All Episodes
Previous Next
June 18, 2018 - Real Coffe - Scott Adams
35:17
Episode 31 - Joel Pollack Explains the Iranian Nuke Deal
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
So hold on a second while we get going.
Hey everybody! Joel, you can enjoy the theme song.
Alright, I'm here today with Joel Pollack, Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart.
Hey Joel, say hi.
Joel, join me in the theme song.
Look, the stereo gets better every time.
All right. I asked Joel here to give us a brief tutorial on the Iran nuclear deal.
Trying to figure out, is it a good deal?
Is it a bad deal? If it's a bad deal, what's wrong with it?
Can we fix it? Just as briefly as possible to sort of educate us, get us up to speed.
Joel, could you run us through that?
Just give us the Iran nuclear deal idiot version.
Okay, so I'll jump to the end and then come back and explain the steps leading up to the conclusion.
But to answer your question, yes, it's a bad deal.
It's in fact a terrible deal, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we should tear it up because when you're looking at your options, what matters is what's happening now, what your alternatives are now, not what they ought to have been if you had done a better job Getting yourself to this point.
So let's just explain briefly why the deal is bad.
So before the Iran deal, the situation that we had was Iran had been trying to build nuclear weapons for decades.
They've been working up to doing this.
And the United Nations eventually caught on and passed a series of resolutions banning Iran from doing any kind of nuclear They were unanimous in some cases, and Russia and China let them go through.
Remember, Russia and China tend to veto everything that we want at the UN Security Council.
This time, they actually agreed.
So we held all the cards, all the leverage.
We were passing sanctions.
The international community was on board, and Iran was really suffering economically because of their regime's pursuit of nuclear weapons.
The Obama administration then decided to reach this agreement where essentially we gave up all of that leverage in exchange for some very flimsy promises from the other side.
And you can explain that in any number of ways.
You know, as Scott likes to say, there are different models that explain the facts.
One model would be that Obama was secretly an Iranian I don't agree with that model, but that does explain the facts.
But you could also explain the facts with a more sympathetic approach to Obama.
You could say he's a patriot who believed this was the best way to divest ourselves of war in the Middle East.
If we made Iran strong and we made Iran a dominant power in the region, then maybe there'd be more stability and we wouldn't And I think that's how many of the members of the Obama administration sincerely felt.
They really thought they were doing the right thing.
Now, Joel, did you ever hear anybody explain it that way?
No. I mean, the problem was, when Obama explained the deal, he...
Can we kind of quickly get into what's the detail of the deal that works or doesn't work?
Okay, so the idea is on our end, we give up the sanctions that we've had on the Iranian economy, plus we unfroze hundreds of billions of dollars in Iranian assets that we had frozen for many years, and we also gave them over a billion dollars in cash as part of the transaction Now,
the official explanation is that some of that was due to some old weapons purchases, but in many ways it was also a ransom because Iran was holding four Americans prisoner, effectively holding them hostage, and we delivered this cash to them on pallets in the middle of the night on a cargo plane.
It all looked very dodgy.
So we gave them all of these benefits.
In return, they slowed down some of their nuclear centrifuges.
They slow down their development of nuclear materials.
They slow down any research and progress on nuclear weapons programs.
And that sunsets out after six years, eight years, ten years.
There are different sunsets in the deal.
But those aren't permanent commitments.
They're mostly temporary commitments, although the Obama administration tried to say, well, the Iranian parliament passed a resolution.
They're not going to seek nuclear weapons for 25 years and that sort of thing.
But that's all just on paper.
Effectively, Iran can start to resume some of the activities that it was doing before the deal after about a decade or so.
We gave away all of our leverage, we gave Iran all of his cash, some of which was arguably theirs, but we had control over.
And we only got these commitments to stop nuclear enrichment for now, because eventually they can resume it, so we didn't actually get much.
Do we also care about the missiles?
Was that ever part of the deal, or should it be?
Right. Great question.
So, the Obama administration...
It actually misled itself.
There were people involved in the negotiations who believed the deal was going to include missiles, but it didn't.
What happened was the actual text of the deal does not include missiles, but the UN Security Council resolution that was passed alongside the deal does include a restriction on missile research, but it's not binding language.
It's very suggestive language.
Iran should not do this, but it's not legally binding.
But are they doing it?
Do we see them doing things?
Yes.
So they're launching all kinds of missiles.
We complain about it, and we say this is not in the spirit of the deal.
Sometimes we say this isn't in the deal.
The Obama administration was a little more lenient than the Trump administration has been.
But essentially, the deal was written so badly that the Iranians can make an argument that they're allowed to do it.
Now let me ask you this.
Why do we care?
This sort of sounds like the dumb question.
Why do we care if Iran has good weapons?
Who are they going to use it on?
It sounds like a dumb question, but it's not.
Right.
Well, they have threatened to wipe Israel I love the map, so that's one target.
But let's not pass through that one.
What do you think are the odds that Iran is unstable enough to destroy itself just to destroy Israel?
Because of course Iran would be evaporated.
So the Iranians have said in the past that One missile that could wipe out Israel, because it's such a small area, would be worth whatever retaliation Israel would send, because Iran's a big country, and it would be harder to wipe out Iran.
So there have actually been Iranian leaders who have said this.
Well, but, you know, Iran does have a big brother.
You know, Iran would be evaporated.
Well, that's the hope on the Israeli side.
But there's also a fear that because Iran Right.
to come and save the world.
And normally, you wouldn't necessarily think that this would be a consideration, but there are some pretty crazy people running Iran, and especially the last president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was pretty nuts.
And so people feared that Iran was so religiously fundamentalist that this would actually be a desirable outcome, that they wouldn't actually care if Israel retaliated because they would be saved in the religious salvation that would follow this war to end all wars.
Now, I've always been deeply curious about this.
And let me say that if I were Israel, I would treat those threats like they were 100% certain, because you don't take any chance of being completely annihilated.
So Israel has to treat it like it's a certainty.
But from our sort of, you know, airy, safe place over here, do you believe there's anybody in Iran sitting in a room talking to each other saying, you know, it's okay with me if we get blown up because we got that religion thing working for us, we got the afterlife?
Because honestly, I don't believe there's any human in Iran who's having that conversation and actually literally believes they'd be better off under that scenario.
It depends what your view of the Iranian regime is.
And as you say, Israel can't take that chance at all.
Can't take that chance. Right.
There are some neighboring states in the Middle East that also feel they can't take that chance, like the Saudis, who are also in the flight path of the Iranian missiles and some of the other smaller Gulf countries.
And then there's Western Europe, and the Iranian missiles that are being developed would have the range to hit Western Europe.
There's also the question of what kind of life you have when you're in that range.
You might not believe Iran's actually going to do something, but when Iran can hit you, it might constrain what you're able to do just in the ordinary course of business.
Iran can threaten shipping.
It can already threaten shipping through the Persian Gulf.
It can threaten the Mediterranean, especially now that it's involved in Syria, which has a coast in the eastern Mediterranean.
So Iran is using missiles not just to make threats but to expand its reach as a power, not just in the Persian Gulf but also into the Mediterranean.
Well, you know, I've always been puzzled by the fact that, you know, the U.S. and Iran, we feel we can be friends, and we feel that the religious difference has got to be the big part of that because they're driven by, you know, irrational forces that we can't understand and you can't deal with.
But how is it that they get along with Russia?
Russia is not exactly the most pro-Islamic place in the world, and it seems like if they can get along with Russia, is there no scenario that they could ever get along with us and, well, you know, Israel's a tougher question, but at least America?
Well, by some measures, the Iranian people are actually the most pro-American people in the Middle East outside of Israel, because the American people and the Iranian people have a long relationship going back many decades, and Iranians admire America.
Ordinary Iranian people admire America.
Very pro-American in general.
It's the regime that's the problem.
And there's an argument.
I would recommend people read an essay today by Eli Lake in Bloomberg, who says that Iran is so unstable right now because the people are so fed up with their regime that perhaps the best option is not to do anything, but just to keep this uncertainty around Iran and to let the regime collapse.
There's no conflict with Iran.
There's no reason to fear what might come next.
And that also argues that a 10-year deal that would be bad if at the 11th deal it would sunset and turn bad might be very close to a permanent deal because nobody knows what's going to happen in 10 years and it feels unlikely that the Iranian regime would be anything like what it looks like today.
Well, here's the interesting thing.
So, normally, you might say, we have a couple of options on the Iran deal.
We could tear it up, which is what most of the Republican candidates said they wanted to do, but it's not sure how you would then deal with Iran's nuclear program, because they would just go on producing nuclear weapons or nuclear material, whatever.
You could enforce it rigidly, which is what Donald Trump said he would do during the election, and I actually thought that was probably the most interesting position, because There are provisions in the deal that allow us to inspect their military sites.
If we actually enforce the deal the way it's written, we could do a pretty good job of making sure they weren't producing nuclear material and nuclear weapons.
Unfortunately, the Europeans are very skittish about actually enforcing the deal because they like the deal.
They're doing a lot of trade, or they could potentially do a lot of trade with the Iranian regime.
And then there's the option of this fix that they're talking about, a new Iran deal, which A new fix could make things worse for a variety of reasons.
And Eli Lake makes the argument that, look, Iran has failed to benefit from the deal in one of the ways we thought they would.
Yes, we gave them billions of dollars.
Yes, we removed the sanctions.
But because Trump was elected, because Trump is bringing all this uncertainty now, a lot of countries are fearful It's possible that Trump's best position could
be to increase the uncertainty and to do what he's done with his Twitter account, which is to encourage the Iranian protesters to keep rebelling against the regime and eventually pressure them to such an extent.
that they have to come to us for aid or benefits, and that's when we have additional leverage to get them to improve the deal, or we just wait for them to collapse, and then you don't even need a deal.
Sid, now, the framing, let me test this framing.
You're obviously far more knowledgeable about this whole area, so let's see if this makes sense.
I've said that the best argument with Iran is that as long as the Internet exists and they have this big population bubble of young people who are pro-Western, pro-US, or at least not anti-US, That the Iranian system is going to change, and probably in the next 10 years, no matter what.
There's nothing that the U.S. does.
It'll just be internally.
The Internet plus young people equals change.
And that we could either be part of helping them get to that next level or part of the problem.
So it seems to me the Iranian regime, if they want to maintain anything like their theocracy, needs to start getting flexible now because they don't have any path to the future.
You can't write on paper, okay, this is how the Iranian regime in its current form lasts 10 years.
There's no plan that works like that.
Yeah, and the other thing is by investing in better energy technology in the United States, we've managed to lower the price of oil.
So Iran has failed to benefit from the windfall they thought they were going to get with continued high oil prices.
I think their national budget Depends on oil being something like $150 a barrel.
Wow. And we've basically just undercut that by investing in fracking and shale and all the things we've been doing.
So oil's about half that now?
Yeah, and it's not going anywhere near $150 a barrel anytime soon.
So $60 something now?
Yeah, so we can continue to improve our own technology and undermine the regime that way.
Their economy is badly run.
But the people there, as you say, they're interested in the Internet.
The Internet's very highly censored there.
But the young people there are very smart, very bright.
They're interested in building new technologies of their own.
They want to be part of the broader world.
And the more we make that world attractive and the more we show them the benefits of doing it, I think the tougher it does get for the regime.
Okay, so if you had to predict, do you think that President Trump can get an improvement in the deal or at least a better understanding with Iran through his Trump-like talents?
I think he will find a way to create more uncertainty so that he wins either way.
As you point out, he often finds two ways to win.
The problem with a new deal fix, and this has been explained to me by experts who really understand what's possibly coming in the fix, one of the things they're thinking of doing is finding a way to stop Iran's missile program.
So the Europeans will agree to that.
They'll say, okay, let's have a new deal where Iran agrees to stop developing long-range missiles.
But that's not really so good because Iran doesn't have any long-range missiles.
They're not giving anything up, but they still have all the short-range missiles, and they will continue to develop those.
So if Trump agrees to that, he could give sanction to, he could approve of, effectively, Iran developing short-range missiles.
So the fix might be worse than what we have now, even though the intentions might be good.
So what I think Trump will do is find a way to apply American sanctions to certain Iranian behaviors that don't necessarily require Europe to cooperate with us.
And that way he will add to the pressure on Iran without blowing up the deal entirely, so that if the deal gets broken, it'll be broken by Iran.
And in that case, we will have more diplomatic clout with Europe to either get a better deal or to reimpose all the sanctions and really go for broke against the Iranian regime.
What is the track record of the current Iranian regime when they make a public pronouncement that says, we will do this or we will not do that?
Are there any big examples, let's say in the last 10 years, where they said, we will do this, and then we know they didn't do it?
Do we have that track record?
Yeah, I mean, they've lied constantly.
Wait, let me clarify the question.
Those are the things I do expect they would lie, just like every other country.
But there's a different category because they're a theocracy.
So if they pass a fatwa, or if the supreme leader says, no matter what we do, we're never going to wear yellow hats.
Is there anything where they've said, I'm putting my leader's word on the line.
I'm taking the credibility of the theocracy, and we're not going to do this.
In those cases, have they ever not done it?
It's hard to think of an example where they've stepped away from something and kept that commitment, but you can think of examples The satanic verses, the novel by Salman Rushdie, and they had a fight on him for many years.
And he took that seriously enough to live in hiding for decades.
They threatened retaliation against the United States and Israel for various things, and they carried out a terrorist attack a couple years ago in Bulgaria against a busload of Israeli tourists.
So they do keep their word on threats to the extent that they can.
That's one of the reasons. Why?
Why do you think they want to project a threat?
Is it defensive or offensive?
This is where, again, we come to the question of what kind of regime it is.
I think the Iranian regime hates America with a blinding passion because it's part of their theocracy.
Not just as bad guys, but we are, in their view, in the theocrats' view, we are the embodiment of Satan on Earth.
And they got rid of Satan in Iran by having this revolution in 1979, but to make the world perfect for their religious purposes, they've got to rid the world of us entirely.
That's why even though Obama was giving them everything they could have wanted, Billions of dollars and so forth.
They kept having rallies saying death to America in the streets.
And Obama had a hard time explaining that to people.
But that's part of the regime.
That's why people like me are very skeptical of the deal, because we do think that Iran is crazy enough, or at least the leaders are crazy enough, to do crazy things.
For the sake of their religious beliefs.
So you may have heard me talk about what I call the Golden Age.
And the Golden Age is where we realized that our problems were more psychological than real.
And this is sort of a classic one.
Now, I like to stay skeptical on anything that matters, that hasn't been just proven to me beyond a reasonable doubt.
Because I like to keep my flexibility.
And one of the things that I could believe, I could easily believe, but has not been demonstrated to my level of skeptical, I guess it hasn't hit my threshold, is that there really are people in the Iranian leadership who are this crazy.
Yeah, I'd love to.
I don't know how you verify that.
Because remember, the thing that held us back with North Korea is the assumption that he was crazy.
And then as soon as we put it to the test, he's acted nothing but rationally.
Right. And I believe the current thinking is that Kim Jong-un went from, let's say, a year and a half ago, oh, definitely crazy, there's no doubt about it, look at all the proof, to, oh yeah, we were 100% wrong about that, he's just completely rational.
So do you think there's any chance that we could have that kind of realization with Iran to mutual benefit?
I think so. And the proof for that would be what happened when George W. Bush invaded Iraq.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of that war, it scared the Iranian regime into thinking we were crazy enough to invade countries that had these weapons programs or even pretended to have the weapons programs.
So Iran actually stopped its nuclear weapons research and development For a few years after we invaded Iraq.
So they are capable of acting rationally when there is some threat of annihilation.
Again, this could be a matter of disagreement among the Ayatollahs.
Some think it's worth risking annihilation.
Some think it isn't. But if we could project a threat again to Iran, it doesn't necessarily have to be military.
But remember, what Donald Trump did with Kim Jong-un was basically counter his crazy But it did snap everybody from crazy to uncrazy.
Yes, yes. And so there's a possibility we could do that again with Iran.
I think the problem is we've sent them so many signals over the last 15 years that we retreat in the face of threats.
George W. Bush backed down.
Obama pulled out of Iraq prematurely.
Donald Trump hasn't decided yet what his policy is in Syria.
He attacks the chemical weapons facilities, which is nice and crazy and unpredictable.
But he also says, I want to get out of there as soon as possible.
So Iran thinks, OK, we just have to wait this guy out.
So we have to, I think, apply some of that magic that Trump used with North Korea to Iran.
And they're watching us very closely.
The foreign minister of Iran made a remark earlier this week that if we And everything you said is rational behavior on their part.
So here's the thing.
I like to challenge assumptions.
Somebody said the difference between North Korea and Iran, of course there are lots of differences, but a key one is that Iran is operating from a religious base, therefore they might not have the same rational decision-making process that we would imagine is rational.
But look at the recent example we had of the religious right embracing President Trump.
Who saw that being okay?
My point is that any thought that because they have a religious framework can't get them to a good, common sense, rational, safe place is an assumption that could be tested, I think.
Now, you don't want to test it by giving them a lot of stuff and saying, hey, be our friend now.
You don't have to put on the pressure.
But I feel like there's someplace we can get there that would work for them and us that would not endanger Israel or the rest of the world.
We haven't even mentioned, and most people don't even discuss, but it's the fact that the supreme leader, quote-unquote, of Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is very old and not healthy.
And we may just need to wait for someone else to come along who says, you know what, we've got to do things differently.
So it may just be a change in leadership, and time is on our side.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.
Speaking of time, I'm way over the time that I asked you to be with me.
I appreciate that. Are you out of time?
I don't know if you had a deadline.
I've got a couple more minutes. I've got to get the kids ready for school over here in LA. Alright.
I think I hit most of my questions.
Let me ask you just the final question.
Do you think we can reach a stable point with Iran in which Israel would be safe and we've accomplished our objectives?
With the present Iranian regime, because they are inherently destabilizing.
They rely on destabilizing other people.
But I think it's possible with a reformed Iranian regime or a completely new Iranian regime.
And so that's why I think Trump has taken the right approach in being vehemently against the regime, even while he's being very careful about what he does practically.
So I think we can get to a more stable place, because there's nothing inherently It's inherent to the Iranian character.
There's nothing about the Iranian people themselves.
It means we have to be at odds with them.
It's just the nature of their theocratic regime.
It's one of the most repressive totalitarian systems.
You know, Kim Jong-un has a cult of the leader, but with Iran, you've also got this essential religious cult running the country.
And, I mean, they beat people in the streets for not wearing the right clothes and things like that.
I mean, it's really a problem, and the people are sick of it.
It's a more stable place, but it requires us to see the regime as the problem.
And I think Obama saw the regime as the solution because he said, well, they have absolute control, therefore they can deliver on a deal.
And I just think he thought the nature of the regime was amenable to stability.
But they're destabilizing everybody, including themselves.
And I think with some change there, we could see more stability.
Now, keep in mind, we also said that Kim Jong-un was the problem and we wouldn't be able to work as long as he was there.
Dennis Rodman showed us.
There's another side to him.
Do the Iranians play basketball?
Because maybe we have a way forward there if Dennis will visit.
Here's what's wrong with Iran versus North Korea.
Here's where North Korea is actually more rational than Iran.
The Iranian athletes forfeit matches against Israeli athletes rather than compete.
They would give up matches.
I don't think North Korea has ever forfeited a match You know, they may hate all these other countries.
They may hate us. They may hate Israel.
Who knows what they hate? But I don't think they've ever given up a basketball game or anything else.
Whereas Iran will literally forfeit wrestling matches and fencing matches and chess matches and everything, not to recognize Israel and other countries.
So that's a different level of weird.
And I think once you have a change there, once Iranians get All right.
Well, thank you so much, Joel, for joining us.
Hey, everybody. Thank, Joel.
And this was really good.
I really needed all of that.
That background really helps me a lot.
So this was tremendous, and thank you.
Thank you. I'm a big fan, and hi to everyone out there.
All right, take care Joel All right, so that was a little test little tutorial on the Iranian deal still.
That helped me a lot.
When you watch TV or read an article, you always think to yourself, but I have questions.
You're talking about the thing that I want to ask a question about another thing.
So it was really fun for me to be able to make sure that I got the questions answered that were my blank spots there.
On a slightly different topic, I saw a bit in Zero Hedge, the publication Zero Hedge today, and I woke up late and got right into this, so I'm a little behind on the news.
Is the news that the three places we missile attacked in Syria did not have any signs of chemical weapons?
Is that a confirmed story yet?
Has anybody seen that?
Oh, wow.
I'm just looking at your comments, and people like this a lot.
Huh.
Yeah, I need to have a better technology set up here, but I thought the delivery of information was tremendous.
Use an iPad next time.
Well, I probably just need a better system in general.
All right.
Yesterday's shirt?
No, it's not yesterday's shirt.
Um...
Oh, so it is true that the Syrian attack does not seem to have hit anything that had nuclear weapons?
Well, do you remember what I said about the attack on Syria?
Does anybody remember my comments on Periscope?
Because what I said was, can you explain to me why we were Why we knew that there were three chemical weapons plants in Syria and we knew exactly where they were enough so that we could bomb them.
And remember I said, that sounds a little suspicious to me that we know exactly where these plants are and oh by the way we don't mind bombing them and sending up a big plume of deadly gas into the Into the civilian population of Syria.
So, let's wait to see if that news is confirmed.
I don't want to give you fake news on here.
But if it turns out that the sites that we bombed or missiled in Syria did not have any chemical weapons, that will be an interesting story.
Sources. Yeah, I think we have to wait for sources on that.
So I would ask you not to assume that what I just told you is actually factual.
I'm just telling you I read one article.
I would need confirmation of that.
Doesn't matter if they had weapons there.
That is correct. I believe the calculation was probably that we needed to send some bombs over there.
We needed to show that we were not playing around, but there wasn't anything we really deeply wanted to do or could do.
We just need to make a show of it.
So I think that we made a show of it.
There may or may not have been any chemical weapons in those three sites.
Who was Joel again? Joel Pollack, senior editor at large at Breitbart and a friend.
So the sound was okay, wasn't it?
I didn't see anybody complaining about the sound when I was talking to Joel.
All right.
Well, I will try to do maybe some more interviews.
I Did he change my strategy in winning over Iran?
Well, I don't know that I have a strategy, per se.
But I have talked about framing it as...
If Iran thinks that the framework now is, how do we stay the same without letting the United States change us?
I think that framework can be changed.
Because Iran, as Joel said, Iran is going to change.
Iran doesn't have a no-change option.
The only thing that they can control, maybe, is what they change to.
Because the young people there plus internet equals change.
And if we have a 10-year deal, I don't know if you can predict 10 years into the future what Iran even looks like.
All right, that's enough for this morning.
▲
Export Selection