00:00:00
Welcome to another episode of the All-In
00:00:02
Interview. I'm really excited to be
00:00:03
joined by uh back to All-In Harvard
00:00:06
professor Graeme Allison. Professor
00:00:07
Allison, welcome back to AllIn.
00:00:10
>> Thanks for having me.
00:00:11
>> We last had you at the uh summit in Los
00:00:14
Angeles, so it's great to have a
00:00:16
conversation. A lot's happened since we
00:00:18
last got together. For the audience,
00:00:20
Graeme Allison's the founding dean of
00:00:22
the Harvard Kennedy School. He's advised
00:00:24
every Secretary of Defense since
00:00:26
Kessinger. He's helped dismantle 12,000
00:00:29
Soviet nuclear weapons and his book,
00:00:32
Destined for War, remains the definitive
00:00:34
framework for understanding the USChina
00:00:37
relationship. I think it's worth kind of
00:00:40
bringing forward some of the things that
00:00:42
have happened in the world since we last
00:00:43
met. I'm going all in.
00:00:51
>> If you were building a global financial
00:00:53
system from first principles today, you
00:00:55
wouldn't build it on 50-year-old legacy
00:00:56
rails. You'd build airwalls. It's the
00:00:59
single platform for global accounts,
00:01:01
cards, and payments that treats the
00:01:03
entire world like a local market. Stop
00:01:05
paying the legacy tax and start building
00:01:07
the future at airwall.com/allin.
00:01:11
Airwallix. Build the future.
00:01:14
Let's start with Iran. The US and Israel
00:01:17
are in the middle of an attack on Iran
00:01:19
and the Supreme Leader is dead, but the
00:01:21
regime is still holding on to power.
00:01:24
Where do you think this conflict will
00:01:26
take us? And are we sleepwalking into
00:01:29
World War II?
00:01:30
>> Well, thank you again for having me
00:01:32
back. I You'll have a great podcast. I
00:01:34
enjoyed the summit and I'm sorry we're
00:01:37
not there in person to to catch up but I
00:01:40
think
00:01:40
>> about a man uh how much to say so this
00:01:44
could be a long lecture let me just do
00:01:45
four or five quick points first point
00:01:48
most important point is that there's
00:01:50
more questions than answers though
00:01:53
there's a huge level of uncertainty
00:01:55
currently about what's happening and
00:01:58
about what's likely to happen
00:02:00
part of this is Clausitz's famous fog of
00:02:03
war, but there's a fog of war that's
00:02:06
actually increased because we got two
00:02:08
big fog machines uh adding to the
00:02:11
confusion
00:02:13
uh namely Trump and the administration
00:02:15
on the one hand and BB on the other and
00:02:18
then we got all the chattering class
00:02:21
around this. So I would say why did
00:02:24
Trump decide to go to war now?
00:02:27
There's six different reasons he and the
00:02:29
administration have given and each one
00:02:31
they back out. What's the objective? Uh
00:02:34
there's five different objectives
00:02:36
backing around. And when is this war
00:02:38
going to end? You know, a day, a week, a
00:02:42
month, who knows? So, it's very
00:02:45
uncomfortable to recognize how uncertain
00:02:48
things are. And most of the conversation
00:02:50
about it tries to make it more
00:02:52
confident. But I think the place to
00:02:54
start is there's a huge amount of
00:02:56
uncertainty. Having said that, I'll
00:02:57
still give you my prejudices about a few
00:03:00
of the points. Point two, this has been
00:03:03
an extraordinary
00:03:05
uh demonstration of supreme military
00:03:09
power and supreme intelligence power. US
00:03:12
military and the intelligence community
00:03:14
and the Israeli counterparts have been
00:03:17
way way way off the charts and I think
00:03:19
they should make all Americans proud of
00:03:22
what's been built over this decade of
00:03:26
two decades of investment but especially
00:03:28
the past decade. Uh third point, there's
00:03:31
no tears to be shed for Ham and Islamic
00:03:35
Republic regime. It's an evil leader, an
00:03:38
evil regime. There's no bad thing that
00:03:40
could happen to them that we shouldn't
00:03:42
be cheering out of that. So, next point
00:03:45
though, breaking something's a lot
00:03:47
easier than building something. And
00:03:49
destroying targets is something that our
00:03:52
military knows very well how to do.
00:03:55
Building a new regime, regime change is
00:03:59
something that we know historically uh
00:04:02
doesn't work very well, at least in Iraq
00:04:05
and Afghanistan. We had every word said
00:04:09
that's been said in this case. And we
00:04:12
then went in allin and spent more than a
00:04:15
billion dollars of many, many thousands
00:04:18
of American lives. And when we went
00:04:21
through Afghanistan, the Taliban were
00:04:23
ruling. when we left Afghanistan, the
00:04:26
Taliban were ruling. So I would say
00:04:28
unfortunately it's against a backdrop
00:04:31
that's hard. The next point slightly
00:04:33
more controversial, but I think this is
00:04:36
BB's war. If your reader or your
00:04:38
listeners don't remember Mumby Dick,
00:04:40
they should go look at it again. Ahab
00:04:42
had this fixation obsession with the
00:04:45
white whale and tried to find a way to
00:04:48
kill the white whale whenever he could.
00:04:50
For the last two decades, that's been
00:04:52
BB's number one, number two, number
00:04:54
three agenda. He's tried to sell that
00:04:56
war to uh Obama, uh to Trump won, to
00:05:01
Biden, and how he succeeded in
00:05:04
mesmerizing Trump, whom I thought had
00:05:06
his number, I'm surprised. So, I'm pro-
00:05:09
Israel, but antiBB in this respect. And
00:05:12
I think that uh I understand he's
00:05:15
brilliant politically. But I don't think
00:05:18
this uh uh the arguments that were made
00:05:21
that uh that Trump has actually repeated
00:05:25
that in was about to attack us. I see no
00:05:29
evidence for that. That Iran was about
00:05:31
to get a nuclear weapon. I see no
00:05:33
evidence for that. that Iran was
00:05:35
building an ICBM that was going to
00:05:37
attack the US. I see no evidence for
00:05:39
that. There's many many bad things about
00:05:41
the Iranian regime, but not most of the
00:05:44
claims that that were made. So, I I look
00:05:48
at this and I hope it turns out well,
00:05:50
but I remember that in wars very
00:05:53
frequently, it's easy to get in and it's
00:05:55
quite difficult to get out.
00:05:56
>> Let me double click on that point. You
00:05:59
mentioned there's multiple reasons that
00:06:01
the administration has messaged for
00:06:02
doing this, multiple views on what
00:06:04
success looks like, multiple timelines
00:06:06
on ending it, and that this is BB's war.
00:06:11
How do you think Trump was motivated to
00:06:14
do this? What is the real motivation?
00:06:17
And I will ask this in the context of
00:06:19
the big delegation and visit to China
00:06:22
coming up next month. Is Trump motivated
00:06:24
fundamentally to create leverage with
00:06:26
China and use this as a tool to try and
00:06:29
maximize his negotiating leverage going
00:06:31
into the Chinese negotiations?
00:06:33
>> That's a great question and I wish that
00:06:36
the answer was this was all part of a
00:06:38
grand strategy. That would make me feel
00:06:41
hugely better. But uh I try to do
00:06:44
Trumpology and I was actually having
00:06:47
dinner last night with Bill O'Reilly, a
00:06:49
former student who I think is one of the
00:06:51
better Trumpologists were trying to
00:06:53
interpret and we were going back and
00:06:55
forth through this. It's easy enough to
00:06:57
see why the window tactically the window
00:07:01
in which this attack occurred was chosen
00:07:04
because here you got 40 you got the
00:07:06
supreme leader and 40 of the other
00:07:08
leaders of Iran out in public. So that's
00:07:10
an opportunity as a target and the best
00:07:13
opportunity that's come along. The
00:07:15
question is why would you be attacking
00:07:17
them and especially Trump given his uh
00:07:21
campaign and his previous views about
00:07:24
not repeating the mistakes of the people
00:07:27
that took us into endless windless wars.
00:07:29
And I think it's I mean I I think BB is
00:07:32
a magician.
00:07:34
I think his single-mindedness
00:07:37
uh is impressive.
00:07:39
I think his agility in making arguments
00:07:42
and developing arguments is impressive.
00:07:46
How he managed to persuade Trump this
00:07:49
was a good idea for the US. Now I don't
00:07:52
have a good idea. And I think that uh I
00:07:56
think if I listen to the reasons why
00:07:58
even the people closest around them have
00:08:00
given or that Trump have given, they
00:08:03
don't seem persuasive. Now partly Trump
00:08:05
is erratic.
00:08:08
uh partly he sort of you know acts on
00:08:11
the basis of instincts uh somehow it
00:08:15
came to him that this was uh you know
00:08:18
something that could be done. I think
00:08:20
actually BB painted a pretty uh I mean
00:08:23
the upside of this picture if if it's
00:08:26
successful and I hope now that we've
00:08:28
gone into it it would be would be
00:08:31
redefining security in the Middle East
00:08:33
for a generation. So getting rid of the
00:08:36
Iranian regime as the uh BBN company
00:08:41
have gotten rid of the proxies of the
00:08:43
regime earlier which again since October
00:08:46
7 been extremely impressive could
00:08:48
possibly you could saying well there's
00:08:50
going to be a whole new Middle East and
00:08:52
if the if the Middle East were all like
00:08:54
the UAE uh that would be fantastic uh
00:08:58
fantastic for all the human beings that
00:09:00
live there. So I think maybe he got
00:09:02
excited by the upside, not quite uh
00:09:06
careful enough about the risks or the
00:09:08
downside because it the number of ways
00:09:10
in which this could go wrong. You know,
00:09:12
if if we woke up tomorrow or today and a
00:09:15
couple of ships have been sunk or a
00:09:18
couple hundred of Americans have been
00:09:19
killed, this going to have a very
00:09:21
different uh a different image. And you
00:09:24
think that this is independent then of
00:09:27
the action with Maduro and independent
00:09:30
of the big delegation headed to China
00:09:34
for a big negotiation next month.
00:09:36
>> Well, I wouldn't say entirely
00:09:38
independent. I would think with Madera.
00:09:41
So Trump I think this again this is my
00:09:44
whatever armchair Trumpology but I would
00:09:46
say initially he thought tariffs were a
00:09:49
magic wand and every leader thinks if
00:09:53
you have a magic wand that's fantastic.
00:09:56
He's tried the tariff magic wand and
00:09:58
discovered it didn't quite have all the
00:10:01
effects that he imagined on liberation
00:10:03
day. Uh he then discovered the American
00:10:06
military which genuinely is a huge one
00:10:10
and the Maduro operation was just
00:10:14
spectacular. I mean again it's a
00:10:16
military and intelligence operation.
00:10:18
Brilliant. No other country in the world
00:10:20
could even imagine doing something like
00:10:22
that. And that actually you know makes
00:10:26
all of us stand taller. It can also
00:10:29
provide a little or historically
00:10:32
encourages hubris and an imagination
00:10:34
that this magic wand can work in many
00:10:37
other arenas. I don't mind at all the
00:10:40
proposition that every other country
00:10:43
should take account of the fact that the
00:10:45
US has the most remarkable military and
00:10:48
intelligence community in the world. And
00:10:50
that's not a bad backdrop for China and
00:10:54
for a China trip. So, I agree that
00:10:56
things may not be completely
00:10:58
disconnected, but I think in terms of
00:11:00
the timing, I mean, right now, when is
00:11:03
the war going to be over? If you talk
00:11:05
about 3 or 4 weeks, we're we'll already
00:11:08
he'll be in China March 29. So, my
00:11:13
inclination again, if we were just doing
00:11:16
prediction markets, is that he's going
00:11:18
to find a way to declare this over
00:11:20
before then because he needs a little
00:11:22
time to get his mind set on that. But if
00:11:25
you ask the folks at the defense
00:11:27
department or if you ask the people in
00:11:29
Israel, they're thinking this is another
00:11:31
month or beyond this award.
00:11:34
>> So again, just things I don't think are
00:11:36
quite, you know, in sync.
00:11:37
>> Jason's joined us. Professor Allison,
00:11:39
it's always a treat to have you on.
00:11:41
>> Nice to see you. It's just amazing to
00:11:42
have you on here and to give us this
00:11:44
time. If things were to go extremely
00:11:47
well and Iran went from a monarchy to a
00:11:52
dictatorship and now in this third act
00:11:54
here in the modern day to a democracy
00:11:57
and you actually had a democracy with 93
00:12:00
million citizens in the Middle East,
00:12:02
what impact would that have on the
00:12:04
region? We've seen the Gulf monarchies
00:12:07
evolve human rights, but they're still
00:12:09
monarchies. You have one other I I guess
00:12:11
democracy in the region in Israel, but
00:12:13
this could be extraordinary if it was a
00:12:15
democracy. But what would that mean to
00:12:16
the to the global chessboard?
00:12:19
>> Well, it's a good question. I mean, if
00:12:21
this could occur, it would be
00:12:24
spectacular
00:12:25
even I think but I would say this is way
00:12:28
way way too ambitious. There's a hundred
00:12:31
things that would be wonderful outcomes
00:12:35
better than what's likely that would be
00:12:38
short of that. I remember uh in Iraq
00:12:42
after Bush failed to find nuclear
00:12:45
weapons which was the initial I would
00:12:48
say somewhat cucked up rationale for our
00:12:50
going into Iraq. Kandi Rice who was the
00:12:53
secretary gave a speech about well how
00:12:56
wonderful it'll be when Iraq is a
00:12:58
democracy and market economy quote
00:13:01
radiating stability through the Middle
00:13:03
East. So we're pretty good at doing I
00:13:05
have a dream you know in that version. I
00:13:08
think that's a way way way stretch. I
00:13:10
would be very happy with a regime there
00:13:13
that simply was not about uh building
00:13:16
nuclear weapons, was not about building
00:13:19
missiles that threaten the US and our
00:13:22
friends and allies in the region, and
00:13:24
not about supporting proxies. And if
00:13:27
it's a pretty cruel regime,
00:13:29
unfortunately, that's unfortunate for
00:13:32
the Iranian people, the Persian people.
00:13:35
Uh when I'm a student of history, I love
00:13:38
Persia. You know, I remember uh Cyrus
00:13:42
and I remember uh the Pelpeneisian war.
00:13:44
I remember, you know, this is a
00:13:46
fantastic culture in history. They've
00:13:48
been hijacked by a terrible, terrible
00:13:50
group of people. And if those people can
00:13:53
be somehow ousted, you know, wonderful
00:13:56
for Iranian people and wonderful for the
00:13:59
world. I I if I were betting it again,
00:14:03
I'd say go back to the first point. It
00:14:06
questions uncertainty,
00:14:09
finding signals in the noise, extremely
00:14:11
difficult. But if I rebuilding it, it'll
00:14:14
end up that the guys with the guns will
00:14:16
in some version uh be the next
00:14:18
iteration. And uh if they're tamer
00:14:23
and less uh uh determined uh to threaten
00:14:28
our interests,
00:14:30
will this have been worth it? Well,
00:14:32
again, we'll have to look at, you know,
00:14:36
over the longer run. I think the other
00:14:38
thing that we know about wars is that
00:14:42
they're unpredictable and that they have
00:14:44
many unanticipated consequences. Now I
00:14:47
think as we watch what's happening now
00:14:50
and see what impact does that have on
00:14:52
oil and gas prices predictable so you
00:14:55
can see and going and going well what
00:14:58
impact does that have on other countries
00:15:00
are huge so the number of countries now
00:15:04
whose economies are being disrupted by
00:15:07
this impact and therefore blaming us for
00:15:10
it. So I had a call from someone in
00:15:13
Taiwan uh yesterday saying wait a minute
00:15:16
did anybody think what it's doing for us
00:15:18
since they had about half of their
00:15:21
their electricity comes from their
00:15:23
natural gas that that is now come you
00:15:26
know now not not coming. Uh if you ask
00:15:29
about what is this meaning for I for
00:15:32
Ukraine, all the patriots that were to
00:15:37
hope to prevent missile strikes from
00:15:40
Russia on Ukraine are now in the Middle
00:15:45
East.
00:15:47
>> So that's many more target. So there's
00:15:49
just unfortunately it unfolds in so many
00:15:52
so many different directions. Now I
00:15:54
don't want to seem too pessimistic about
00:15:56
it because again I think we've been
00:15:58
shocked fortunately on the upside by how
00:16:03
uh professional our military has and
00:16:05
intelligence folks have been and also
00:16:08
how pathetic uh or hollow the Iranians
00:16:12
have been. First day of the attack, I
00:16:14
was at the defense department and I gave
00:16:16
them a list of 11 things that I would do
00:16:20
and be capable of doing if I were
00:16:22
playing the Iranian hand. And uh they
00:16:26
seem to be
00:16:29
I mean I I I hardly even want to say out
00:16:31
loud, but they they act like a paper
00:16:34
tiger.
00:16:34
>> Do you think there's there's more damage
00:16:37
that can be done by being more
00:16:40
successful? You know, if we think back
00:16:42
to Iran, Iran is twice as many people,
00:16:45
100 million versus 50 million, four
00:16:48
times the land area, a much better
00:16:51
equipped military, and arguably the
00:16:54
military system, the regime is embedded
00:16:58
in every aspect of industry. So the more
00:17:01
successful the United States is in
00:17:03
dismantling
00:17:05
the Iranian regime and as was advised by
00:17:09
Condisa Rice who apparently was just in
00:17:10
the White House today and advising the
00:17:13
president and publicly stated it's time
00:17:16
to finish them off. It's time to go all
00:17:18
the way etc. Does that not then leave a
00:17:22
country with no infrastructure, no
00:17:25
leadership, 100 million people in
00:17:27
tatters, and that's the classic breeding
00:17:29
ground for some of these extremist
00:17:32
groups to seize control and seize power
00:17:34
and we don't have the resources to go in
00:17:36
and have another multi-deade Afghanistan
00:17:38
Iraq problem.
00:17:39
>> I'm afraid I agree. Yes, I think the the
00:17:42
uncertainties about that I mean you can
00:17:45
do four or five different scenarios for
00:17:47
how this might conceivably end it could
00:17:50
end up being an extended civil war in in
00:17:54
Iran among the various national groups
00:17:56
even some of them possibly seceding. So
00:17:59
again, fairly chaotic. Look like Syria
00:18:02
plus. Okay. It could look like Iran or
00:18:06
Afghanistan. Well, excuse me. We were
00:18:08
there for more than a decade with
00:18:10
unlimited resources. Hardly any
00:18:13
constraints on the number of people. And
00:18:15
how did that work out? So I I I say that
00:18:20
I'm I'm a small C conservative and
00:18:24
kind of think history is not always
00:18:28
certainly not the only guide but is a
00:18:29
good place to start. So I'm I'm I would
00:18:32
say nervous. Yeah.
00:18:33
>> Is it too late to have a Venezuelan
00:18:35
outcome where we've taken out the head
00:18:37
of the snake and we've simply replaced
00:18:38
it? The snake can continue operating and
00:18:41
living without too much destructive
00:18:43
damage and effect. But it seems like we
00:18:45
may be a little too far gone now in Iran
00:18:47
and that to take this all the way might
00:18:49
be very difficult to manage.
00:18:51
>> Is it too late?
00:18:52
>> If I were again that we're all in the
00:18:54
dark and all the uncertainty. So back to
00:18:56
point one, but after that I would say
00:18:59
Trump is erratic, impulsive,
00:19:03
but he has some coordinates and one of
00:19:06
them is is his power.
00:19:09
>> November 3rd is a big day for him. He's
00:19:13
focused on that. The economy is a
00:19:15
crucial element of that. That's part of
00:19:17
the framing of the of the China
00:19:20
relationship.
00:19:22
The impact of this on the economy is
00:19:25
already evident. Okay. And could become
00:19:28
more evident. The public opinion again.
00:19:32
I think he's I saw today uh uh in the
00:19:36
journal that he's sent Higs Higsmith out
00:19:39
to sell the war.
00:19:40
>> Mhm.
00:19:41
>> Good luck.
00:19:43
I'm not sure he can sell. Uh so the
00:19:45
public opinion of this it's about six to
00:19:48
four unfavorable
00:19:50
>> because they didn't make the case for
00:19:51
the war in advance.
00:19:53
>> Uh the impact of this on other parties
00:19:57
including parties that we care about is
00:20:01
negative. Uh so I I can easily imagine
00:20:06
in the next week even
00:20:08
declare if you look at that sheet the
00:20:11
way in which he's left himself room to
00:20:14
declare victory
00:20:16
at having as you say had cut off the
00:20:18
head of the stake destroyed their milit
00:20:21
their nuclear capabilities destroy their
00:20:24
ability to project power or in the
00:20:27
defense department we always say destroy
00:20:30
or degrade degrade has a lot of
00:20:32
dimensions as you would point out and uh
00:20:37
now it's up to the Iranian people to
00:20:39
seize their own government and take
00:20:41
advantage of themselves. The difficulty
00:20:42
with that will be BB wants to fight on
00:20:45
till the regime is destroyed
00:20:48
and that'll be an interesting struggle
00:20:50
to see how that goes. Earlier Trump
00:20:53
demonstrated that when he thought it was
00:20:56
in American interest he was prepared to
00:20:58
pull BB's chain. So we'll see. This is
00:21:01
uh I think in before we move out of the
00:21:04
Mina region a topic that's coming up
00:21:07
there's obviously no support for this
00:21:09
war in America most Americans put
00:21:11
foreign affairs today at one or two% of
00:21:14
their concern economy and many other
00:21:16
issues are are high on their list and
00:21:19
he's been pretty clear hey we're not
00:21:20
going to put boots on the ground and
00:21:22
then there's this anti-semitic
00:21:24
underpinning that's happening in America
00:21:26
that's become pretty acute and you had
00:21:30
uh Rubia who we mentioned earlier say,
00:21:33
"Hey, we did this because uh the
00:21:35
Israelis were going in anyway and we had
00:21:37
no choice." And then they walked that
00:21:39
back. Explain to the audience how we
00:21:43
should look at that turn of events where
00:21:45
there's a group of people in America,
00:21:47
specifically people in the MAGA party,
00:21:49
who believe Trump has betrayed them and
00:21:51
that he's captured by the Israeli um
00:21:55
government in some way and he's doing
00:21:58
their bidding. I'm not saying that.
00:21:59
That's my perspective, but that is a an
00:22:01
undertone that we're seeing and that's
00:22:03
something new in our lifetime. I think
00:22:05
>> it it certainly is. So, this is a big
00:22:07
topic, but I'd say when I talk about it,
00:22:10
I I I say I'm pro-Israeli
00:22:14
and anti-BB. So, is BB is not Israel.
00:22:18
The people whom I know mostly and
00:22:19
respect mostly in Israel are the
00:22:22
national security barons. the people
00:22:24
who've been the chief of staff or the
00:22:27
head of Mossad or the head of Shinbet or
00:22:30
the people that work in that in those
00:22:32
structures and they believe that BB is
00:22:36
actually destroying the Bengorians
00:22:41
Israeli democracy that they cared about.
00:22:44
Or if take Tom Freriedman, it's pretty
00:22:46
hard to accuse him of being anti- is,
00:22:49
you know, anti-Semitic. Uh but he's been
00:22:52
I think very clear and very uh
00:22:55
courageous in pointing out that what
00:22:57
BB's doing to Israel's democracy is
00:23:00
really destroying it and the impact of
00:23:03
that on Jewish kids in America. I mean I
00:23:06
say this on campus where they want to be
00:23:09
proud of Israel. They uh they deserve to
00:23:12
be proud of the country that has been
00:23:14
built over these years, but they look at
00:23:17
the behavior of these crazy right-wing
00:23:20
settlers and their activities in the in
00:23:23
the occupied West Bank or they look at
00:23:25
some of the activities in Gaza or they
00:23:28
look at now the kind of unlimited uh uh
00:23:32
war without any any even attempt to make
00:23:35
arguments about proportionality and just
00:23:38
say, "Wait a minute, that's not the
00:23:40
country I want to be proud of. I want to
00:23:42
be proud of of Rabbin's Israel. I want
00:23:45
to be proud of Ahud Barak's Israel. I
00:23:47
want to be proud of Benorian's Israel.
00:23:49
And I'm I'm pretty much of that of that
00:23:52
persuasion. I think what what uh what BB
00:23:56
risks in this and risked earlier uh with
00:24:02
uh citing I mean inter interfering in
00:24:06
American politics
00:24:08
in invites push back. So
00:24:12
I think this could have a big long-term
00:24:15
negative effect both in the Democratic
00:24:17
party and the Republican party
00:24:18
especially under under younger people.
00:24:20
If you look at the polling for the
00:24:22
under30s on Israel, it's just like
00:24:25
shocking. Yeah.
00:24:28
>> Can we move to China because I think
00:24:32
that again this is going to be the big
00:24:34
story over the next month. You've said
00:24:37
publicly that ousting Maduro from
00:24:40
Venezuela could embolden China to
00:24:43
accelerate a Taiwan takeover. The CIA,
00:24:46
it has been reported in media, warned
00:24:48
Tim Cook of Apple and other tech
00:24:51
companies about a possible invasion as
00:24:52
soon as next year. You've separately met
00:24:55
publicly with Chinese officials. What's
00:24:58
your view on the likelihood and the
00:25:00
timeline of a China attempted takeover
00:25:03
of Taiwan and what are these kind of
00:25:05
motivating factors that might make that
00:25:07
happen sooner?
00:25:09
>> So, uh, let me clarify. I I'm not sure
00:25:11
or I may have been misinterpreted, but
00:25:14
obviously the Chinese watch very
00:25:15
carefully. They study wars and they will
00:25:18
learn lessons from what's going on here,
00:25:20
but I don't think that is a I don't
00:25:22
think the Venezuelan operation other
00:25:25
than making them feel envious about the
00:25:28
capabilities will impact their
00:25:31
likelihood of attacking Taiwan. So
00:25:33
Taiwan number one, I think the
00:25:35
likelihood of an attack on Taiwan this
00:25:38
year or next year or even into 28, but
00:25:41
let me just do 26 and 27 absent some
00:25:46
major provocation by Taiwan or some
00:25:49
other third incident is very low. I put
00:25:52
it at about where the
00:25:55
where the prediction markets are 5% or
00:25:57
something low. So I'm not counting on
00:26:00
that. Second,
00:26:01
>> why is that so low? I'm just curious
00:26:03
>> why 5%.
00:26:04
>> Yeah.
00:26:05
>> Okay. Because first they they have a
00:26:09
theory of the case of what they call
00:26:11
peaceful reunification and they think
00:26:14
things are evolving in that direction.
00:26:17
>> The theory of the case is that the
00:26:19
current uh government which is a DPP
00:26:23
government
00:26:25
currently is is stymied by its
00:26:28
opposition in the parliament. So they
00:26:30
can't even buy the arm sales that we
00:26:34
previously gave them. There's 11 billion
00:26:36
arm sales that the Chinese have
00:26:38
complained about. But Taiwan is the
00:26:41
legislature probably won't buy half of
00:26:43
that. Okay. So the current president is
00:26:48
struggling.
00:26:49
There's going to be an election in
00:26:51
January 28th and they think it's likely
00:26:54
that the former party, the KMT, will be
00:26:57
elected. somebody they'll be much more
00:26:59
sympathetic to China and to a an
00:27:03
evolving relationship. So that's number
00:27:05
one. Number two, the Chinese have been
00:27:08
engaged in a a deep deep purge of all of
00:27:13
their military leadership. I mean, it's
00:27:15
hard to believe and you read about the
00:27:16
paper from time to time that he fired
00:27:19
this guy, he fired this guy. He's fired
00:27:22
the equivalent of every fourstar in our
00:27:25
whole political system and every
00:27:27
combatant commander and every commander
00:27:30
who would be commandering the force
00:27:32
commanding the forces over you know to
00:27:34
deal with Taiwan. So while they've been
00:27:37
building up that military capability
00:27:39
takes a long time to get that back into
00:27:42
order in my view. So I would say that
00:27:45
part makes me feel less likely. Third, I
00:27:48
think he understands that uh if he were
00:27:50
to do this, there's a risk, not a
00:27:53
certainty, but a risk that the US would
00:27:55
become involved and that the impact of
00:27:57
that either on China's economy, which
00:28:00
he's got to worry about first, then also
00:28:02
on its evolution, would be significant.
00:28:05
So, I'm I'm looking for uh and oh,
00:28:09
sorry. Finally in Trump uh he has the
00:28:13
most accommodating president uh that
00:28:16
China is likely to see with respect to
00:28:18
Taiwan. So Trump has made no secrets. I
00:28:21
mean he talks publicly of his views
00:28:23
about Taiwan and I think a couple of the
00:28:26
memoirs there's this discussion where
00:28:30
he's in the oval and he's talking about
00:28:32
Taiwan and he picked somebody asked him
00:28:34
about Taiwan. He picks up one of those
00:28:36
Sharpies and goes, you know, on a spot
00:28:39
on the Resolute desk and he says that
00:28:42
Taiwan. Then he draws his hand around
00:28:44
the whole desk. He said that's China. So
00:28:48
I'd say I'm less worried about Taiwan in
00:28:52
the on the on the current path. Now over
00:28:56
the longer run, the Chinese are
00:28:58
absolutely clear, she and all the
00:29:00
leadership that Taiwan is an inseparable
00:29:03
part of China and how that could be
00:29:06
satisfied in a way that allow the
00:29:09
Taiwanese
00:29:10
the degree or substantial degree of the
00:29:13
uh freedom for both their economy and
00:29:16
their society is the challenge that
00:29:19
we've been struggling with for a long
00:29:20
time. But the good news is we've been
00:29:23
doing this for 50 years and Taiwan has
00:29:26
never seen such a better, you know, such
00:29:29
such circumstances. So I say to the
00:29:31
Taiwanese friends, you know, basically
00:29:35
don't uh don't screw it up.
00:29:36
>> Are we taking the right course of
00:29:38
action, do you think? I guess the big
00:29:40
question for for you is what's the
00:29:43
strategic imperative
00:29:45
to keep Taiwan from falling under direct
00:29:48
Chinese control for the United States
00:29:51
and are we taking the right actions to
00:29:54
hedge our bets if you will against that
00:29:56
happening meaning onshoring of
00:29:58
semiconductor manufacturing but also
00:29:59
maybe from a defense perspective and
00:30:01
positioning perspective you can share a
00:30:03
little bit about whether we're
00:30:04
>> sure that's a big question so first
00:30:09
Scott Bassent, the Secretary of the
00:30:11
Treasury, when he's asked about this, he
00:30:13
says the biggest threat that he's ever
00:30:15
seen is the fact that 96% of the
00:30:19
advanced semiconductors come from one
00:30:21
small island that could become cut off.
00:30:24
So TSMC, as you all have discussed
00:30:26
before, produces the advanced
00:30:29
semiconductors for essentially everybody
00:30:32
of whom we're the principal consumer.
00:30:34
and we prevent them uh shipping this to
00:30:38
China. That's a pretty complicated
00:30:40
situation to begin with. Uh secondly,
00:30:45
Taiwan is halfway around the world as
00:30:47
President Trump says and 90 miles off
00:30:49
the shore of China and we're far away
00:30:52
and we have a lot of other things to
00:30:54
worry about. So, it's a little bit like
00:30:56
Cuba. So inherently indefensible
00:31:00
if China were seriously determined to
00:31:03
either destroy it or to take it. Now on
00:31:06
the other hand
00:31:08
since the opening to China and the
00:31:11
Shanghai communicate there's been an
00:31:14
agreement of maintaining a status quo uh
00:31:18
with the US commitment being what's
00:31:20
called strategic ambiguity in which uh
00:31:24
the US and China have been committed to
00:31:27
Taiwan
00:31:29
internal development is left to its own
00:31:31
device and China doesn't use military
00:31:34
force to prevent that but we say Taiwan
00:31:38
is there's one China and the only
00:31:41
China's capital is Beijing and then we
00:31:44
have a a little bit of ambiguous way to
00:31:47
talk about the relationship between
00:31:49
Taiwan and China but certainly letting
00:31:51
it evolve in any way that the parties
00:31:53
would be prepared to live with. Most
00:31:56
people expecting that over time this
00:31:59
relationship will work its way out. And
00:32:02
I when I talk to Chinese about it, I say
00:32:04
to them, first, you've never seen 50
00:32:07
better years on either side of the
00:32:09
straits. So this has been fantastic for
00:32:12
both societies in terms of what they
00:32:14
care about. And secondly, if they look
00:32:17
at this situation, if China's
00:32:20
core strategy is correct, which is the
00:32:24
inexurable rise of China, and that
00:32:26
continues
00:32:28
in another decade or two, Taiwan will
00:32:32
look like a fleet
00:32:34
and therefore not going to be an issue.
00:32:36
If it if China's main narrative doesn't
00:32:39
work,
00:32:40
Taiwan is not going to be their biggest
00:32:42
problem. So they should work on the
00:32:44
other issues. Yeah.
00:32:45
>> If you think about China projecting
00:32:47
influence around the world, how
00:32:50
important is it for them to continue to
00:32:52
do that? There was recently an objective
00:32:54
I think of a GDP growth in the 5% range.
00:32:57
Four to 5%. Is that right? For China,
00:32:59
which
00:33:00
>> four and a half to five. Yeah.
00:33:01
>> Four and a half to five, which is a
00:33:04
record low in recent history for them.
00:33:07
Is it imperative for China to continue
00:33:10
to extend geopolitical and economic
00:33:13
influence around the world to grow its
00:33:16
economy? You know, going back to the
00:33:19
framing of the rising power, do they
00:33:21
still need to do that to keep people
00:33:23
happy at home? Or is China going to be
00:33:26
able to maintain happiness at home in a
00:33:30
multi-olar world where China and perhaps
00:33:33
the US and perhaps some other countries
00:33:36
share influence around the world. This
00:33:38
is one you raised and we talked about
00:33:41
the last time which is interesting. I
00:33:43
think we agreed. So let me uh just again
00:33:46
for people that don't remember start. So
00:33:49
first China is a meteoric rising power.
00:33:54
Never has a country risen so far so fast
00:33:56
on so many different dimensions. If you
00:33:59
take a snapshot of the year 2000 and the
00:34:02
year 2025 and compare China on any
00:34:06
metric of power, it's just dumbfounding
00:34:09
dumbfounding. So, a country uh that uh I
00:34:13
have compared it to kind of like a a
00:34:15
Formula 1 racing, a country that we
00:34:18
couldn't find in our rearview mirror in
00:34:20
2020 or sorry, 2000 because it was so
00:34:24
far behind. We have trouble finding in
00:34:26
our rearview mirror today because it's
00:34:28
beside us or in many races even slightly
00:34:31
ahead of us. So, that's GDP. It was less
00:34:35
than 5% of global
00:34:39
or it was less than a quarter the US in
00:34:42
2000. Today by pursing power parity it's
00:34:45
25% larger. In 2000 trading it was uh 5%
00:34:51
of global today and we were 15. Today
00:34:54
it's 35 and we're 25. If you do advanced
00:34:57
tech in any any arena, take 5G, but my
00:35:02
goodness, take EVs. Oh my goodness, take
00:35:05
whatever. Okay, so rapidly rising power.
00:35:09
That's essential. That's the
00:35:12
infrastructure for their grand
00:35:14
narrative, which is the inexraable rise
00:35:16
of China to its natural position in the
00:35:20
international order, which they think is
00:35:22
at the top of the pyramid. So they are
00:35:25
absolutely determined to be number one
00:35:28
in their own arena to begin with and
00:35:30
then after that you know maybe more and
00:35:33
they also they have a second the second
00:35:36
proposition
00:35:38
there's the inexraable decline of the US
00:35:42
and they look at the various parts of
00:35:44
the US and the components including
00:35:47
getting involved in unnecessary wars as
00:35:50
part of that story that part of their
00:35:52
narrative and That dynamic, the shifting
00:35:55
of the seessaw, is what gives you this
00:35:58
thusidity and dynamic that we discussed
00:36:01
before, which most often, hard as it is
00:36:04
to believe, but most often
00:36:06
discombobulates people so much that then
00:36:09
some incident or accident like something
00:36:11
that happens over Taiwan leads to a
00:36:13
vicious circle of actions and reactions
00:36:16
that drags them into a war after which
00:36:19
they think, "My god, how did this ever
00:36:21
happen?" So that's a long story but I
00:36:23
would say the economic piece is
00:36:26
essential for this and that economic
00:36:29
piece means they want to be the
00:36:31
manufacturing work workshop for the
00:36:33
world and the foundry for the world and
00:36:35
the supplier for the world. There are
00:36:37
two major challenges they have uh I
00:36:40
believe one of them is population
00:36:42
decline other is unemployment and the AI
00:36:46
that we've seen and what's hitting first
00:36:49
>> could hit them in a major way
00:36:51
manufacturing is moving to robotics at
00:36:53
an alarming place then you have things
00:36:55
like self-driving which is a major job
00:36:58
there uh for for many people so on those
00:37:01
two axis when you see the youth
00:37:03
unemployment which I think is 15 or 20%
00:37:06
in um locations in China and population
00:37:09
decline. Is that she's two biggest
00:37:11
challenges to deal with and and how does
00:37:13
that affect this, you know, bipo this uh
00:37:17
uh relationship?
00:37:18
>> Good question. And this is more in your
00:37:20
space than mine cuz I've tried to
00:37:22
follow. But Elon says there's going to
00:37:24
be more robots than people. Okay.
00:37:26
>> Yeah.
00:37:27
>> And if you ask him where where are the
00:37:30
most advanced robots in the world, the
00:37:32
ones that are kicking his ass or he
00:37:34
worries about they're China. So they got
00:37:36
a huge number of robot companies. When I
00:37:38
was there in uh last when was I last
00:37:42
there in uh
00:37:45
um January I went to see a factory
00:37:49
Xiaomi Xiaomi the phone company. Xiaomi
00:37:53
3 years ago decided they would make cars
00:37:57
after watching Apple spend $10 million
00:37:59
not able to make a car. within three
00:38:02
years. That factory is producing cars
00:38:05
right now and they have a huge demand
00:38:08
for these cars. They have three lines.
00:38:11
One of the lines is all robots. Okay?
00:38:14
So, they're putting a lot of robots to
00:38:16
work. More than half of the working the
00:38:19
factory worker robots in the world are
00:38:21
in China. Uh and so some of the people
00:38:25
are saying well you know demographics is
00:38:28
going to be not so big a problem because
00:38:30
if demographics is only a problem
00:38:32
because of workers you know we're going
00:38:34
to have work in fact the American
00:38:36
workers are more worried about you know
00:38:38
taking our jobs. So that's a now the the
00:38:41
issue of for the uh impact on education
00:38:46
they have uh a number of people that
00:38:49
have been educated in arenas that are
00:38:51
now no longer you know high demand jobs
00:38:55
and unfortunately we have a lot of that
00:38:56
too I mean if you look at people college
00:38:59
graduates now that graduated in I don't
00:39:02
know DEI subjects they're having trouble
00:39:05
uh getting jobs so I would say uh it's a
00:39:08
little they're more similar ilarities
00:39:10
there than differences. The other thing
00:39:11
is Chinese have demonstrated a great
00:39:14
much greater capacity or readiness to
00:39:17
adopt and adapt to new technologies.
00:39:21
So if you look at uh I'm sure you have
00:39:24
or you all have probably had him on
00:39:26
Jinsen Wong uh but when he went to China
00:39:30
he said gee I think I came to the future
00:39:32
you know that uh uh the people don't you
00:39:35
know they don't use not only do they not
00:39:37
use uh uh coins they don't use bills
00:39:42
they don't use checks they don't use
00:39:44
credit cards they just have their face
00:39:48
and then go through the story
00:39:50
>> let's shift round to
00:39:53
what some have described as the longer
00:39:56
term playing field which is near the
00:39:58
Arctic. Some have argued that much of
00:40:01
the recent push for Greenland by the
00:40:03
United States is driven by the military
00:40:07
threat coming over the Arctic from
00:40:09
Russia and from China. I'm wondering if
00:40:11
you could just help frame for our
00:40:13
audience why is Greenland so strategic
00:40:17
to the United States and is this
00:40:20
effectively a proxy for defense against
00:40:24
China and Russia and why now?
00:40:27
>> Another big question. So let me start
00:40:29
with the bottom line. I think the
00:40:33
at least from the judgments of the
00:40:35
people whom I
00:40:38
respect the most, we can we the US can
00:40:41
get everything we want from Greenland
00:40:44
without invading it or owning it. So
00:40:47
Greenland has been an important base for
00:40:50
missile defenses, a dual duel base. We
00:40:53
had two other bases that we closed,
00:40:56
but we can open as many other bases as
00:40:59
we want, and they're very amidable to
00:41:01
that. I think President Trump's right to
00:41:03
say, well, yeah, but I don't want a
00:41:05
short-term lease on these bases. I would
00:41:08
say a 99-year lease sounds like a pretty
00:41:10
good lease to me for, you know, in 99
00:41:12
years, God knows what's going to be
00:41:14
happening. But to the extent that
00:41:16
missile defense and uh is part of it,
00:41:19
which it is, I would say that's a part
00:41:21
for the naval component. Yes. I think
00:41:24
the as uh the Arctic
00:41:28
uh melts, you already now have an
00:41:30
opening of sea lanes and
00:41:34
the way that the uh the territorial
00:41:38
ownership uh the abuters have their
00:41:42
claim to the local and the regional and
00:41:45
there the the main claims are Russian
00:41:47
and Canadian. We have a chunk from
00:41:49
Alaska and then Greenland would be a
00:41:52
piece of that. So, I would say that's
00:41:54
relevant. But those sea lanes, uh, at
00:41:57
least for the Navy people I talked to
00:41:59
are they're not as important as they
00:42:02
used to be because now there's so many
00:42:04
different ways to get it. You're not
00:42:06
going to uh try to blockade a a uh, you
00:42:10
know, a a waterway uh, with ships.
00:42:13
You're going to do it with smart mines
00:42:15
or you're going to do it simply by
00:42:16
attacking the ships on the on the array.
00:42:19
And if it's underwater, uh underwater is
00:42:22
pretty much all the same. I mean, it's
00:42:24
good to have narrow places and shallow
00:42:27
places for looking for things, but uh so
00:42:31
I I I would say I think Trump's uh uh
00:42:35
Greenland venture was more like for fun.
00:42:38
plus uh I mean I think one of the people
00:42:42
that knows him well says remember he's
00:42:46
first off a reality TV producer and star
00:42:50
so he just has fun starting with a a
00:42:53
drama getting people very excited uh
00:42:56
letting the tension rise and then
00:42:59
finding a resolution and I think we're
00:43:01
on track to a resolution there
00:43:02
>> let me push back just on that point what
00:43:05
I have heard is that there's rising
00:43:08
socialism in Western Europe. Growing
00:43:10
concern that over time as socialism
00:43:14
becomes more of the mainstay in the
00:43:16
governing models in Western European
00:43:18
nations, those nations fall more under
00:43:21
the influence of China. And as a result,
00:43:24
if you think about the influence that
00:43:26
China could then have on on Denmark and
00:43:28
on Danish foreign policy, if the United
00:43:31
States doesn't secure what it needs for
00:43:33
the long term, and it may not know what
00:43:36
it needs for the long term physically in
00:43:38
Greenland today, we only know what we
00:43:40
need today. That we're at risk of China
00:43:43
having outsized influence over Greenland
00:43:46
tomorrow. And that that's the real
00:43:48
reason for the big push today for
00:43:51
Greenland. How does that sit with you
00:43:53
and does that align kind of with with
00:43:55
what some folks are are concerned about?
00:43:58
>> I have to think about it. I hadn't heard
00:43:59
that argument just that way. Again, what
00:44:02
is socialism? It's complicated. Uh
00:44:05
certainly the Chinese well yes they're
00:44:07
socialists in some respect. I would say
00:44:11
capitalism is I mean they're autocratic
00:44:14
and they're partyled but then their
00:44:16
economy is essentially uh fiercely uh
00:44:20
capitalist. I mean, you have a uh the uh
00:44:24
on
00:44:26
one of the one of my friends glad
00:44:29
gladatorial conflict that makes the
00:44:32
competition in Silicon Valley look look
00:44:34
tame as the you know as the parties
00:44:37
fight each other. Uh so
00:44:39
>> because you can't make money because the
00:44:40
taxes are so high. That's another
00:44:44
>> and in their case you know they they
00:44:46
they
00:44:48
decide they're going into an arena.
00:44:49
let's say for example EVs and so they
00:44:52
give uh uh advantages to companies
00:44:55
getting started even subsidies and then
00:44:58
they let them fight it out and lo and
00:45:01
behold at the end they'll be you know 10
00:45:03
or five but it's fiercely competitive in
00:45:06
the meantime and a lot of guys will get
00:45:08
you know trampled along the way and then
00:45:11
those guys are excess capacity and
00:45:13
they'll sell things off you know without
00:45:16
any concern about the capex they're just
00:45:19
as long as they can stay ahead of the
00:45:21
game, you know, selling items or even
00:45:23
selling out their inventory. So, I think
00:45:25
the uh I think watching the way watching
00:45:29
the evolution of other countries
00:45:32
including Europe, I think uh and their
00:45:36
relations with China as well as with us
00:45:39
in this game is a very relevant point.
00:45:42
And I would say the uh one of the things
00:45:46
that the Trump administration has had
00:45:48
trouble with is recognizing that if
00:45:52
we're in a fierce rivalry with China,
00:45:54
they got four times as many people. We
00:45:57
need to have some allies with heft on
00:46:00
our side of the seesaw to keep it from
00:46:03
going the wrong direction. And so, yes,
00:46:08
kind of sometimes you need to give your
00:46:10
ally a cold bath in order to get them to
00:46:13
shape up, but uh I think uh uh getting
00:46:19
Canadians to think of us as an enemy is
00:46:22
a great wild idea. uh uh I mean any
00:46:27
treatment that comes to that conclusion
00:46:29
and if you take Carney whom I know from
00:46:32
when he's a Harvard college kid he's
00:46:34
he's as American as anybody or he was
00:46:38
but the idea if you go and threaten a
00:46:41
politician's survival that's a pretty
00:46:43
good way to piss him off and if you
00:46:48
threaten to take territory from people
00:46:51
that's a pretty good way to make them
00:46:52
feel hostile.
00:46:55
Uh, so this is an unusual treatment if
00:46:57
we're trying to, you know, get guys with
00:46:59
heft on our side of the seesaw.
00:47:01
>> At the World Economic Forum, I wasn't
00:47:02
sure if it was Davos or another one of
00:47:04
their forums. Were you at the Davos one
00:47:06
this year?
00:47:07
>> Sure.
00:47:07
>> So, as a total aside, just bringing
00:47:10
President Trump's impact, it was two and
00:47:13
a half days of people wondering what he
00:47:15
would say when he got there.
00:47:16
>> The town shut down as people watched his
00:47:19
2hour standup, you know, delivery. and
00:47:23
then another two days of people sort of
00:47:26
trying to understand and figure out what
00:47:28
happened there. So there's something
00:47:31
>> it was a reality TV show for sure. Yeah.
00:47:34
So he took over this fellow uh uh Mooch
00:47:38
who was his communication guy for a week
00:47:42
or 10 days till he got fired in the
00:47:44
first administration said on the first
00:47:46
night I was at an event he said remember
00:47:48
this is going to be a re reality TV
00:47:50
show. was going to start with the claim
00:47:52
that we're going to invade Greenland,
00:47:54
which my god, you're invading in a lie.
00:47:56
That's a pretty big deal. He said, then
00:47:59
you're going to watch the drama build.
00:48:00
When Trump had a chance to speak, he's
00:48:02
speaking this long ring back and forth
00:48:05
back. But he then had a just a paragraph
00:48:08
in which he said he basically took the
00:48:10
gun off the table. But before that, he
00:48:13
was doing a mafioso act. Even some some
00:48:16
mafioso lines about, you know, you can
00:48:18
either have it the easy way or the hard
00:48:20
way. One of the that's a godfather line.
00:48:22
And so people were saying, "Yes, you
00:48:24
know, this what what has been loose on
00:48:27
us." So now you have all this drama. But
00:48:29
then he says, "I've decided we're not
00:48:32
going to invade Greenland." You know, he
00:48:34
just passes that off. So now the
00:48:36
temperature goes down. And now the third
00:48:38
day he does some other
00:48:41
institute or board of peace and he says
00:48:45
we now have a framework of an agreement.
00:48:47
So uh I think I think half of the time
00:48:50
he's having fun.
00:48:52
>> Yeah.
00:48:53
>> You know it's sort of it does get
00:48:56
people's attention.
00:48:57
>> Sure it does. uh you um on a substantive
00:49:00
basis shared a framework 8089
00:49:04
and I think it you know I've spent a
00:49:06
bunch of time listening to the talk you
00:49:07
gave and and some people's um reaction
00:49:10
to it maybe you could share it with the
00:49:12
audience and why it's important. Oh,
00:49:14
thank you. I'm glad you So, I think this
00:49:16
is a big idea. So, these are three
00:49:19
numbers, each of which is the answer to
00:49:22
a question. And if you can remember the
00:49:25
three numbers and you can identify the
00:49:28
question to which each one is the
00:49:30
answer, you have the big picture about
00:49:33
international security in the lifetime
00:49:36
of yourself and even your parents. That
00:49:40
is virtually everybody who's alive
00:49:42
today. So the first sity is the answer
00:49:45
to what?
00:49:46
>> How long it's been since a world war?
00:49:48
>> How many years since a great power war?
00:49:49
Since a world war.
00:49:51
>> Yeah.
00:49:51
>> Now, whoa, wait a minute. 80 years. This
00:49:54
is the longest piece in recorded history
00:49:58
since Rome.
00:50:00
This is not natural.
00:50:02
This is very abnormal.
00:50:05
This is a didn't happen by accident.
00:50:08
This was what the people who founded the
00:50:11
international order after World War II
00:50:14
were trying to build a new world order
00:50:16
because they had just lived through a
00:50:17
terrible World War II
00:50:20
simply one generation before they
00:50:22
remembered, hey, there was World War I.
00:50:25
>> So if we just keep doing this, we should
00:50:27
expect World War II.
00:50:29
>> It should have already happened. If it
00:50:31
could have happened at the human missile
00:50:32
crisis. So no great power war.
00:50:35
Fantastic. and but a a fragile a work in
00:50:39
progress all the time eroding inevitably
00:50:44
for many many different reasons right
00:50:46
second 80 how many years
00:50:48
>> since we've had a nuclear uh bomb go off
00:50:51
>> fantastic so think about that if you had
00:50:54
gone if there had been prediction
00:50:56
markets and you had gone in 1945 or 50
00:51:00
you would have got 10,000 to1 odds
00:51:01
against that it's impossible the weapon
00:51:05
that ended World War II two and you're
00:51:06
not ever going to see any use of those
00:51:08
weapons in war. Whoa. And then nine,
00:51:12
>> the number of countries, nation states
00:51:14
that have nuclear
00:51:17
bombs today.
00:51:18
>> Fantastic, Jack. Right. Now, how in the
00:51:20
world could you have only nine countries
00:51:23
having nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons
00:51:25
being your kind of ultimate security
00:51:27
blanket. Again, John Kennedy uh in 1963
00:51:32
said by the 70s there'll be 25 or 30
00:51:35
nuclear weapons states cuz he thought
00:51:37
that as states acquired the capability
00:51:40
to build nuclear weapons they would do
00:51:42
so. Today 90 95 states could have
00:51:45
nuclear weapons in a year or two if they
00:51:47
decided to build them. Actually into the
00:51:50
70s Sweden had a serious nuclear
00:51:52
program. South Korea had a nuclear
00:51:54
program. Taiwan had a nuclear program.
00:51:57
US closed those down, created the
00:52:00
so-called non-prololiferation regime
00:52:03
that's accounted for this nine. But I
00:52:06
would say again fragile, eroding, not
00:52:10
likely to be sustained. So when I try to
00:52:14
do my giving thanks for uh you know
00:52:17
things that I should be thankful for,
00:52:19
thankful for 80 years without a great
00:52:22
power war. If there were a great power
00:52:24
war, you and I, we wouldn't be here and
00:52:27
we wouldn't be having this conversation
00:52:29
and all the other issues we have to deal
00:52:31
with. So I would say the 80 the 80 and 9
00:52:34
we should not take for granted. We
00:52:36
should give thanks for the work that was
00:52:37
done to to build them and then we should
00:52:40
notice what's going to be required to
00:52:42
sustain this.
00:52:43
>> And we almost had a 10th nuclear power
00:52:46
in Iran.
00:52:47
>> We did.
00:52:47
>> And we had the latest two if I'm correct
00:52:49
here. You'll correct me because you're
00:52:50
the expert. Pakistan and North Korea and
00:52:53
we had that one doctor Khan I believe
00:52:55
his name was from Pakistan who was
00:52:57
trying to spread and sell these. So
00:52:59
>> absolutely
00:53:01
>> did we make a critical error we being
00:53:04
the west even the east humanity the
00:53:06
leadership of letting Pakistan and North
00:53:10
Korea into this club?
00:53:11
>> Well I mean not not into the club but
00:53:13
allowing them to get nuclear weapons
00:53:15
which is right. The Israelis have had a
00:53:18
different idea and this goes back uh uh
00:53:22
uh to the original attack on Iraq
00:53:27
and Osarok.
00:53:28
Uh they I call it affirmative
00:53:31
non-prololiferation.
00:53:32
So they say we're not allowing nuclear
00:53:35
weapons in our neighborhood. And they've
00:53:37
uh destroyed the nuclear weapon project
00:53:40
in Iraq. They destroyed the nuclear
00:53:43
weapon activity in Syria when the North
00:53:47
Koreans were building a plant there half
00:53:49
dozen years ago. And now they've been
00:53:51
the leaders in the destruction of the
00:53:53
Iranian nuclear program which we've
00:53:55
participated in. I however I'm
00:53:59
uncomfortable about the wars even in
00:54:02
Iran. I have to cheer for this because I
00:54:05
fear additional nuclear weapon states
00:54:08
and I wish that we had managed somehow.
00:54:10
Let's take the North Korean case. I've
00:54:13
even said this to Chinese uh officials.
00:54:16
I said, you know, we and you made a
00:54:18
terrible mistake. Maybe we made a bigger
00:54:21
mistake to let North Korea get nuclear
00:54:24
weapons. But what we should have said to
00:54:26
you is, hey, we have an idea. Nuclear
00:54:30
weapons are either good for North Korea
00:54:32
and South Korea,
00:54:35
or they're good for neither of them.
00:54:37
>> Your choice.
00:54:39
And uh that would have been hard ball.
00:54:41
But I I think uh uh the idea of having
00:54:46
Kim Jong-un have now more than 100
00:54:50
nuclear warheads and missiles that can
00:54:52
reach the American homeland is crazy.
00:54:56
I mean, here we're talking about Iran
00:54:59
and what it might be. Excuse me. it
00:55:03
takes uh 20 minutes longer from Korea to
00:55:07
get to Boston than from Iran or maybe 25
00:55:12
minutes. So I I think that uh that's a
00:55:15
useful perspective to remind us that we
00:55:18
let this thing happen. It's a ticking
00:55:21
bomb as far as I'm concerned. If you ask
00:55:24
me what to do about it, I makes me, you
00:55:27
know, cry because Trump in the first
00:55:30
administration focused on this problem
00:55:33
very very seriously and did everything
00:55:35
that he thought he could and I thought
00:55:38
it was a good a good effort even though
00:55:40
it was not successful.
00:55:42
But the 20 other ways we've tried to
00:55:44
deal with that problem were equally
00:55:47
unsuccessful.
00:55:48
>> How does China feel about nuclear
00:55:49
proliferation and North Korea having
00:55:51
these bombs? Well, I think they feel a
00:55:54
little ashamed at least uh about what
00:55:57
happened in North Korea and kind of
00:55:59
think, well, that wasn't really our
00:56:00
problem. But now uh when you say, well,
00:56:04
if this keeps if things on the current
00:56:06
path, well, maybe South Korea or Japan
00:56:09
will have nuclear arsenals in their
00:56:11
backyard, they think that's terrible
00:56:13
idea, and we would be not very
00:56:15
enthusiastic about a Venezuelan or
00:56:18
Canadian nuclear bomb. Yeah.
00:56:20
>> So, Dr. Alison, just to kind of wrap our
00:56:23
tour of the world here, come back to the
00:56:26
United States. Since we last spoke,
00:56:29
there have been a number of mayors
00:56:31
elected in this country that are
00:56:33
self-declared socialists or democratic
00:56:36
socialists of America, PSA. And there's
00:56:39
a rising populist movement in the United
00:56:41
States that seems to be manifesting in
00:56:43
many cases candidates that look and act
00:56:46
like true deep socialists and want to
00:56:50
enact socialist policies. What is the
00:56:53
risk to the United States if this
00:56:56
continues to go the way it's going? And
00:56:58
what is the risk to the United States,
00:57:00
do you think, in 2028
00:57:03
if we have a Democratcontrolled House
00:57:05
and Senate and a very populist Democrat
00:57:08
candidate that looks like a DSA member?
00:57:10
Where does this take us?
00:57:12
>> Well, again, good for you all for
00:57:15
thinking of uncomfortable
00:57:17
radical questions, but real. Uh, so
00:57:22
if you look at the numbers, I I I've
00:57:25
been looking at them lately. They're
00:57:27
hard to believe in terms of the split
00:57:29
between wealthy and poor or uh rich and
00:57:34
poor. If you look at the who's benefited
00:57:38
for the last generation in terms of the
00:57:41
uh 0.01% the 1% the 10% the 20%. Well,
00:57:45
that's us and all the people that we
00:57:47
know virtually. And therefore when we
00:57:50
say the market is you know third year in
00:57:52
a
00:57:54
in a in a bull market and my goodness
00:57:57
here it's up 15 or 16% or this 80 or 70%
00:58:01
of people this is not part of their
00:58:03
lives and when I look at the numbers
00:58:07
about both what I think the facts are
00:58:09
and then even more people's perception
00:58:12
uh uh it's just not stable in a
00:58:15
democracy if everybody gets a vote.
00:58:19
And if uh uh the top 10 or 20% are
00:58:23
taking 80% or 70% of the pie,
00:58:27
that's not stable and sustainable, I
00:58:30
think. And it's a political invitation
00:58:34
for a populist and demographic demog,
00:58:42
that's not reasonable. Uh, so I think
00:58:45
that it's not I mean this is beyond my I
00:58:49
mean I I can hardly deal with the
00:58:51
problems I I focus on. This one is one
00:58:53
that I look over my shoulder and think
00:58:56
gee wait a minute this first this can't
00:58:58
be true but then whenever I've been
00:59:01
looking into the numbers lately they
00:59:03
look as bad as they appear and then this
00:59:07
is extremely dangerous and I would say
00:59:10
yes. And so I haven't heard people
00:59:13
talking about plausible ways
00:59:17
in which uh you know this could be
00:59:20
addressed and I but I think it's a it's
00:59:23
a it's an invitation
00:59:27
you know for some more radical ideas
00:59:30
and uh so while I like very much the
00:59:33
Trump uh accounts for kids to give them
00:59:37
some stake I think that's a that's a
00:59:39
fantastic thing. I I I could probably be
00:59:42
persuaded that
00:59:46
people even at my level of income should
00:59:48
pay another 10% of taxes or whatever for
00:59:55
uh for some more adjustment. I think the
00:59:58
kind of adjustments that are basically
01:00:01
putting people on the dole uh or uh
01:00:06
support for nonproductive or
01:00:09
semi-productive activity makes me very
01:00:12
uncomfortable. Uh I mean unless they're
01:00:15
lame or you know ill or or
01:00:18
>> referring to UBI proposals uh people
01:00:20
getting a universal basic income that
01:00:22
that takes motivation
01:00:23
>> makes me less I like incentive. I mean,
01:00:26
I think the the stuff of America has
01:00:28
been the opportunity for people to to be
01:00:31
incentivized to invent, create, and
01:00:34
create wealth that's benefits for
01:00:36
everybody. But if the if the jam is not
01:00:40
getting spread to 70% of the people,
01:00:43
that not a sustainable political
01:00:46
situation. And and I think I mean I
01:00:49
thought in the in the New York campaign
01:00:52
we got to see some preview of a bit of
01:00:55
this and in the primaries you're seeing
01:00:58
people going into this space. I haven't
01:01:00
seen anybody with a with a coherent
01:01:03
program yet. But I think for serious
01:01:06
people thinking about what's good for
01:01:08
the country that's a it's a good one to
01:01:12
worry about.
01:01:12
>> Does seem free that there's there's a
01:01:14
couple proposals here. minimum wage,
01:01:17
maybe some type of a wealth tax. There
01:01:18
are things that people are talking
01:01:20
about. We may not all agree with them,
01:01:23
and they may be hard to execute, but one
01:01:25
of them is for the people at the top. I
01:01:26
think you would agree, Professor
01:01:28
Allison, the people at the top have the
01:01:31
most to lose here, and they should be
01:01:33
thinking about it. And maybe there's
01:01:35
generosity and, you know, maybe giving
01:01:37
away wealth in a more thoughtful way
01:01:40
because there's so much wealth in this
01:01:42
top 1% 10% that they can't possibly
01:01:45
spend. And so this might be something
01:01:47
that that group of people should be
01:01:49
thinking a little bit more about.
01:01:50
>> In the State of the Union, Trump called
01:01:52
out, you know, Dell and a couple of
01:01:55
other people for having stepped up and
01:01:57
say, "Okay, I'm, you know, I'm all in on
01:02:00
this." I would say there something quite
01:02:03
or that certainly it got my attention
01:02:06
and made me think maybe I should be
01:02:07
doing something different. Yeah.
01:02:09
>> Yeah. Right. Well, Professor Allison,
01:02:12
you know, they they say that you can
01:02:13
measure a man's knowledge and
01:02:16
thoughtfulness by his humility. I will
01:02:18
say you have extraordinary depth and
01:02:21
you've thought so deeply about so many
01:02:22
of these issues that this world is
01:02:24
facing right now and yet you act with
01:02:27
such humility and grace when you speak
01:02:29
about them. I want to thank you for
01:02:31
that. I want to thank you for taking the
01:02:32
time to be with us today. Really
01:02:34
appreciate it and look forward to doing
01:02:35
it again in person soon.
01:02:37
>> Yeah. Thank you so much on behalf of the
01:02:39
audience and just on a personal basis.
01:02:41
This is such a delight and privilege to
01:02:43
be able to do with this with you every
01:02:44
year or two. And man, I hope we can just
01:02:46
do it every year because it's the
01:02:48
highlight of my year when we get to
01:02:49
talk.
01:02:50
>> Excuse me. It's an honor for me. Thank
01:02:52
you so much. And thank you for what
01:02:53
y'all are doing and thanks for thinking
01:02:55
of such hard questions. I'll take me
01:02:59
home tonight to think about socialism.
01:03:01
Yes.
01:03:01
>> Yeah.
01:03:02
>> Okay. Thank you, sir.
01:03:03
>> Thank you.
01:03:20
>> I'm going all in.
