Clifford D. May is the founder and president of FDD, a nonpartisan policy institute focusing on national security created immediately following the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States.
Under his leadership, FDD has become one of the nation’s most highly regarded think tanks and a sought-after voice on a wide range of national security issues. He has helped assemble a staff and advisory board of the most compelling scholars and experts whose research, ideas, and recommendations have shaped important policies and legislation on terrorism, nonproliferation, human rights, Islamism, democratization, and related issues.
Cliff has had a long and distinguished career in international relations, journalism, communications, and politics. A veteran news reporter, foreign correspondent and editor (at The New York Times and other publications), he has covered stories around the world, including datelines from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the U.A.E., Bahrain, Oman, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Chad, Mexico, Argentina, Northern Ireland, Hungary, Kazakhstan, China, and Russia.
From 2016 to 2018, Cliff served as a commissioner on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission that makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress in order to advance the pivotal right of religious freedom around the world, and integrate religious freedom into America’s foreign policy.
In 2006, he was appointed an advisor to the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission) of the United States Institute of Peace, an independent nonpartisan national institution established and funded by Congress. He also received a two-year appointment (2007 to 2009) to the bipartisan Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion, reporting to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In 2008, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the entity responsible for all U.S. government and government-sponsored, non-military, international broadcasting. In 2009, the U.S. Department of State awarded him a “U.S. Speaker and Specialist Grant” for a series of speaking engagements and meetings (with government and religious leaders, academics, and journalists) in Pakistan.
He served as the communications director for the Republican National Committee during the historic 2000 cycle in which Republicans won the presidency, the Senate and the House for the first time in 48 years (as well as a majority of state legislatures and governors’ mansions).
A former syndicated columnist for Scripps Howard News Services, he is now the weekly “Foreign Desk” columnist of The Washington Times. He is a frequent guest on national and international television and radio news programs, providing analysis and participating in debates on national security issues. His writing has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Commentary, USA Today, The Atlantic, and many other publications. He is the co-editor of a book on the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as one on energy policy.
Cliff holds master’s degrees from both Columbia University’s School of International Affairs and its School of Journalism. His undergraduate degree is from Sarah Lawrence College, and he holds a certificate in Russian language and literature from Leningrad State University, USSR. He is a member of the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs. He is married and has two children.
Clifford D. May is the founder and president of FDD, a nonpartisan policy institute focusing on national security created immediately following the 9/11/01 attacks on the United States.
Under his leadership, FDD has become one of the nation’s most highly regarded think tanks and a sought-after voice on a wide range of national security issues. He has helped assemble a staff and advisory board of the most compelling scholars and experts whose research, ideas, and recommendations have shaped important policies and legislation on terrorism, nonproliferation, human rights, Islamism, democratization, and related issues.
Cliff has had a long and distinguished career in international relations, journalism, communications, and politics. A veteran news reporter, foreign correspondent and editor (at The New York Times and other publications), he has covered stories around the world, including datelines from Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, Egypt, Turkey, the U.A.E., Bahrain, Oman, Sudan, Ethiopia, Nigeria, Chad, Mexico, Argentina, Northern Ireland, Hungary, Kazakhstan, China, and Russia.
From 2016 to 2018, Cliff served as a commissioner on the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF), an independent, bipartisan U.S. federal government commission that makes policy recommendations to the President, the Secretary of State, and Congress in order to advance the pivotal right of religious freedom around the world, and integrate religious freedom into America’s foreign policy.
In 2006, he was appointed an advisor to the Iraq Study Group (Baker-Hamilton Commission) of the United States Institute of Peace, an independent nonpartisan national institution established and funded by Congress. He also received a two-year appointment (2007 to 2009) to the bipartisan Advisory Committee on Democracy Promotion, reporting to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In 2008, he was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve on the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the entity responsible for all U.S. government and government-sponsored, non-military, international broadcasting. In 2009, the U.S. Department of State awarded him a “U.S. Speaker and Specialist Grant” for a series of speaking engagements and meetings (with government and religious leaders, academics, and journalists) in Pakistan.
He served as the communications director for the Republican National Committee during the historic 2000 cycle in which Republicans won the presidency, the Senate and the House for the first time in 48 years (as well as a majority of state legislatures and governors’ mansions).
A former syndicated columnist for Scripps Howard News Services, he is now the weekly “Foreign Desk” columnist of The Washington Times. He is a frequent guest on national and international television and radio news programs, providing analysis and participating in debates on national security issues. His writing has also appeared in The Wall Street Journal, National Review, Commentary, USA Today, The Atlantic, and many other publications. He is the co-editor of a book on the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as one on energy policy.
Cliff holds master’s degrees from both Columbia University’s School of International Affairs and its School of Journalism. His undergraduate degree is from Sarah Lawrence College, and he holds a certificate in Russian language and literature from Leningrad State University, USSR. He is a member of the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs. He is married and has two children.
To what is the? What's the whole idea of the regime to wage jihad in this century and against of the West, led by America against the Crusader Zionist Alliance, and to reestablish the power and glory of Islam in the Middle East?
The list right? In America. And to support Iran, in my view is is equal to being a traitor. If you're supporting Iran, that. Hates this country. Mainstream media gives you the impression that there is nothing good about America, in direct contrast to that, my podcasts will prove by examples that America has always been, and still is, the land of opportunity for everyone. Hello and welcome to another episode in the series life lessons with Doctor Bob. My guest today is Clifford may, his many colleagues and friends, among which I'm proud to be included Colin Cliff. As you'll soon discover, Cliff is an extremely interesting, articulate and engaging man who is especially knowledgeable on the topic of foreign policy. He has so many accomplishments and is working on so many different and important projects that will take me longer than usual for my introduction. So if you just want to take my word for his impressive credentials, you can move your cursor forward by about 10 minutes and enjoy the conversation. But if you want to. Know more about Cliff. Here it is. Cliff is the founder and president of a Washington based think tank called the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, or FDD. There's a lot to talk about, and I'll tell you more about FD, but first a bit more about Cliff. Cliff holds 2 postgraduate degrees, both from Clubbie University. He earned a master's degree from Columbia School of International Affairs and another Masters from their School of Journalism. Both were earned by the way, when Columbia was a leader in higher education rather than for what it's known today, a leader in woke indoctrination. Following his formal education, Cliff entered the world of journalism, where he held numerous positions of increasing influence and responsibility, ranging from being reporter in New York and in Washington to being a foreign correspondent, covering stories from over 30 countries including Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. Israel, Northern Island, China, Russia and 20 different countries in Africa. And he rose to the rank of editor for 10 years. He was an editor of the New York Sunday magazine, for which I forgive him, but maybe the magazine is a more trustworthy publication than their newspaper ever was. More recently, Cliff has been published in the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, USA TODAY, and the. Atlantic, in addition to his journalistic achievements, because of his broad knowledge of international affairs, he has been appointed to several government commissions and is a frequent guest on national and and international TV news programs, where he provides analysis and participates in debates. On national security issues. But I think that what he's doing now is more important than his prior achievements, because what he's doing now impacts US foreign policy. And whether you like it or not, our foreign policy has a direct impact. On all of us. What Cliff is doing now is running the foundation for defense of Democracies. Cliff founded FDD in 2001 following the 9/11 attacks on our country by Muslim terrorists under orders from Osama bin Laden. FD is a non profit think tank based in Washington DC that focuses on foreign policy. Although it is officially nonpartisan, its leftist detractors say that it's political orientation is hawkish and neoconservative. Now, one of the benefits of preparing for my interviews is that I get to learn some stuff like I use that term neoconservative, but I didn't. Know what it was. I had to look it up, and here's what I found. Neo means new, so when Neo conservative is someone who recently became a conservative. The term Neo conservative came about in the 1960s during, during and after the Vietnam War, when some were liberals became disenchanted with the increasingly pacifist foreign policy of the Democratic Party. They became the first neoconservatives. Or neocons, as they are often now referred to. Now, neoconservatives typically today advocate for the promotion of democracy and interventionism in international affairs, including peace through strength. And they are known for espousing disdain for both communism and political radicalism. You know, when I look at that definition, it sounds to me like it's being a proud American. I just learned that I'm a neo con. Getting back to FD, unlike many think tanks that conduct research and publish papers, SFD is more like a battle tank because its work often leads to new government policies and legislation on topics ranging from terrorism to human rights. Here are some comments from people in important positions in government. Michael Morell, the former deputy director of the CIA, said, and I quote, SFD provides the best public source of information on terrorism, period. Lieutenant General HR McMaster, the former national security adviser under President Trump, praises FD and said I want to thank FD for the work it's done over the years on so many critical issues. We have drawn heavily on their scholarship and analysis. Of the threats that we face. And finally, Ron Dermer, Israel's former ambassador to the UN and just recently appointed to be the Minister of Strategic Affairs under Prime Minister Netanyahu, has said he commented in a meeting that FD you just thank me for meeting with your team to inform them. But you got that wrong. I met with the FDA team and I got informed that's really high praise from any government official. Especially from a Jewish one from the Israeli government. Well, Cliff has been sitting patiently in his office, waiting me, waiting for me to hand him the microphone so that he can tell us what he's currently working on at FDB. So let's see what he has to say. Welcome to the show, Cliff.
Doctor Bob, always a pleasure to be with you.
First, let's start. With the beginning, when did you become a NEO con and why?
So as you say, back Doctor Bob Neocom really just means new conservative somebody who's new to conservatism in some way. And it was very gradual process for me, I would say in my youth I was fairly left wing. I became more centrist as I got older. I was probably, yeah, I would say, look, when I when I was in exchange. It was in the Soviet Union and that disabused me of the notion that there was anything good about communism. I was a foreign correspondent in Africa. I think that disabused me of the notion that there was anything good about social. And then I saw a. Lot of for for for with. Clear eyes. A lot of the the programs. In the US. That go under the name of liberalism, and that disabuse me of the idea that that was useful too. And a lot of the early neocons were were like that. They were the the joke was that. They were liberals. You've been mugged by reality, so the kind. Of thing that a. Lot of the early neocons looked at in domestic policy, putting aside foreign. Nancy was, you know, affirmative action sounds like a good idea for a while, but the idea that there should be a permanent state of discrimination against some people on the basis of race or the basis of gender or the OR. That not on. A permanent basis should you, should you. Discriminate like that. Even if you say, yeah, but this is this is reverse discrimination. This is good discrimination as opposed to bad discrimination. They they weren't convinced of that, and that's and that's that moved them. Over to the right, to the right. And on foreign policy.
Look, I'm. I'm sort.
Of at this point, perhaps neocron light I'm I don't think of myself as an interventionist. I do think that American leadership. Is indispensable because there are other nations in the world that would like. To be the global hegemon but the. Good ones aren't strong enough, and the strong ones aren't good enough. If the US doesn't occupy a leadership position in the world, then I think it's going to be China or Russia or the Islamic Republic of Iran. Or some combination. Now of those that.
Not good actors. To one of them.
Not good actors, any of them. But I'm not. You know, I do. I listen. I believe in supporting Democrats abroad. I don't believe that we can implant and grow democracy abroad, but that doesn't mean I I'm not for freedom in. All of these places. And I believe the US should be for freedom and encourage democracy when we can't. That makes me know. I don't like because. You know, I don't think it's going to. Likely that, for example, the Egyptians are. Gonna have a a. A house and a Senate and political parties and vote anytime soon. Maybe eventually, but not right now. And there are a lot of countries like that that are not ready for democracy. And look, I think there are questions about. Whether we in the. US can sustain the the Republican small are system. Of government that we got. From the founders, right. It's you remember Benjamin Franklin coming out after the after the meeting on the Constitution being asked. What have you given us, Mr. And he said. A Republic, ma'am. If you can keep it right.
If you can keep it so you started the UFD, tell us more about that. How did it get started?
So if I were telling you if this were a radio interview, I would tell you the real quick story. The real quick. Story is after 911. I thought that I and others thought this was an. Unnecessary thing to to have. Within the Washington community, within the foreign policy community. But that's the short answer. The long answer is a. Little is is sort of interesting. The first conversations I had. About the possibility of an organization like this. Where with two people, too few of our. Young interns know one would be Jeane Kirkpatrick Jeane. Kirkpatrick was a wonderful, elegant, brilliant woman. She was the first US ambassador to the United Nations with cabinet status that was under Ron. She had been a Democrat. She wrote an article for Commentary magazine. It was read by Richard Allen, who was the first national security adviser. Toronto Reagan and **** Allen said. President, you need to read this. This is really really. An interesting piece by an interesting woman, Reagan read it, called her in talk to her for a little while, said you know what? I want you as my ambassador to the UN, and I want you in my cabinet. Not all you ambassadors have that status, she said. President, I'm a Democrat, Reagan said. Sure, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, that's your problem. Not mine, you. And what's the name? And then she. Did and that's and. That's how it how it came about. Anyhow, I tell you a lot of stories about her wonderful. When I knew her from my reporting career. The other person that was instrumental, who also. I talked to and I'll tell. You about this was Jack Kemp again? For those who don't remember, he was a he was a quarterback for the Buffalo Bills after he, after his career and in sports, he became a congressman from Buffalo, NY. He ran in the primaries present, got beaten by George HW Bush, but then became the HUD secretary under Bush. He ran for vice president when Bob Dole was at the top of the ticket. I I I covered him quite a bit and knew him. So the two of them come into my office and at this point with some fancy Dancy consulting. Firm in Washington. And they say we've got a project we want, we are concerned. We think America is taking a holiday from history prematurely. We think America is taking a peace dividend that it shouldn't take at this point, yes. The Berlin Wall. Has fallen. Yes, the Soviet Union has. Resolve, but do we really not have enemies that we need to worry about? And they said, let's think about it in 19. 83 we got. Hit by some kind of terrorists in Lebanon. Hundreds of our service people were killed in 1993. There was a bombing at the World Trade Center in New York in 1990. Six we had. American servicemen and women killed in Cobra Towers in Saudi Arabia by a missile. In 1998, two of our embassies in. Africa were bombed. The USS Cole was attacked by a boat with filled with explosives and a suicide bomber in 2000. So if we could go on and tell you a lot more examples of this, but the question is, is anybody connecting the dots? Does anybody understand what's going on here? Who are these enemies? Why are they attacking us? What's their ideology? What regimes are behind them? What policies do we have to understand who they are to fight them effectively? Do we know any of this and all we want you to do clip and again. I was a. Consultant all is you. Look around the universe. Think tanks, universities, news media, whatever it is, is anybody working on this in an effective and comprehensive and competent fashion. If they are, that's all we want to know. Thank you very much. Will be done. But you let us know. So I said, well, that's a fascinating assignment. I love it. Let me go see what I can figure out. I started on. It a few days later we could. Hit the 9/11 attacks occur. I meet with them again. Say this is what you feared and anticipated. This is not. And they said yes, it is precisely, I'm sorry to say that America is under attack. And what do? We know about who's doing it and why and who they're related to and all that I said. What have you found out? I said, well, I'm not finding it much that would encourage you, but I'll do some more work. I did some more work. I came back and said this is not being. I said this is not being investigated. And study the way it should be. I think there's a reluctance to do so because there's a religious component. To a lot of. Yes. And I think people. Are reluctant to take that on. They said here's your next assignment. Give us a memo. But what kind of organization would would would study these things? Look for policy options? Would propose that to administrations, government agencies, to members of Congress. How would this be? An activist organization would? It be a thing to or would it just? Give us a long. Memo on how you on what you think should could be done and should be done. And I went back and did some study and what else was out there? And I came. Back and I gave them a memo and it. But in it what they had asked for, it had a name. It had a mission statement. It had a business plan and read it. They said, you know. This is very much along the lines. Of what we wanted. What we think needs to be. And I said, well, listen, I'm happy. I'm happy I could. Be of some? You know, I admire you guys. You let me know if there's. Anything else I can do? And they said, sit down, shut up and listen to us. You're gonna do this. You're gonna quit your job, and you're gonna. You got a blueprint here. We're not gonna spend six months looking for somebody. You are going to do this and you want to do you not? And I said, you know what I probably do. And there were two reasons, Doctor Bob in particular, that I one is 2 people I knew were killed on 9/11. That was personal one in New York. One in. Washington and the second was that as a young correspondent in 1979, I was assigned to cover the revolution in Iran. And I spent several months there. And I can explain this in more detail. If you like where we.
We will get into that. Yeah, we. Gotta talk.
We'll get into it, but the point of it is. That I knew that the. Seeds of what happened on 9/11 had been planted during the the revolution in Iran in 1979, and this had been sort of in the back of my mind for years and years and so. I said I talked to my wife. But at 1st and I said I'll I'll. Do it I want.
To do this and what who funded it or who and was just you. Or right away you built a staff. What happened?
An important question and the question I raised, I said if you guys want to do this, it takes money. How does this? Work, they said. Look, here's the deal. Jack Kemp, Jeane Kirkpatrick, they said. We have been around the political and philanthropic world for a long time. We know people. We are not going to give you a fortune. We're going to give you a running start. We're going to give you enough money to get started so you can rent some headquarters, get some. Computers and begin. To hire people and we're going to give you, make sure you have enough money to last you for three years. And then you're gonna have to be on you. Or own and figure out how to fundraise. But you're gonna. But you're gonna be able to. You're gonna have a. Runway to get it started.
Then what?
And I can tell you about how. That about how that progressed. But Mark Dubowitz, who is the CEO, currently the CEO of FDD, he had a lot to do. With the with getting us to the next level.
That is fantastic. How 2 individuals who were not wealthy in their own right. I don't think that either kirkpatric. Or excuse me or Jack Kemp had had a lot of money, did they?
Jack Kim.
They they weren't wealthy.
I don't necessarily know. I think Jack Kemp was well off. I remember seeing his house, but I know he was usually. But again, they knew the philanthropy. We call what you call you are familiar with this.
Wow, yes.
The philanthropic community, they knew, people who were interested in these issues, that they could talk to and say, hey, we want to help put together a think tank that's gonna look at terrorism and Islamism and jihadism and the regimes and the movements and the individuals connected to it and try to come up with better policy. Questions, but we need support from people like you who are concerned about America's national security. Will you cough up some? Money and that we had a good there was. An initial group they put together help. They helped put together. Let me say that that's it. Yeah, we will. And that's how it, that's. How it how it got? Started in terms of. The funding and I again, I didn't have a lot of money. It made it difficult for me to go out and. Hire the best. But somehow I did hire some of the best people and the best people attracting other best people. And that's been kind of the the way we've built up over more than 20 years now.
They were patriots, patriots to on their own to come up with this idea, to find you, and then to commit to raising money for you. So you've been in business since then. How many years is that, 20?
When in one years we opened our so this again, this conversation, the first conversation was before 9:11, September 2nd was about a week after I quit my job. Maybe if I don't? Know I gave notice and maybe quit my job a month after. So then November, December I started to do the basics. We were able to open I guess January 2nd of 2002. In a very small. Office and and began to. Build from build from there.
And how many staff do you have? The professional staff? Do you have the researchers? And then give us an overview of some of the projects they're working on. We'll go into detail of some of them later.
Yeah, you bet. So we we're probably over 60 staffers at this point. There are researchers, there are senior researchers, there are junior researchers. We have communications department. We have a government relations department. We have administrator, some small amount of administrators gonna have. That to make sure to make sure we're we're doing things right from a business point of view, everything from legal help to insurance to human relations, all that sort of thing we have now, this is FD is what's called a C3. It's a, it's an educational organization, contributions to it or tax deductible. As you know, but we also have. A C4 which can actually do. Can be more aggressive in terms of saying to a member of Congress. Here's the bill we think you may want to support, and if you agree, we can write you the legislative language and it's yours. Once you, once we do it, but we have people on staff who know how to write legislative language and be very forward leaning on that the C4 is not. The same as the C3 is, they're called FTD action, but it's linked to it we were. Very cautious to make sure. We're abiding by all the proper laws. And so that we can be very specific in terms of particularly in terms of legislation, in terms of what we propose and and the ways in which we help help members of Congress do that, because a lot of them don't have a huge staff in order to do it, we come up with ideas, we come. Up with language and we. Help help them to to get those bills. We hope enacted and maybe even signed.
I I'm certainly aware of C threes and I'm just learning about C fours, but from what you're describing and and over drink, some other time dinner, you can tell me more, but it sounds like as long as it's not partisan, as long as it's not a pro. Oh, the Republicans or pro the Democrat. Then it could be C3, right? I I don't understand why you couldn't help write legislation. The position of the legislation doesn't matter so long as it's not partisan, I thought. But maybe there's more to the C4.
There's more to it when you are actually. And it's even more complicated that because. C3 can do some lobbying, but not a lot of lobbying. It's like 10%.
10% I think.
That you can be asked by the IRS. How much of your time, how much of your your, your what? What extent are your resources being used to that? And basically what happened is our lawyer said, you know, there's a line here and you're not crossing it, but you may be getting a little chalk.
OK Ohh I see it's safe safe.
In your shoes, you should have a steep floor. Say you're because. Don't forget that if you have. If there are people in the government who don't like what? You're doing, you know. That they can go after you. So we want to abide. By the law, very strictly and not hope that we.
I can't because there are many lowest learners out there.
Have to spend so.
Who don't, right. I, I and I. Now I understand the issue. Alright. So you've been in business 21 years and writing reports and advising various government agencies give us just some highlights. One or two and then we're going to go into some typical positions that you've taken and.
There you go, you understood.
Help done, give us some examples of where the work of FDD actually affected government legislation or policy.
So yeah, let me do that. Let me just also because I think people may be curious about this. I would say that the staff at FTD are kind of motley crew that include former military officers, a few former spies, some serious academics, some former government officials, sprinkling of recovered. Journalists, all of that we have centers on economic power, military power and cyber power. We have domain experts on Iran, on China, on Russia and Israel and the Palestinians, the Middle East in general. So just to give you some examples of some of the work through our military center, which is run by Brad Bowman, Brilliant Guy, West Point graduate, military officer for many years, helicopter pilot, among other things taught at West Point, after doing some advanced study. We pushed very hard in a bipartisan basis. To create under law, something called the US Israel Operations Technology Working Group. Now what does that? Mean I'll again. I'll try to be as brief. As I can. So you've got something like Iron Dome, as you know which. Is essentially Israeli technology. But US financing, it's a wonderful idea, but it was very ad hoc. It just kind of came about. What, Brad? The woman said. Is look, we have war fighters. Israel has war fighters. We and Israel, should our war fighters should never be involved in a fair. Right. We should always be. It should be very clear that if we go into a fight, we're going to win and we're going to win decisively. But that requires weapons that requires technology requires development of a lot. Of things they should be systematic, so we need a working group from the Pentagon, a working group from the Israeli Ministry of Defense, getting together at a regular basis and sitting around a table and saying what do we need that we don't have? How do we better safeguard our tanks? How do we see around corners? How do we use what kind of drones do we need? What do we need? And then they work out a way that they that they can cooperatively get this done effectively as inexpensively as possible as quickly as possible, as high tech as possible. This group, that's what their mission is, and it's took a lot of pushing, but we we had convince people on both sides this was useful anyway. It's it. It's a real achievement. Legislatively, the important piece of legislation every year is the National Defense Authorization Act. The NDAA we proposed many initiatives I would say in to be included in the NDAA and the most recent 33 FD initiatives were included. That's not. Well, we want. It 33 is pretty good, it's. A pretty good score. We're pretty happy with that.
So this was not a markup of something they presented to you and asked you to critique. These are ideas that you lobbied for to be included. These were unique. You developed that your team developed these. Ideas for for insertion into the NDA and then a wow, wow.
Precisely, here's the initiative. Here's why we think it's important. Here's the legislative language where here's what we think with the here's what we think the NDA needs to include on all on a on a wide range of issues, though not least, since they say cyber vulnerabilities and how to fix them, and patching up for the military, that sort of thing that's very important. I'll give you I'll. Give you some more examples if you. Want I loads of them?
Nope, Nope. That that I. Think that's going to be enough because. We have lots of. Talks to talk about first Iran.
OK, OK.
You were in Iran as a journalist in 1979, and you covered the Islamic revolution. You're actually there not just covering it from from a quiet office in Washington, DC or New York. So you were there prior to the revolution, as you know, Iran was an ally of both the US and Israel. It was a Western style country in many ways. Women were freaked to dress as they wished. They attended college, drove cars, and LED reasonably good and free. Lives, but the revolution changed all that dramatically. So first, why did the revolution occur? Everybody seemed to be happy, at least from from what I had read, and and whatever. So why did the revolution happen?
Other couple of things I mean. The most. One part of it, to be fair, was that there was dissatisfaction with the Shah and with the monarchical rule, and people actually wanted more freedom. I would say the other thing. Was Islamism now, what do we mean by Islamism? People talk about as political Islam. I would put it this way for. 1000 years.
When in the.
Age of empires and most of history has been an age when empires ruled parts of. The earth there. There was an there were important Islamic empire. And the most recent. And important one, of course, was the Ottoman Empire. That would have been based in Turkey. There's a Sultan. There's a khalif. And then what happened to that empire after hundreds of years of domination of a? Lot of the. Middle East and frankly Ohh so a lot of Europe. That's why why is. Albania Muslim what we can go on anyhow. What happened? The Ottoman Empire? Allied with the Germans War One and the Ottoman Empire. Collapsed after World. War One and the the modern state of Turkey, the Republic of Turkey rose from its ashes. That's another thing, but since that, but since the end of World War One there has not been a caliphate and Islamic empire. And there have been various people, Turks, Arabs, Persians, Muslims, Sunni, Shia. Others who have said all along we need to restore Islamic power in the world. We need to restore and promote Sharia. Islamic law, as we interpret it. We need to. As we establish Islamic power and glory in the. World and one. Of these people. Was the Ayatollah Rulah Khomeini? Now he was Iranian. The Shah sent him into exile, initially in Iraq, later in a suburb near Paris. He would make he would. He would started riding in the ninth lake. I would say 19 around 1945 his his writing began and wasn't paid. Not a lot of pen attention was paid by Western scholars. By Western intelligence, they should have looked at what he was saying and what he was promoting. Back then, he would do little cassette tape recordings. Remember cassette tape recorders, and he would send these out to in Iran and he was fomenting an Islamic revolution. That's what he wanted to see, and the revolution that occurred in Iran. It wasn't initially an entirely Islamic revolution. But he was seen as the spiritual leader. And I remember being, as I say, being in Iran and talking to people and a lot of them, I would say that you like Ayatollah Khomeini and what he stands for and his version of Islam, it sounds pretty, you know tough. And I said, I'd say no, no, no, no. But he's just a spiritual leader. And he vowed, and I'm not that I'm a socialist, I'm a communist, I'm a Liberal Democrat. Again, all some. Of these people were young people, I've. Met, who spoke good English? Let's be honest, because they've gone to the University of Texas at Austin or something, they said. But I think he values us. He understands that we're part of this revolution, the students, the left, the Bazari, the businessman. He needs all. Of us and respects all of us. And so this is. Going to be a. Very different revolution. If you look at the way. It was covered by. Most of my journalists and colleagues. They were very gung ho in this revolution, they said. You know, Ayatollah Khomeini, is this, this is going to be a new model for the third world and it and they and and they praised it and they praised him and he was, I gotta say a charismatic figure. OK. I remember going to the holy city. Him to see him. I wasn't going to get an interview with him, but I. Could see him I. Was with a camera crew who were doing a. Documentary and and he the house that he occupied. It was no more than a cottage. This was not a mansion. Nowadays the the rules are multi multi. Millionaires and billionaires, but. He was not. He was ascetic. And there was a huge crowd. I mean, like a throng. Like thousands of people outside, because they just want to get a glimpse of him and and maybe a blessing from him. And I remember waiting out there in the dust and the heat, and eventually he appeared on the roof of the house. The houses had flat roofs. There was no very little rain there. You could do that. And he was an imposing figure. I mean, really, like, right out of the Bible. You know, the white beard, the turban, the robes. Very his face was stern. I would say, like, an angry face. Other and he walked out on the roof and he looked over this crowd. He didn't smile, he didn't wave. He wasn't like American politicians, and at some point he removed his hand from the robe. They just waved it across the crowd like that. And the crowd went wild. Men cheering women ululating you know what? Deleting is. Holding babies up. And I remember that I. Was working with an Iranian producer. OK, an Iranian producer on the CV documentary and he turned to me being John dead. And he said Ohh Cliff Cliff, you are so lucky and. I said yeah, you know, I am. I am I. This is really fantastic, I mean. Front Row, seat on history. Getting to report from. You know this. I'm having a great time. This is wonderful. Yeah, I'm lucky. He said no, you don't understand, do you? I'll explain to you. You are lucky. Because in. All world history. There have been only a few truly great men. There was Moses. There was Jesus. And now there is come a need and you are in his glorious presence. At that moment I understood. This ain't your father's revolution. This is something very different.
But very quickly they turned the government into a theocracy, right?
Again, they didn't expect so that these young students I was mentioning that I had talked. To within less than a year. They were either dead in prison or if they were lucky, they escaped and they were back at the University of Texas. Is it awesome? Because no, he turned on all of them and he and he became. He was going. To enforce his rule, his law, his idea of Islamic government, which he had outlined very carefully in in his writing. But people at the embassy hadn't really read it. A few people there are. There were some scholars who. That Bernard Lewis, you know he is, I. Think one of. The great, maybe the greatest scholar of Islam, greatest scholar of the of the of the Middle East. Ever. He had read that. And he's he's he knew it. Knew what was what was what was coming. But, but our embassy didn't. Our intelligence agency didn't. Our the reporters I was with certainly didn't. They weren't. I mean, I I was at least skeptical and had fights with Dijon about this because I'll give you an example of a fight. Because I think was a few months after. The Ayatollah came back, they were having. They were voting. Well, we're so we're filming this isn't this wonderful? Pigeon says to me. People are voting. It's democracy. You should. Be thrilled, Cliff. Why you? You look grumpy. And I said, well, I gotta tell you because it's not, you know, secret ballot. And there are mullahs. Who are seeing how people are voting? Ah, he's on. Says come. On man, do you think if the moles weren't there or they would be voting any different? I said no, I don't. Not this time. But next time or the time after.
Yeah. I just.
And there was no next time, right?
That's right.
There is no next.
Well, they they've always. Had the they have votes but as you. Know as you know, the supreme leader.
That we selected the the people running have to be selected.
He selected the candidate. You're right. He got to to vet who was going to be a candidate and who wasn't going to be. And then besides which, once the votes come in, the important thing is not who votes for whom, but who counts the votes. That's why there were. Riots and protests after the election of Ahmadinejad, if you remember that a few years ago. Because people didn't believe Ahmadinejad.
Who won? But it didn't matter who won because they were. They were appointed by who, meini or or his cohorts, right? Didn't matter.
It didn't matter.
Is there 11 because they they had to be somebody acceptable to the supreme leader and the supreme leader is not? Elected as supreme leader. For life, and also if the. Will of the supreme. Leader is is for policy A. And the Presidents for policy B? Well, that's not a it's not a fight, right?
Not approved.
The supreme leader wins.
Right. And and that started and then they took over the embassy, the US Embassy and I forget how many days 100. Or more days. They were kept captive in the embassy. And President Carter did nothing during all that time. I think there was one failed attempt toward the end, but he did nothing to free the hostages. And of course, we know that it's the minute that Ronald Reagan became president. They released the hostages because they knew that he was not a. ***** like like card. It was.
So just a couple of points here. So people saying me, why aren't you scared at that time? Well again, I got there in like January or February of of 79 and I stayed for like 3 months and again I could help that I was working with an Iranian producer and that he was liked by the regime but that made made some difficulties between us but OK. But I wasn't, I can't say. I was scared. People were very. Exuberant about the revolution at that point. Then I would say towards summer, summer is very hot and in most of Iran, the journalists, including myself, you know, left and you have this long, hot summer and the revolution wasn't producing anything useful. I mean, women were covering up in chadors and the young men who had. Gone around with. Big rifles were being told to go back to their jobs, which they didn't like. They didn't want to go back. To farming or. Factories and the revolution was kind of it just wasn't producing anything that anybody like. So in the fall, the taking of the US Embassy was a way. To revivify the.
Ah, I see.
That's what it was really about. And it was done by students and they kind of amazed they were able to take over the American embassy. And then Khomeini saw that it had value. And he also saw, and this became. Is saying and it's been a saying in Iran ever since. The Americans can't do a damn thing. And you're right. And there it was more than it was about a year that they were held captive and mistreated, tortured, want to talk about international law, the most basic international law is you don't treat diplomats that way on your soil, and you don't take over an embassy, which is essentially. Essentially, foreign foreign soil, once you establish it. And there was an attempt. To rescue them. But you remember the. Helicopters crashed in the desert. It was a totally fouled up.
Right.
Totally, totally failed. Failed effort and you're right. And Reagan came into office. There was a sense, alright, maybe. Maybe we played this hand as best we can and we better stop now because we don't know what this. Guy is going to do.
So ever since that time, the relationships between Iran and the United States have been oppositional, right? We we've never. Moved until the next comment of anything that Iran was doing and we opposed them on the world stage. But then.
And we don't have and we. Don't have diplomatic relations.
Ohh, we still don't have diplomatic relations, but then in 2:15 we signed. I think it was around that date. The the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, the it's called the JCPOA. The simple terms, we'll call it the Iran deal. Well, it was conceived by President Obama, and I think it was signed sometime in 2015. Now why on Earth did we? What was he thinking? And he is still thinking because we tried to really reinvigorate that agreement until recently. Why is he still?
No, it's not. Over yet we're.
Oh, it's still happening.
Still on the table.
Right. Why was Obama in particular, or the his administration so adamant on forming a relationship with the government that every day says death to America, death to Israel? Why would he? What was he thinking?
So I I would say that Obama believed that he was going to do a sort of. What you might call a. Nixon to China, correct. He was going to say to them, I know you have grievance against us and talk where some of those grievances are, we can leave that, but I'm going to show respect to you and I'm going to understand that. You have ambitions in the Middle East and I'm. I'm not opposed to those ambitions. I think you and I, you know, essentially said to the Saudis and to the Israelis, I think you have to share the neighborhood immensely thought that would please them and that would be enough. Yeah, I. And each other respect. You said I'm going to reach out my arm and I want you to unclench your fist and I am going to. And then. And this deal that he was going to that he that he he didn't nobody ever signed it but the deal he agreed to. Would give them huge amounts of money and all the sanctions he thought it would establish reasonable relations between the US and Iran and basically all they were being asked was to, he would say, to stop their weapon, their nuclear weapons development program. I think that's and I'm that's incorrect. He was asking. Them to delay it.
You lay it right.
To slow it down, it shouldn't emerge on. My watch and I. Think part of it was the belief. That listen in. A few years, especially if we do this. The rain will be a very different place. It'll be more moderate. It will be more liberal. We had the we this was. The the prevailing. Philosophy and policy toward China really going back to the 70s will help them get wealthy. And if they are more, if they are richer, they will become more liberal, more moderate, more like strategic partners. And it wasn't until and the Trump administration really largely thanks to Matt. Pottinger, who is working with FDTD and HR McMaster, who works with FD who said look this, they're the Chinese under certainly under Xi Jinping. Are absolutely implacably hostile to us, and they're using the the wealth that we're helping them get to build the military and for them to spy on.
Yeah, yeah.
Us to steal. Our intellectual property. That anyhow, he so Obama had a similar view here. We're going to put off the nuclear weapons thing. We're going to get help them become rich and they're going to become more moderate and friendly. Because that's the way the that's the way. The arc of history bends was really.
Well, that, that I I appreciate that description, but I. Think that that. Is overly optimistic and it implies right?
Ohh it's crazy it's.
No, it's it's it's, it's it's it's, it's.
I'm saying that's what he. Believed, I've said, but I'm also saying.
Yeah, no. No, I don't even think that's what I don't even think that's what he believes. I because he's not stupid and he's not naive. I believe he's helping Iran. He wanted to help Iran and continues. To help Iran. Because they hate America like he does. We are being led now by an administration and I think it's Barack Obama's third term. Well, we can get into that. They don't like America. Well, the I think it was two weeks before Barack Obama took office. Took the pledge of office. He gave a speech to a huge crowd and he said we are two weeks away from fundamentally changing the United States of America and the crowd roared. You know, without thinking, what do you mean fundamental? Changing and I think he I I believe he meant it and that's what he's been doing, you know, race relations have never been as bad before as when Obama took office. The cities were never overrun as they are now, so I think we are being led by a man who hates this country and is doing. If you look at his activities and those are the Biden administration through that. Ends it all makes sense. Why did we leave Cliff? I'm not the expert on this one. I'm asking why did we leave 80? Sixty $70 billion of war material behind in Afghanistan. Look, it wasn't a huge army was coming after us, so we had to run and hide and. Leave the equipment. We left that. Equipment behind because they are enemies of America and the people who decided to leave that behind did it intentionally because they were helping their friends who hate America.
I'll I'll quibble with you just a little. I will say that if you remember Obama did, he does various apology tours. Yeah, and this actually agree with you where he essentially said America has to repent for its sins, not least its sins towards the Islamic world, right? He he, he, he he wanted to outreach to the Muslim Brotherhood. That's Sunni rather than Shia, but. It's again they have similar ambitions in terms of caliphate in terms of that, reestablishing Muslim power and. So he thought, you know, we have a lot to repent for. And if they hate us, there's good reason to to hate us, at least. That in terms of Biden and Afghanistan, in a certain way, you're giving him more credit than I would. I don't think he understood the situation. I don't think he understood that he was surrendering and capitulating to the Taliban. I think he thought he knew better. We had a when. He came into. Office we had 28. Troops in Afghanistan they were frustrating the Talibans's ambitions and they were protecting those Afghan, not least those Afghan women who were going to school, who were working, who have, who are enjoying freedom for the first time.
Nothing. It's nothing.
And when we had another 5000 or so NATO troops helping. Us do that. That's nothing. We got 28,000. Troops in South Korea for 70 years. I mean, that's what you do in order to make things.
A small contingent and pulling them out was disastrous and. And shameful.
We abandoned our friends.
Abandon their friends. So talking about the JCPOA or the next version of it. Did FDA use its influence to try to modify those programs?
So a couple is a couple things. Yes, we, we we saw early on that the JCPOA was a was was very problematic, was fatally flawed, was what we what we said we did a lot of work in terms of educating members of Congress and the public. On this and we were successful in that in that all the polls showed that most people in the country understood that JCPOA was fairly flawed. Most members of Congress did. We didn't. Know that we were not going to. Be able to. Succeed. Why? Because Obama rather cleverly made sure this would not be a treaty. That would require 2/3 of the Senate in order to in order to. Passed, he was able to turn it upside down and as an executive agreement, and even though a majority of Congress was opposed to it, they couldn't stop him from concluding, not signing, concluding this executive. Agreement with them and we tried all we did a lot of things that were useful in terms of making trying to pack in terms of passing various sanctions through Congress that Obama couldn't overturn in terms of making sure that that the the international business community knew that even if sanctions are lifted, you do not want to invest in this country for the following reasons. A lot of things we were. Able to do, but we couldn't stop him on his own authority, only on his own authority from concluding this. And then we worked very closely with the Trump administration. And as you know, I. Wish you'd had done it sooner, but we. But eventually, Trump withdrew from this and began what he called his maximum pressure sanctions imposition on the regime, which was quite good, not as maximum as it might have been, and it should have been. It needed to be in place longer. We worked very hard not just to get that. But we have people here. Who can actually? How to say? This how to? Create sanctions packages. What I mean by that is you can say, OK, if we're going to sanction them. It doesn't just mean we declare something. We have to say which industries, which individuals, which actual firms we have to prove in a certain way that this, that they deserve it. You have to. Create something and there's only a few people like at. The Treasury Department, who work on something like that. But we have people here who could actually. Getting all the documents do all the research, wrap it up in a bowl and hand it over and say here you can use this.
Right.
We recommend you do. We can actually do that. And we actually. Did that on many, many, many sanctions to really put pressure on the regimes. That you that. If that your economy is going to collapse, your currency is going to collapse. It sort of did. Collapse got down. Your foreign reserves are going to disappear. Here's what's going to happen with you. But again, Trump is in office for only four years. It was probably two years before he imposed the maximum sanctions. They lasted only two years in the by administration, immediately began reducing sanctions, right?
Right. Well, we've all seen angry crowds in Iran chanting death to America and death to Israel. Now, I don't think that Iran is close to killing America. But every day, Iran does get closer to being able to both produce and deliver a tactical tactical nuclear weapon to destroy Israel. What do you think Israel is preparing to do to make sure this never happens?
So I can I I. Can tell you for sure that Benjamin Netanyahu. Who is now in his third term as as Prime Minister. This is top of his agenda.
Has to be existential.
This is the, he notes. This is an existential threat, and I believe he feels is my responsibility to deal with this and figure this out. This is what I this is the most important thing I have. Do now they're doing a lot of different. There's a lot of different ways that they're looking at in terms of what to do, and I don't think we know what they're going to decide, and we probably shouldn't. There's an Israeli. He was an intelligence high intelligence official. He was a pilot who who destroyed the Asuric reactor, whether he was lead pilot. On that in, in, in, in Iraq, his name is Amos Yadlin. Having this conversation similar to what you're having with me right now on. This and he said. He said the bottom line. Cliff, is this. If we do something in Israel and people like you say. Ah yeah, I thought they would do that. But then we fell.
Right.
What has to happen is we have to do something and people like you have to say. It never occurred. I never imagined. They would or could do that. That's how it. Has to work. OK, we have to be that creative, that innovative. We have to do. Things that that that people do not expect. And you can talk about what those might be. So I think they are thinking very. Hard. What do we do? And and and listen, I don't think the US. Certainly under this administration, probably another administration. I mean I. Think look, I think it. Should be the US's responsibility because this. Is a regime. In Iran, that is anti American, that is destabilizing to the world. But if the Israelis have. To handle it on their own, they at least need to know that America and that America has their back.
Right. I don't know if they.
Right. Start running out of.
I don't know. If they feel that way today.
I don't think I don't know the ability that way too, and I think it's part of the equation and the variables that danyah who will have to examine right to say.
OK.
Do I need to go next year? Can I wait till the next administration and see if that's a better administration or is that too late? He's going to be pressing on his intelligence. You know, the Israelis can do amazing things, as you know. I mean, they stole the whole nuclear archives from inside Iran.
Amazing, amazing. Amazing.
Cut it out. They are interrogating people inside it. Man, I mean, they're doing, they do amazing things there and they they're they're the other day again they don't. They neither confirm or deny, but a weapons factory producing drones for Russia to use against Ukraine and Isfahan was hit by drones and and probably destroyed.
No, the Iranians say it was just the damage to the.
Just damage to the roof and write it. It is. There's probably somebody, probably somebody was gonna roasting marshmallows a little drink. What fire? What are you gonna do? These crazy people sports. They probably are making.
But there is some good news in Iran. There have been many reports recently of large protests in major cities there against. The theocratic government. Those protests were triggered by the murder of an Iranian woman by her name was Masa Amini, who was beaten to death, beaten to death by the morality police because she didn't have her face properly covered. First, why do you think? That none of the women's movements in America have supported or said anything about these protesters, the left, the left, the women, the women's groups, women's rights have not spoken up as far as I know.
No, they they, they haven't and they and I. I don't explain it. I guess they think who. Are we to be? We be imperialistic to tell them. How to live? And it's not for us. I don't know. They just they don't. They do not pay attention to. The third world. Country and but you're right, the women's movements. Are just they're they're. They're not going to get. They're not going to get themselves involved. They're gonna stay here. They're gonna worry here about the the trials and tribulations of the trans community, and they're gonna, I mean, it's just they're. Just not gonna. They're just not going to.
And it's.
Just the women's organizations or women's rights groups in America. I haven't heard any report about the Biden. Trying to support the protesters now. It's I'm not even looking for them to provide the material or more material. Or whatever or. But they didn't even make a get a press conference and talk about it and denounce it. So why isn't the US doing everything it can to promote? The regime change in Iran.
Because as you say, the policy of this administration is very much a continuation of the policies of the Obama administration, Obama's key foreign policy legacy, in fact, try to name another foreign policy legacy he could be proud of, and not that I think he should be proud of. This one was the JCPOA. And so and and and and because of the. JCPOA and because of the Iran deal because. Because Obama was so set on it, he was constantly respecting what was called the Iranian Iranian equities, their interests in Syria, for example, their interests and other things, and not criticizing them because they didn't want to. He didn't want them to walk away from. The Iran deal. And this administration? To absolutely end the possibility of an Iran deal, which would happen if they were clearly supporting the protesters in the streets with more than a little. Bit of rhetoric. Yeah, there's been a little bit of rhetoric, but it's been very milk toast at best. You know that people should be allowed to protest that kind of thing, not supporting unions, not doing, not supporting regime change. This administration that, like the Obama administration, said we don't want regime change, we want this regime.
Team to be.
Friendlier with us, we want to. Establish we have to taunt. We want rapprochement. We want better relations with this. We've been, we we have, we have. Things since we need to repent for you did things you shouldn't have done. Yeah, let's move on. And the regime doesn't say. Yeah, let's doesn't want. To do that. The regime is very much committed and dedicated as part of its basic humanist ideology. To what is the? What's the whole idea of the regime to wage jihad in this century against the West, led by America against the Crusader Zionist Alliance, and to reestablish the power and glory of Islam in the middle?
The West right in America.
East and in and the world.
And to support Iran, in my view is is. Equal to being a traitor if you're supporting Iran that hates this country and there's not ameliorated its stand over the last 10 to 15 years or 20 years hasn't softened its stand, it's. You should be. Held accountable for that, you're a traitor to America. Now, I believe that conditions appear to be right for another for a counter revolution in in Iran and now would be the time to do it. But that said, we're not doing.
Well, we're not doing it it, but you're right. What's been going? On for the past few months has been a revolution and a revolution led by the women of Iran. Now the then the question arises, well, will it be successful? Well, we hope so. I'd like to think so, but. There's no way to really know. And the other thing. Is that in these look when when there? Were protests against the Shah? Could he have stayed in power? I think probably so. He just needed to kill a lot more people and he didn't want to kill that many. They were his people. He didn't want to kill them.
Right, I remember.
He didn't want. Slower than the streets, but we you. Know I'd like. To be able to say to you, Doctor Bob, that repression doesn't work. But if you read history, repression does. If it's, you know, if it's strong enough, but.
Right.
The people of. Of of Iran have by no. Means given up their protesting every day. Very little news coverage of it. To be fair, you can't be a a reporter. And in in Iran now and be free. To report the truth. That's you. You know, it just. You just can't do it. So it's all kind of. Coming through from social media and in that way so. They're really, really. Trying whether and and and maybe they succeed, but you don't know and in fact. I mean a little. Bit, you know, make a history. The history of revolutions is. Dutch that it's like volcanology. You can see the smoke. You can feel the heat, but you never. Know when it's going to blow. Nobody knew the Russian Revolution was going to take place before it took place. Nobody knew the 79 revolution. Found the contrary. Remember Jimmy Carter said ohh. Iran is an island of stability. People, generally speaking, and neither intelligence. Agencies nor political scientists nor astrologers predict when revolutions will happen or will succeed.
Well, as you can tell, there's just a wealth of information to discuss with Cliff may from FD. So we've decided to record and post a second episode with him soon after this one has been posted.
Thanks so much for listening to another episode of Life. Lessons with Doctor Bob. If you enjoyed these interviews with some of today's most influential thought leaders, please follow and rate the show on your favorite podcast platform. And don't forget you can also watch each episode on YouTube as well. We'll see you next time.
Hey, thanks for tuning in. I appreciate reading your comments on YouTube and social media and now you can submit your questions on my website as well. Head over to life lessons with Doctor bob.com and click the question tab at the top of the page or the one on the right side of the screen. And let us know what's on your mind. I'll answer your questions at the beginning of each episode, so let it rip. Let's have some fun.