Tehran, Taiwan, & The Knicks: Episode 31

This week on Alternate Shots, John Ellis and Richard Haass take stock of a world long on ceasefires and short on strategy. They begin with the U.S.-Iran memorandum of understanding, the subject of Haass’s recent Home and Away essay, bluntly titled “Defeat,” and ask whether the deal is less diplomacy than capitulation: vague on the nuclear question, silent on missiles, generous to Tehran, and dangerous for Israel and America’s partners. From there, they turn to Netanyahu’s narrowing room for maneuver, JD Vance’s warning to Israel, and the erosion of U.S. reliability. They then discuss Haass’s forthcoming Foreign Affairs essay with Council on Foreign Relations Taiwan expert David Sacks on Taiwan, arms sales, and the risk of treating commitments as bargaining chips. Finally, they touch on Keir Starmer’s troubles, Wyndham Clark at Shinnecock, the Knicks’ improbable championship.

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 am a devoted reader of news items, but I am also the devoted author of a Substack that comes out once or twice a week called Home and Away, which as the title suggests, looks at things domestic and international.

SPEAKER_00 0:30

So the big news, obviously, this week was the MOU, the mummer uh memorandum of understanding, 14 points. And happily enough, you wrote a home and away edition, I think posted yesterday, about the memorandum and about what it means, what it implies. What was your take?

SPEAKER_01 0:50

Well, the title of the that issue of home and away kind of gives it away. I I was my normal subtle sense, John. The title is called Defeat. If you look at the memorandum of understanding, and it's very short, so it wouldn't take people long to look at it. There's an enormous gap between the stated aims of the United States in this war and what the MOU suggests. The actual terms of the MOU are extraordinarily advantageous to Iran, I would argue, and disadvantageous to the countries of the region, to Israel, to the Iranian people, and to the United States. And the MOU leaves enormous questions for the future. The nuclear issue, for example, is mentioned, but in no way is it decided. The two simply say, oh, we're going to put a turn to it next. And that's just one of the many issues to be determined or decided down the road. The brevity of the MOU made it possible to sign, but the problem with brief general documents is if they make the signing less difficult, they make the execution or follow-up phase more difficult.

SPEAKER_00 1:54

So I remember in the end of or the last two years of the George H.W. Bush administration, there began the negotiations for uh the North American Free Trade Agreement, NAFTA. The Bush administration obviously ended, Clinton took over, Perot was opposed, but Clinton got uh got it passed through Congress and signed it, and NAFTA was born. Overall, I think it was four years from start to finish. We're talking about sixty days here. Is that even remotely possible to do the challenge that faces uh the negotiators to get this all done in sixty days? It just seems preposterous to me.

SPEAKER_01 2:30

Well, preposterous is a bit harsh, but it is, shall we say, optimistic on stilts, given the uh nature of the issues and given the Iranian negotiating style, which is essentially I hope I'm not offending anyone, but it does come out of the bizarre, not B-I-Z-A-R-E, but B-A-Z-A-A-R. And it's negotiation as a sport. And you you hang tough. And the fact that you have this leadership now of Iran that's, shall we say, even more ideological than its predecessor. Plus, they're feeling pretty good. They're kind of feeling their oats after having taken our best punch and survived. My sense is yes, it's wildly optimistic. But the agreement does, the MOU does talk about the possibility of extending beyond the 60 days if needed, which again I think is a pro 99.9% likely.

SPEAKER_00 3:18

So Israel attacked Lebanon yesterday within hours of the MOU being signed by President Trump at Versailles. What is BB's status? I mean, doesn't he have to essentially break the the ceasefire agreement because otherwise he's gonna be finished politically in Israel? I mean, it seems to me all the incentives for Bibi are to restart the war. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 3:43

With one important exception, John, Bibi faces an election between now and roughly October. Until this week, his calling card is indeed there were advertisements, political ads, essentially associating BB with one Donald J. Trump. That was essentially Trump has really high approval ratings in Israel. And Bibi was saying, I have forged a relationship with him, this president, these United States, that is unprecedented. Well, over the last couple of days, we've seen that, shall we say, that affection may not be entirely reciprocated by President Trump. I drop yet again F-bombs when it comes to and questioned his sanity, questioned Bibi sanity the other day. So Bibi faces a dilemma. To Israelis, some particularly on the right, he needs to show that Israel continues to enjoy sovereignty, autonomy, and freedom of action. Lots of Israel, though, is increasingly exhausted with what's become perpetual war. But the real problem is how does he maintain a degree of independent action without entering into a massive confrontation with Donald Trump that undermines his bid for for getting uh votes this this fall? So I don't know the word in Hebrew for dilemma, but whatever it is, BB's got it.

SPEAKER_00 4:57

Yeah. I mean it it seems to me that given that the Iranians have said no more war in Lebanon and immediately Bibi attacks, it just it's it has to be designed basically to make the war go on, to to screw up the the potential of the memorandum of understanding.

SPEAKER_01 5:15

Aaron Powell Yeah, and that's only one of the many problems Israel has with this memorandum of understanding. What's so interesting about it is not just that the nuclear issue is, shall we say, kick down the road to be generous. But the issue that was most pressing for Israel in February, and I've spoken to a lot of Israelis, indeed had debates with one of the more prominent ones running up to the war, the issue that was front and foremost in their minds was Iran's missiles. Iran had hundreds, if not thousands, of missiles, was churning them out at a massive rate, and Israel said to itself, even if they don't load nuclear weapons on these missiles, we can't face thousands of Iranian missiles. That was the more than anything else, the Kazas Beli from the Israeli point of view. Well, guess what? Guess what does not appear in the MOU? Missiles. Even worse from the Israeli point of view, John. You've got the vice president and president saying, Well, look, we can't tell the Israel, the Iranians they can't have missiles. They have the right to defend themselves. Everybody's got missiles. So essentially, we have distanced ourselves from Israel on what for them is an extraordinarily vital issue. Plus, another set of concerns that do not appear in the MOU is Iranian support for groups like Hamas or Hezbollah. Again, there is that just doesn't appear. And so you go back to October 7th and the Iranian close relationship with Hamas, that kind of lit the fuse that it got us to where we are today. Again, that doesn't show up in the MU. So for Israel, you have a real dangerous future where big concerns of it are not addressed. And the United States, in the person of Donald Trump, clearly is desperate to have this agreement, to have it hold. The president keeps talking about gas prices and stock prices. So this suggests to me that Israel faces a future where important issues or important threats are not addressed. And if they act on them, they will put themselves at cross purposes with the United States. If they don't act on them, their security situation deteriorates. That is why I really, quite seriously, they face a massive strategic dilemma. And what makes it so ironic, John, they were the ones who more than anyone wanted this war to come about.

SPEAKER_00 7:26

So I think it was yesterday J.D. Vance essentially scolded Bebe Netanyahu, who said, Look, you don't have any friends except for Donald J. Trump, so don't even think about criticizing Donald J. Trump. I don't know why J.D. Vance calls him Donald J. Trump, but he does. That struck me as as something you could you would never have heard since 1948. I mean, just no American official of that rank would speak that way about an Israeli prime minister, but basically J.D. said, look, get with the program because Trump's your only friend. Were you surprised by that? Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 8:03

It was quite menacing. It was not even a veiled threat. It was an unveiled threat. The harshness of it, the what, the nakedness of it took me aback. I think it's a real reflection, though. Israel's got a real problem with the United States now, John. Because of Gaza, if you look at the debate within the Democratic Party, Israel has lost a lot of the center left. And now because of this war, Israel is jeopardizing its relationship with uh with the MAGA right. That doesn't leave a lot of Americans left. That doesn't, you know, and what J.D. Vance was said was heavy-handed. Look, I think it's part of Vance's positioning of himself for the future. It's his way of saying, I didn't want this war. And by the way, I don't much like Israel. And there's an element, there's an anti-Semitic tinge, shall we say, to to some of this. So yeah, I again it just added to the sense that Israel is the, I think, the principal strategic loser of events of the last, what, three, three and a half months?

SPEAKER_00 9:00

Aaron Ross Powell, Jr.: So you you're as, you know, I mean, you were in government, you were the president of the Council on Foreign Relations for 20 years, you talk to people all over the world. How are the people the senior people that you talk to in Europe and Asia? How do they how do they view this?

SPEAKER_01 9:16

Aaron Powell They basically think this was a fiasco from the get-go. They um were angry about the lack of consultations. They're slightly relieved that it may be over in the strait, at least for now, for 60 days will be open and toll-free. After that, I think you've got to assume it's conditionally open with tolls, but at least there's some uh improvement there. But no, they're not happy. I mean, they've paid an economic price for this. This has raised real questions, also, John, about American competence. The distancing from Israel reminds every American ally that no relationship is special. Any uh any ally is potentially uh vulnerable to uh this president and vice president turning on them. I think besides Israel, the countries of the region are also uh are real losers, and they're careful about what they say. They are essentially left exposed to an Iran that's discovered this powerful weapon called the Strait of Hormuz that it can close, and that Iran has shown its willingness and ability to attack their energy infrastructure. So they suddenly are facing this emboldened, radicalized Iran without the protection of the United States. Either we're unable or unwilling to really go to bat for them. And indeed, I think going forward, we're gonna look to dial down our involvement in the Middle East. If you go back to this administration's national security strategy, there never was the intention of getting more involved in the Middle East. And when this when this president launched this war, he did it assuming this was gonna be a cakewalk. This was gonna be uh a Middle Eastern version of Venezuela. He never would have done this war if he had known what he was getting himself into. So I think we're gonna get out of Dodge sooner rather than later. So uh our partners in the Middle East essentially are gonna have to fend for themselves, either become more self-reliant or find one way or another, shall we say, of accommodating Iran. So our partners, you saw it at the G7. I uh the uh Italian prime minister looked like she was beating Donald Trump over the head and shoulders. So my sense is they are none too pleased. But also, they you know, the president can tell caddies and who he confuses with historians that he's a great man of history, but I think for a lot of the European leaders, he is much diminished.

SPEAKER_00 11:23

One last question on Iran, which is the the transfer of money. What is your take on that? What what exactly is going on there?

SPEAKER_01 11:31

Aaron Ross Powell This is a windfall. Uh you have the thawing out, whatever you want to call it, of frozen assets, Iran's money that's been held for years or decades. You've got the easing of economic sanctions. So Iran, for example, John, is now able to sell its oil without having to discount it because of the sanctions and the like. Plus, there's the promise of creating an enormous, I think it's $300 billion reconstruction fund. And what's so unfortunate about this, John, is that it one allows these guys who have economically run their country into the ground. It gives them a major boost without any reform. It basically gives them a new lease on life. It's one of the reasons this agreement is terrible for the Iranian people and the opposition. Plus, there's no conditions on this money. If they want to once again arm Hamas or Hezbollah, they presumably will. If they want to accelerate the rebuilding of their missile or drone force, they presumably will. So the idea that money is going to the this regime in significant amounts is to me one of the worst features of this of this MOU. But obviously it's one of the from the Iranian point of view, it is one of the things, if not the thing, they most desired or yeah, it's the regime's future, essentially, right?

SPEAKER_00 12:49

I mean it's at the $300 million, $300 billion, not million, $300 billion line of credit, essentially, that they can spend as they please, Mr. Vance notwithstanding. When I read it, Bloomberg posted it at four o'clock in the morning or something. I read it and I thought, this can't possibly be true. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 13:13

But even without the $300 billion pot of money, the free re release of the assets, the easing of the sanctions, the fact we've ended our blockade, Iran will be able to move massive amounts of oil and it will be able to not just be paid for that, but again, getting these other assets plus the $300 billion possibility. I think it's a real lifeline to this regime, and it allows them in many ways to go back to some of their pre-October 7th policies of helping these various uh proxies. So again, we've paid an enormous price, John, to essentially not even restore for 60 days to restore the status quo ante in the Strait of Hormuz. After that, we'll have something more conditioned and controlled. Talk about paying a large price for, shall we say, very little. This is uh when historians write about this war, this will be uh it would they will be brutal in their in their take on it.

SPEAKER_00 14:09

So speaking of war and seeking of threats, you have a piece coming out with David Sachs, who's an expert on Taiwan, and the subject obviously is Taiwan. Because of what's been going on in the Gulf, less attention has been paid to uh the post-summit machinations uh of Mr. Xi with regard to Taiwan. But uh, you're on the case. What what's what's going on?

SPEAKER_01 14:32

To me, the most interesting thing, John, about the recent summit between Trump and Xi Jinping was when basically Trump arrived within if it wasn't minutes, it was hours, you had the Chinese spokesman putting Taiwan front and center and basically said if you Americans behave, lots of positive things could happen in our relationship, and if you don't, it'll wreck the relationship, it could lead to conflict. I mean, talk about linkage and talk about a statement of uh what the Chinese priorities are. Then she spent enormous amount of time talking to Trump about Taiwan, so much so that many of the president, President Trump's public comments, shall we say, echoed or parroted the Chinese line on Taiwan. The fact that he was talking with Xi about Taiwan was uh inconsistent with our assurances to Taiwan that we would never discuss arm sales with him. But don't get me wrong, I don't I don't think the Chinese want a war over Taiwan. What they want is Taiwan without war. Right. She sees Taiwan's fate as the unfinished business of China's civil war, which ended in 49. This is what he wants to accomplish on his lot on his watch. He's in the middle of his third term. He's not a young man anymore, but he wants to get there again without a war. War's too risky. He's seen what happened with us with Iran, saw what happened with his buddy Putin with Ukraine. So the question is, how can he undermine Taiwan's confidence and separateness? And I think he's going after the arm sale. And what he basically has figured if he can get Trump to delay or back off the arm sale, that will undermine morale and confidence in Taiwan. And he's in the process of doing it. And that's why David Sachs and I, not the crypto David Sachs, the Taiwan David Sachs, who wrote this article for foreign affairs to basically say this arm sale is much more important than the arms. Because when the arms wouldn't show up in Taiwan for years. It has become a proxy for America's commitment to Taiwan and to its its partners in this part of the world. And that's why it's suddenly become so essential that we make good on it. And I think that's in doubt in the wake of the summit. This President Trump seems very anxious that she comes here in September, that they have other meetings and and so forth. He obviously, this president, as you know better than anybody, cares about American commercial sales and to China, is worried about the scale of the trade imbalance. So we we bluntly have our a real worry, a real concern that Taiwan could be on the block. And indeed, the president told Brett Bear, this gives me a hell of a negotiating check. Well, we do not want him to see our support for Taiwan as something to be negotiated away, which is why we wrote this article. We wanted to remind people of why it's so important and why this is so dangerous to start going down this path.

SPEAKER_00 17:22

It's interesting because John Bolton served obviously as the national security advisor in the first Trump administration, and he wrote a book about it after after leaving that job. And he quoted President Trump as saying, look, if China invades Taiwan, there's nothing we can really do about it. It's 7,000 miles away, and you know, we're we're not gonna the notion that we're gonna come to their defense is sort of ridiculous. I'm not quoting him directly, but characterizing what he what he said. And here we are, again in the same place where Trump is basically, without saying it, is saying, look, if they invade you know, it's not it's not really our business, essentially. It it strikes me as so much of the Trump administration is risky and reckless that it that it sort of makes your head spin. But Taiwan is is uh like the key to the digital economy. So fooling around with it uh seems especially reckless.

SPEAKER_01 18:20

Yeah, several times in the that Brett Bear interview, Trump talked about how close Taiwan is to China and how far it is from the United States, which reinforces the message you just articulated. There's chips, but also Japan sees Taiwan as central to its security directly, and other countries in the part of the world see it as indirectly essential because it's seen again as a proxy of uh U.S. credibility and commitment. So that's why this is so important. You know, Asia's been the most successful part of the world in many ways. It's been an economic miracle, it's been relatively stable. We've avoided major power conflict. So I just I just worry that there's a kind of almost cavalierness about changing some of the basics. It's almost like we're pushing the tectonic plates rather than trying to resist change that could be destabilizing. And so that's again, it's why we're writing this article, is we, yeah, we want to sound the alarm. I'll put it bluntly. I'm I'm worried about what seems to be happening. Uh the Secretary of Defense, when he recently gave a speech in Asia, didn't mention Taiwan, mentioned ten other countries, did not mention Taiwan by name. So I worry that this administration is in the process of abandoning Taiwan. And I think it would be a strategic as bad as this war just was in the Middle East, this would be, if anything, even greater potentially. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_00 19:38

Did you follow the election, the mayoral election uh in Manchester, England? Aaron Powell Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 19:44

I saw that um the gentleman who's gonna be challenging the prime minister is uh, shall we say, in now positioned to do so.

SPEAKER_00 19:51

Aaron Powell I'm surprised because i I think he got twenty four thousand votes and his opponent got nineteen thousand votes, and I'm I'm at a loss as to why that means that he's going to re replace the prime minister. Trevor Burrus, Jr.

SPEAKER_01 20:04

Because he won and he had to get a seat. And the district he won in in Manchester, I think there was some concern he might not even win because of the recent elections. But there's no love or l or loyalty to Keith Starmer. So I I think uh he's probably dead man walking politically.

SPEAKER_00 20:22

He was it was how long ago?

SPEAKER_01 20:24

It was sixteen months ago that he was that's pretty long for a British Prime Minister these years.

SPEAKER_00 20:28

Well, that's this is true. This is that's a good point. That's a good point.

SPEAKER_01 20:34

The venerable prime minister.

SPEAKER_00 20:37

So uh here we are in well, you're in uh Millbrook, New York, or thereabouts, and I'm in Southport, Connecticut, but nearby they're playing the US Open at Shinnecock Hills. I think we both predicted that Cam Young would be a major league contender, if not the winner. But yesterday, a man named Wyndham Clark, who last year uh thrashed the men's locker room at Oakmont because he played so poorly. Yesterday he shot a six under par at a golf course that the wind was blowing about twenty five miles per hour, and it's an enormously difficult course to begin with. Did you see any of it? And were you as amazed by his performance as I was?

SPEAKER_01 21:19

I saw bits of it. I was as ma amazed because traditionally a a US Open at Shinnecock, if you're basically playing par or maybe one better, you're on yeah, you're gonna be teeing off really early on Saturday and Sunday. Uh and suddenly the I Clark was like playing a different course. You know, here we are now. It is uh what, Friday afternoon. He's now finished two rounds, and he's probably, I don't know, a good four or five strokes ahead of anybody else. So this is yeah, this just wasn't uh nobody was talking that anybody would do this well because everybody else is kind of bunched in what you might think is uh a more traditional scoring range for the a course that has the kind of rough and the fast screen. And the wind and everything else that Shinnekock does. And it is a brutal, brutal course. So I I don't quite understand suddenly how why or how Clark is doing so well, but he sure is. He really is playing amazing golf.

SPEAKER_00 22:13

So I guess we're going to have to talk about the Knicks. If you live in New York, New Yorkers talking about the Knicks is just about as well. John, the Knicks are American.

SPEAKER_01 22:30

I did not. Even though I get up at that hour, you would you had to be there by six, and I get up every day at five, but I did not go. I'm not a big kind of crowd thing. Two million of my fellow New Yorkers were there. It was a pretty well well-behaved crowd. The Knicks have uh brought New York together to some uh extent. It won't last, but it has for now. Look, how it's they're America's team. The Knicks don't have a Giannis, they don't have a LeBron, they don't have a Steph Curry. Jalen Brunson, I think, actually deserves the MVP, the combination of his excellence and how he has did, you know, was central to his team's winning, but that's a separate conversation. But the Knicks, the way I put it is the Knicks are a team where the hole is greater than the sum of its parts. And credit goes to Leon Rose for assembling it and Mike Brown for how he coached it. And I actually say the team they beat in the finals, San Antonio, the the hole is less than the sum of the parts. The coaching wasn't great. These players got exhausted towards the end. Wemby, the face of the MB, the future face of the NBA, turns out to be a dirty player. Uh they got a lot of growing up to do. But uh so yeah, people they sure feel a good story. Who would have thought a New York team would be something you could rally around? So I think people are feeling pretty good.

SPEAKER_00 23:42

Yeah. It was a great, great performance. Amazing, actually, given given the uh difficulties the franchise has had over the last fifty years or whatever. I think the problem that San Antonio had, uh s aside from not very good coaching and a thin bench, uh was that the Oklahoma City uh series, w which they won four games to three, I think exhausted the team and and left them vulnerable to to the Knicks, because in all those games it seems to me the Knicks were down by you know double digits at least, and yet they were able to rally as the Spurs faded in the fourth quarter.

SPEAKER_01 24:21

I think you make a good point. The Knicks only lost three games in the entire play. They were sixteen and three. Right. And they and two of the ones they lost were against Atlanta in the first round. So the Knicks, other than the one game Donald Trump attended at Madison Square Garden, that's the only game the Knicks lost after those two games with the Hawks, which is quite you know, what a stunning run. But you're right. One of the things as a result, they had all this time to rest. It's not it's not only that they played fewer games, but after each series, they basically had five or seven days to take it easy.

SPEAKER_00 24:53

Yeah.

SPEAKER_01 24:53

And and after an 82-game season, that actually has an enormous difference. So you know the Spurs are young, you know, all these guys in their early twenties, but still they look gassed at the end of uh I mean basically, right?

SPEAKER_00 25:06

Every every game but one, they were you know, they ran out of gas in the fourth quarter.

SPEAKER_01 25:12

Yeah, they were double-digit leads that they that they blew. The most, you know, the one that will go down in history will be game four. Yeah, it was quite it was quite a collapse. I don't I don't know if it was a choke or just a collapse or whatever. They just weren't used to dealing. I think I I think also after beating Oklahoma City, John, I can't prove it. My guess is they thought they were they were already lifting the trophy.

SPEAKER_00 25:33

Right.

SPEAKER_01 25:34

And I don't think they were ready for a team that had kind of the grit or resilience that the Knicks had. And uh I'm very happy to say that.

SPEAKER_00 25:42

All right, we've used up our allotted time. We try to keep it at thirty minutes or less. And uh we will be talking in the future about just wars and AI separately. Thanks very much for listening.

SPEAKER_01 25:55

Thank you, John.