Episode Info
- Season27
- Episode4
Hosted by Christina Ruffini and Sir Richard Dearlove
Guest
Episode Summary
This week, One Decision's Sir Richard Dearlove takes over the host seat to interview fellow spymaster and co-host, former Secretary of Defense and CIA Director Leon Panetta, to discuss the recent rise of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris. They also explore what foreign policy would look like in a potential Harris administration, why a ceasefire in Gaza isn't likely, how Saudi Arabia's notorious silence could influence an outcome, and insights into the current stalemate between Russia and Ukraine. Plus, Dearlove and Panetta reveal their most awkward encounter with a foreign leader.
Listen & Subscribe
- Watch on YouTube
- Listen on Apple Podcasts
- Listen on Spotify
Transcript
COLD OPEN
Archival: Trump tells tyrants like Putin, they can do whatever the hell they want. Kamala Harris tells tyrants, the hell you can, not on my watch.
INTRODUCTION
Dearlove: I'm Sir Richard Dearlove, the former head of British Intelligence, otherwise known as MI6, and you're listening to One Decision, the podcast that looks at the choices that shape our lives. Now the voice you just heard was my co-host on the podcast, former CIA Director and US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. He was speaking last week at the Democratic National Convention. Well Leon, that was a pretty striking comment. I think the key question I'm keen to ask you about Kamala is she didn't have a very great press in Europe, and actually she had a pretty poor press whilst she was still vice president in the UK. But suddenly we're looking at her as the Joan of Arc who's about to rescue American democracy. And I mean, the transformation has been quite stunning. And I'm just interested in your observations. I mean, how has this happened? Is it a PR operation, or is she really as good as we think she is?
Panetta: Like everything else that happens in politics, there are a lot of reasons for that kind of transformation. She wasn't getting good press in Britain. She was certainly not getting very good press here as well, although lately, it was much better. I think it's due to a couple things. Number one, there is no question that there was so much concern about what happened with Biden in that debate and the fact that it really revealed that there was legitimate concern about the aging process and that if it continued, that there was a good chance that the Democrats would lose, not only the presidency, but possibly the Congress as well. So the fact that Biden stepped down and suddenly the focus was on Kamala Harris, I think in many ways, it was the result of the relief that Biden had stepped down. And the fact that there was somebody who was younger and newer to basically assume that mantle of running for president. So that was one. Two, I think having known Kamala since her days here in California as a prosecutor and as the attorney general, I think what happens to some people is that when they actually become the lead as she is now, that they are able to kinda discard a lot of the reality of having to kind of work in somebody else's shadow as vice president and basically play a role that's second to the president. And suddenly you're now the person who's leading the ticket. That makes a difference. People kind of react to the fact that they're now in charge. It's their name that's at the top of the ticket. It's their reputation. They're the ones that have to now take charge, and she's done that very well. She's made that transition very well. And I think in large measure because, you know, she is somebody who was able to take charge when she was a prosecutor, when she was attorney general. She also knows that now the responsibility for whether or not the Democrats can win in November is going to be resting on her shoulders, and that can make a difference.
Dearlove: Well, that's a huge responsibility, and it must be very weighty. But the commentaries here in Europe sort of suggest that the start of her campaign has been pretty faultless and that she really has made every step subtly and cleverly, and I've listened to some of her speeches. They are impressive. The one thing that really struck me as quite extraordinary, I saw that a group of very right wing lawyers who said quite clearly they didn't agree with her politics, but they were still going to vote for her and support her because she looked like the guarantee for the democratic process and they wouldn't allow Trump to try and undermine it in terms of how, whatever, you know, happened within the electoral college. I thought that was very striking indeed.
Panetta: I think the other thing that is true here is that she is not an ideologue. I've never known her to be an ideologue who kind of just bases everything she does based on ideology. She's a prosecutor. She's a pragmatist. And that means that you have to look at the evidence, and you have to make judgments based on the evidence and be able to argue what you think is gonna be important in terms of your ability to win a case. And because of her pragmatism, I think it really is important that, you know, as she approaches these issues, she's looking at where the American people are at and where her position needs to be. And, you know, I have to tell you, as somebody who's been involved in politics, I'd rather have somebody who is willing to look at all sides of an issue and make a decision based on what appears to be right at that moment than somebody who's gonna say, I'm gonna take my position and to hell with everybody else. So I think being a pragmatist is something that is gonna be very helpful to her as a candidate for president.
Dearlove: Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. I mean, it's reassuring. But look, you and I think can claim to an extent to have become over the course of our careers foreign policy gurus. And if you're looking at the United States from the UK, you worry about foreign policy issues probably and the attitude of the president. That's one of the worries that I think we have about Trump if he came back. What about Kamala's foreign policy? Is she going to be different from Biden? Is she going to have a different team? What are the issues that she'll focus on? What can we expect from her? Obviously, I think one of the key things is Ukraine, but it seems to me she's been pretty reassuring on continuing Biden's policy on Ukraine.
Panetta: Yeah. I think it begins with the foundation in Biden's policies and his approach to foreign policy and his approach to world leadership because she was there. She's been vice president. She sat in the room, sat in the national security meetings, and I think absorbed all of the information that was provided and also listened to the logic of taking the positions that Biden was able to take. And for that reason, I think what I found is that she's well grounded in believing that the United States has to provide world leadership and that the positions we've taken, whether it's on Ukraine or whether it's on the Middle East or whether it's with regards to China or to our European allies, that those are important positions for the United States to be able to embrace those alliances and embrace the role that we're playing in terms of protecting democracy. So I think the fundamentals are in a good place. Is she gonna make some different decisions than Biden? Probably. Because, as you and I know, you have to deal with crises as they come. You do not decide what the crisis is gonna be. Crisis is trying to decide what you are gonna do in terms of dealing with that particular crisis. So I don't expect her to kind of just be a double for Biden. I do believe it's important that the fundamentals be pretty much pursuant to what Biden has put in place. But I think as issues come up, whether it's in the Middle East or elsewhere, she's pretty much gonna be her own person, and that's okay.
Dearlove: Yesterday, if I'm right, was the third anniversary of the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and I see that Trump was trying, you know, very hard on social media to trash Kamala over this issue, but it seems to me that she hardly had any involvement at all in that decision, I mean other than being in office at the time the decision was taken. But I mean I'm interested in your observations about trying to stick that ticket on her as it were.
Panetta: Yeah. No. No. I don't think he's gonna go very far, and for good reason. First of all, Trump is the one who basically set that up. You know, he doesn't mention that. It was his administration that negotiated with the Taliban, gave them pretty much everything the Taliban wanted, did not include the Afghan government, which was a terrible mistake, in those negotiations, and then set a date for getting the hell out that was put in place. Now, you know, Joe Biden could have made a decision not to follow what Trump put in place, but Biden basically wanted to get out of Afghanistan. My god. As long as I've known Joe Biden, he's wanted to get out of Afghanistan. Look. There's no question that the president made this decision, and it was something he felt was important. I think he made a mistake not preparing for the consequences of that decision, but I think that responsibility fell on the president. It didn't fall to a bunch of others who might have been in the situation room who were part of the discussion that took place.
Dearlove: Are you feeling, you know, optimistic? I mean, the conclusion, if you're looking from outside at the Democratic National Convention, was that it ended on a massively optimistic note, but it still seems that predictions in the electoral college are pretty tight, although Kamala's making progress in some of the key states, which are swing states. I mean, it seems to me she really does have a reasonably good chance of winning the election now.
Panetta: I think she's in good position. It is gonna be a close election just because I think the reality in this country right now, and we've seen it over the last few elections, is that the country is deeply divided and that, ultimately, it comes down to about six or seven key states when it comes to the electoral vote that'll decide who becomes president of the United States. And there's no question that she has gotten a great momentum. There's a lot of hope that is out there. It's a good feeling, frankly, because people were so depressed with, frankly, both candidates, Biden and Trump, being our only choices for November, that I think having somebody new like Kamala kind of created, particularly for young voters, the sense that, you know, there really could be somebody who is younger and more able to handle the responsibilities, frankly, of the presidency. So there's a lot of good feeling about this, but elections aren't won on feelings. Elections are won on getting the votes out, and that's ultimately what's gonna count here. The polls are indicating, obviously, that she's gotten some good momentum. She's now beginning to have a better position in those key states, which are critical. But in the end, look, if she's able to win Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, which are critical to a Democrat being able to win the election. If she can win those states, and maybe pick up some others, she could win, but it will still be a close election when it comes to the electoral college.
Dearlove: Yeah. It does seem that though she can pull in voters who might not vote. I mean, it seems to me that she's an attractive proposition for a lot of people who go to the polls because she's a candidate.
Panetta: We had done a poll here at the Panetta Institute looking at college students' attitudes towards the election. This was in the spring of this year. And I have to tell you, the results of that poll were very depressing. Not only did they think the country was headed in the wrong direction, they had very little respect for political figures in Washington. Biden was not doing well. And most of those students were not gonna vote as a result of what they saw happening. I think that's changed dramatically. I think young people now really are much more motivated to turn out and vote. And I think the issues that are being discussed are issues that appeal to young people, and they could very well help make a difference.
GAZA AND THE MIDDLE EAST
Dearlove: Leon, can we move on to Gaza and the Middle East? It seems to me that we're still a significant distance from a ceasefire. I mean, we've talked about this before. Despite the positive messaging coming from Blinken and maybe other participants in the negotiations in Gaza, but it seems to me that the Israelis are pretty intransigent, and well, not to say that Hamas isn't intransigent as well. The distance between the two positions, I wouldn't say it's unbridgeable, but it doesn't seem to me likely that they're gonna bridge it in the near future.
Panetta: It's pretty depressing, frankly, because it makes a great deal of sense at this point of the war that both sides are pretty well exhausted. There's a lot of concern about whether we'll ever get the hostages back. A lot of concern about the victims. And we really do need a ceasefire. We need a temporary ceasefire so everybody can take a deep breath, hopefully get the hostages exchanged, hopefully be able to provide the help that's needed to the victims of this war in Gaza, and also begin the process of really looking at what the future is with regards to the control of Gaza and what happens with the Palestinians. All of that needs attention, and really, this is the point at which they ought to begin to focus on that. But the problem is that you've got the two key people that have to make the decision are the two key people who basically don't wanna get this done. Netanyahu, he obviously has to rely on a right wing government for support. He's nervous that if he were to cut a deal on the ceasefire that his government might collapse. And so, you know, it's to his advantage to continue this war, at least, you know, for now. He views it as survival, not only for him, but survival for his coalition. And Hamas, at this stage, they feel like they still have some traction, that they still could have a presence in Gaza. And so they're not particularly interested in having Israel be able to control the security situation in Gaza. So they're at loggerheads right now, and I am not hopeful that this war is gonna come to an end very soon.
Dearlove: No. I think I agree with that. And on the other hand, it does seem, and I've been predicting that Iran won't, as it were, escalate with the issue of Hezbollah over the northern border. That doesn't mean that there isn't still a very difficult security situation there with frequent exchanges of fire across the border, but on the other hand it seems to me that Israel, I mean the Israeli position has been aggressive, but on the other hand, Iran doesn't look as though it wants, you know, a further conflict in Lebanon. I mean, are you in agreement with that?
Panetta: Yeah. Look, I think if there's any, it's hard to find good news. But if there's any good news right now, it's that Iran, even though they've kinda committed to doing some kind of retaliation because of the killing that took place in Tehran, that I really think that they're worried about an expanded war that gets Iran directly involved and whether or not the regime could actually survive that, which I think is a big question mark. And the fact that the United States has deployed a lot of military to the region, I think, has also sent them a signal that if for any reason Israel and Iran were to go to war, that the United States most likely would be supporting Israel. And that's not good for Iran and survival of that regime. So I think they're being more careful. I think the fact that Hezbollah conducted that attack, to some extent, reduced some of the pressure for a more extended attack coming from Iran. So in many ways, as it plays out in the past, we've had an attack, and now both sides seem to be resolved that that's okay. Now let's go back to basically where we were. And at least for the moment, that appears to be the case. But, again, it's a volatile situation. Any miscalculation, whether it's by Hezbollah, whether it's by Hamas, whether it's by Iran, I think could result in a much more expanded war in the Middle East. There's no question we're kind of walking a very fine line here in terms of what can happen. But right now, we are in a situation which I think is best described as a stalemate, and nobody is prepared to kinda make the move that has to be made in order to move the ball forward. They're all kind of looking at each other and trying to decide just exactly what steps they need to take at this point in time. And the result of that is that nothing's happening that helps us move towards a resolution of this war.
Dearlove: Yeah. No. I think I agree with you. But one of the things that puzzles me also about the situation is that one regime which is notoriously silent on all of this is Saudi Arabia. I mean the Saudis basically have kept their mouths shut, haven't said very much, haven't made any announcements, but you know they are a crucial player behind the scenes as you and I know, having been frequent visitors during our past to that extraordinary country. Absolutely. You know, you've had personal relationships with the leadership there, and I have, but you know, they're just not in the picture. I find that quite puzzling.
Panetta: Yeah. But it's not unlike the Saudis to basically sit back and watch how the play is going here. They could make a hell of a difference if, in fact, Israel or the United States was able to get them to agree to become part of the Abraham Accords, recognize Israel, receive probably some weaponry from the United States that they're after, and be able to be an influence in terms of providing leadership, particularly not only in deciding the security and governance of Gaza, but also this whole issue of a Palestinian state. They could make a very important move here that I think could help change the dynamic of what's going on in the Middle East right now. But I also know that because the way they approach this, and you know this, they do not tend like the UAE to suddenly take a bold position and stick to it. They would rather kind of keep checking the pulse.
Dearlove: It's very characteristic of the behavior of that regime that we've both observed closely at various times. I wouldn't call it sitting on the fence, but I would say not committing themselves. But do we think that the Abraham Accords are still alive? I mean, it seems to me that they may be.
Panetta: I think it's very much alive. Frankly, I think if the United States were smart right now, I think they would spend a lot more time with the Saudis to try to get them to make a move. Because right now, Netanyahu, Hamas, the two key players that need to make a decision are just not gonna make a move.
Dearlove: They could bring the Saudis in as a major player, and I think it would make a significant difference, particularly given that the Saudi attitude to Israel is now different from what it's always been traditionally. Right. You know, it could be the sort of catalyst which changed the political agenda.
Panetta: I think it has to be something bold right now because if everybody's just kinda sitting back and, you know, continuing to hope that somehow a ceasefire is gonna happen, which has been the play over these last number of months, I think they're wasting their time because, you know, the two key players are just not there yet. So for that reason, I think, frankly, it's time to try to make another bold move, which is to go after the Saudis and see whether or not they can make a breakthrough on the Abraham Accords. I think it would change the dynamic here. I think Israel would understand that they cannot afford to reject any play that would involve recognition by Saudi Arabia of Israel and change the dynamic in the Middle East. So it would be the right play right now. But as you and I know, somebody in authority has gotta say we've gotta get off of our pants and try to do something here.
UKRAINE
Dearlove: Okay. Can we move on to Ukraine now? That seems to me the other key issue with this extraordinary series of events, you know, with the Ukrainians sitting on invaded Russian territory the first time since World War II. And you know the Russians responding in characteristic fashion which is standing back and you know delivering a massive amount of ordnance on civilian and infrastructure targets in Ukraine. I mean, it seems to me that that war is also in a sort of stasis. It's not moving dramatically. Okay, there is this Russian advance in the South, Ukrainian initiative in the North, but on the other hand we don't seem to be any nearer the end of this conflict, and I don't think psychologically either side are ready yet for that.
Panetta: I agree with your analysis, and there's no question that right now, what I sense is that, to some extent, both sides continue to jockey for position or the possibility of some kind of negotiation, and they're both trying to figure out how they can be in a strong position for that to happen. And, obviously, the Ukrainians, having made this move into Russia, pretty bold move, they have gotta do everything they can to maintain that position. But at the same time, they've also gotta make sure that they have enough forces to stop the Russians from making any moves elsewhere. So they're gonna be stretched, and it's really important now that they have the weaponry and the support to be able to conduct that kind of two front war and be able to hold on. If they can do that, if they can consolidate their position and really are able to stop the Russians from any advances, I think it puts Putin in a much more difficult position to at least be willing, hopefully, to enter some kind of positive negotiation. That would be the good news coming out of this. The bad news would be if this thing continues and you continue to have this stalemate that we have now similar to what's happening in the Middle East, then it becomes a question of what happens here that really changes the dynamic. I mean, if Russia decides, for example, to use some kind of nuclear weapon or decides that they have no other choice but to engage in an approach that will further escalate the war, then the United States might face a very tough decision along with NATO as to whether or not we can just simply stand back and allow Russia to get away with that.
Dearlove: Yeah, I absolutely agree with you, Leon. But I think the most extraordinary thing about this war, which has been going on, you know, since you can track it back a long way to 2014, is that it's been contained. I mean, if you had said to me during my career that there would be a major conflict in Central Europe between Russia and Ukraine with the West supporting Ukraine, I would have found that hard to visualize and to believe, particularly with a former part of the Soviet Union. But it's extraordinary that the war hasn't leaked, as it were. Okay, there have been a couple of incidents on the Polish border, but nothing escalatory or serious. It's quite extraordinary. I mean, despite the curdling threats we hear from Putin, particularly the red lines that Ukraine have now crossed and the fact that it hasn't escalated, I find fascinating strategically, but also sort of rather fundamental in trying to understand what's going on. I mean, this is more of a civil war than it is a war between two nations, I mean, given the closeness of the participants.
Panetta: Yeah. I think that's a good observation, Richard. It is. And I think the bottom line is that both sides are exhausted. The Russians have paid a huge price. You know, I think Putin is in a weaker position in terms of his position in Russia. There's a lot of discontent with this war. And, you know, for Ukraine, they've lost a good number of their people as well even though they still seem to have the drive to fight and to continue the fight to protect their democracy. But there's a sense that you're just not quite sure at this point whether or not they can really score some kind of military victory that would obviously push the Russians out or whether they're just trying to hold their position now so that, you know, they don't lose any additional leverage should it come to some kind of negotiation. So it's a situation in which I'm not sure either side wants to have a bigger war. And the question then becomes, can they find a way to resolve this war in which Ukraine obviously is able to retain its democracy and its sovereignty and its territorial integrity, and Russia is willing to back off and do what they did in Afghanistan. You know, at some point, I think there's gonna have to be some real attention by the United States and NATO and others to whether or not some kind of negotiated approach here makes sense. And I'm just afraid if everybody sits back and waits for the moment when one side or the other can suddenly do something dramatic that can change the chemistry of what's going on there, I think that's a gamble that nobody knows what the consequences could be. And so it's gonna take some leadership here and some sense of whether or not somebody can come up with an approach that can appeal to both sides. I'm not sure what that looks like, but I'm beginning to get a feeling that this stalemate is simply not gonna be good for either side.
Dearlove: Yeah. I think I agree with you, but it's hard to see at the moment, you know, where that initiative would come from. The only other point I would make, and I've just written a piece for the UK media on this subject, is that I wouldn't describe Putin's position as fragile, but I would describe it as extremely brittle and that there must be people in the Kremlin around him who are wondering, you know, whether they can hold their nerve. I mean, the whole issue of the war and the way that the war has gone and what's happening must make them feel pretty nervous and concerned about how long they can continue to maintain this conflict. I mean given that it was meant to be over in a matter of days, it was a sort of Chekist coup in Kyiv that was never achieved. And here they are now slogging it out with massive losses of material and men, and you know it's really going from bad to worse. And I think the invasion of Russian territory, you know, is unprecedented. It hasn't happened. I mean the last time it happened was when the Wehrmacht went through this part of Europe en route to Moscow.
Panetta: I can understand why they're doing what they're doing. It is unprecedented. I think it is interesting that it really reflects on what I think is a weakened Putin that for him to, you know, not be able effectively to respond tells me a lot about the quality of their military and the capability of their force to be able to deal with this. They've taken quite a hit. So it is a moment where I still believe it is important for the United States and NATO and our allies to do everything necessary to help Ukraine at this moment. They need to be strongly supported because the bottom line here, Richard, is we cannot allow Putin to succeed.
Dearlove: We cannot allow Putin to succeed. I agree with you, and I think the trouble is if he can claim success from this conflict, the follow-ons for European and global security could be very, very serious indeed. Yes indeed. Well I was going to ask you, Leon, I think both of us have had some special and unusual moments in our career and I was rather taken aback to be kissed on the mouth by Yasser Arafat at one of the meetings I had with him. I was gonna ask you, Leon, whether you had any equivalent memories to end on a lighter note of things that were truly rather embarrassing or difficult to deal with. We remember those things.
Panetta: I will never forget Bill Clinton was negotiating a peace agreement with Arafat, with the Israelis, and they were all at the White House. And Mubarak was there, and we had everybody there. And we were in the Oval Office, and the president, we had a certain glitch that took place between the Palestinians and Israel that related to some minor detail. But as you know, a minor disturbance at that point in time becomes a big deal. So they had to quickly negotiate, and the president kind of asked me to continue to entertain people in the Oval Office. So there I was in the Oval Office with Mubarak, with the king of Jordan, and with other people. And we were trying to do small talk while they try to resolve this issue related to whether or not the agreement was gonna take place. And I can remember telling myself, here I am. I'm sitting in the Oval Office and trying to conduct this conversation with the king and with Arafat and with others, and I'm just not sure I could talk about the weather that long.
Dearlove: So so so it—
Panetta: It was an interesting moment for me. I never forgot it.
Dearlove: Well, the reason I was meeting Arafat was we were trying to make sure that these negotiations that Leon's referring to, you know, solidified. But I mean in the end Arafat wouldn't make a deal. I mean that was the problem. And he said, at that stage in his life he was talking about his dreams, and he wasn't entirely rational, but he had obviously decided that he was not going to be the Palestinian leader that delivered a peace with Israel. He came right up to the very brink and then stopped at the last step. And, I mean, that was the content of the conversation I had with him.
Panetta: It's amazing to think about that moment because particularly considering everything we've been through since, and particularly now with the Middle East war and what's happening in the Middle East. I think that there was a moment in time when if he had just nodded his head and agreed to the establishment of the Palestinian state at that time, would the world have been different?
Dearlove: He was right on the borderline and then just walked, well, didn't walk away, but he just said, no. I can't do it.
Panetta: Yeah. It was a sad moment, and what we're going through now makes it very clear that the inability to agree at that point in time has cost literally thousands of lives.
Dearlove: I agree with you, and I think maybe that's the note on which we should conclude our conversation.
Raffini: I'm Christina Raffini. Thanks for listening to One Decision. You can sign up on our website, onedecision.com, for access to exclusive episodes and articles and real time updates on the latest news and global affairs. Stay connected with us at onedecision.com.
