How should we think about him in the Soviet Union?

Well, I would say that in his first term, he had a somewhat muddled and unsuccessful policy towards the Soviet Union.

The most high profile elements were his confrontational tactics and rhetoric.

He boosted U.S. defense spending massively.

He called the Soviet Union an evil empire.

But he was also at the same time behind the scenes trying to reach out to the Soviets and trying to establish channels of communication because he was very worried about the danger of of nuclear Armageddon.

That was something that, in fact, was an obsession with him.

Is there any way to characterize how Ronald Reagan thought of Iran? Did he think he could bring it in from the cold?

What was Reagan's thoughts? Who was Jack? What do we need to know about his father? Good evening to you.

Good evening, and thanks for having me on.

It's a pleasure to talk about the book.

And we can begin by, as you suggest, by talking about Jack Reagan, Ronald Reagan's father.

And Jack was this kind of near-do-well Irish-American shoe salesman who had a great gift of Blarney, very charming, great raconteur, but his great weakness was demon rum and he was an alcoholic major major drinking problem and that contributed to a lot of the misery of ronald reagan's childhood because jack reagan dreamed of opening his own shoe emporium but instead he kept losing one job after another and the family kept moving from one place to another.

And this, you know, created a sense of dislocation and little Dutch Reagan's life as, as, as Reagan was known when he was, when he was young and meant that he never stayed in one place for very long.

And he, he, never really got close to the other kids, in part because he had this family secret.

What do we need to remember about her as a young person caring for the children that inspired Reagan later?

And, uh, you know, I guess one of the big questions that we have to ask is, given Trump's generally, uh, recumbent pose when it comes to Russia and his ki- lack of support for Ukraine, which was a bulwark against Russia, do we have to worry in the next couple of years that Putin gets a little adventurous? I mean, after all, his time may be running out too.

Yeah, I think you, you always have to worry about what, you know, a, a, an absolute dictator like Putin without any remorse or pity or morality, what he will do.

Um, we already saw that he's quite capable of undertaking mad gambles like the invasion of Ukraine, which has backfired spectacularly and, you know, resulted in the loss of something like a million Russians.

But, uh, that is not stopping Putin from continuing the war, and he is certainly stepping up his so-called hybrid war or gray zone warfare against Europe with drone incursions, uh, terrorist attacks, and the like.

And just yesterday, the Russians made nuclear threats against the European capitals.

I guess this has become so routine that it's not even a big news story here, but, uh, the Russians were reacting to NATO war games, um, and worried that the Russian, that, that the Russians will get cut off, get cut off from their enclave in Kaliningrad, which is, you know, this tiny disconnected part of the, uh, of the Russian territory, uh, which is wedged in next to the Baltic republics.

And so the Kremlin was threatening to nuke European capitals if anything happens to Kaliningrad.

Um, uh, Max, what about, um, what about, uh, um, China, Taiwan?

Hate to use a cliche but the chickens are coming home to roost being treated with contempt doesn't pay in the long run

Uh, d-and no ind-ind-indeed it does not.

Um, you know Max, Ed brings up the war in Ukraine and it, and it resonates with me.

I wrote something about this myself a couple of weeks ago which is being a superpower n-is not only not what it was cracked up to be It may never have been what it was cracked up to be.

And um, you know you look at how Russia has fared in Ukraine You look at how the US fared in almost every war that it fought In, you look at how Russia fared in Afghanistan and it's one thing to have the power to destroy the world many times over.

Um, but that tends not to be super helpful when you're fighting a regional war When you're fighting a war against um, uh, uh you know particularly against a group of people that live in the place where you're fighting who don't want you to be there.

And, and um, [stuttering] you know I wonder if one of the things that we're seeing here Is a kind of devaluation of this idea of a superpower Because you know it doesn't seem to be working out so great for the superpowers Well quite honestly it never has w-- If you look at America and Vietnam If you look at the Soviet Union and Afghanistan This is a longstanding story and it really in some ways challenges the utility Of nuclear weapons because obviously Superpowers want big nuclear arsenals and medium sized powers Want nuclear arsenals But the que--But you know when can you actually use them? And so far mercifully the answer has been never So you see the spectacle of two nuclear armed states In Russia and the United States Getting their butts kicked by adversaries Who don't have any nuclear weapons at all By the way Nuclear weapons haven't done Israel A whole hell of a lot of good either in terms of dealing With the threats that they face from Hamas or Hezbollah Or Iran or what have you Yeah I think this is a longstanding story What it basically comes down to is in some ways The most potent weapon in the world and it Has been for the last two centuries Is nationalist ideology At least that's what I would argue Whichever side in a struggle Can tap into wellsprings of Nationalist ideology is the one That has a massive advantage Now clearly in the case of Ukraine It's the Ukrainians because they've Been invaded by Russia Unfortunately for us when it Comes to fighting in Vietnam Afghanistan Iraq or now with Iran It's the other side that taps Into the nationalism Trump was hoping For want of a better word To trump Iranian nationalism By appealing to the Iranian People to rise up Against their unpopular rulers We saw what a fiasco that turned Out to be and now Trump Doesn't know what the hell to Do Now he's threatening to blow Up bridges and power plants Which is to put it mildly Not the way you get the people Of Iran on your side He's basically left Them out to dry and Is now turning the people of Iran into victims of this War as well If you're gonna Be this foreign Power combatingThe power of Nationalism The historical record Does not look very Promising for you I thinkWe're seeingThat confirmed againIn ourWar with Iran Yeah and i think the power of nationalism is multiplied by....If youre living in ur own home youre not gona leave..so you got longer time frame than the other side has ...And obviosuly greater emotional ties ..You know Ant ,this seems to be sometning that is apparent to the world .Ofcourse As max pointed out ....u and ive talked abt before Its ben apparant to anyone paying attention past sixty years seventy years .....The two ppl it seems to b lost on r vladamir Putin and Donald trumpp.....Who seem to think "i am a suerpower therefore ill win no metter wat" in these circumstances......Anndd they ignore history including recent history fro both countries ......Donald trump particulary idiotically

As you look at this, um, are we missing the fact that there are some troubling strategic implication longer term potential sort of, uh, uh, creeping consequences of this war?

But what do we know about Iran?

Well, the big thing that we know is that Donald Trump, who promised to keep America out of endless wars, has now gotten America embroiled in an endless war.

And remember, when he launched this war on February 28th, he estimated it would take four to five weeks.

Well, here we are six months later, and the war continues, even though the two sides are not actively shooting at one another, but trade through the Strait of Hormuz is still being disrupted.

The administration claims that they're getting some more oil out of the U.S. Navy independent agency.

So that's not the case.

Whatever the case, what we know for sure is that there is a lot less oil coming through the Strait of Hormuz now than there was on February 28th.

Are we still respected and feared around the world, Max?

Why was this such a turning point? And how long did the offensive actually last?

The offensive came as a massive shock to American public opinion.

Most of the fighting was over pretty quickly.

Saigon was secured in a number of days.

The longest battle occurred in Hue, where Marines had to blast the communist troops out of their strongholds in vicious block-by-block fighting, which took a couple of months.

But the communists suffered disproportionately heavy casualties.

Some 60,000 communist troops were killed.

Was that a missed opportunity to have won the war in Vietnam? Or how do you how do you kind of reconcile those two competing kind of visions of how this how this went?

How should we think about him in the Soviet Union?

Well, I would say that in his first term, he had a somewhat modeled and unsuccessful policy towards the Soviet Union.

The most high profile elements were his confrontational tactics and rhetoric.

He boosted U.S. defense spending massively.

He called the Soviet Union an evil empire.

But he was also at the same time behind the scenes trying to reach out to the Soviets and and trying to establish channels of communication because he was very worried about the danger of nuclear Armageddon.

That was something that, in fact, was an obsession with him.

Is there any way to characterize how Ronald Reagan thought of Iran? Did he think he could bring it in from the cold?

What was Reagan's thoughts? Who was Jack? What do we need to know about his father? Good evening to you.

Good evening, and thanks for having me on.

It's a pleasure to talk about the book.

And we can begin by, as you suggest, by talking about Jack Reagan, Ronald Reagan's father.

And Jack was this kind of near-do-well Irish-American shoe salesman who had a great gift of Blarney, very charming, great raconteur, but his great weakness was demon rum and he was an alcoholic major major drinking problem and that contributed to a lot of the misery of ronald reagan's childhood because jack reagan dreamed of opening his own shoe emporium but instead he kept losing one job after another and the family kept moving from one place to another.

And this, you know, created a sense of dislocation in little Dutch Reagan's life, as Reagan was known when he was young, and meant that he never stayed in one place for very long.

And he... never really got close to the other kids, in part because he had this family secret he didn't want people to know about his father's drinking.

What do we need to remember about her as a young person caring for the children that inspired Reagan later?

So, so why do this? What's the threat accomplish?

It doesn't accomplish anything except convincing people that Trump is unhinged, but I think this is a sign of how frustrated he is by the failure of this war.

I think he's embarrassed and humiliated that after he said the war was gonna last four to five weeks, it's now lasted six months, and he still has no way to get out of it, so he's lashing out.

In the past, he was blaming Europeans for not bailing him out.

Now he's blaming Oman and the South Koreans for not bailing him out, but everybody knows that the real responsibility lies with Trump because he started a foolhardy war of choice that we didn't n- need to get into, and he has no idea of how to get out of it.

I mean, what precedent does this set for other US allies who might now fear their security guarantees are entirely transactional?

I mean, it's sending a loud and clear message that o- our allies cannot trust us because at the drop of a hat, Trump may wind up sympathizing with our enemies rather than our allies.

And his praise for Kim Jong Un is particularly crazy given the fact that North Korea right now is providing men and missiles to help Russia attack Ukraine.

Uh, so like a lot of these great men in history, um, how do you think his childhood framed what later became of, of Reagan the man?

It had a huge impact.

I mean, like all of us, our personality, I mean, to some extent it's, it's DNA, but to some extent it's also our upbringing, our childhood.

And in Reagan's case, he had what, what we would today call a very difficult, traumatic childhood, although he always looked at it with rose-colored glasses and always tried to look on the bright side.

In fact, that was one of the big takeaways from his childhood because, you know, he was-- his father was this itinerant shoe salesman, had a major drinking problem, kept losing one job after another.

And so the Reagan family kept moving from one tiny little town in-- small town in Illinois to another in the early years of the twentieth century.

And often, his father would go off on these multi-day benders and come back, and, uh, Dutch Reagan, as he was then called, and his brother Moon could hear these loud arguments through the thin walls of their rented houses between their mother and their father.

Uh, you know, look, there may be some other future president, but for the time and, and the, and the fact it just, it's such a huge part of his run that you looked at him on TV and you kinda felt better.

Mm-hmm

... that claims to be called one thing, but is actually called something else, because it's actually still the Department of Defense, but they insist on calling themselves the Department of War, which was not authorized by Congress.

So their very name is a lie, and they have been anything but transparent over the course of this conflict.

President Trump didn't even really explain to the American people why he was launching this war on February 28th, and then there was another dodge when he signed the, the ceasefire and the memorand- memorandum of understanding with Iran, and then he said, "Okay, the, the War Powers Act no longer applies," because there's a 60-day deadline.

Mm-hmm.

The most immediate way it's backfired is that Iran has seized control of the Strait of Hormuz, which they did not have on February 27th.

But now, you know, if this New York Times reporting is accurate, what it's suggesting is that Israel and the United States killed the old ayatollah, who was extremist but also fairly cautious, and now they've put into power a new ayatollah, who may be just as extremist but less cautious.

And it's, it's, it's, it's a, it's a real, uh, p- p- pattern, eh?

I mean, it would be amusing if the consequences weren't so serious because, of course, uh, this whole, uh, conceit of Trump and Hegseth is that all of the generals who have run America's wars before were all dopes and babies, as, as Trump once said, and obviously they, they were, you know, low T individuals who did not have the martial virtues of, you know, Cadet Bone Spurs in his, in his great, uh, military record at the New York Military Academy, uh, or, you know, Hegseth's milit- actual military record.

And so their whole conceit was- You know, the Department of Defense was full of losers before, but we're gonna rename it the Department of War and, you know, we haven't won a war since World War II, but now we're gonna start winning wars, baby.

We're gonna show them how it's done, how these high T war-winning individuals, they're-- these alpha males are in charge, so now we're gonna go out and kick some butt.

Of course, you see what the results are.

We're in a quagmire that's in many ways worse than any quagmire in recent years and it's, it's sort of grimly amusing that, that Trump's brilliant retort is, "Oh yeah, you think this is bad? Well, the Vietnam War was much worse." Well, is that supposed to make us feel better that, okay, we haven't lost fifty-eight thousand troops yet at Iran? But actually, if you're not just looking at troop numbers, and it's true, if you're just looking at casualties, okay, that's lower than in previous wars.

But in terms of the economic effect of this war, it's actually higher.

As you look at this, um, are we missing the fact that there are some troubling strategic implication, longer term potential sort of, uh, uh, creeping consequences of this war?

Max, what would you add with regard to the cost of this war, the economic costs so far and in the future?

I mean, it could get a lot worse.

I mean, it's already pretty severe because you're seeing gasoline prices go over $4 a gallon.

That's hitting Americans in their pocketbooks.

It hasn't been catastrophic so far, in part because I think the oil markets, the stock markets, they're all kind of operating under the taco theory, which is Trump always chickens out.

So they assume that as soon as the economic repercussions become severe enough, Trump will make a deal.

And clearly that's what he was trying to do last month with the memorandum of understanding.

Max, I'll start with you.

What are the other options on the table? Are there any, Max?

Well, to use a tactical military term, Katie, I would say we are up a creek without a paddle at this point.

There really are not a lot of good options left.

And I think the fundamental issue that Trump is confronting is we don't have a viable U.S. military plan to open up the Strait of Hormuz and to keep it open, notwithstanding Iranian pressure.

Now, we can close it down, and we're pretty successful in closing down Iranian traffic, but the Iranians are also pretty successful in closing down traffic from other countries.

And to try to keep the Strait open would require a massive and very risky military operation, which it's pretty clear by this point the U.S. Navy does not want to undertake.

And therefore, we're kind of at a standoff without a lot of good options.

Um, any sense of whether any of it is to be believed?

It's really hard to take seriously anything that Trump says, Abby.

I mean, look at what happened just this week.

Yesterday he says, "I'm gonna start charging a 20% toll on traffic through the Strait of Hormuz." Today he says, "Never mind." I mean, no wonder it's so hard to negotiate with him and no wonder that, uh, they're, we're having so much trouble getting an agreement with the Iranians this thick because he changes his mind basically every day.

He throws things out there.

He takes them back.

Obviously, the Iranians are no better.

You said equally duplicitous.

What do you make of it?

What I make of it, Abby, is that the Iran war has not really ended.

I mean, remember when President Trump started this foolhardy and unnecessary war of choice, at the end of February, he said it would be a war that would last about four to five weeks, and here we are about five months later, and unfortunately, the war is still continuing.

I mean, I'm not sure that we're gonna see a return to a full-blown, uh, set of hostilities, because I don't think Trump wants that, especially ahead of the midterm elections.

He doesn't need gasoline prices to spike once again, especially with the US petroleum reserve at its lowest level since 1983.

I don't think the Iranians necessarily want a full-blown war either, because they still have a lot of damage to repair from the previous round of hostilities.

But it's clear that the Iranians do wanna control the Strait of Hormuz.

So to your point about whether this will be a quagmire, one of our viewers has a question: "Where does the panel think that the US will be a year from now in Iran?" I mean, uh, Max, you suggested that it's like an on-again, off-again conflict and, but where does that end? Are we gonna do that forever?

What's the significance of all of this, Max?

I, I sort of miss the old Bibi Netanyahu, who was always hawkish, but he used to be a cautious hawk.

And people forget this, that before October 7th, he wasn't out there starting wars all the time.

When he did use military force, it was, you know, so-called mowing the, mowing the grass operations where he would bomb Hezbollah or Hamas for a few days and then end it and go back to normal.

But since October 7th, he has displayed this kind of messianic complex where he's out, as he's, as he says repeatedly, to redraw the map of the Middle East.

He wants to change-- defeat all of Israel's enemies at once and transform the region.

Well, that is a sure path, uh, to endless war and, and futility, and that's kind of where Israel is today.

What's holding up, uh, any further aid to Ukraine right now?

You know, it, it, uh, but it seems to me that every alliance in the future, uh, every international relationship in the future, the fate of the dollar, the fate of our markets all depends on trying to find a way to persuade the world that we are not gonna have another nutcase as President of the United States.

Problem is, I'm not sure how you nut-proof, uh, the office of the presidency of the United States.

I mean, I generally agree with your comments, David.

I will just say, though, and maybe this is special pleading because I am speaking to you from my office at the Council on Foreign Relations, which was once known as the, you know, ground zero for the foreign policy establishment.

I don't know what we are today.

But, uh, I will say that, I mean, much as I might be tempted to go along with you in laying all of this blame at the feet of the, of the so-called foreign policy establishment, I think you might be giving us, uh, you know, too much credit or too much blame or something because I don't think we're all that powerful, frankly, and most of the st- stuff you're talking about are things that, uh, I do think the Biden administration, you know, uh, Jake Sullivan, uh, Tony Blinken, those folks, uh, were very aware of, and they were...

I'm not...

Hatchet man job, Max.

I mean, I'll begin with you, Max, because just given the last few days, do you see any evidence that this, this strategy to, to seem unstable and speak the universal language or things that, that Iran will understand, um, and making these public claims, is it working?

No.

And remember, uh, this, this whole madman theory actually dates back to Richard Nixon.

He had the idea that he would act unstable and crazy and scare North Vietnam into making a deal with the United States.

And guess what? It didn't work for Richard Nixon because basically the deal he signed was very one-sided in favor of North Vietnam.

There's no sign that it's working in, in, in Trump's favor today with Iran when he, he just basically sends off these conflicting signals which make the Iranians and everybody else wonder, "Where the heck is he coming from?" And basically by writing so much on social media about how a deal is imminent and how he thinks the war is about to end, he is signaling desperation.

He is telling the Iranians he is very, very eager to end the war, and that's not the posture you wanna go into when you're in this tough-nosed negotiation.

What do you think needs to happen to bridge that trust gap for, for negotiations to become productive, assuming the president's strategy is, um, effective in getting them to the negotiating table?

But the policy question always comes back to, how is this policy working? Uh, your view of that today as we go into the talks this weekend under Trump.

Well, I mean, you're right, Ari, it's...

I mean, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that it's an evil, awful regime in Iran that slaughtered tens of thousands of its own protesters earlier this year.

So, uh, you know, this is a regime that we want, we want to have, see them lose this war.

But unfortunately, I don't see them losing the war right now.

They have no doubt suffered major damage.

Uh, no question about that.

Max?

But do you think there's a case that Trump can make to the American people which will actually be persuasive to anybody that any aspect of this was a success?

Sure.

I mean, I think you're gonna see, once the actual kinetic fighting ends, I think you're gonna see a, a war of messages with both the Iranians and the Americans claiming to have won the war.

The question of who is right, I think, will be very hard to sort out initially.

It might take years to figure out whose claim is more persuasive.

I mean, on Trump's side, he's gonna be able to say very truthfully, "We destroyed most of their navy.

We destroyed most of their missile force.

So just sort of give me, you know, in a couple of minutes, your sense of the broader geopolitical implications.

Mm-hmm.

Because they're talking about all these targets that they're going after, and they've had tremendous success beginning with the killing of Ayatollah Khamenei and so many other Iranian leaders, and now going after their arsenal, their weapons, all that other stuff.

They're doing that very effectively.

But then you don't see the similar level of competence, nothing that inspires, uh, uh, you know, faith on the side of the, uh, of the civilians in, in, in the administration.

You see folks like Pete Hegseth or Donald Trump who are very clearly blustering and kind of making it up as you go along.

And I feel like we've kind of seen this movie before because this is really the story of the last quarter century.

We have tremendous US tactical military success, but it doesn't translate into strategic long-term gains.

I'm gonna stop wars.

So what do you see ahead and what are some of the perils?

Well, that's a great question, and, Alan, I think a-as a recovering Iraq war supporter, I have to say that there are some disturbing parallels here, including obv-- some, uh, although there's some obvious differences, the big one being Trump doesn't seem to be seriously contemplating s-sending ground troops.

But in the way that the justification for the war keeps shifting and also the end state that we're, we're seeking keeps shifting, but Trump is at least flirting with regime change.

Although if you listen to Pete Hegseth and Dan Kane at the Pentagon, they're talking about simply degrading Iraq's capacity to threaten its neighbors, which I think is certainly a doable and realizable military objective.

I mean, there is no question that we are degrading Iranian, uh, Iranian military capabilities as we speak.

But some of the more grandiose ambitions that Trump has expressed I don't think are terribly realistic.

For ex-- And, and they're at odds with one another because on the one hand, when he first announced the strikes, he's, he told the Iranian people to rise up and the security forces to lay down their arms.

And wars have a way of getting away from you, don't they?

Yes

... you know, truth in labeling, I wasn't at Munich, but just watching from afar, I feel like, uh, there is room for both assessments in that I think Ed is right that it does reflect this ethno-nationalist view, which is entrenched in, in the Trump administration and is antithetical, uh, to the values found in the Declaration of Independence, which are the values that the US has traditionally espoused in the world.

All that said, it could have been a lot worse, right? I mean, everybody agrees that JD Vance's speech last year was a lot worse, and, you know, that's kind of my view about Rubio is I'm not a huge fan.

I think he has, uh, you know, done intellectual and moral pretzels in order to stay in good standing in this administration, which is at odds with so many of the things that he espoused during his Senate career.

That said, I am very glad he is in this administration because he is one of the few adults left in the room who does anything at all to restrain Trump, and you've seen that, I think, over the course of the Ukraine negotiations where those geniuses, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, came up with this 28-point Russian written peace plan that would've completely sold out Ukraine and announced that, uh, essentially Ukraine had a week to agree to this right before Thanksgiving in November of last year.

And then Rubio got involved and walked it all back and basically, uh, you know, uh, allowed Ukraine to escape this trap that the Russians had set with, with the help of, of, of Trump's gullible peace envoys.

So again, not a huge fan of, of Rubio in the absolute, but in the relative landscape of today's Trump administration, I, I'm, I'm glad he's in there and not somebody else.

No, no, I understand, but I was just making a point here that it, you know, she's, she's veering in the direction of traditional American foreign policy, whereas Rubio is not.

Uh, Max, do you hear anything, any whispers of anything that sounds all that much different from the 1951 treaty that already gives us the right to be in Greenland and to defend it?

Well, there might be some slightly expanded US military presence.

There's rumors that w- the US might get right of first refusal on mineral rights in Greenland.

But the reality is we're not getting anything that the Danes would not have been happy to give us without all of this pressure, without these threats to invade Greenland, without this blackmail of an ally.

And so I'm very, you know, I'm very glad that Trump is, is, is backing off his threats.

I think we're all enjoying our helping of TAGO today, which of course is the now famous acronym for Trump Always Chickens Out.

He doesn't always chicken out.

No