Foreign Policy Under Trump 2.0: President of FDD Cliff May on Israel, Ukraine, China & More

Join Robert and Ericka as they welcome Founder and President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Cliff May. Cliff, Robert, and Ericka discuss foreign policy under the second Trump administration. From trying to end the Russia-Ukraine war to confronting antisemitism and terrorism at home and in the Middle East, they tackle the biggest global threats facing America.

Brash, irreverent, and mostly peaceful! Stay in contact with us!

Robert Chernin
X - @RBChernin
FB - @OfThePeopleShow
IG - @rbchernin1

Ericka Redic
X - @ErickaRedic
FB - @GenerallyIrritable
IG - @generally_irritable

Cliff May
FDD Website: https://www.fdd.org/
X - @CliffordDMay

The American Coalition: https://coalition4america.com/ 

American Coalition Merch: https://coalition-4-america-llc.revv.co/storefront/

Israel Appreciation Day: https://www.israelappreciationday.com/

Israel Appreciation Day Merch: https://israel-appreciation-day.launchcart.store/shop

American Center for Education and Knowledge: https://acekfund.org/

ACEK Merch: https://american-center-for-education-and-knowledge.revv.co/storefront/

About Robert:

Robert is a longtime successful entrepreneur, business leader, fundraiser, political advisor, and now popular podcast host. Robert has been an in-demand consultant on important gubernatorial, congressional, senatorial, and presidential races, including leadership roles in the presidential campaigns of President George W. Bush and John McCain. In 2004 he was praised as a difference maker as Executive Director for the national Republican Jewish outreach operations. Robert also proudly served on the President’s Committee of the Republican Jewish Coalition. He studied political science internationally at McGill University in Montreal.

About Ericka:

Ericka L. Redic is a Vermont and Texas-based Chief Financial Officer, author, entrepreneur, and former Republican/Libertarian Congressional candidate. She strongly advocates from an originalist constitutional position for conservative values focusing on the culture war on her show Generally Irritable.

About Our Guest: Cliff May

Under Cliff May’s leadership, FDD has become one of the nation’s most highly regarded think tanks and a sought-after voice on a wide range of national security issues. He has helped assemble a staff and advisory board whose research, ideas, and recommendations have shaped important policies and legislation on terrorism, nonproliferation, human rights, Islamism, democratization, and related issues.Cliff has had a long and distinguished career in international relations, journalism, communications, and politics. A veteran news reporter, foreign correspondent and editor (at The New York Times and other publications), he has covered stories around the world, including datelines from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the U.A.E., Bahrain, Oman, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Chad, Mexico, Argentina, Northern Ireland, Hungary, Kazakhstan, China, and Russia.

From 2016 to 2018, Cliff served as a commissioner on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission that makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress in order to advance the pivotal right of religious freedom around the world, and integrate religious freedom into America’s foreign policy.

Make your own merch! https://launchcart.com/?via=3vro9 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
And we are live.

Speaker 2 (00:03):
Hello Erica.

Speaker 3 (00:04):
Good evening, Hello, Hello Robert. How are you.

Speaker 1 (00:10):
I'm good, I'm good. You know my outrage of the day.

Speaker 3 (00:14):
Oh let me hear so well.

Speaker 1 (00:17):
So Michelle Obama cannot sleep at night? Did you know that?
Because Trump is keeping her well? Because Trump is keeping
her up. Now, we could read a whole lot into that.
I don't want to go there. But the real reason
that Trump is keeping her up is because all these sorry,
all these poor people. So you needed that you need.

Speaker 3 (00:39):
I'm sorry, I was not expecting that. It just me
by surprise, right.

Speaker 1 (00:46):
So anyway, Okay, on a serious note, she she's she's
losing sleep over all these people being deported, you know,
without due process and all of that, and the thing
that I'm just outraged by. I mean, she can you know,
she could use to a little sleep. I'm not worried
about it. Obama deports what three million, four million, or
you know, Trumps deported thirty thousand or fifty thousand or

(01:06):
whatever the number is. But here's the real issue. These
people got into the country without due process. So now
you're worried that they're being deported without due process. Where
was your concern when they were coming in, but.

Speaker 4 (01:22):
They interesting, their concern was making sure they were patting
their voting base. Come on, let's be real. They don't care.
They do not care about these people. It's a joke.

Speaker 5 (01:32):
You know.

Speaker 4 (01:33):
They were fine with Obama deporting everybody because he was
black Jesus, and now we have Orange man bad doing it.
So therefore air go. Now, you're a bigot if you
want a border. Okay, it's this is this is what
we're doing, ladies.

Speaker 3 (01:49):
And gentlemen, I am on it today. You are in
for it.

Speaker 1 (01:52):
Okay, oh, oh, too much Red. Let's let's let's let's
roll it and go to the monologue while we still.

Speaker 3 (01:59):
Get before it is too late. Okay, ready, here we.

Speaker 1 (02:04):
Go, Hello, and welcome to of the people. The false

(02:29):
equivalence between Russia and Hamas. You know, for some reason,
people now are making this moral equivalence between Russia's invasion
of Ukraine and Hamas's massacre of all Israeli citizens. And honestly,
that's not only wrong, it's a moral obscenity because look,

(02:50):
Russia's attack on Ukraine isn't illegal war of aggression. To
be sure, it violates the UN Charter. It obviously tramples
on Ukraine's sovereignty, and it shows Russia to be what
Russia has always been, which is an imperialist power, but
however unlawful. It is still a traditional war. It's state

(03:10):
versus state, where they're fighting over territory politics and they're
fighting over influence. Not so with Hamas. Hamas's attack on
Israel is something far worse. It's not war, it's not
even resistance. Frankly, it's pure, unvarnished evil. It is a
deliberate massacre on October seventh of women, children, the elderly,

(03:34):
the innocent. They filmed it, they celebrated it, they broadcast
it around the world. You know, Comparing Russia's tanks rolling
into the Ukraine to Hamas's butchery at the Nova Music
Festival is like comparing the Wehrmach to the Nazis Azatskrupin.
And for those who don't know what that is, the
wh mark was the army, military fighting military, and the

(03:57):
Ansatscrupin was the power military. One fights soldiers against soldiers wrongfully, illegally,
I get it. But the other was used after the
army left to hunt down civilians and to exterminate them
like animals sound familiar because that's what Hamas did on
October seventh, and too many people are still excusing it

(04:17):
with their so called well it depends on the context, No,
it doesn't. This is the worst kind of moral relativism,
and honestly it's cowardly. Russia's invasion is a betrayal of
political order. Hamas's slaughter is a betrayal of civilization itself.
And Russia, for all its crimes, still talks about diplomacy

(04:40):
and treaties and borders, albeit cynically. I get it. But
Hamas doesn't want diplomacy. Hammas doesn't want compromise. Hamas wants blood.
Hamas wants death, and they want the annihilation of an
entire people. That's the Jews. And under international law, even
the most brutal wars allow against soldier combatant, but never

(05:02):
under any circumstances the intentional slaughter of civilians. Hamas's actions
are not protected by law, they are not excused by grievance,
and they're not justified by history. Russia's crime is a crime
against political order. Hamas's crimes are a crime against humanity.
There is no equivalence, there is no gray area, and

(05:22):
Anyone who refuses to see the difference is not neutral,
They're complicit. And that's the difference between Russia's invasion of
Ukraine and Hamas's massacre of Israelis that started on October seventh,
in Israel's right to protect itself. And that, ladies and gentlemen,

(05:43):
is the monologue Erica. Let's bring us back in, and
I want to jump into this because we are really
pleased to have back with us the president and founder
of the Foundation for Defensive Democracy and old DC insider
and one of the smartest guys in down Cliff May.

(06:05):
And let's say me, Cliff, thank you for being back
with us on well of the people. You know, your
background is you were a journalist. I mean, I mean
you've traveled the world. You have this you say bipartisan,
I would say non partisan think tank. It's one of
the most established and frankly go to sources in d C. Right,

(06:26):
So I want to jump right in and I want
to get back to the Ukraine Kamas differential in all
of that. But before we get there, when you and
I last spoke, it was before the election, where now
literally tonight, April twenty ninth, is one hundred days of
Trump high level? What changes have you seen, the good

(06:49):
and the bad.

Speaker 2 (06:51):
Well, look, we have seen a tremendously energetic administration, and
God bless him. President Trump has the energy of a
of a twenty year old or more. It's really startling.
He's just on all the time. And the flurry of
issues and executive orders and decisions. Do I approve of

(07:12):
them all? No? Do I prove of some? Yes, some
have been successful, some have not. Doesn't mean they won't
be successful. I was getting a call today from some
journalists saying, well, can you give him a mark for
the first hundred days? Make believe you're a teacher. I said,
I'll give him a mark, but understand it's not the
end of the semester yet, so they'll still be midterms

(07:32):
and term papers, and we can still revise the marks
as we go forward. Look, in particular, as you say,
the negotiations were doing over Ukraine Russia have not gone
well so far, doesn't mean they can't. I was someone
encouraged over the last few days. Why because it seemed

(07:53):
to me that President Trump was revising his view of Putin.
He told Putin to stop. After Putin went ahead and
hit with more than a two hundred drones and missiles
Kiev hitting residential buildings, killed very bad. Trump said stop.
And then later it was on a Thursday. Then on Friday,

(08:16):
Putin once again hit a residential apartment building in another city,
and Trump said, well, maybe he's tapping me along. I'm
not sure I knew that phrase, but I understand what
it means. There was playing me, and he said, maybe
I should be thinking about secondary sanctions. Secondary sanctions would
be more economic pressure by a lot than Putin has

(08:37):
been under. And the day after that, Lindsay Graham posted
that you know, okay, that's a good idea, and I've
got sixty co sponsors for a serious secondary sanctions bill.
Let's do it. And if Trump would do that, and
I would argue also increased munitions to the Ukrainians, in
particular patriot missiles, which is how you knock missile offensive

(08:59):
missile out of the sky before they reach their intended victims,
but also attack ems, which is a way to reduce
or diminish Russian military capability. And I would say who
should pay for that? The Europeans can pay for that
very well with their own funds. Or about three hundred
billion dollars in frozen Russian funds they can utilize for
that purpose. Or I'm sure a Zelenski would say, fine,

(09:23):
lend me. Let's do lend lease and I'll use my
mineral wealth as collateral. You got it. Either way, if
you would do what I've just said, Putin would feel
some pressure. And it's only if Putin feels that pressure
that he will compromise, because so far he has not
compromised at all. Let me just say one more thing, Robert.
It gets back to your monologue, and I think your

(09:45):
monologue is quite right. What is Putin trying to do?
He is trying to subjugate the Ukrainians. And if he
succeeds in that, what will he do. I think he
will place bayonets to the backs of Ukrainian soldiers and
tell them they will march west. And I think our
Europeans friends.

Speaker 1 (10:04):
Underspas, why will they march west?

Speaker 2 (10:07):
March west to Moldova, which is not part of NATO,
and then march west to other parts of the former
Russian Empire, which for a while was rebranded as the
Soviet Empire. What does that include? It includes Estonia, it
includes Latvia, it includes Lithuania, it includes Poland, it includes Finland,
and I can go on. Anything that was a Soviet

(10:29):
possession or even a Soviet satellite was in Putin's mind
part of the Russian Empire.

Speaker 3 (10:34):
And he wants want to sit back.

Speaker 2 (10:36):
And by the way, the best soldiers he could find,
indeed are Ukrainian soldiers because they know how to fight
the way a lot of West Europeans have no experience
in and he would use them.

Speaker 1 (10:46):
And we can.

Speaker 2 (10:47):
I can tell you other things I think he would do,
but I won't. I won't unless you unless you ask him.
How far do you want to go on? But I
do want to make this other point. While Putin wants
to subjugate the Ukrainians, while Siejingping wants to subjugate the
Taiwan Ease, while Kim Jong On wants to subjugate the
South Koreans, what does Hamas and the Islamic Republic of
Iran want to do. They don't want to subject at

(11:09):
the Israelis. They want to exterminate the Israelis. That's called genocide.
And that's why the Israelis are being accused of genocide,
because that's what you do. It's clever communications. You simply
accuse the other side of doing what you're doing the
Russians do. That's old, that's old KGB style Disfmazia disinformation.

(11:29):
That's how you play the game, and that game is
going on right now. And so I think you're also
right Israel, Robert, Israel has to defend itself, and it
is defending itself by saying, at the end of this
a war, Hamas will have no military capabilities, no governing capabilities.
It will it will be essentially essentially destroyed. Not that

(11:50):
there still won't be Hamas, not that it still won't
be people who are genocidal. We're still Nazis after all
in the world in America and Europe. But if you don't,
if they don't have their hands on weapons, they're kind
of they're they're they're not terribly dangerous. As long as
that's the case, and that's going to be that's the
that's what the Israelis are aiming for now.

Speaker 1 (12:11):
Yeah, I don't mind if a mouse continues to exist
as long as they're neutered. It's a pretty simple. But
before we go back to the Middle East, I want
to stay with Russia and Ukraine because it's always been
my belief. And look, I go back to the height
of the Cold War. I went to school in Montreal,
I lived next to the Soviet embassy. When I was
in downtown Montreal, at the height of the cruise missiles

(12:31):
and things like that, when we were just still discussing
flexible response and you know, those those kinds of kinds
of things. It has always been my position that after
the breakup of the Soviet Union, that there is paranoia
in Russia and wanting to rebuild maybe not in name,
but certainly in geography the old Soviet Empire. If for

(12:54):
no other reason, then they're scared of fighting one day
at two front war, right, there was always that issue
of fighting, you know, fighting China in the east and
fighting Europe and the America in the west. So where
am I wrong on this? Because I think, well, where
am I wrong? And then number two is where does
this end? If there is a piece, where does this end?

(13:15):
Because I don't see any way they get crimea back.

Speaker 2 (13:18):
Okay, So both good questions. Let's unpack them. One. Look,
you were smarter than me and seeing that after the
fall the Soviet Union, Russia would not evolve into saying,
you know, say, Poland, which I kind of thought it
would when FDD was founded just after the attacks of
nine to eleven early two thousand and two, I thought, Okay,

(13:39):
we've got a serious problem that people don't want to
recognize with Islamists, with Jihatis, non state actors, also the
Islamic Republic of Iran, which is clearly jihatist. And I
knew that. I knew that in part because as I
was a reporter there in nineteen seventy nine, and I
wasn't fooled by Komane like so many people were. I
saw the problem that was unfolding there. Let me just

(14:01):
say it that way. I can even talk more if
you want. But I didn't think Russia was going to
be a problem post Soviet and I didn'ticize I didn't
think China would be a problem. Hey two thousand and one,
what happened China was given Most Favored Nation status by
the US brought into wto. The prevailing theory was I
don't think on both sides of the aisle, they're going
to get wealthier thanks to US. Wealthier nations become more moderate,

(14:24):
They're going to like the world order that we lead
because it's helping them. It's all going to be fine.
That's not the way it has worked out, as you know.
But here's what I don't think it's not. And here's
where I disagree with you. Putin is not worried that
he's going to be attacked by Poland or Lithuania, or
by or He's not worried about any of that. He'd

(14:44):
never thought. He's smart enough to know NATO is purely defensive,
and barely that, especially over recent years, when countries like
Germany are spending you know, maybe one percent of their
GDP on defense and most of that goes for pensions. Anyway,
he knew that. What's the story. The story is this,
Putin sees himself as the Tsar and it is his mission,

(15:06):
his responsibility as Tzar to restore the Russian Empire, which
has been fractured terribly. Keep in mind, the Russian Empire
was only rebranded as the Soviet Union. It actually expanded
under that rebranding. That was wonderful. That's why. Not because
it's a communist That's why he says the greatest catastrophe,

(15:27):
the greatest disaster of the twentieth century was the fall
of the Soviet Union, because it's the fall of the
Russian Empire, so he's got to restore it. And to
restore the Russian Empire, that means to recover its possessions,
and is none more important than Ukraine, because to be
the Tsar means you are by definition, the Tsar of
all the Russias. Now, all the Russias implies Russia proper,

(15:49):
it implies Belarus, White Russia, which is a vassal state.
He's happy with that for now, but it also implies Ukaryen.
Why because the Ukraine is Ukraine. The word means like
frontier or outlands or that sort of thing. It is where,
you know. It is in a way where the Russian
spirit first evolved. Before there was a Moscow, there was

(16:12):
kievn russ there was Key, an older it's an older city.
He needs that back and he wants that back. That's
not the end of his ambitions, but it's very vital.
And he could not stand to see the Ukrainians as
they were voting, having political parties, wanting to be in

(16:33):
the European Union, wanting to be in NATO, wanting to
be essentially like wanting to be part of the free world.
He couldn't stand to see that and thought it's a
bad example for the rest of the Russians. I just
I was an official election deserver in Ukraine for their
last elections. Very clear to me, people were so proud.
They have political parties, they have freedom of speech, they

(16:54):
have freedom of the press. And look how we're conducting
an election. We're doing it right. It's not a fake election,
it's not a fraud. We're doing this correctly because we
care about this and we want to be part of
the free world led by America. That's who couldn't stand that.

Speaker 4 (17:11):
Speaking of the free world and uh, you know, socialism
not being a part of it. Let's take a quick
minute to hear from our sponsor, American Center for Education
and Knowledge on the dangers of socialism. You guys, stay
with us. We've got mister Clifford or cliff excuse me,
Cliff May with us from the Foundation for the Defense

(17:35):
of Democracies. So come hang out, you guys, stay with
us in uh come back for more after the break. Yes,
you guys, you're going to want to go to asikfund
dot org asikfund dot org to make your tax deductible donation.

Speaker 3 (17:52):
And to get some merch, to get some ACIK merch.
You got cups? Don't you have one of the cups?

Speaker 4 (17:58):
Yep, we got the ID is a real appreciation day
merge man, like that one you.

Speaker 3 (18:03):
Got the ACIK mug.

Speaker 4 (18:05):
This is this is not our sponsor. But if you
want to go to generally irble and get your reasons
to trust the government mug, you can do.

Speaker 1 (18:11):
That too, okay, which you're good and so right, we.

Speaker 3 (18:16):
Got Cliff back with us.

Speaker 1 (18:17):
Here is he back? So back joining us? Hey, go
for it. Hey, I'll try. I'll trade your mugs it.

Speaker 2 (18:27):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (18:27):
So back with us President and founder Cliff may Fund
Foundation for Defensive Democracies And really, folks, one of the
go to think tanks in d C. It is the
place right and it's bipartisan, I would say non partisan. Uh.
And it is really one of the established think tanks
in d C. Which is why we're thrilled to have
you with us. I want to jump to China, however,

(18:50):
and the whole tariff war.

Speaker 4 (18:51):
Wait, you want to know you have to say it right,
you have to say it China.

Speaker 3 (18:56):
You want to talk about China.

Speaker 1 (18:59):
So this is like Texas versus New Jersey, we say,
we say China, okay, and don't start a fight with America.
You can finish. But I'm just saying, so the whole twer,
for the whole twerfar with China, we are argument. My
argument has been for a long time that that China,

(19:19):
even after entering into the W two and most favorite
nation statuses you brought up, has really been an aggressor,
both overtly and covertly, whether it's economically, militarily certainly the
Belton Mote initiative and those things. And I believe China
has been in one form or another vying for I
would say hegemony in my language over the United States.

(19:41):
And now we have this tirafar. They are what two
thirds are size there? They are a surplus economy. We
are a deficit economy, right because I mean we buy
what four times more than they buy from us? Five
times more than they buy from US. So how does
this tiref war play itself out in the long run
with China? And is it really a good tool to

(20:04):
use to try to engage China in this battle because
it's really a tug of war for gemony in my opinion.

Speaker 2 (20:15):
Well, a couple of things. One is Yes, China wants
had gemony, and we should just make clear what we
mean by that. They want They want to be the
superpower in Asia for sure, but well beyond Asia, they
want to be the superpower. They're all over Africa.

Speaker 1 (20:33):
Now.

Speaker 2 (20:33):
I was with somebody today who just came back from
Africa and was kind of shocked to see how much China,
how how strong the Chinese presence is, and it's Chinese
imperialism slash colonialism because they want the resources, the natural resources,
and they want to take them back and they'll pay
off who they have to pay off, and they'll I

(20:54):
mean there they want to be. And they're also all
over Latin America. In the first Trump administration, guy I
know fairly well was the head of the Inter American
Development Bank and his mission was to stop Chinese influence
in Latin America. And he was fired like by Biden
on the first first day in office. But he's back

(21:15):
in an influential position, I'm glad to say, because he
sees this. So here's the way you unders we should
understand about China, and I think we do. And I
want to give credit largely due to somebody named Matt
Pottinger this brilliant guy. He's chairs among other things. Not
all he does. Chairs are Asia program at FDD. He
was in the National Security Council. He was Deputy National

(21:39):
Security Advisor under a charm McMaster. He's somebody who speaks
fluent Mandarin, has given speeches in Mandarin, and what he's
essentially did for a long time was sort of scraped
through Chijing Ping's speeches and articles. Don't forget in China,
you've got a billion people, You've got like one hundred
million members of the Communist Party. He's got a communicate

(22:00):
with him. He's got to tell him what he wants
to do. So he's telling there is a place where
he's telling the truth. You just got to find it
and Mandarin and understand what it is he's telling him.
That's what Matt Pottinger did, and what he found out
is is no question about it. Shooting think doesn't want
to be our friend. He wants to displace us, displace
the US as the pre eminent power in the world.

(22:21):
He wants a new world order that China leads. And
to that end he has made I would call it
an axis. We do call it an access with the
following junior partners. One is obviously Vladimir Putin, another is
obviously Ali Khameni in Iran, another is Kim Jong un

(22:43):
in North Korea. Now think about it. You've got a
communist regime, you got an Islamist regime, you got a
new imperialist regime, you got a dynastic dynasty. What do
they all have in common? They all want to diminish
American power, and they all are working towards that end,
with the idea of a new world order that they
where they will make the rules. It will be distinctly illiberal.
They'll do what they want to do, even though who

(23:06):
Thi's part of what they're trying to do, and they're
doing it with help from a lot of help from
the Islamic polk of Iran, but some help also from
the Chinese. As we now know, what are they trying
to do in Chinese to say there's no there are
no rules in the world if we want to break them.
Freedom of the seas is one of the oldest of
international laws. The United States had claimed that we're the

(23:27):
ones who guarantee it, nobody else can. We're going to
prove that they can't even guarantee that they don't make
the rules, they don't enforce the rules. We make the rules,
we enforce the rules. That's also partly why China has
taken over so much of the UN, as has this Islamach,
Republic of Iran and others. We're spending billions of dollars
on the United Nations and almost all its organizations, not all,

(23:48):
but most of them are viciously and vehemently anti American.
So then the question is what do we do about China.
It's not so easy. And here I told you before,
I'm going to be honest, I don't know if does
the trick. I honestly don't know. I do. I don't
think that we can entirely disengage from China economically. It's

(24:08):
been where we were just too interlocked. What we can
do and what should be the priority is we want
no strategic supply chains going to China. We don't want
to depend on them for pharmaceuticals. We don't want their
software or hardware in our weapons systems, which they have been.
We don't want them in our harbors, we don't want

(24:29):
in our communication systems.

Speaker 3 (24:31):
We have put Chinese software in our defense. Oh my god,
I can't.

Speaker 2 (24:36):
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, we have it. We have experts
on this at FDD and we have a we have
a cyber center where they found exactly this, so hardware
and software. So yeah, this is the kind of So
there are certain things that we have to are prioritized.
And there again, anything people be prioritized. If people want
to buy their sneakers, if people want to buy their

(24:58):
shirt and T shirts, if people want to buy their
flip flops from China, I don't mind. That's fine, do that.
I don't think Americans want to make that stuff anyhow.
That's fine, But let's let's concentrate on where they're in.
They can get into our systems or cut us off
when during during a conflict. And it's also.

Speaker 4 (25:19):
Well, I just you know, listening to you talk about,
you know, this sort of unholy alliance, this you know,
a Muslim country, a Hindu country.

Speaker 2 (25:30):
Whatever, not Hindu.

Speaker 3 (25:32):
Sorry what did I say Hindu? Yeah that's not what
I meant.

Speaker 4 (25:36):
Sorry, my bad, but you get what I'm My point
is these these very different countries with very different religions, ideals,
et cetera. I feel like, just like the the left
wing alliance is falling apart because you can't be queers
for Palestine. Like that's an oxymoron, you know what I mean? Like,

(26:00):
won't this other kind of alliance fall apart at some
point when those countries also have very fundamentally different value.

Speaker 1 (26:10):
It'll it'll fall apart after they defeat us, but not before.

Speaker 2 (26:13):
That's the key for that. At some point is the
key phrase. So, for example, does Putin have to worry
about China in the long run, Yes, in the long
run for sure. Why because China has a lot of
people and not a lot of resources, and Russia has
a lot of resources and not a lot of people in.

Speaker 3 (26:33):
A continent they can take their stuff.

Speaker 2 (26:36):
Keep in mind, Russia has always been an empire, not
a nation state. It's an empire that expands, not by
has expanded, not by by boats or ships on the sea,
like the British or like the Portuguese. It has expanded
over land. Is a colony of Russia, it's not Russian,

(26:57):
it's a colony. And if you go all the way
to the Sea of Japan, what's the major Russians today
over there? Glad of Vassak. What does vastok mean? Vlada
Vastok conquer the East. At some point a Chinese leader
will look north to Vladivastalk and say, no, the Russians

(27:19):
shouldn't be conquering the east.

Speaker 1 (27:20):
The East is ours.

Speaker 2 (27:22):
But that's coming. That's a long way off. That's not
it's probably not in your lifetime or mine.

Speaker 3 (27:28):
On the other like I said, after they've already defeated us, look.

Speaker 1 (27:32):
It's no difference. The only thing that holds the Sunny
and the Shia together are their hate for Israel. If
there was no Israel, which would make them both happy,
they would then start attacking each other over time because
they don't get along either, right, and she.

Speaker 2 (27:45):
Is split is It's fourteen hundred years old. They have
been fighting for fourteen hundred years. There's been no negotiation
to stop that. To the extent there is any committy
between Sunni and Shia. It is as you say, oh Israel.
Although to be absolutely fair, the Saudis and I would
not have said this in two thousand and one or

(28:05):
two thousand and two, and the Saudis I don't think
at this point to see any value in destroying Israel.
The Saudi leader Kylie Sheik Mohammed, not Kalie Chekob. I'm sorry,
Mohammed ben Salmon NBA. He Mohammed ben Salmon is eager
for stability because he has a vision of his country

(28:26):
in fifty years being a very different place than it
is now. And he is not interested in fighting, in
fighting wars or fighting the Jews. In fact, if he's
going to have a high tech country, he knows he
has to have good relations with with with with the Israelis.
I am. I could be wrong, but I am convinced.
I've been to my amazement, I have been to Saudi
Arabia on number officasions that they're not interested in destroying Israel.

(28:50):
They don't see how that's that that that benefits of
the United Arab Emirates. Don't want to do that either.
The Kataris do the Kataris.

Speaker 1 (28:57):
I was going to bring you to the Kataris in
a second, okay, but my comment not to interrupt you.
My comment is not really about leadership or government. It's
not the people, the suiting, the rank and file, right,
and that's one of the things that the Saudis are
worried about. And then you can, you know, we can
talk about the Muslim brotherhood, right, I mean there's other,
there's other.

Speaker 2 (29:14):
The Muslim world that wantes to destroy Israel, no question
about that, right.

Speaker 1 (29:18):
But my point, going back to Erica's point is right,
you know, real politic, the old German concept, right, capital
are small, k A enemy of my enemy is my friend, right.
So that's what I think holds everyone together. But I
want to come back to this tariff just for a
couple minutes, and then I want to segue, you know,
to Iran and also the Middle Israel and and what
happens with Gaza. I mean, you know, you know, we'll

(29:39):
make Gaza an international destination. But to me, the question
of the tariffs or the following, right, the tariffs are
not solely just a standalone weapon, but it is a
weapon in a war, and and and all the places
you say China is they're also in the Bahamas, right,
they're also really really you know, they're they're you know,

(30:00):
a friend of mine used to be the ambassador to
the Bahamas, and even back then during Bush forty three years,
you know, they were making in roads there. But my
question is ken China sustain this fight because on tariffs alone,
not the tariffs by themselves will do the trick, right,
but their economy is two Thursday size. They are an
export economy. They lose ten you know, five ten million

(30:23):
jobs in this tariff war, which is what the projections
that I've seen economically. You know, Shijiping has a problem internally.
The question is how sustainable is it? And I'm not
sure that Trump is looking to defeat China based on
tariffs alone, but it's sort of to me, And that's
why I want your opinion. It's a shot across the
bow because when you look at it, the issue of

(30:45):
do they go into Taiwan their navy is clearly bigger
than ours at this point, whether it's you know, the
whole free seas argument. You know, we're fighting with them
in the Panama canal right, we're fighting. I mean everywhere
you look there are points of contention, not that not
least of which is how much does China land and
Smithfield Foods and other companies in the US do they

(31:07):
already own right and proximities to bases and all the
So tariffs aren't tariff's a good cudgel? I guess is
the question? Not by themselves and not forever.

Speaker 2 (31:22):
I think, I guess I have to say it remains
to be seen. President Trump has been saying they're going
to come to us and they're going to say, let's
figure out a better deal on trade and on all
and all this, and maybe they will. Right now, the
Chinese are saying, no, you want to fight, will fight.
I can do that. Don't forget. She jingping doesn't have
to worry about elections in two years. He doesn't have

(31:45):
to worry about elections at all. I'm not good enough
to be able to tell you how She Jinping reacts
to all this.

Speaker 1 (31:54):
No, no, I understand. I just I've always seen China,
as you know. I took, of course some million years
ago to McGill, and the People's Republic was always sort
of the sleeping giant in all of this. And and
you know when they've modernized and you know, you know,
you know, forget about you know, you know now in
the cultural revolution. But from dun Shopping forward, right, I mean,

(32:14):
it's it's always it's been sort of China's entree into
the world. And yet I think they've always had this
long range plan. I mean, they think in millennium. They
don't think in four eight year cycles, right. I remember
I had an old martial arts instruction from Japan. Who
you know. He said to us one day after working out.
He said, you guys just celebrated Jubai centennial and we

(32:36):
said yes, since he said, we have swords that are
older than your country, right, So I mean, it's just
it's a difference of perspective. But let me jump from China.
I want to jump to Iran because I know we
talked last time you were on the show, and again
people weren't there there It was October, was before Trump.
How has Heran's global threat changed since Trump took office.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
Well, it's threat is much It's threat is much reduced.
But the main reason for that is what the Israelis
have done. The Israelis, and I was in Israel not
too long ago. They're still fighting a seven front war.
They're winning on all seven fronts, which is the good news.

(33:22):
The bad news is that Iran is still on the
verge of having nuclear weapons, which could make all the
other battles for nothing. But if you think about say
twenty fifteen, which is when Obama went into it, concluded
the JCPOA, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which was
neither comprehensive nor a plan of action. He could say, look,

(33:46):
you know, we can't be fighting with the Iranians that
got hesbel A. Hesbil's got one hundred and fifty thousand
missiles pointing at Israel. They'll all be you know, launched.
It's too hard. They have a colony and it's a
danger or swim with chemical weapons called Syria. At this point,
Assad is totally their their guy. It was. Now what

(34:07):
the Israelis have done is they've obviously decimated Hamas that's
still going on. They have amazingly, amazingly done tremendous damage
to Hesbela. I mean the idea that Hesbela's missiles like
eighty ninety percent have been destroyed, their leadership has been
has been killed. The fact, and this is related to

(34:29):
what happened to Hesbela, that Assad has fallen in Syria.
It's not that it's a good government there, but it's
not such a dangerous government a lot. And the fact
that the Israelis, after being struck by like three hundred
drones and missiles from from Iranian soil, went back in
and did what a lot of people thought was not
possible to do, which is knock out the Iranian missile

(34:55):
an air defense system which had been supplied by guess who,
the Russians, right.

Speaker 1 (35:00):
Which is what you predicted in October. By the way,
to give you a little bit of credit, we have
we have the clip. I watched it. Oh predicted that
in October.

Speaker 2 (35:10):
Good to know. So right now, the Islamic Republic I
Ran is super vulnerable.

Speaker 1 (35:15):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (35:15):
These Reelis could go back today or tomorrow and stop
bombing and there's nothing they could do about it. And
they've lost a lot of their missile production as well.
The problem is the negotiation. Why don't they Why don't
they because because Trump is raining them in? Because Trump.
There are two things they're saying to Trump. Can we
not get rid of this nuclear weapons program that Iran

(35:38):
has that you and others have said not to do.
Why don't you do it? I'd love you to do it.
You could do it. The Americans can do it in
the way the Israelis can. How it's called B two bombers.
Where are the B two pombers? About a half a
dozen of them are in Diego Garcia. Where's Diego Garcia?
It's in the Indian Ocean. It's a real short hop
from there to Iran. What do they have to drop
from the b twos mops mops not for your kitchen,

(36:02):
but massive ordinance penetrators which can which can diget very
deep holes for your facilities way down down because because
you understand, the Uranian regime is only building nuclear facilities
for peaceful purposes. That's why they hide them under mountains
because you know people might want to stop them from

(36:23):
an air conditioning kindergarten, so you got to have them
under mountains. But it's for peaful. They're building the missiles
for peaceful purposes too. I'm not sure how you explain
that exactly, including intercontinental problems including intercontinentibilistic and intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Not to deliver a nuclear warhead Israel, because that's close.
It's to deliver a warhead to targets anywhere in the world,

(36:45):
which means the US. So the Israelis are saying, why
don't you do that? And Trump is saying, let me
see if I can negotiate a deal instead. I mean,
I'm not saying I won't. I'm not saying I won't
let you do it if I want you to do it,
but let me see now, that's okay, except I'm worried
of how I'm very worried to how these negotiations are going,
and I fear we'll end up with JCPOA two point zero,

(37:07):
because what I mean, the goal has got to be.

Speaker 3 (37:10):
The goal needs to be yeah, no, go ahead, Cliff.

Speaker 2 (37:14):
The goal has to be the verifiable dismantlement of the
nuclear weapons facilities that they're building, and no enrichment. It
has to be like what we did with Libya, which
we we took the equipment away, or the equipment is destroyed.
It has to go. It can't just be putting it
on ice a little bit and then you know, next
administration they defrost it. It can't be like the JCPOA

(37:37):
was which said delay it a little bit, but then
we'll give you a peaceful, peaceful pathway to being a
legitimately a nuclear weapons state. That's what Obama said. And
Obama said, if we don't do that, it's war. And
we can't fight a war against these guys because they're
really powerful and they have all these proxies. What do
you want of me? I am worried that Steve Woodcoff

(37:59):
is not so fish doesn't know as much as he
needs to know about what happened before and this program,
and he's got you know, he's supposed to be doing
these negotiations, the Hamas Israel negotiation, the Ukraine Russian negotiations.
My god, you know, I think you know, I could
Kissinger do all three at one time. I'm not sure
any human being can do all three at one time. Answers, well,

(38:22):
and what are.

Speaker 3 (38:23):
You doing trying to negotiate with genocidal maniacs like this?

Speaker 2 (38:28):
Maybe?

Speaker 3 (38:29):
And you know what I you know, this device.

Speaker 2 (38:32):
Cliff, let me answer you.

Speaker 1 (38:33):
She to Erica, Erica, let me, Erica doesn't candy coat anything.
Go ahead, Erica.

Speaker 4 (38:40):
I mean, if that's if there, if their expressed goal
is to murder Jews, what is even the point of
being like, well, maybe you can have a nuclear bomb
some guy you know, Like, nah, bro, you can't na
na as long as your whole thing is about murdering
the Jews or you know, and death to America. Let's

(39:02):
not forget. It's not just Israel that they want to
wipe off the mat They hate us.

Speaker 3 (39:08):
Uh so why would you eat what would Yeah?

Speaker 2 (39:13):
No, I start from negotiating. Yeah no, I agree that
I think you know, Whitkoff. Perhaps things to me. If
I say, okay, we start with this, the at the
end of these negotiations we have again the dismantlement of
your program.

Speaker 1 (39:31):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (39:31):
The then the Iranians say, well, then there's nothing to negotiate.
We walk out and you do what you want to do.
And he doesn't want to be in that situation, but
that would be a reasonable. Don't forget the Iranians have
always said, and they said it, you know, during the
bomb administration, we won't meet with you directly. You are dreadful,
your satanic infidels, so we don't meet with you. Obama

(39:53):
wanted to meet with with with the Supreme Leader Ali Kamani.
He said no, I wouldn't. I don't meet with people
like you. And they're still saying that. Oho. They've had
some short meetings mostly you know, during the JCPO A
period they went we went through the Russians as if
they're good, you know, brokers for for this. We didn't
understand who they were under under Obama should have and

(40:16):
here we're using the Omani's not much. You know, they're better,
but even so we shouldn't be We should be saying
you're going to negotiate directly with us, or we're not
going to negotiate at all. And by the way, our
aim here is the dismantlement of this. And if you
don't want the dismantlement of this, tell us now and
we'll and because we have another way to do this.

Speaker 1 (40:36):
Too.

Speaker 2 (40:36):
Many people don't understand the following that They say, well,
we want diplomacy, not the not coercion in force. No, no, no,
it is coercion and force that makes diplomacy work. George
Schultz knew that. He said, unless the shadow of power
hangs over the negotiating table, you don't have serious diplomas
they have.

Speaker 1 (40:57):
Yeah, there's this common there's always this. There's this section
of people who believe that the Iranian people will rise
up and overthrow the regime. Is that at all a possibility?
I don't see it. I have plenty of Persian friends
here who have who have you know, fled Iran and
the stories that they It's just it is such an

(41:18):
ironclad grip on society. And I know that the Iranian people,
the Persian people are you know, want freedom as much
as anyone else. But is that really a possibility that
there would be any sort of cultural uprising that would
overthrow the the theocracy.

Speaker 2 (41:34):
Well, they have tried on numerous occasions. There have been uprisings,
and during under Obama, if you remember, there was a
very serious uprising and they went through the streets shouting, Obama,
are you with us or against us? And he didn't
answer because he was against them. He was with me,
wanted to make a deal with the dictators, and they shouted,
they always do death to the dictators, death to the dictators.

(41:57):
They are very they are sick and tired of having
the religious class be the ruling class in their country forever.
But you raise a good point, and the point is
this that the regime is brutal. I recently did an
event with Reza Palavi, who is the crown Prince of Iran.
You know who I'm talking about. He's the son of

(42:17):
the Shah right. He's a very nice guy. A lot
of Iranians would like to see him as the constitutional
monarch if they could get rid of the current regime.
And I told him, you know, I said to him, look,
I was in Iran in seventy nine, and here's my impression.
Your father could have stopped this read revolution. But he'd
have to have killed at least ten thousand of his people,

(42:39):
of ten thousand Iranians, and he wasn't about to do that.
And he said, you're exactly right, he was not about
to kill ten thousand people. And the current regime, I said,
he said, they'll kill tell ten thousand people. But we,
the Americans and others should be supporting the pro democracy,
the anti regime elements in the country to give them help.

(43:00):
There's various things they need, whether it's communications, whether it's
you know, money for strikes. They could be helped to
do it, but it's hard. A really repressive regime can
you know, can keep the lid on the boiling pot
for a very long time.

Speaker 1 (43:15):
But here, so here, here's where and I agree one
hundred percent of utter saying. But here's what I have
a hard time with, with sort of those political calculations
that we make as a country. No one thought that
Hezbollah would fall as quickly as they did. You know,
the Berlin Wall was there, you know, for you know,
seemingly forever, and it vanished overnight. Right The Soviet Union,

(43:36):
with the the great nemesis of the United States, was
there for you know, it was a dialectic battle of
of of communism versus capitalism disintegrates overnight. Right, And that's
what I think that people don't see because until you
defang the snake, right, the head of the snake is Iran.

(43:57):
And I would I would wager that if Israel strikes Iran,
or if the United States strikes Iran, how quickly that
regime falls, because I think the people would also rise up.
And yes, the unfortunate part is that there would be
a lot of death unnecessarily in the process. That I'm
not advocating for that. On the other hand, as you

(44:20):
talked about I talked about in the monologue, I mean
that's a traditional war, right. I mean, as long as
you're not targeting civilians and you're targeting military, it's still
street yard politics. It's still if you want, if you
want the bully to stop in the bully, you got
to punch them in the nose.

Speaker 2 (44:37):
So you're right, and you and let's just dig down
a little bit deeper on this. You would just describe
two models for for regime change. One is Hesbala and
that came about purely kinetically. The israelis uh and planted
small amounts of explosives in walkie talkies and beepers that
they knew Hezela would wear, and they kill the life

(45:00):
of them all at once. And then they used bunker busters,
several of them, and they knew where Hassan Estralla was
and they killed him. And then they have also gone
after his successors, one after another, so that they are
almost without leadership. And then they have gone after the missiles,
mostly in their silos before they could be before they

(45:21):
could be deployed. It's all, it's all kinnectic, I mean
connect I say they did it with with through and
through action of war that were very successful. So the
union was different. You had Gorbacheff of Garbagscheff was trying
to reform the place and turned out to be impossible.
And once you lifted the top of the pot a

(45:43):
little bit, it began to boil over very very quickly.
And Shijingping has thought about this and talked about this,
and he said, that's why you can't reform. That's why
you can't do this. People will say, oh, please give
us a little more freedom. No, no, no, you don't
do what Garbagecheff did. We learned a lesson from that.
The lid on the pot tight because lift it this

(46:03):
much and it's gonna pop off and run a blow
across the kitchen.

Speaker 4 (46:08):
Well, I feel like we're hearing that from politicians here
in America too, actually, with the whole doge thing. I mean,
even the likes of like Ben Shapiro are like, well,
tariffs are bad, and then this is terrible. If we
make any of these corrections, it's gonna go bad. And
it's like, well, at some point, bro, we're gonna have
to pull off the band aid. And if we say

(46:30):
that we are small government conservatives, that we want a
fit federal government, and then you say, oh ah, but
reform is gonna hurt uh, Well, you know it's well,
so maintaining the status quo is better.

Speaker 3 (46:48):
No, that can't be better in my opinion.

Speaker 1 (46:51):
M hm hm.

Speaker 3 (46:53):
And so what do you think.

Speaker 4 (46:56):
Given that we have seen these uprisings, the Arab Spring,
we've seen protests in China, given the fact that these
that the governments are so brutal and so oppressive, Like,
what do you think you would actually take You said,
like you know, they were calling out to Obama.

Speaker 1 (47:16):
Are you talking about Iran troops?

Speaker 3 (47:18):
Yeah, Iran, China?

Speaker 4 (47:21):
You know any of these things, like like, are people
talking about US sending troops over there to help free people?

Speaker 3 (47:27):
Like what does that look like?

Speaker 2 (47:29):
Well, I don't think we are. We're not. We're not
talking about sending troops to Ukraine, and we're just talking
about letting them buy the weapons they need to defend themselves,
which I think is a good thing. I wouldn't. You know,
China is difficult because you know, it's possible that a
war could break out over Taiwan and I'm not even
sure we'd win it. But I'm not sure that Chinese

(47:50):
are going to do it that way anyhow, or a
shi Jinping is going to do it that way. There's
other ways he could do it besides you know, an
amphibious invasion and rockets and bombing. He I mean, imagine
that he simply sends a coast guard and says, we
have to inspect all ships that go before they go
into Taiwan, because after all, that's our that's our territory,

(48:11):
isn't it.

Speaker 1 (48:12):
And you know what do we do about a naval
block a naval blockade?

Speaker 2 (48:15):
Well, a quarantine, let me in, quarantine is a quarantine.
And there's a blockade blockade's an active war. Quarantine isn't
quite so they could go all the way to blockade.
But a quarantine again just coast guarden insisting on inspecting vessels.
That's the first step. And it's like saying, what are
you going to do about this? You see what I mean?

(48:35):
A blockade is going a long way. And so you've
got quarantine, blockade, invasion right there. Three. And then you
have all the cyber and other means you might be
able to use to try to get them to essentially surrender,
right if you were to knock out all their financial
system and all that. Part of the problem is that
that I think She Jinping wants to take Taiwan hole

(48:58):
not destroyed, not at least because the most advanced chips
in the world are made in Taiwan.

Speaker 4 (49:04):
And if you ended up, So, what do you think
it would take for the people of China to rise up?

Speaker 3 (49:10):
That was what I was trying to get at.

Speaker 2 (49:11):
The people don't know that.

Speaker 4 (49:12):
I know the people of a Roman like, is that
realistic for them to fight back against their government?

Speaker 2 (49:19):
We can't have much impact on whether the Chinese rise
up or not. That's what Here's what we had. What
we should understand the four powers I mentioned to you,
this axis of aggressors Moscow, Beijing, Pyanyang, Tehran. They are
right now waging a cold war against us. It's cold
war has been going on for some time. The historian

(49:42):
Neil Ferguson identified it as that as early as I
think twenty eighteen. We have to recognize that this is
a new cold war, Cold War two point zero, and
it's more challenging than the first Cold War because the
first Cold War was only against the Soviets and they
had a terrible little economy. They just had nuclear weapons.
But three out of the four of this access of

(50:04):
aggressors have nuclear weapons, and the fourth is trying very
hard to join the club. So we need to recognize
that's the situation we're in, and that requires a lot
of things. Requires quite a bit more defense spending. You
want to spend percentage of your GDP as you did
during the First Cold War, and maybe more if you

(50:24):
recognize that it's a more challenging cold war, and you
want to have allies, but you want your allies to
contribute to the collective security. You want to mobilize for this.
You want to understand what's at stake here and you
want to fight it and not make believe it's not
going on. And that's a recognition we haven't quite come
to yet, but maybe we're getting closer to it. But

(50:47):
it's very And then you would like to see revolutions
in these countries, absolutely, but you can't. I don't think
you can count on that. Keep in mind that neither
intelligence analysts nor political scientists nos predicted the Raigning Revolution,
which was the Islamic Revolution of seventy nine. Yeah, predictably,
they didn't predict the fall of the the of the

(51:09):
czars in nineteen seventeen. Revolutions. You know, it's kind of
like volcanology. You can see a lot of smoke coming
out of the volcano, you can hear the field tremors.
You don't know when the volcano is going to blow happen,
So we didn't know. Look and by the way, no
one predicted that that Assad was going to fall in

(51:30):
in Syria the other day, and he did.

Speaker 1 (51:33):
And in twenty sixteen, no one predicted Trump would be
elected either, which was But in the few minutes sorry
I had to go there, In the few minutes we
have left, I want to focus on the Middle East
in one question and one question only, what happens to
Gaza after Israel wins?

Speaker 2 (51:53):
Okay, so interesting question.

Speaker 3 (51:54):
We're going to have a beachfront resort, according to Trump.
What are you talking about?

Speaker 2 (51:58):
Come on, it's very nice beach on the Mediterranean, not
very different from Codas or when you think about it
doesn't need to be. First of all, just two points.
One is I think it is so unfair that people
immediately after October seventh, after Israel's attack, said well, what
about the day after? What are the Israeli plans for

(52:19):
the day after? What are you going to do? Hey,
it's not Israel's responsibility to think about what Gaza is
going to look like, how it's going to be ruled
after this war. That doesn't mean it's not a useful,
not a useful exercise for the Israelis to think about
what they want from their own point of view. Israel first,
what do you want to see there? And I think,

(52:39):
but meanwhile, how aren't people saying, boy, the Arab league,
they better get on the you know, get on the
stick and figure out what they're going to do with
Gaza after this war. How about the organization of Islamic
cooperation more than fifty countries. Our league is more than
twenty countries. Shouldn't they be working on? Hey, how do

(53:00):
we do this? How do we how do we rebuild?
How do we clear the rubble?

Speaker 1 (53:04):
How do we win? Wait a minute, but but if
Israel is the victor, it's it then becomes what it
has always been. It should have been Juday and Samaria. Right,
I mean, well that's the that's the West Bank.

Speaker 2 (53:15):
Now Gaza is different.

Speaker 1 (53:16):
Well but wait, Samari, no one is one is west Bank?
One is Gaza? No?

Speaker 2 (53:22):
No, I mean no, no, west The West Bank is
Judae and Samario. Okay, Gaza is Gaza and there and
there's ancient Jewish civilization Gaza. But keep in mind Ariel
Sharon pulled out unilaterally and said we we don't have
any interest now that again a war has been fought,
so it's different too. Israeli can decide what they want

(53:42):
to do. I think most Israelis would say, yeah, I
don't want to be responsible for what is a two
million Gazas. I don't want, you know, I want somebody
else to take responsibility for them. But I want them
to do it in a way that's no threat to us,
because if it is a threat to us, we're come
went back in.

Speaker 1 (54:00):
But what is the what is the godsin? What is
the gossin you're talking about? You were talking about people
of Jordanian descent, and.

Speaker 2 (54:08):
No Gazza again on the West Bank. Okay, those are
go back. You have Palestinian Arabs, right, and you have
Palestinian Jews right, And in nineteen forty eight the Jewish
population of Palestine, and they were the ones who were
most often back then called Palestinians, Palestine post Jewish newspaper,

(54:30):
Palestinian symphony, Jewish orchestra. Okay, people said come to Palestine,
it meant come to a Jewish state. Palestinian meant Jewish
until about nineteen sixty four when Arafat took the term. Okay,
that's what he did. Okay. They were always Palace. I can,
I can show you posters of jew Palestine in Hebrew Palestine. Okay. So,

(54:53):
and by the way, two thirds of historic Palestine was
trans was made into what is now called the Hashamai
Kingdom of Jordan by the British two thirds two thirds
now so, and that's part of this equation as well.
Gaza again is Gaza and there and once the Israelis

(55:15):
pulled out, they pulled out every soldier, every farmer, every synagogue,
every cemetery, everything. What was left they were the Arabs
of Gaza, and the Arabs of Gaza since in two
thousand and five, when the Israelis left, it was Fatah
and there was Hamas, and in two thousand and seven Hamas.
Throughout Fatah took full control. They have been a ward

(55:37):
of the donor community. Things have not been bad in Gaza.
If you see pictures now of what Gaza looked like
on October sixth, twenty twenty three, it was a pretty
nice place overall, I mean not necessarily were There were
villas on the ocean. There were malls. They're read in
the New York Times an op ed by the mayor
of Gaza City talking about the promenades of libraries, cultural centers,

(56:00):
the theaters. They had a lot. They had a lot.
And again all social services were taken care of by
the un particularly by UNRUN. They took care of education,
took care of healthcare. World Food Organization came in every
you can still if you go on Twitter, there's a
woman called Imshin and she'll show you here they are
still today in Gaza and they're making ice cream here

(56:23):
today right now. This is not look like a famine.
It's not. Again. There are parts of a lot of
Gaza is rubble right now, but not.

Speaker 1 (56:31):
All and after today, yeah, none of these because because
everything was was was booby trapped.

Speaker 2 (56:40):
And the Israeli said, you know, they they've done what
they had to do because of what this is. And
it all goes back to Hamas Humas you know, there
was a ceasefire in place on October sixth, twenty twenty three,
and that was broken by the invasion and by the
massacre and by the by the pug rum, and Hamasc

(57:00):
would end this conflict tomorrow. All they would have to
do is say, we're we are releasing the hostages, we're
laying down our weapons. By the way, we'd like the
Israelis to give us safe passage out to Algeria. Guess what,
I guarantee you. The Israelis would say, Okay, you got it, Okay.

Speaker 5 (57:17):
I agreed, And I have to stop you there because
we're up against the hour. Eric come back in if
you again. So, but you know, my head explodes when
I talk to you. But in the best of ways.
It's just in the best of ways.

Speaker 1 (57:30):
But look, yes, ladies and gehlemen, we've been speaking with
president and founder of Foundation for Defensive Democracy Democracy FDD
cliff Where can they find you.

Speaker 2 (57:39):
FDD FDD dot org. Everything we do, everything we produce
is there FDD dot org. They'll find there too. My
weekly column My weekly columns are called the Foreign Desk
for the Washington Times here in other places, but every
Wednesday in the Washington Times posted I just post one
is just posted tonight, in fact on the Washington Times website.

(58:01):
And by the way, I've got my own little podcast
called Foreign Pots kind of a dad, and we talked about.

Speaker 1 (58:11):
But I'm bump so and social media? Where can I
find you?

Speaker 2 (58:16):
I'm on Twitter. I don't do a lot beyond Twitter.
It's just too much, but I do.

Speaker 1 (58:19):
I am on Twitter, yes, And what's what's the handle?

Speaker 2 (58:23):
There's FDD at Clifford. I think that, Well, there's that
FDD for sure, and there's that Clifford. I think Clifford D.
May I forget, but they should be able to find
me there, all right?

Speaker 1 (58:33):
All right?

Speaker 3 (58:34):
With that, there's the fd D on Twitter.

Speaker 2 (58:37):
Thank check him out. Thank you Cliff himself.

Speaker 4 (58:41):
You are very welcome, happy to do it. You guys,
We thank you for being here with us this evening.
I was actually so fascinated listening I completely forgot to
take a total second commercial break, so.

Speaker 1 (58:55):
I wasn't going to call you out on that, but
that's okay.

Speaker 4 (58:58):
We'll probably run that before the its you guys. Just
to say thank you to our sponsor, American Center for
Education and Knowledge. But again, you have been listening to
mister Cliff. May go check out the Foundation for the
Defense of Democracies, donate, buy merch.

Speaker 3 (59:14):
Support, do all the things.

Speaker 4 (59:16):
And if you've been watching this long and you've gotten
something out of the video, make sure to like and
subscribe to on whatever platform you're watching. We love Twitter
and Rumble because those are the free speech platforms, so
that's where we encourage you to go check it out.
Make sure to share with your friends. If you didn't
get anything out of this video, we thank you for

(59:36):
hate watching because all of it feeds the algorithm. All right,
ladies and gentlemen, we will see you all next week.