Tehran, Pyongyang, Los Angeles...and MSG: Episode 30

John Ellis and Richard Haass take up a world in which problems are less solved than managed. Iran remains unfinished business, with the future of the Strait of Hormuz, nuclear limits on Iran, and sanctions relief all in play. What is certain is that the Gulf states face a future of greater uncertainty, with some likely to try to come to terms with Iran and others more inclined to confront it. China’s outreach to North Korea reveals an effort on Xi Jinping's part to reestablish influence there as well as the unease beneath his partnership with Putin as Russia's war with Ukraine grows more costly, less winnable, and harder to exit. At home, California’s elections and urban progressive politics point to intra-Democratic tensions heading toward 2028. And, inevitably, the Knicks, with one of our two hosts going with his head and the other his heart.

Hosted by John Ellis and Richard Haass

News Items on Substack

Home and Away on Substack

Produced by Dale Eisinger 

Transcript

SPEAKER_00 0:00

Hello and welcome back to Alternate Shots. I'm John Ellis. I am the founder and editor of two Substack newsletters. One is called News Items, the other is called Political News Items. You can find them both at news-items.com.

SPEAKER_01 0:15

I'm Richard Haas. I'm the author of the either weekly or semi-weekly newsletter also on Substack, Home and Away. And on behalf of John and myself, we uh want to welcome you to America's fastest growing podcast.

SPEAKER_00 0:31

So I was at a conference in South Carolina, and when we weren't uh opining on Southern populism, people wanted to get a sense of what exactly is going on in Iran. Where do things stand? I said, I don't know, but I'm going to do a podcast with Richard Haas, and he'll be much better informed than I am. So where do things stand exactly in your view?

SPEAKER_01 0:53

First, I find it hard to believe that that's what everybody was talking about. Uh, but anyhow, be that as it may, things stand not that far from where they stood only recently. And by that I mean you've got this de facto indirect negotiation going on between the United States and Iran that's largely dealing, John, with uh three issues. One is the terms under which the Strait of Hormuz is reopened and operates, two, all the nuclear-related issues. And three, at which point in the process do you begin to see economic or financial transfers to Iran, be they uh in the form of frozen assets being thawed or the easing of sanctions? That hasn't changed. And at some point we're gonna come back to those three issues. And my sense is probably sometime this month, and you'll have uh an imperfect agreement on the strait that will open it somewhat, but it will periodically, I expect, close again in the future. The nuclear agreement, the so-called memorandum of understanding that will be formed will be very vague. It will take a long time to negotiate. And at the end of the day, it will look like nothing so much again as a version of the agreement that Mr. Obama negotiated just over a decade ago with the Iranians, and Mr. Trump tore up in his first term. There'll have to be economic inducements for Iran along the way, just as a slight detour. One of the bad things of these economic inducements, which may be necessary, is it strengthens this new regime, which is more radical than its predecessor, and it reinforces the sense that regime change, which was the original hope of this war, will be further away than ever, because this will be the equivalent of throwing this regime something of a lifeline. The concerns that are front and center for Israel, Iran's conventional non-nuclear military forces like drones or uh missiles, uh, their support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and the Houthis, that's unlikely to be covered by the agreement. And I say that because in the last few days we've seen new shooting, if you will. Israel's been active in Lebanon, the Iranians then retaliated against Israel, Israel then retaliated against Iran. My sense is the Iranians want to cool it. This was just uh more of a gesture on their part. The United States wants Israel to cool it because we want to deal with Iran. This Israeli government would like nothing so much as open-ended warfare, but I don't think they're gonna get it because I don't think Donald Trump is going to agree to that. So, you know, it's been a daze of a few steps back, but I don't think it changes any of the fundamentals that the United States and Iran are still going to have to come to an agreement that deals with these three principal issues, the strait, the nuclear, and the financial. And I think that both sides have an incentive to do it. We want the strait reopened, we want inflationary pressures to go down, energy prices to go down, Iran's economy is in a shambles. They need economic re relief. So this is there's something in it for them. And you know, each side is trying to squeeze out the last bit of advantage of leverage, but uh I think we're pretty far down this path. And neither side, John, would benefit from new rounds of serious fighting. So I think you know, the president had one of those great insights the other day when he talked about, you know, this is uh the ceasefire in the Middle East was when there, I'm just paraphrasing him, when there's only a moderate amount of fighting. And I think that's basically what we have. We have a Middle East ceasefire, and I think you know it'll get slightly better than that at some point, but we're not going to have peace. I do not see peace in the in the cards here. The strait will be a source of friction, these proxy forces will be a source of friction. This will be an ongoing problem for the U.S.-Israeli uh relationship, and the nuclear account will never be solved. It'll be it's almost like someone who's had a disease and it's in remission, but then they have to get regular checkups and you're never declared healthy. So the it's a strained metaphor, but my point is simply that you're never going to get to the point you don't have to worry about the Iranian nuclear program. It will be a constant source of concern for Israel in particular as well as for the United States. Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 4:58

What about the Gulf states? I mean, they they you know, their Iran strategy so seems to be a kind of a horizontal escalation, I think it's called, where you know they bomb this airport in Kuwait and they bomb that military base in Oman and so on and so forth. But from their point of view, it appears that Trump just can't wait to get out of the Middle East, which leaves them exposed, I guess, at best. What wha how what did that what's what's it look like for them after, quote, peace is achieved?

SPEAKER_01 5:29

Certainly not as good as it used to look. The entire business model of the Gulf, which was uh you can invest enormous sums, be it in energy refineries or AI-related data centers or hotels or you name it, you could invest at uh little or no risk. I think those days are over. So I think now they face a future of what you might call a structural uncertainty. You're right, the Iranians have engaged in what's often called horizontal escalation against the neighbors. They've been pretty selective, though. They've gone after the UAE, the United Arab Emirates most, Kuwait to some extent, Ghadr. They haven't really gone after the Saudis. And that suggests to me as you might have a bit of a divergence among some of the neighbors, John, where I can imagine the Saudis and others trying to reach a certain what, modus vivendi with the Iranians. And the UAE, for example, has more tightly associated itself, aligned itself with Israel, a more hostile relationships and others may be in between or have some combination of the two. I mean, the fact is, we started this war without their consent for the most part. We weren't able to protect them, either directly from Iran or from the indirect consequences of it all. And they face a more uncertain future than any of them were were thinking of, what, three and a half months ago? And you know, at some point we're gonna dial down our involvement in this part of the world. So they're gonna have to either become more self-sufficient or they're gonna have to find a way to accommodate Iran. And I think that's gonna be the national security challenges for these countries. And I think if one of the things we have to really be wary about, one of the many reasons not to want Iran to get a nuclear weapon or close to it, is several of these countries, if that were to happen, would want their own. And just when you could you think the Middle East couldn't get worse, it could. So, you know, this we may be tired of the Middle East. It's almost like that line in Godfather 2, every time I want to get out, uh, it keeps pulling me back in. Right. The Middle East has a way of pulling pulling us back in. So even if we get tired of it and we want to focus on the Western Hemisphere or or on China or what have you, it's it's the Middle East has has not reached a point of stability and it's unlikely to for the foreseeable future and then some.

SPEAKER_00 7:39

I want to uh switch topics to what I thought was an unusual set of circumstances, which was President Xi of China went to North Korea to meet Deer Leader. And when I read this story, I thought this should be the other way around. Dear Leader should go to Beijing and meet with President Xi because of the relative, quote, stature, end quote, of the two. What what's up with that?

SPEAKER_01 8:05

Well, a number of years ago, your assessment would have been spot on. And Deer Leader, as you call Mr. Kim, was definitely the junior partner. And China, you know, Chinese territory is critical for North Korea, and China was subsidizing a lot of North Korea. What happened is North Korea, though, did an interesting thing in the last few years. It basically it started to play the field a little bit. And instead of just date China exclusively, it decided also to date Russia. Russia's been helping, well, North Korea's been helping Russia, as you know. They sent, what, 10,000 forces to help Russia in the war against Ukraine? And Russia's been helping North Korea, reportedly with their nuclear program, which is, uh shall we say, evolving and expanding at a considerable velocity in numbers and in quality, not just nuclear, but also missiles. And uh and China is uncomfortable with that. And China is trying to wean to some extent North Korea away from Russia. So that explains, I think, why uh Xi Jinping is visiting North Korea rather than vice versa. He's more the demand d'or here. He's the one who's looking for something. He's trying to pull North Korea somewhat back from Russia, towards China. And what China can offer North Korea is far more in the economic domain, obviously, than in Russia. It's also revealing, John. It's really interesting to me. It just reminds you, you know, you and I are old enough. We remember when China and the Soviet Union went at it in the late 60s, national concerns, different ideological orientations, even though they were both ostensibly communist and so forth. It makes me think that no matter how many communiques I read that are signed by Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, there's something uneasy about this relationship. And I don't think that's that shapes. To the extent they align with one another, they are partners of convenience. And I wouldn't say more than that. I say I never use the word ally. I don't think they have a real strategic accommodation other than they're both authoritarians. They don't much like Western pressures to democratize, not that we are involved in that anymore under the Trump presidency. So my my sense is, yeah, China is trying to wean North Korea somewhat away from Russia and hoping in part that therefore they have more influence over North Korea, because China, what last point, is obviously worried about North Korean behavior, what it could mean for stimulating Japanese defense efforts, what it could mean for a war on the Korean peninsula. So China looks at North Korea and basically says, We have we have big concerns here. And we don't want you mucking around in this region in ways that would affect us. And that's what I think is going on here.

SPEAKER_00 10:36

Trevor Burrus, Jr. Your point about the relationship between China and Russia seems to me spot on. I think of Xi looking at Putin as sort of a lesser, you know, it's not peer-to-peer, it's better than less better, so to speak. And I wondered, you know, Zi goes to North Korea, says to the Deer Leader, you know, you got to get back inside the fence here. What does Putin do? Does he just keep doing what he's doing, or does he then go visit Deer Leader himself and offer more blandishments?

SPEAKER_01 11:06

That's his only option. And the blandishments that Russia can offer are either energy related or military related, particularly uh nucleus, or help with North Korea's missile program. So my guess is they will. I wouldn't be shocked if at some point Putin asks for more help from North Korea in the context of the war with Ukraine, because Putin is increasingly losing the war. He's certainly not winning the war, and by one definition, by not winning per se, he's losing. But it may actually be worse than that for for Putin. You had some an item in news items uh about the Russian economy, which is it's not on the edge, but it's not it's not flourishing, shall we uh say. But the real problem is militarily. If you have a million casualties in the course of uh four years, preponderance of those are people killed. You you've gained what, one percent more territory than you had four plus years ago? Hard to paint this war as a success. And this is uh, to use my uh a phrase I first came up with many years ago, this is a war of choice for Putin. This was not a war of necessity. It became a war of necessity for Ukraine. But Putin is struggling to find a way, I think, to get out and spin it and declare victory. And that's where I think he he is, which also gives North Korea a little bit of uh leverage over Putin as well. So from North Korea's point of view, a Chinese visit may not be the worst thing. If you have a little bit of Russian-Chinese competition to win the heart of North Korea, that's not that that is not something that's bad for dear leader.

SPEAKER_00 12:30

Let's switch uh to uh the great United States of America. We had an election that goes on forever in California because it takes forever to count the vote.

SPEAKER_01 12:42

Can I interrupt you there, John? The president in that strange, whatever word you want to use, interview with Kristen Welker alluded to that and basically said, by definition, automatically, illegal things were going on and all that. Let's put that to the side. But why is it that it takes so long? What is it about the California system and how have they how have elected officials allowed things to get to this point? Because it certainly raises suspicions and it's certainly it's not good for a democracy, no matter what. If you have a process and over the course of several days there's changes in who's who's up and who's down, it just it's it just breeds suspicion. So I'm just curious, what why is it so bad?

SPEAKER_00 13:22

The vote comes in and is counted, you know, the the mail-in vote, the absentee vote, and the actual vote for whatever reason it's never been entirely clear, takes a long time to process in the most advanced technological state, arguably, in the world. How this is possible has escaped all interpretation and explanation for years. I remember doing election nights going back to, you know, 1980, and you you know, you get to like forty-two percent of the vote in in California and then it would just stop. So it's been this way for a long time, and it's really unclear why. I mean, it there's no excuse for it. And as you say, it leads to all sorts of suspicions that, you know, something something bad is going on that prevents the vote from being counted. I'm certain there are, you know, some sort of homeless people who voted once or twice, you know. I I'm not I'm certainly there's possibility of a minor fraud, but it would have no impact, I think, on on the outcome of these things. On the other hand, it's inexplicable why it takes so long is the answer.

SPEAKER_01 14:30

So you certainly know what happened. What's your t what uh what are your takeaways now that the people of California have spoken? What is your takeaway from it all?

SPEAKER_00 14:38

There is a huge um clamor on the right about Steve Hilton, who was the quote MAGA candidate. He's not really that even an advisor of all places in the UK to David Cameron when he was prime minister. He came to California. His wife has been a uh top executive at a number of the nation's leading tech companies. So he relocated to to California. Rupert Murdoch liked him, he gave him a show on Fox News Channel on the weekend. He then converted that to a campaign for governor, and he represented his his posture basically was if you've had enough of newsome and if you've had enough of newsome governance and newsome politics, then I'm I'm the agent of change. And so everybody got all excited about that. And uh Xavier Sarah, who was the HSS secretary under President Biden, is sort of the Joe Biden of the race. There were other candidates that were more tr more, you know, interesting and attractive or whatever, but by default he ended up as the establishment candidate and he secured a place in the in the runoff. It's an open primary, so the the top two win. Everybody votes on the top two win, Republican or Democrat, they all vote in the same election, same primary election. So Sarah came first, Hilton comes second. And now there's excitement that, you know, Hilton is going to stage the upset of the century. And the historical precedent is actually recent, as Prop fifty from last year. Prop fifty was a redistricting scheme that the Democrats and the legislature and the governor cooked up to, you know, create more democratic districts. And at the time everybody thought, oh, this will become a referendum on Newsome and you know, Republicans will defeat this horrible thing, and this will s begin as sort of a renaissance of Republican politics in California. And what happened was it became a referendum on President Trump and it it got defeated two to one, or roughly two to one. So this thing is, you know, the idea is it's supposed to be a referendum on Sacramento and Liberal Democrats running the government, and you know, this will give Hilton a chance. And, you know, it's it's not even remotely possible that that's what uh the election will be about. You know, Hilton has been endorsed by President Trump. So that one we don't have to worry about anymore. The more interesting one is the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, who was a quite effective legislator for many years, worked very closely with Kevin McCarthy when he was a minor majority leader, uh or the speaker, I should say, had a very good reputation for working across the aisle, has been a disaster as mayor, so everybody thought that she would be on the outs and that the Republican I don't think you really call him a Republican, the reality TV star, Mr. Pratt, would emerge as the Arnold Schwarzenegger of Los Angeles politics. And as it happened, Mr. Pratt appears to be headed to a third place. It looks like he's gonna be the bronze medal because the progressive, the AOC of LA, is a woman named Nithya Raman, and she is now surged into second place, so the race will be between Bass and Raman, and the likelihood there is I'm not sure.

SPEAKER_01 18:18

Yeah, and you if New York's the model, then you'd have to say the progressive candidate will dominate the race intellectually and politically, and Karen Bass will have to chase after her. And the question is whether, and I don't know who's the better political athlete, but whether the one who's peddling what she believes in does better than the more establishment figure. And the Mamdani election here would suggest that even if you know Karen Bass will end up this round in first place, but I would think she's potentially a bit vulnerable.

SPEAKER_00 18:46

I mean, if you look at it, she got thirty-five point something percent of the total vote, which means obviously that sixty-four percent a little bit more uh voted against her. Now, Pratt voters, do they or do they go AOC on us? I don't know. But thirty-five percent is not a ringing endorsement. Forty-two or forty-five percent would be a lot more persuasive. So I think it's gonna be a competitive race. And I think the energy in the Democratic Party is clearly on the left, and there are a lot of issues for for Raman to work with. That said, Karen Bass can paint her as, you know, a lunatic. And you know, that's that's happened before in American politics.

SPEAKER_01 19:28

So But the democracy if you end up having all all many of the major cities that Democrats control run by uh progressives, yeah, that would have real implications for uh the the party as it heads towards uh twenty-eight. Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 19:42

No, it's it's every bit as important, I think, as the New York Merrill race. But I want to ask you, you have a friend who ran for lieutenant governor.

SPEAKER_01 19:49

I did.

SPEAKER_00 19:50

And he finished, unfortunately, in third place. Tell tell us about him. I I love sort of sidebar stories about politics.

SPEAKER_01 19:58

It's a good man named Josh Friday. He came in third behind a Republican and a Democrat. Look, the Democrats had a little bit of a problem where there were lots of Democrats and they split the vote. And in this first two past-the-post system of California, the Republicans seemed a little bit bad, more tactically, what's the word, organized? So the Republicans didn't eat their own quite the same way. So, anyhow, the Republicans consolidated around their candidate for lieutenant governor. Democrats did not. Josh came in there. Josh is an interesting good guy. He was, I apologize, whether his formal title was supervisor or commissioner or coordinator, it was something along those lines for uh the governor now. Josh has basically coordinated all uh volunteer activities in California, is a big advocate of uh public service. And California's really become the laboratory of innovation for public service programs in America. And I'm a great believer in public service. When I wrote the book, The Bill of Obligations, one of the obligations was to promote public service. I think it brings people together from different backgrounds, kind of breaks us out of our silos. It's good for the community or the country, what have you. And Josh innovated all sorts of things and created some policy precedence in uh incentivizing people to do uh public service. Too bad he came in through it. I would have loved for him to have uh won. Uh I guess is you know, he'll he'll have a future in California politics or conceivably some future Democratic administration. I think he's the kind of talented person at the state level. And obviously, if either Gavin Newsom or Kamala Harris were to be the Democratic nominee, I could see him being involved there. But even if not, I would think if the Democrats were to win the White House, I could see a real revival of public service programs. And it is an issue, by the way, that has real bipartisan appeal. One way or another, I think we'll be hearing more from Mr. Friday, which is a good thing.

unknown 21:50

Yeah.

SPEAKER_00 21:50

So we have to uh wrap it up here with our favorite subject recently, which is the uh I believe I had it slightly wrong when I said. That the Spurs would win in four. Excuse me, John. I couldn't hear you. Could you please uh clarify that? I can't I can't really hear you now. Um so uh the New Yorkers come, the New York Knicks come back to New York, a 2-0 lead, having won both games on the road, is really impressive.

SPEAKER_01 22:21

Having won 13 playoff games in a row, John. 13. Just saying. That's interesting.

SPEAKER_00 22:26

Anyway, here they come back to New York, and guess who's coming? The president. Guess who was also coming? Comrade Mondani. Um, and so my question to you is is this like negative juju being brought to bear and upsetting the balance of, you know, the cosmophere or whatever that might that might disturb the Knicks' 13-game winning streak and cause the team to be a little, you know, out of sorts?

SPEAKER_01 22:55

It worries me, John. It's a little bit if you're superstitious at all and you're on a roll, you don't change your habits. So the Knicks have won 13 games in a row without the presence of commander-in-chief. I don't think uh the comandante of the People's Democratic Republic of New York City was any of the games. I could be wrong. He certainly wasn't at the Israel Day Parade. I noticed him wearing a suit, riding a bike around New York, which was a symbolism that escaped me, but what do what do I know? What do I know? So I don't see how anything good could come of this. I just hope the Knicks, though, so if it this way, John, if they lose, yes, that's the storyline. If they lose, we we attribute it to the president and the mayor for selfishly inserting themselves into this and disrupting the good vibes. If they win uh and they they go up 3-0, it's hard to imagine uh San Antonio coming back from that. And I'm still pretty optimistic. The Knicks have been really good about keeping focused. We haven't won anything yet. It's still 0-0. We gotta play with desperation. Their defense has been sensational. And they've been winning with Jalen Brunson hitting not even a quarter of his shots in the last game. So they haven't they haven't had a hot hand. They've been passing the ball amazingly well, playing good defense. Different people have stepped up, they've distributed the scoring. They've uh done pretty good against the star of San Antonio, against Wemby. So uh I'm still mildly upbeaten. You know, I I assume I can't afford tickets at Madison Square Garden, John. So I'm not gonna be there in uh person tonight. You, however, as someone who you know started news items, uh, I was kind of hoping for for you to get tickets for us both and you know kind of take me there. So I'm a little bit disappointed, John. Um I think it may be time to raise the the the what it costs to subscribe. So next year when the Knicks defend their title, we can afford to go, perhaps. I don't know. I'm just I'm grasping at something.

SPEAKER_00 24:49

We have to be a hundred thousand uh per annual subscription to afford these tickets.

SPEAKER_01 24:54

But it's worth it, John. It would be worth everything.

SPEAKER_00 24:57

Oh, yes, it is. Believe me. Yes, it is.

SPEAKER_01 25:00

By then we can give our our 99th update of the war in Iran.

SPEAKER_00 25:04

The question the question is who will get the larger booze? President Trump or Comrade Mamdani?

SPEAKER_01 25:12

Uh the the it's a good question. I am betting the president gets the larger booze. Because Mamdani's here all the time. Also in New York, I would think a percentage of the people there, maybe not a high percentage given the ticking costs. Indeed, I expect he'll announce that anyone at the game is subject to a wealth tax. In which case, he wouldn't get quite a fly quite a few booze. But I think uh but yeah, he's still pretty popular in parts of the city, at least in Brooklyn. Certainly for a Nets game, he would get cheers. Here in Manhattan, less so. No, but the president will get the booze. And I think it'll be uh tumultuous reaction, shall we say, on both. But I would think uh that'll be an interesting that will make for an interesting moment. It's kind of sad they canceled the watch party just outside the garden.

SPEAKER_00 25:55

Yeah, that's a that's horrible. That's really bad.

SPEAKER_01 25:59

Because also that again interrupts the the juju of the whole thing. But I'm still uh I'm still upbeat because the Knicks have been winning, even though they haven't played their best. And that's uh that's a good sign. In San Antonio, they keep saying we're the better team, we're the better team. And that that sounds to me a little bit like a whine. If you are the better team, then you would normally demonstrate it by winning. So I don't want to jinx anything, but uh, I'm still feeling okay.

SPEAKER_00 26:24

So uh were you as pleased as I was that Nellie Corda uh won her first U.S. Open Championship?

SPEAKER_01 26:30

How could you not be? What a brilliant golfer. Also, by the way, for hacks like me, how do I put it? I actually often learn more from watching women play golf than the men because the distances and all that and their swings are so pure. I actually find uh I really enjoy watching people like Nellie Corda play the Ice Fine. I have a lot to learn from her. But I have a question for you, John. That putt, the putt that uh sealed it, do you remember which way it swirled around the hole?

SPEAKER_00 26:57

Left to right?

SPEAKER_01 26:58

I don't know, I'm just asking.

SPEAKER_00 26:59

Yeah, left left no she almost uh put it uh off the left edge and it miraculously went in. She was interviewed by one of the anchors of SportsCenter afterwards, and uh he asked her, you know, about the putt, obviously, and she said I couldn't feel my hands. Now you think of a you know a professional golfer of that caliber uh standing over that putt, which couldn't have been more than three feet, and uh she couldn't feel her hands. That's uh it's amazing.

SPEAKER_01 27:30

No, it's such a head game. It must be it's the equivalent I expect of a free throw shooter could happen, you know, in the game where suddenly think everything depends on something you've done a million times and you know, whatever.

SPEAKER_00 27:44

Think about how many times she's practiced that very putt. I mean, it has to be in the tens of thousands, right? Um and she couldn't feel her hands. I thought I was just taking one of that.

SPEAKER_01 27:56

I agree. No, golf at the uh ultimate head game. But it was uh great to see, and yeah, it's a reminder, John, coming up. We we got two opens still coming up this summer.

SPEAKER_00 28:06

We do. And uh not what is it next week? We have the U.S. Open of Shinnecock, which should be uh which should be thrilling. By the way, if you want tickets to that, I can get them for you. So no one in the world would risk Hampton's traffic. Yeah, exactly. I just I can't I mean uh uh the traffic is just gonna be like exponentially awful.

SPEAKER_01 28:32

So I don't I The only thing ru I I have it, John, I have their bumper sticker. The only thing rougher than the rough is the traffic.

SPEAKER_00 28:40

There you go. You have a lot you have a future in advertising. All right, we've reached our uh thirty minute time limit. We've gone over a little bit, but our producer Dale Isinger will uh clean that up and uh we will see you next time.