As the president suggests that he is beyond reconsideration, I think the language he used when

it comes to withdrawing from NATO, whether, secretary Ruta can change his mind this week.

Well, I think, that is gonna be the the reason why mister Ritholtz is coming, although

the the of course, the visit was already announced before those statements. He's gonna try to

find a way to to tell Donald Trump that, in fact, NATO is vital to American

security. That's not a hard case to make, by the way. Today actually happens to be

the seventy seventh anniversary of the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty, by 12 nations, of

course, including The United States. And for seventy seven years, The United States has been led

by people, in the Oval Office and everywhere else in senior, military and and civilian positions

who have understood that it is much better to try to prevent war in Europe than

trying to have to fight it as we did in World War one and World War

two. It's better. It's cheaper. It makes us more, powerful. It makes us more prosperous. It

makes us more secure, and ultimately makes us more free. That is the foundation of NATO.

It is something that president Trump has never really, understood or at least bought into. He

thinks the burdens of NATO are larger, than the benefits. And, and that is, the challenge

that mister Richard will have when he comes to Washington next week.

I was curious to get your reaction to the president's primetime address because there's been quite

a lot of reporting going into that address that one of the things he was gonna

do was really go after NATO. He didn't really do that. He talked around it a

little bit. He said, you know, if it's the oil that you need, you should go

protect it. But he didn't name names, and he didn't go after the alliance. I'm wondering

if you think that was misreported, or my instinct tells me that perhaps it was a

recalibration that someone might have gotten in his ear. I'm wondering what your take is on

that, and if you think he can be swayed by people he does tend to listen

to, Ritholtz, and the president of Finland who goes golfing with him, my sources are telling

me, has a good ability to get him back into the fold occasionally.

Yeah. No. I you know, who knows, what drives, the president? Who knows, how this speech

came together? It's still a mystery, I think, to most of us why, he decided to

deliver a speech that was frankly content free. The only, things he said he had already

said either on truth social or, in interviews in the previous few days. But you're right,

to Christina, to underline that, there was no statement that he was gonna withdraw from NATO.

In fact, he's been silent, ever since the speech in the last three days on this

until the next truth post, of course. And and there are people who can talk to

him, and he does listen once in a while. Of course, Lindsey Graham and a and

a whole bunch of senators are are on record very much, in favor of NATO. Senator

Thune, a majority leader, made very clear that as far as he was concerned and as

far as his Republican caucus on the senate was concerned, this is not something that, they

would support. Indeed, there is a law, an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of

2023.

Supported by secretary of state Marco Rubio and senator. Yep.

I'll call it the Rubio law, that in fact just says that the decision to withdraw

from NATO as as then senator Rubio put it is far too important to be left

to a single president. It requires two thirds of majority in, in the senate. So, there

are reasons to think that maybe as we are celebrating the seventy seventh anniversary of of

the treaty that we're not going to withdraw. But the larger point is, I think, is

not a legal one. The larger point is that if you are in Europe and you've

listened to the president now for for the better part of ten years calling NATO obsolete

when he first came to power, you're gonna have to start to wonder, is The United

States going to be there

Yeah.

When the chips down?

Enter the shadow alliance, ambassador. I'm wondering what you make of this meeting last week. The

UK held a virtual conference with 35 allied nations, not just Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, and

others were involved. Is this the new coalition of the willing?

Well, perhaps, and it's part of this this this middle power, push that started with, with

mister Kearney, back in Davos when he said that The United States couldn't really be trusted

and we needed to bring together the allies of The United States to deal with the

major problems, whether it's in trade or in security affairs. And it is noteworthy that a

war started by The United States and Israel that, predictably led to the closure of the

Strait Of Hormuz now may have to be resolved, at least the opening of the Strait

Of The Hormuz and keeping it open by a coalition that does not include either Israel

or The United States. And it does point to, something fundamental, a new rebalancing of power

in which increasingly European, Asian, and North American, Canada in particular, allies are starting to come

together and say, how can we maintain a system that has served us? And by the

way, The United States extraordinarily well even if The United States is no longer, willing, to

be part of that system or indeed even if The United States is actually upsetting, that

system from from within through the actions both on trade and security and the use of

force, that it has created. So perhaps this is, the beginnings of of a new way

of thinking.

We've talked about the possible damage to NATO and the international system. But in an op

ed for Politico, you talk about the damage this conflict has already caused on the global

economy, saying that it's, the damage has already been inflicted on the global economy is far

greater than the economic consequence of the Iraq war in its entirety. But that's not all.

Geopolitically, The US Israel war with Iran will also have far greater reverberations than the war

in Iraq ever did. Can you explain that a little bit more? I know we've been

talking about it, but but why do you make that thesis, and and how do you

back it up?

Yeah. So, you you know, I think many people look back at the Iraq war, I

do myself, as as one of the great strategic blunders since Vietnam. I think this is

a greater strategic blunder. This was a war that was unnecessary, in fact illegal, unprepared, and

with consequences that are far greater. On the geopolitical side, if we look at the world

at the way the world is organized, back in in 2003, Russia and China were minor

powers. Russia, had been devastated in, economically as a result of the collapse of the Soviet

Union. Vladimir Putin had just arrived on the scene. He was focused on rebuilding the state,

rebuilding the military, rebuilding Russia's standing in the world. He wasn't really capable of doing much

more. And the same is true for China. Twenty five years ago, China was had just

entered the World Trade Organization, was just starting the process of of re building up its

economy and and becoming the major economic power it is today. But today, is strong. China

has a major technological, economic, and increasingly a military edge, not only in in Asia, but,

around the world. And so when China looks at what's happening here, they see The United

States withdrawing capabilities from, East Asia, from Japan, from nor from from South Korea, indeed from

the Indo Pacific, expending extraordinary amounts of ammunition and and missiles and and capabilities, and saying,

well, maybe this is a this is not such a bad thing for us. The United

States is getting weaker as we do nothing and just get stronger. At the same time,

Russia is which is suffering greatly until February 28 was starting to relook at whether it

needed to rethink the war in it it was conducting at which wasn't going very well,

in part because the economic costs were extraordinary. Russia now, of course, is selling oil at

a 100 plus barrels, dollars Yeah. Per barrel a day, to India, and around the world.

And The United States has even lifted sanctions on on Russia, so that, Russia can now

supply Cuba. So under those circumstances, who's winning and who's losing? We're paying the big price.

The global economy is, is being torn, at its fabric because of the Straitform Of Hormuz

being, being closed. But Russia and China are looking at the world and saying, this is

over, we're gonna be in a much better position than we were before. And that just

wasn't the case when the Iraq war happened.

Well, now the economist cover this week. It has president Xi standing behind and out of

focus president Trump. Yeah. And the and the title says, you know, never interrupt your enemy

when he's making a mistake.

It's pretty remarkable. Ambassador, I wonder as a career diplomat, you make of the way the

administration is framing so called negotiations. Iran, of course, continues to deny that they are happening

and has called this an exchange of messages. Are are these back channels? Do you believe

the president when he says we're in negotiations?

Well, it's a very strange time when, in fact, you have to wonder, whether the president

is saying the truth when he says that we are engaged in major negotiations when he's

saying that the Iranians are, quote, begging, us for a deal. Yeah. And you then talk

to the, to the Iranians, and the Iranians say, well, I'm not sure what he's talking

about because we're not even talking to you guys. I think what what is happening is

the president has found himself in a strategic box of his own creation. He thought this

was gonna be a quick easy war. He thought that somehow because we had done an

extraordinary military operation in Venezuela, that that military was invincible and could do anything he wanted.

And, he just happened to forget one small thing. In war, enemies get a vote. And

this enemy has been preparing for this war for forty seven years. It knew that the

day would come, that The United States would engage in military operations against Iran, and they

knew that they couldn't win a straight fight. They had to, win a fight asymmetrically. Mhmm.

They knew that they had geography on their side, and that's what they been doing. So

the president is trying to force a deal to allow him to leave. And the Iranians,

unfortunately, aren't playing ball. We're living in a world in which the Iranians seem to have

the cards and The United States doesn't.