sway at the point of a gun, which is why we have to demilitarize them. We need real elections in in in Gaza. There has to be a whole new way of thinking. We need a real security force there to ensure to Israel that they’re not going to have a problem with them long-term. If Israel thinks they’re going to have a problem in Gaza because Hamas is going to be there long-term, this is never going to end. So the only way to deal with this conflict is to make sure that we satisfy uh, um, everybody that we’re not going to have we’re not we’re never going to have an October 7th ever again.

There is huge concern, as I know you know, from a lot of the neighboring countries, that the conflict in Gaza, which is of course streamed in everyone’s iPhone, a lot of people have been killed in Gaza, a lot of kids, and that’s inflaming the populations of some of these countries, again, specifically Egypt and Jordan, to such a point that those governments could fall and cause like massive chaos, including in Europe um, is that a factor as that that worry is that a factor in? Factor. It’s a a huge factor um, I think King Abdullah in uh, in Jordan has done an amazing job, amazing job of figuring out how to um, how to deal with that instability, but you know, in some respects he’s been lucky. I think Egypt is a flashpoint. All the good that happened in the aun election because of Nasrallah and Sinwar uh, being eliminated, that could all be reversed if we lose if we lose Egypt. What happened in Syria was a huge was a huge data point for the region. I mean, getting him out, uh, Assad was was a big deal, and no one ever expected it. But Egypt is has a very restive uh, I I I want to say the stats in Egypt are um, huge unemployment among, you know, under 25, like 45% unemployment. Your country can’t exist like that. That um, they’re largely broke; they need a lot of help. If we have a if we have a bad uh, event in uh, in Egypt, it could be uh, it could take us back. And Saudi Arabia also large, you know, I mean, he’s an amazing leader, MBS, but uh, but people are worried about his young population and how they’re looking at this whole thing, which is why we’ve got to solve Gaza, because if we solve Gaza, which is the conditioned precedent to Saudi normalizing, then Saudi can normalize, and if they normalize, we’re we’re building on the framework of uh, of um, the Abraham Peace Accords, which of course is the um, president’s creation. He wants the Abraham Peace uh, Accords to be augmented um, and we’re in the process of doing it. We think we’re going to be announcing several new countries who are joining. So um, would it’s it feels like I don’t know, I’m not there, but it feels like there’s some significant unrest in Turkey. Yeah, and this being driven by this being driven by what’s happening in Syria, which of course Turkey participated in the Erdogan is seen by some in his country as a tool of Israel or what? What I mean, if if you had like real problems in Turkey, that would be like a global disaster, of course, because they’ve got this massive military. Is there a lot of concern about that? Well, I think there was, but I think the president had a great conversation with uh, Erdogan uh, a couple of days ago, really transformational, I would describe it. I mean, it’s I think it’s gone; I think it’s been underreported, to tell you the truth um, and I think it’s underreported because of the Houthis, because of what happened with Israel, and because of what’s going on with Russia-Ukraine. It’s not really, you know, a headline, but I think um, Tom Barrack, who’s the ambassador there, has done an will do an exceptional job. I think the president has a relationship with Erdogan, and that’s going to be important, and I think that um, there’s there’s there’s some good coming; there’s some just a lot of good, positive news coming out of Turkey right now as a result of that conversation. So I think you’ll see that in the reporting in the coming days. Good. So if you don’t mind, I I’d love to. So here’s the timeline, as I understand it as an observer. So you go over; you deliver the president’s message; there is a ceasefire in Gaza, which as you’ve said five times is a prerequisite to a lot of other things, like it’s hard to do anything with this open wound. So you do that, and the president says, “Wow, Steve Mnuchin, my friend from the real estate business, like you’re really good at this,” sends you to Russia. MH Is is that fair? It’s not so far from the truth. Yeah, right. So it’s like I’m watching this, because I knew you before, and I was like, “This is the most amazing thing I’ve ever seen.” I’m cheering you, by the way um, where are we there with that conflict? Would you say?

I think we’ve made more progress. Again, by the way, look, I could, Tucker, it I’m not just saying it; every solution comes as a result of President Trump, and and and I don’t get paid to say that. I say it because it is the absolute truth. Putin’s got a huge respect for the president, and you know, you you saw what happened in the Oval Office with Zelensky and the president, right? When I mean, just like disrespecting him is uh, is is not a uh, is not a healthy way to have to have a good relationship. The arrogance of small countries. It’s like, “Get some perspective. I mean, come on. How can you imagine acting like that?” And and they’re dependent on us, and and and we’ve been so good to them. I know. And I think that’s but but look, that’s been corrected, and that’s a that’s a really good thing. It got corrected, and hopefully we’ll chalk it up to a misunderstanding, and we’ll get to the and we’ll get to a peace solution here, but I believe that we have made more progress in Russia in the in Russ in this Russian-Ukraine conflict in the last eight weeks than anyone thought we could we would ever uh, make. I hear people describe this last conversation that the president had with uh, with uh, President Putin as uh, you know, unsuccessful. It’s preposterous. By the way, we talked throughout a two-hour conversation about an ultimate ceasefire, and there are conditions.

That the Russians will need for an ultimate ceasefire, because an ultimate ceasefire is complicated. There’s KK, where Ukrainian troops are surrounded—fact—and the Russians. KK is within Russia. KK is within Russia. The Russians have taken it back, yeah, and they’ve got people trapped there, and the president doesn’t want to see everybody getting killed. That’s a that’s a significant battlefield condition that has to be dealt with.

But on top of that, ises that acknowledged—like, I don’t know if the New York Times is writing that story right now—I I I think it gets lost a little bit. First of, I think a lot of these newspaper stories are—they’re agenda-driven. People start out saying, “I I support the Ukrainians, so I’m going to write the article in a certain way.” Uh, look, we W to I I want to see Ukraine come out of this okay. I want to see Russia come out of it okay. Again, we’re outcome-oriented. In this circumstance, means that we need a deal that the Ukrainian people can live with. We have to sell it. There’s going to be various Senate approvals that may that may uh uh that we may need here, and mean that’s the political system we’re in. That we’re going to want everybody to be in some respect satisfied. So we’re going to want the Russians to be satisfied in some respect. We’re going to want the Ukrainians to be satisfied in some respect. We’re talking to the Europeans. When I say satisfied, feeling that we came out of this thing okay, with a deal that everybody can live with.

I think that we have moved Russia in ways that no one thought was possible. So in the last conversation, they agreed to an energy infrastructure ceasefire, uh, which means Russia is not going to target Ukraine’s energy infrastructure, and Ukraine will not target Russia’s energy infrastructure. They’ve never talked about that before. Here we are talking about that. They’ve never talked about reinstituting the Black Sea moratorium on maritime um hits—Ukrainian firing, Ukraine firing on Russian ships, Russia firing on Ukrainian ships. Now we’re down to and and that’s going to be implemented over the next week or so. There’s some details that need to be discussed, but that was that became a part of that conversation. That’s big stuff, really big stuff.

What do what’s the ultimate goal? The ultimate goal is a 30-day ceasefire during which time we discuss a permanent ceasefire. We’re not far away from that, but a 30-day ceasefire is something where we have to figure out what all the battlefield conditions are, which is why I began with KK. But KK is just the beginning of it, because there’s this 2,000 kilometer—that’s 12,200 miles—this 2,000 kilometer border between Ukraine and Russia where the Russian and Ukrainian troops are involved in I don’t know, 50, 60, 70, maybe 80 firefights throughout this this border with all kinds of different conditions. Putin asked me in the meeting, “What should I do in a particular area where we got we have people surrounded and they don’t want to give up? Do I kill them? How do I get them to give up?” I’m I’m happy not to kill everybody. I’m happy to get people to wave the white flag if I can get them to wave the the white flag. And that one situation, Steve—this is him, talking, Putin talking to me—is just one example of 70, 80, 90 different situations out there along this border, each one having different battlefield conditions, each one needing a separate conversation. That’s what has to happen for a ceasefire, and yet we’re talking about it. That’s a big big deal. Our technical teams are going to be meeting in Jetta beginning Monday. That’s a big deal. There’s all kinds of good posit positive talk coming out of Russia about their willingness to consider all of these different things, and Zelensky had a wonderful conversation with the president after the President Putin’s conversation the next day, and I think that indicates that they’ve got some degree of flexibility in the way that they’ve been thinking about finishing up this conflict.

So I am, not to sound like a uh a forever optimist, but I am very very optimistic that we’re going going to be able to bring the two sides together. We have narrowed the issues so considerably, so I’m optimistic.

Time for another true life Alp story. I got a call from a friend of mine yesterday—honestly, true story—who said his girlfriend had just broken up with him over Alp; he wouldn’t stop. And I thought to myself, “That’s kind of sad.” And he said, “No, it’s not sad. Imagine if I’d married her.” Now I know I was saved. Then the next day, this same friend is driving at twice the speed limit through a major American city, pulled over by a cop in a speed trap. Cop takes his license, registration, goes back to the patrol car, runs him, comes back, looks in the window and sees a tin of Alp on the dashboard, pauses, stunned, says to my friend, “You use Alp?” “Yeah, I do,” says my friend. “So do I,” says the cop. “We all do.” He looks at my friend thoughtfully and goes, “Drive safely, sir,” and hands back his license and registration—no ticket. So in 2 days, he’s saved from a tragic marriage to a girl who doesn’t like Alp and a speeding ticket. All true. It’s more than a [Applause]. Nico in an anent of 350 million people are guessing they’re about 350 million Alp stories. Email us yours; we want to know and read it on the air. Email tellall@alpouch.com. tellall@alpouch.com. Give us your Alp story.

So Russia, Putin, who’s been in power 25 years, has been consistent for the whole duration of his presidency uh in one demand, which is that NATO stop encroaching on his borders, and specifically that Ukraine, which is the largest country that borders uh Russia, not be in NATO. And that is my understanding, my my my certainty is that that still remains the central demand, period. No Ukraine and NATO can’t have peace without that, in the same way that Israel doesn’t want Hamas on its border; they don’t want that. I what can can the US deliver that? Well, first of all, I think the largest issue in that conflict are these um so-called four regions: Donbas, Crea, um, you know, the names Lugansk and there’s there there’s two others. They’re Russian-speaking. Yep. There have been referendums where the overwhelming majority of the people have indicated that they want to be under Russian rule. Yes. I think that’s the key issue in the conflict. So that’s the first thing that when that gets settled—and we’re having very very positive conversations—and Russia controls that—in fact, some of those territories are now, from the Russian perspective, part of Russia. Correct. That’s correct. But this has always been the issue, and and it’s it sort of no one wants to talk about it. That’s the that’s the elephant in the room. The elephant in the room is there are constitutional issues within um Ukraine as to what they can concede to with regard to giving up territory. The Russians are de facto in control of these territories. Yes. The the question is, will they be uh will the world acknowledge that those are Russian territories? Will it end up um can Zelensky survive politically if he acknowledges this? There’s this this is this is the central issue in the conflict. Absolutely.

That on NATO, I think that uh Zelensky and uh he’s got a right-hand guy, Yac, I think that they’ve largely conceded that they are not going to be a member of NATO. There’s been all kinds of talk about whether they could still have quote-unquote what what is called Article 5 protection, right, which gives um every NATO country has this this Article 5 protection, whether Ukraine could have that in some respect from the United States or European nations without being a member of NATO, and I think that’s open for discussion, but I think it’s it’s accepted that Ukraine, if there’s going and Russia, if there’s going to be a peace deal, Ukraine cannot be a member of NATO. I think that’s largely accepted.

So you spent um sort of an amazing story that got downplayed in the media, but you go to Moscow and then you wind up meeting directly with Putin for a a long time—long time—um, which is kind of remarkable uh I think considering you’re the president’s envoy, but you’re not I’m not the president. You’re not the president. Exact exactly right. So the Russians are very formal, as you know, in every regard; they’re very formal. And so you can imagine a scenario where it’s like, “Well, it’s not the president, so our president’s not going to meet with him,” but he did meet with you, yeah, for a long time. What did you think of him? I I liked him. Yep. I thought he was straight up with me. Of course, by the way, I’ve said that, and you you can imagine, by the way I say that, I get pillared. Oh my gosh, you you you’re actually saying that you like—every American president until Biden has said that—every single one. Yeah. Bill Clinton said that. George W. Bush said that. Barack Obama said that. Every president around the world I’ve ever spoken to is like, they may disagree with what Russia’s doing or whatever, but they’re like, you know, “Putin’s a straightforward guy.” First of all, I thought it was gracious of him to to accept me, yeah, to to see me. Why would I interpret it any other way? But that was gracious. Now, I’m an emissary of the president, yes, and the president had a great relationship with Vladimir Putin in his first term, so I think Vladimir Putin knew that it was going to be hard for the president at this time to come over to Russia. I think they’re going to meet in the coming few in in the coming months, but I think it was enormously gracious for him to accept me, and I I I need to I need to acknowledge that um that that it takes pulse to say that. I know, but by the way, that’s the same way that I said that that uh Sheikh Muhammad is a good guy, and you know, because that’s not—he is a good guy. Yeah. I mean, if you don’t you know, in our country, if you don’t act like a lemming and just walk off the cliff like everybody else, then you know, you get attacked. It’s by the way, how would we settle a conflict with a guy with with someone who is uh the head of a major nuclear power, yeah, unless we establish trust and and uh and good feelings with one another? I don’t know how you would do such a thing. And and uh President Putin said to me in the first meeting I had, he said, “Steve, do you know that I didn’t talk to Joe Biden for three and a half years?” It’s craziness. How would you resolve that? Cho, can you imagine me and you having a conflict for I don’t know what it was—with you live in this house, I live in that house, okay? I think you’ve encroached on my L, and we never have a conversation about it. I mean, who how do you resolve things? That’s why I went over there last year, ‘cause I thought we’re moving toward a nuclear war, and I just feel like if no one’s talking to Pu—like someone should at least broadcast his views to the world—because we could have a war otherwise. That that was my thinking anyway. When I came back after before the first meeting with Pu with President Putin, when President Trump said to me, “Go over and have that conversation,” I think we’re going to have a good healthy conversation. Before that conversation, there was no talk about Black Sea moratorium. There was no conversation about an energy infrastructure moratorium on hits, you know, between the two countries. We were not talking about prisoner exchanges and all kinds of other stuff. After one meeting—and I am saying to you, not because of me, because this was President Trump sending a signal to President Putin that he wanted to resume his relationship together and that they were going to be two great leaders figuring out this conflict—that’s that was the message that was me coming there; that was my message to President Putin. I was directed by the pre by President Trump to deliver that message that we were here to begin a a real discussion, a productive discussion about how to end the end this conflict. And and President Putin, to his credit, sent all kinds of signals back to the president um that this is the path that he wanted to be on, including statements that he made in the second visit that I had. You don’t—it got personal. The president um President Putin had commissioned a beautiful uh portrait of the of President Trump from the leading Russian artist and actually gave it to me and asked me to take it home to President Trump, which I brought home and delivered to him. It’s been reported in the paper, but it was such a gracious um moment, and told me a story uh Tucker about how when the president was shot, he went to his local church and met with his priest and prayed for the president—not because he was the president of the unit, he could be become the president of the United States, but because he had a friendship with him, and he was praying for his friend. It was—I mean, can you imagine sitting there and listening to these kind of conversations? And I came home and delivered that message to uh our president and delivered the painting a and he was he was clearly uh touched by it. So this is the kind of connection that we’ve been able to reestablish through—by the way, a simple word called communication—which many people would would say, “You know, I shouldn’t have had, because Putin is a bad guy.” I I don’t regard Putin as a bad guy. That is a complicated situation, that war and all the ingredients that that led up to it’s you know, it’s never just one person, right? So we’re g to I think we’re going to figure it out. It’s like a marriage. I mean, you know, you can blame the other person all you want, but you’re implicated in it too. So that’s just a fact. That’s just—it’s human nature.

So it does raise the question—everything you’ve said, I don’t think any fair person could—everything you’ve just said about Russia, Ukraine—any fair person acknowledge, yeah, that’s true, but why there has to be some reason that none of this has been acknowledged for three and a half years. Like, why the effort to prevent Americans from hearing the other side, from understanding the conflict in its totality—not just parts of it, but the whole thing—like why why the censorship designed to keep us from knowing what’s happening? ‘Cause that’s what we’ve been enduring. Oh, I know. Censorship. Yes, we’ve been enduring a media that um you know, they all march together. I mean, I told you the story—I I give interviews about President Trump, and I guess what all the nice things I have to say about him, because I believe in that—that sort of gets excised out of the uh you know, out of my interviews. Not with you, I know, but um because you’re a fan too. I’m a great fan of his, you know. So you you but gu—what Trump derangement syndrome still exists out there today um I don’t you know, he said it at the State of the Union: “If I came here, and he was looking at the Democrats, if I came here, I had the cure for cancer, and I could and I had a magic pill that would cure all conflicts all over the world, nobody would cheer from me on your side.” And it really it really is true, by the way. Look look at how all the different things he’s involved in now. I mean, we are out there curing and solving conflict all over the world. It’s unbelievable, and no one’s ever seen this sort of progress before, and the Russians want to engage with us once again because we have a real decision-maker. Iran is now responding to the letter; hopefully we can solve that. Gaza, Turkey—it’s—we’ve got real leadership, and the world needed leadership, and we were uh bft of that leadership; we didn’t have it. And the Trump uh Administration is um is uh moving forward with strong leadership. It’s a big deal.

Do you think the Zelensky—the question of Zelensky—I think there are good things to say about Zelensky. I think he’s got a kind of bravery which I admire. I think the Ukrainian military is legit brave—doomed because they’re they’re just fighting a much bigger country; you know, not going to win—but I think they’ve behaved with with you know, valiance um but the Russian position is he’s not elected, and so we can’t sign any kind of treaty with him. Um, do you think there will be elections in Ukraine? Yes, you do. There will be. Yeah, they’ve agreed to it. There will be elections in Ukraine. And I agree with you. I think Zelensky is trying his best. I think he’s in in a very very difficult position, but he’s up against a nuclear nation, yes, and he’s also up against a nation that has four times the population that he has, and so so he’s got to know that they that he’s going to get ground down. Now is the best time for him to get a deal done. President Trump can deliver him the best possible deal he’s ever going to get. Who’s giving him like the ad—I mean, you know, I blame Zelensky, the man, for his behavior in Washington a few weeks ago, but I also blame whoever briefed him before he went into the Oval with the President and Vice President—whoever told him to act that way—and it’s clear people did, whether it was Samantha Power or whoever it was—those people—I mean, was criminally bad advice. Do you think he’s speaking to realistic, clear-eyed people who can you know, who have the welfare of Ukraine in mind? So without getting into names, yeah, I’ve talked to multiple European leaders, and I’ve said to them, “The more you encourage uh him not to be proactive at the peace table, the more you suggest that um aid will continue with without any conditions attached to it.” No, no one says that we shouldn’t a Ukraine uh today or in the UK and in the reconstruction later on, but it’s got to come with c certain conditions. If we’re going to give a lot of money to Ukraine, we want to hear the business plan of how this is going to get resolved, because it’s an unsustainable business plan if they don’t have a plan for how it gets resolved. We just can’t forever give money um for uh because they’ll get ground down, and ultimately—and this is uh you know, me—we’ve discussed this in the administration—ultimately what you can have here is risk of any kind of nuclear action, even the tactical nuclear action. I mean, even if it even if it’s not a big bomb explosion, does matter—just just a tactical nuke would take stock markets down all over the world. They haven’t been used in 80 years. They’ve been used exactly twice in human history. Can’t allow it to happen; it’s not a precedent you want at all. And and and while I think we have to get a fa deal for Ukraine, we cannot allow that country to drag us into World War III. And that’s not what I’m that’s not my policy; that’s President Trump’s policy.

Then what is—if I can just say like, what the hell is going on with the European League? Kier Starmer saying we’re going to send British troops—their entire military is smaller than the US Marine Corps—the country is dying economically; all those countries are dying economically—like, what are they thinking? What is that—is that a posture? Is that a pose? Well, I think I think it’s a combination of a posture and a pose and a comp and a combination of also being simplistic. I think there’s this you know, this sort of notion of uh we’ve all got to be like w like Winston Churchill—the Russians are going to march across Europe. I I think that’s preposterous, by the way. We have something called NATO that we did not have in in World War II. Do you think the Russians want to march across Europe? 100% not. I think right. I like—why would they want that? I wouldn’t want those countries—like why would they—first of all, why would they want to absorb Ukraine? For what purpose exactly? They don’t need to absorb Ukraine; that would be that would be like occupying Gaza. Why do the Israelis really want to OCC occupy Gaza for the rest of their lives? They don’t. They want stability there; they they don’t they don’t want to deal with that. But the Russians also have what they want. They’ve gotten—they’ve reclaimed these five regions; they have Crea, and they’ve gotten what they want, so why do they need more? He’s a Putin’s very smart guy. You know, someone said to me that um someone I was talking to someone in the administration and they said, “Welly, you you got to watch it, ‘cause he’s an ex-KGB guy.” So I said, “Okay, what what’s what’s the inference?” “Well, he’s an ex-KGB guy; he could be looking to manipulate you,” says the xCIA guy to you. Sorry, this this was not an xCIA guy; they all are by by effectively. And I said, “Look, here here’s how I see it. In the old days, the only people who went into the KGB were the smartest people in the nation; that’s who went into the KGB. He’s a super smart guy. Okay, you don’t want to give him the credit for it; that’s okay. I give him the credit for it. They must hate you for sex stuff like that, but but he is—I know—I’m very aware.” So should we ignore it? I mean, and this this is what I talk about with level-setting the facts—like like—are we now—like Trump was elected—we’re now allowed to speak freely; we were not you know, we were we were muzzled, Tucker. No one was allowed to say what they really wanted to say. I’m very aware. I I mean, we just came out of a of a world where a judge who was not even an elected judge could tell him man that he was going to spend 10 years in prison, you know, and he had 80 million votes in this country. Guess what? That’s gone. Okay. So you know, listen, we can breathe again. Yes, that’s amazing. Um, so there is okay, so there’s the negotiation that’s going on um between you know, in Eastern Europe, between Russia and Ukraine um which you’re obviously at the center of, but there’s also an informal negotiation going on back in Washington where you have a lot of people with you know, economic interests in this war. I mean, let’s just be honest—certainly ideological interests—and all of Washington has been mobilized to fight Russia. We are at war with Russia through our proxy, Ukraine, and the President Trump shows up, and it’s like, oh, you know, applies the brakes—like it stands on the brakes—but is that going to get resolved? I think so. You do? I think so. Yeah. It’s one thing to deal with the Russians, but to deal with the permanent bureaucracy—that’s really tough—but who doesn’t want to have a world where Russia and and the United States are doing collaboratively good things together? Exactly. Thinking about how to integrate their energy policies in the Arctic, exactly. Share sea lanes, maybe uh maybe send LNG gas into Europe together, maybe collaborate on AI together. If we can get past you know uh technology migration, who who doesn’t want to see a world like that? What about being a—the presidents being able to talk to one another about Iran, where Russia has some some degree of influence? I mean, who doesn’t want to see a world like that? To me, it’s so logical. I passionately want to see a world like that, not for any weird agenda other than that sounds great—like, why wouldn’t you want that? Exactly. But nobody wants that in Washington. Well, I think this is the thing—people get wedded you know to a prescription because they’ve that’s that was what they endorsed before, and it’s hard for them to back off of it. Yes, it is. Now, but use seem confident that the entire permanent establishment in DC—and they’re not all stupid, by the way; some of them are very smart and highly motivated—that they can be brought around to that view. Well, look at the progress that we’ve made in Russia. We’ve made tremendous progress. It’s it’s nothing short of enormous. How in the world is that Putin looking to manipulate people like me or other people who may be negotiating with him? That’s Putin actually reaching across the the the table and saying to President President Trump, “I’m prepared to do these things,” and now the president is accepting that, and he’s saying, “Let me tell you what I’m prepared to do,” and he’s prepared to bring Zelensky into the conversation, and he talks to Macron and he talks to Stoltenberg and he talks to the the Norwegians and the Finnish. I think none of these people have been talking together before. Can you imagine a war that’s been going on for three and a half years—no one was talking? This is what went on. It’s insanity. I know. And and by the way, it was inexorably marching toward nuclear conflict. Had to be—had to be. That’s exactly right. Or the Russians would have just ground them down conventionally. Either way is a bad outcome for Ukraine. That that makes no sense. Either the Russians out outstrip them 4 to 1 in population—they either would have ground them down over time, or God forbid you could have had some kind of tactical nuclear issue, yes, which would have been a disaster for the world, because as you say, we haven’t had one for 80 years. It’s so—I can’t tell you—I’m not sucking up; I mean this—I can’t tell you how refreshing it is to see someone hear someone tell the truth—obvious truths—and I do think it makes a huge difference to say the truth out loud. Well, I think it’s important to say the truth out loud. That’s what um we weren’t allowed to say. Yeah. When I went to court with the president—I went to his criminal trial quite often—you would I would walk out of the criminal trial; you would see all the reporters from MSNBC, CNN, sort of like glaring at me, Tucker, almost as if to say, “Why would you come here?” I mean, can you just imagine—we were living in a society of “You’re innocent until proven guilty,” but the president had been convicted already. Well, you know what? That wasn’t good enough for me. I uh I spoke about the president, how I felt about him, my friendship with him, how I thought that trial was unfair. I testified for him in the in the AG trial; I l an amicus curiae brief. Nobody was doing it in those days; everybody was afraid. I just think we need to level set the facts and understand what the true conditions are out there. The the true conditions in Russia is that it’s complicated, and Ukraine—it’s a complicated conflict. They’ve been at each other since World War II. There’s a sensibility in Russia that Ukraine is a false country, that they just patch together in this sort of mosaic—these and that—what that’s what uh that’s that’s the root cause, in my opinion, of this war—that Russia regards those five regions as rightfully theirs since World War II, and that’s something that nobody wants to talk about. Well, I say it out loud. How we going to solve this thing unless we solve the UN the the central issue that underpins the conflict? The Cru have kind of just made those part of Ukraine. Correct. Yeah. I think Kusf was Ukrainian. Amazing. I just have to ask you this—just so you were uh you were at the with the then-candidate Trump at the trials, then you on the road with him—I saw you uh you’re traveling with him everywhere during the campaign, and you’re a very old friend of his, and he trusts and he also likes you. So that point you can kind of have any job you want—that’s the way it works—but you didn’t want any job. Well, it would be arrogant for me to say that I could have any job I wanted. Well, but okay, but you’re you’re better positioned than anyone else I’m aware of to get a job at the administration, but you weren’t there scrambling to get one. Well, I wanted—if I you know, the president—there’s a lot of people who did good things for him during the campaign, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that doing those good things transfers over to you being able to be a part of an administration and govern. So I never wanted to presume that I could have any job that I wanted. I I I think that would almost be disrespectful to my—that’s my outside assessment. Yeah, yeah. No, no.

No. I, I, I listen. I know you're a very good friend of the president too, so you understand. You didn't seem anxious to be Secretary of whatever. I guess that's my point. No, I didn't want to do those jobs. Actually, I wanted to do something that felt worthy to me, that felt like I was go going to help to either save lives, solve a crisis. I talked to Jared at great length, you know, about what it was like for him to work in the mid-East. I just began to feel that that would be something very worthy for me to do. Now, I underestimated the complic the complications in the job, that's for sure. I think I was a little bit um, quick sodic in the way that I thought about it, uh, like I'm going to roll in there on a white horse. And no, it was anything but that, you know. But um, I'm so glad he gave me this opportunity. Yeah, I think I tell him, I think he's sort of like, he gets embarrassed when I tell them him this. Tucker, I say to him all the time, "You blessed me when you gave me this job." He, he did. I think he blessed me. I get to feel like my life has consequence now. It's I get to do things um, on behalf of other people, something bigger than just doing something on behalf of myself. Uh, so it's really de many people get that chance over 60; that's pretty unusual. I don't know if many people get that chance at all.

No, you are, you're right, and I'm so lucky, you know, so before the end of my life to be able to do this. I'm so grateful to him. So one, one last question, uh, area, uh, which is Iran, which unfortunately I sidetracked around it, but you said when I asked, "What is the government of Israel's plan for the region? What are the borders it hopes to solidify at some point? Like what are the boundaries of the country, etc., etc.?" You said your first response was, "It's we need to solve for Iran," like that's, that's the issue that overhangs everything. M, there's enormous pressure on the U.S., on the Trump Administration from within and from outside to have a military conflict with Iran. Like I know that um, president do seem, that's not his first—this is my read. If he, if he wanted that, we'd already have it. He seems to want a diplomatic solution first. He wants to try that first.

Yes. Um, that's fair. That's fair. Do you think that that's achievable? Yes, I do. I do. Look, he sent a letter to the Iranians. Usually, it would be the Iranians sending a letter to him. Remember the, the Iranian air defenses have been eviscerated in that attack from Israel. They're open to attack today. Yeah, uh, they're a small country compared to ours. Uh, we, we could, I think we would, if we had overwhelming force, it would be very, very bad for them. And so you would—and this is not a threat, I'm not threatening that—that's so if the Iranians ever listened to this broadcast, this is not me issuing a threat; it's the president who has that Authority. He would issue—you're, you're describing the reality as you understand it, correct? Yeah. So under those circumstances, it would be natural for the Iranians to reach out to the president to say, "I want to diplomatically solve this." Instead, it's him doing that. Now I can tell you that he's not reaching out because he's weak, because he is not a weak man. He is a strong man, maybe one of the strong strongest man I've ever met in my life, maybe the strongest man I've ever met in my life, actually. I think, I think he is that person. It, that whatever you think of Donald Trump, even Trump haters would have to acknowledge that's kind of indisputable at this point. Yeah, he's, he is a strong man, and and I'm going to say this, the strongest man I've ever met.

So with that all said, he wrote that letter, and why did he write that letter? For people who aren't aware, that can you roughly describe what it said? It roughly said, "I'm a president of P, that's what I want. There's no reason for us to do this militarily. We should talk. We should get, we should clear up the misconceptions. We should create a verification program so that nobody worries about weaponization of your nuclear material, and I'd like to get us to that place because the alternative is not a very good alternative." It's, that's a rough encapsulation of what was said, roughly, uh, um, and the president has said that he's, he's, he's said that, so I'm not telling you anything top secret or anything of that sort. The Iranians have reached back out, and I'm not at liberty to talk about the specifics, but clearly through a, you know, back channels, through multiple countries and multiple conduits, they've reached back out. I think that it has a real possibility of being solved diplomatically, not because I've talked to anybody in Iran, but just because I think logically it makes sense that it ought to be solved diplomatically. It should be. I think the president has acknowledged that Iran, that he's open to an opportunity to clean it all up with Iran, where they come back to um, the world and be a great nation once again and not have to be sanctioned and being a and and being able to grow their economy. Their economy—I mean, these are very smart people—their economy was once, was once a wonderful economy. It's, they're being strangled and suffocated today. There's no need for that to happen. They can join the League of Nations, and we can have a better relationship and grow that relationship, and that's what he's presenting; that's the alternative he's presenting. I think he wants to deal with Iran with um, respect. He wants to build trust with them if it's possible, and that's his directive to his administration, and I, and hopefully that will be met positively by the Iranians, and I'm certainly hoping for it. I think anything can be solved um, with dialogue, by clearing up misconception and miscommunication and disconnect between people. I believe that, by the way. And yet, and the president is a president who doesn't want to go to war, and he'll use military action to stop a war; that's when he actually wants to use military action. In this particular case, hopefully it won't be necessary. Hopefully we can, we can do it at the negotiating table.

I hope for our sake you wind up in Tyon. I hope I do too, or someone, or, or, or someone else from the administration. This is a little bit more complicated this one because it's nuclear, and we're going to need some real technical, you know, it's, it's just a little bit more complicated, but I think it'll begin with um, uh, it'll begin with um, the president, with with someone from the president's team. It could be me; it could be me and other people; it could not be me and somebody else, but I am going to welcome um, that, that opportunity if it, uh, if I'm involved. Amazing. Steve, Godspeed. Thank you. Thank you too. Thanks for having [Music] me.

So it turns out that YouTube is suppressing this show. On one level, that's not surprising; that's what they do. But on another level, it's shocking. With everything that's going on in the world right now, all the change taking place in our economy and our politics, with the wars we're on the cusp of fighting right now, Google has decided you should have less information rather than more, and that is totally wrong. It's immoral. What can you do about it? Well, we could whine about it; that's a waste of time. We're not in charge of Google. Or we could find a way around it, a way that you could actually get information that is true, not intentionally deceptive. The way to do that on YouTube, we think, is to subscribe to our Channel, subscribe, hit the little bell icon to be notified when we upload and share this video. That way you'll have a much higher chance of hearing actual news and information, so we hope that you'll do that.