Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Former U.S. State Department Official and Substack: "Home and Away" Author Richard Haass; Interview with The New York Times Magazine Staff Writer Ronen Bergman; Interview with "Coming Up Short" Author and Former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired September 02, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
BIANNA GOLODRYGA, CNN ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
XI JINPING, CHINESE PRESIDENT (through translator): The house rules of a few countries should not be imposed upon others.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: China shores up alliances of the Shanghai Summit. I ask longtime diplomat Richard Haass about this alternative world order that
looks to leave the United States behind.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONIO GUTIERRES, UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL: Unbelievably, civilians are facing yet another deadly escalation.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: -- Israel calls up 60,000 army reservists to help its planned takeover of Gaza City, despite widespread opposition. We have the details.
Also, ahead --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ROBERT REICH, AUTHOR, "COMING UP SHORT" AND FORMER U.S. LABOR SECRETARY: Donald Trump is more the consequence or the culmination of a lot of
failures over the last 40 or 50 years to deal with widening inequality.
(END VIDEO CLIP) GOLODRYGA: -- "Coming Up Short: A Memoir of America" from the baby boomers to the Trump administration. Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich talks to
Walter Isaacson about how the American economy got to where it is today.
Welcome to the program everyone. I'm Bianna Golodryga in New York, sitting in for Christiane Amanpour.
On this day, 80 years ago, the Second World War came to an end. Now, Supreme Allied Commander Douglas MacArthur witnessed the formal Japanese
surrender aboard the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay. But fast forward to today, is the post 1945 world order crumbling? Certainly, the alliances on display
this week in China seem to suggest so.
First at the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit, then in Beijing today. China hosting two of America's biggest adversaries, North Korea and
Russia. Xi Jinping hailing Putin as an old friend. Their two countries striking a deal to build a new natural gas pipeline and no mention of
Kremlin's war in Ukraine.
But it's not just adversaries, U.S. allies like Turkey's president, Erdogan, and India's prime minister, Narendra Modi, are also visiting as
they grapple with a newly isolationist and transactional America. Correspondent Ivan Watson breaks down everything that happened at this
week's summit.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
IVAN WATSON, CNN SENIOR INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): A show of international solidarity at a time of global uncertainty. Leaders of
three of the world's largest countries happily rubbing shoulders at a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization in Tianjin, China.
WATSON: The leaders of China and Russia have long complained that the U.S. and its western allies have dominated international relations. So, now,
they've gathered heads of state from across Asia and the Middle East into this vast building to call for the creation of a new world order.
WATSON (voice-over): The host, Chinese President Xi Jinping, denouncing bullying and double standards and promoting China as a champion for
developing countries.
XI JINPING, CHINESE PRESIDENT (through translator): The house rules of a few countries should not be imposed upon others.
WATSON (voice-over): Those points echoed by his close partner Vladimir Putin. Even as his military continues its nightly bombardment of Ukrainian
cities defying U.S. President Donald Trump's demands for peace.
But the Russian president accuses the west of starting Russia's war with Ukraine and makes his own appeal for a new global system of governance.
VLADIMIR PUTIN, RUSSIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): A system that would replace the outdated Eurocentric and Euro-Atlantic models, taking
into account the interest of the broadest possible range of countries truly balanced.
WATSON (voice-over): But it is the presence of India's prime minister that has been most notable at this gathering. Narendra Modi came to China still
stinging from 50 percent tariffs imposed by the Trump administration on Indian goods.
Snubbed by Washington, Modi is now mending fences with China, despite an ongoing Chinese-Indian border dispute that five years ago turned very
deadly. Modi also spent an hour talking to Putin in the Russian president's limousine. Demonstrating India has other powerful friends, if it can no
longer count on U.S. support.
WATSON: Chinese leader Xi Jinping demonstrated diplomatic might at this regional summit. In a few days' time, he'll put on a show of military
might. China is set to hold a huge military parade in Beijing. The VIP guests are to include Vladimir Putin, as well as the leaders of North Korea
and Iran.
Ivan Watson, CNN, Tianjin, China.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
[13:05:00]
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Ivan Watson reporting there for us. For more analysis on this, let's bring in Richard Haass, a longtime diplomat and
president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, who is joining me from New York. Richard, it is good to see you.
So, three years ago, Putin did appear to be isolated on the global stage. Even Xi Jinping had warned him about his advancements into Ukraine. Modi
also kept his distance and warned him about keeping peace. Now, things look quite different. We saw the chumminess between the three of them holding
hands. It doesn't appear that Putin is isolated in a number of capitals now.
I'm wondering, from your perspective, is this not only showing that Putin can survive this illegal war on Ukraine now three years later, but in fact,
rebuild a network that shows perhaps weakened western leverage over him?
RICHARD HAASS, FORMER U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL AND AUTHOR, SUBSTACK: "HOME AND AWAY": In a word, yes. You know, first on Putin's side, you have
the Chinese who are more than happy to have the United States and the west tied down in a war in Europe, depleting some of our military capabilities.
Plus, the Chinese are very curious about how the world reacts or doesn't react to the use of force as Putin's using it, because they're obviously
thinking what are the implications, what are the parallels potentially for Taiwan. India is more than happy to continue to import discounted Russian
energy. India is also, to a considerable degree, still dependent upon Russian arms.
And then, I think this also shows a failure of the United States. I actually think there's a decent chance we're going to have a conversation
here about who lost India. Why is it that this strategic and economic relationship we had been carefully building over the course of, what, two
or three decades now, why has this essentially been kicked away?
And I think it's a larger point here, in some ways it goes to your basic report, is here you have Russia, China, and India creating connections,
whereas increasingly, American farm policy is about distancing itself from our allies. And it wasn't that long ago that having allies and having
friends was the great comparative strategic advantage of American foreign policy, and that to me is, in some ways, the fundamental cost of a foreign
policy that treats allies not as friends or partners or as anything special, but just simply other entities with whom to conduct a
transactional set of exchanges.
GOLODRYGA: Is it really -- does it -- does, in your view, come down to a transactional relationship? Because it did seem that President Trump,
during his first term, was also pursuing that path in terms of a policy vis-a-vis China, vis-a-vis India pushing China away from those alliances
and drawing closer to India. The two men had a good relationship. I think Modi was the first foreign leader or one of the first foreign leaders to
visit President Trump at the White House after Prime Minister Netanyahu. And then all of a sudden, we see this huge rift.
Do you think it comes down to, as the New York Times had alluded, that Modi would not nominate Trump for, or did say he didn't deserve a Nobel Peace
prize after he wouldn't publicly say that it was President Trump who stopped the fighting most recently between India and Pakistan? Does it come
down to just that?
HAASS: Look, this is a highly personalistic farm policy on our side. It's the most top-down decision-making process I've ever seen. But I also think
one of the hallmarks is what you might call economics first. Historically, U.S. presidents, really ever since World War II, while they've kept
economic considerations in mind, they've been really a strategic and stability first, thinking that if we had order in the world, that would
create an environment where U.S. economic interests would do just fine. And by the way, they did. This has been a remarkable run in history for the
United States and for the American economy.
Donald Trump, for better or for worse, I tend to disagree on this, has put economics in a very narrow sense at the center of American foreign policy
and he doesn't care as much about creating conditions of order or stability or about relationships.
So, he sees India not -- again, not as a special case, certainly not as the cornerstone of a set of relationships meant to put pressure on China. So,
China, right now, if it doesn't have to worry about its border with India, it gives it much more freedom to focus its calories and its resources and
its energies on the South China Sea and on Taiwan.
So, to me, this would be a real strategic setback for us. But this is an administration, again, that represents a real departure and how it
approaches the world.
GOLODRYGA: Yes. And we saw Modi and Xi say that their relationship will now be on partnership and not rivalry. We'll see if that actually unfolds,
but that's still a bold statement to make nonetheless in Modi's first trip to China in some seven years.
[13:10:00]
We are getting some reporting from Bloomberg in terms of why the United States, if the focus is on buying Russian oil and wanting to put pressure
on Russia, is not putting heavier sanction on China, which is the number one purchaser of Russian oil, and instead, focusing on India. And the U.S.
NATO Envoy, Matt Whitaker, is telling Bloomberg news that the Trump has not put tariffs on China as negotiations between these two countries are
ongoing, and that the war in Ukraine is part of that discussion.
Vladimir Putin in China, once again reiterating and rewriting history, saying that it was the west to blame for the current situation in Ukraine
right now, and also, saying that there had been some mutual agreement and acknowledgement reached in that summit in Alaska between Trump and Putin.
How much of a win have the past few weeks been for Putin on the global stage in your view?
HAASS: This has been a great few weeks for Vladimir Putin. He got taken out of, if you will, the international penalty box. He got accepted by the
American president to meet on American soil without preconditions. The summit came and went, and all I can see is that Russian military forces
continue to attack Ukraine with enormous frequency and violence.
Coming back to your lead, and let me just say, there is a double standard here. We should be putting pressure on China if we're going to put pressure
on India, but obviously, this administration is worried about Chinese cutoff of rare earth minerals and so forth. And if we're really serious and
even more fundamental point about putting pressure on Vladimir Putin, which we should be, because he continues to violate the most basic law in the
world, the territory ought not to be acquired by force.
There's only -- there's two ways to do it. We should be putting sanctions directly on Russia. And secondly, we ought to be helping Ukraine a lot more
than we are. Let's give Ukraine the military wherewithal it needs, one to defend itself to frustrate Russian conventional forces. And two, to impose
some of the costs of war on Russia. We should be giving Ukraine the means to attack Russian military installations, maybe energy infrastructure. And
we're not doing it.
So, President Trump, you know, I say yes, it's good that you're pushing for peace, but your own policy is sabotaging your own goal.
GOLODRYGA: Instead, President Putin, President Xi announced a Power of Siberia 2 pipeline. That's a 30-year gas project between the two countries
today. In terms of the message that China and Xi is hoping to send as one of stability and leadership going forward, I'd like to play sound for you
from Xi at the start of this summit, and then we'll talk about it after.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
XI (through translator): We should advocate for an equal and orderly multipolar world and a universally beneficial and inclusive economic
globalization and make the global governance system more just and equitable.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: And that push to a multipolar world from a unipolar world is something that Vladimir Putin has been touting for decades now and sort of
as seen as a veil dig at Western leaders and President Trump himself. Putin said that Xi's vision for global governance, quote, "was urgently needed at
a time when such leadership is in deficit."
What message should the White House be taking from what we've seen transpire these past few days in China?
HAASS: They should be worried by what they're seeing there, because what this suggests is the Chinese help for Russia's military effort in Ukraine
is going to continue, efforts to isolate Vladimir Putin will increasingly fail. The strategic connections that have been built with India are fast
fading. And India, in some ways, has almost resumed its Cold War stance of strategic manipulation or improvisation. So, it can maintain ties to
everyone, but it's moving away from the west. And it also ought to be a reminder that if we stop doing things, China will fill the vacuum.
We did a massive attack on the Agency for International Development. We've done a massive attack on the global trade architecture and so forth. Well,
China is going to fill those spaces. This is a -- we're creating opportunities for Chinese economic ties, for Chinese influence to become a
more reliable provider of security or economic ties than is the United States.
So, this is a world where over time, but probably sooner rather than later, we're going to find ourselves with much less influence and far fewer
partners to do things that we want them to do. This is -- we're accelerating the emergence of a post-American world and it seems to me
we've ignored so many of the benefits that accrue to us or that did accrue to us over the last eight decades.
[13:15:00]
GOLODRYGA: It is notable, especially as the world and the summit, even in tomorrow, we will see massive pageantry there in China, perhaps similar
even outdoing what we've seen in Moscow in terms of new weaponry, that will be displayed for the world at the 80-year commemoration of the end of World
War II.
And like Vladimir Putin, President Xi has really been focused on China's role, historically and in the war and rewriting history there. Ukraine also
noting that nothing was mentioned in the communique about the war and its country ongoing right now. How concerned are you about this narrative shift
first in Russia, not only about the past in World War II, but even about the current war there in China with Xi trying to strategically alter
Chinese Communist Party's role in the end of World War II as well?
HAASS: Well, this is a gift in some ways to these authoritarian leaders as we roll back the promotion of democracy around the world as the example we
set as a democratic country, as that fades. Again, this creates tremendous opportunity. It's almost a free gift we're giving to these authoritarian
leaders. They see greater strategic and economic upsides in terms of cooperating with one another.
It's -- we're not imposing a cost on either. We're letting Putin continue his war in Ukraine. We're not doing much to help Ukraine. And we continue
to articulate our desire for a new big deal with China. So, China's not playing -- paying a price for this. We've just reduced many of our export
controls there.
So, I would think for the Chinese and the Russians, this has been an unexpected, what, windfall in terms of their national security, in terms of
their foreign policy. They see the trends here. The United States is less involved in the world. Certainly, we're less involved with our allies and
partners. We're less predictable.
So, my sense is we can expect greater, not just coordination between those two, but probably greater opportunism. I think what we have to expect is
they're going to continue to press against what you might call the post- Cold War world, the post even World War II world, to see what they can get away with, by cooperating with one another. Because they no longer expect
American pushback. They no longer see an alliance structure that's already against them.
So, we should expect an increasingly disorderly and also undemocratic world a non-market-oriented world. This is, in many ways, beginning to undo the -
- some of the basics of what we had taken for granted.
GOLODRYGA: Well to that point, famed investor, Ray Dalio. I don't know if you saw this this morning, said that the U.S. politics today are, quote,
"analogous to the 1930s through the 1940s, drifting towards autocracy." What do you make of those words? I mean, I typically like to end these
interviews with some bit of optimism, but the fact that he goes on to talk about concerns about the U.S. economy, its leadership around the world,
obviously, the state of democracy here, and the fact that there are many people who are afraid to speak up now and speak out against it?
HAASS: No, I saw what Ray Dalio said. Look, we are moving away from capitalism. We're now increasingly state capitalism, almost American
capitalism with Chinese characteristics. So, I worry about a less market- oriented American. Sure. I worry about a more authoritarian America.
Look at so many examples of the extension of executive power. The pushing back against independent institutions, an increasing a president who is
surrounding himself with loyalists, the notion of speaking truth to power is nowhere to be found. It's a great irony.
Think about it. Here we are less than a year away from the 250th anniversary of this country, of the Declaration of Independence, and what
are we doing? We're actually moving away from some of the precepts that make us who we are, that have gotten us to this point.
So, yes, we ought to be worried and the message ought to be there. We can't take what made this country great, let me use that word consciously. We
can't take American democracy for granted. It needs to be constantly, constantly defended and advocated for, and that to me is the reality as we
head towards July 4, 2026.
GOLODRYGA: And here we have President Trump literally taking election advice from Vladimir Putin of all people in their meeting in Alaska. Quite
ominous. Richard Haass, there's always hope though. So, let's end on that note. It is good to see you. Thank you so much for joining us.
HAASS: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: I hope you had a great summer. All right. And stay with CNN. We will be right back after the break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[13:20:00]
GOLODRYGA: Rescuers are desperately trying to reach survivors after a powerful earthquake struck Eastern Afghanistan. At least 800 people were
killed, more than 2,800 injured in the 6.0 magnitude quake centered near Jalalabad. Military helicopters flew missions throughout the day to
evacuate casualties. Entire towns and villages have been decimated in the remote mountainous region near the Pakistan border. Correspondent Nic
Robertson has this report on the ongoing rescue operations made more difficult by both physical terrain and the economic and political
conditions in the country.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
NIC ROBERTSON, CNN INTERNATIONAL DIPLOMATIC EDITOR (voice-over): Chaotic scenes searching for survivors in the dark. Most people asleep in their
homes when the magnitude six quake struck.
By day, the scale of destruction becoming clearer. This young boy desperately calling for his older brother, as other villagers arrived to
help. The relatively shallow quake, eight kilometers or five miles, contributing to the destruction and staggering death toll. Kunar Province,
the worst affected, homes here are often made of mud, rock, and trees, particularly vulnerable to quakes.
95 percent of the houses in our village have been destroyed, this survivor says. Every household has lost between five to 10 family members. We appeal
to all Muslims to open their hearts and help us at this time of hardship.
Some of the worst affected areas in the mountainous rural east of Afghanistan could only be reached by helicopter as dirt roads already
weakened by weeks of heavy rain were cut by quake induced landslides.
KATE CAREY, DEPUTY HEAD OF OFFICE, U.N. OCHA: There are some locations and some villages in a few of the most hard-hit districts that are only
accessible by foot up to three hours. And of course, the priority is also to unblock impossible roads.
ROBERTSON (voice-over): The Afghan government spokesman warning, while they've reached most villages, it will take some time before international
aid agencies will get there to help.
The nearest major city, Jalalabad, receiving some of the injured. Only the luckiest survivors able to get to hospital. At least one NGO, the
International Rescue Committee, reporting entire villages have been destroyed.
In our district alone, 100 to 150 people were killed, this man says. We still don't know the number of the injured. The roads are still closed.
The Taliban-ruled country is already reeling from the effects of shrinking international aid budgets. Healthcare at the forefront of basic services
impacted. USAID contracts alone down $1.7 billion over the last year.
In 2023, a magnitude 6.3 quake caused more than 2,000 deaths. Not clear if the toll this time will exceed that. But for sure, the country's ability to
cope with this type of catastrophe is weakening.
Nic Robertson, CNN, London.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: Our thanks to Nic Robertson. Now, we turn to the Middle East where Israel today is calling up the first group of 60,000 Army reservists
to aid its planned takeover and occupation of Gaza City.
[13:25:00]
This despite the IDFs own chief of staff, Eyal Zamir, reportedly opposing the massive escalation. It comes amid a growing chorus of human rights
groups and politicians who are condemning the move, warning that it will have a disastrous impact on the Palestinian civilians living there as well
as the hostages. Here's U.N.'s Secretary-General Antonio Gutierres.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
ANTONIO GUTIERRES, UNITED NATIONS SECRETARY-GENERAL: Unbelievably civilians are facing yet another deadly escalation. Israel's initial steps
to military take over Gaza City signals a new and dangerous phase. Expanded military operations in Gaza City will have devastating consequences.
Hundreds of thousands of civilians already exhausted and traumatized will be forced to flee yet again, plunging families into even deeper peril. This
must stop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GOLODRYGA: Well, any hopes for a ceasefire deal now seem far off, and the devastation and suffering continues nearly two years of war. More than
63,000 people have been killed in Gaza, according to health officials there. Some 50 hostages remain in captivity, about 20 of them are thought
to be alive. The hostage families themselves continue to be loud. Critics of the war and of the Netanyahu government urging an end to the conflict
and for their loved ones to be brought home.
Let's bring in Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman who joins me now from Tel Aviv. Ronen, welcome to the program. So, as we note, some 60,000 reservists
have been called up, have started to be called up for this Gaza City operation, even though the IDF chief of staff himself, handpicked by Prime
Minister Netanyahu just a few months ago we should note, has voiced serious opposition and concerns about the direction of this operation itself. We've
also heard some pushback internally from some cabinet ministers too.
How rare is this to see such a break in division between military officials, even some cabinet members, and the prime minister himself?
RONEN BERGMAN, STAFF WRITER, THE NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE: That's exactly the situation, Bianna. This is the first time ever that such situation
occurred in the long and sometimes with a lot of friction history of relations between the political level and the leaders of the military. But
nothing, nothing close to that.
It's not just -- and this is very important about the growing death tolls among Palestinian civilians in Gaza. It is about the chief of staff telling
the prime minister, the cabinet, and the whole government of Israel that invading Gaza City would not be able to bring either, both -- neither of
the -- none of the war goals. It will not bring the ultimate victory that Netanya was talking about, it would not bring the release of the hostages,
the live hostages that are suffering for almost two years in the most horrible conditions. We saw some of the videos that Hamas released. It will
not bring the disarmament of Gaza.
It will bring, the military says, between three to five years of military occupation of the whole strip in order to have some kind of victory,
dismantling all the Hamas militants, destroying all the tunnels, and confiscating all the arms, something that Israel just cannot stand. It will
bring this settlement of much of the reserve forces and it will not bring any kind of the day after something that the Netanyahu government
continuously refuses to speak about and deal with and discuss, even internally, for the last two years.
GOLODRYGA: Well, let's --
BERGMAN: The chief of staff, Lieutenant General Zamir, said, going into Gaza is going into a death trap for the soldiers and means a high risk of
life for the remaining hostages.
GOLODRYGA: And in terms of the soldiers, for many of them, this is now their second, third tour of war. As we've noted, this is the longest war in
Israel's history, and many of them themselves feel exhausted, disillusioned after -- I think we're over 700 days now of war. Here's what one reservist
told Haaretz. He said, we talk and say what we think, but there are no answers. I can't recall such a heavy feeling in previous tours. It's clear
that we're going into a war that even the IDF doesn't want.
[13:30:00]
How deep of a crisis is this within the ranks of the IDF? And is there concern that among these 60,000 reservists called up there could be a
significant number that don't show up?
BERGMAN: The concern is severe. This is -- and there were times during the first Lebanon war, the continuous invasion to Lebanon in the '80s when
Ariel Sharon was leading the defense establishment and others, but there was some disputes over the goals of some wars or some battles that Israel
participated in. But there was never such a decisive objection to goals of war that basically nobody understands. It's not just that soldier that you
quoted from Haaretz -- at this Haaretz's report, it's the leadership of the military, it's the public who is being more and more disillusioned about
what the war is all about.
With my colleagues (INAUDIBLE) and Patrick Kingsley, we published a very long report of how Netanyahu, every time again and again, we -- he could
have a path to end the war and bring a new page to this disastrous clash and war, he chose the other way. He preferred his coalition and continued
the war. We are seeing it happening just again. Netanyahu is putting the priority, the first priority, above everything else, the integrity of the
coalition and the people of the military, the people of the public they know that.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
BERGMAN: And I think that there are only three people in the world that understand what is the plan, because the military doesn't understand. These
people are the -- Minister Ron Dermer, close aide to Netanyahu, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and possibly President Trump that is giving conflicting
signals on what exactly he's wishing and asking -- maybe more than asking Israel to do.
GOLODRYGA: Well, conflicting is the right word to use here because Netanyahu, in response to the pushback not only from the IDF chief of staff
and from polling in Israel and from I think the majority of Israelis that have now at least raised concern about the direction of the war, if not
actually demanding that it come to an end, Netanyahu's response is that he spoke with President Trump and he has President Trump's full backing to
quote, "finish the job," not accept a partial deal that Israel was hoping to and willing to accept just a few weeks ago, the table seemed to have
turned. Now, it's Hamas who's willing to accept a partial deal. Let's see if they actually would follow through on that.
But it does appear, at least on paper, that the tables have turned. Netanyahu saying, I have the president's backing. The president though
seems to be checked out from time to time, not really as invested in this war, constantly stating that he brought home a number of hostages and now,
sort of the balls in Netanyahu's court.
How much of this is fact that Netanyahu's saying, that President Trump is telling him, go ahead, finish the job?
BERGMAN: Well, we did not see any kind of pushback from the president's court. But I think that, at least according to some sources, the situation
is that there is some kind of a secret, maybe written, maybe unwritten agreement between the White House and Jerusalem that Israel will deliver,
will hand over the rule of Gaza to the U.S. The U.S., in its turn, will take some custody over the strip and then. Pass it on to some kind of
international consortium that will have the Palestinian Authority, something that Netanyahu cannot do because of coalition and consideration.
And Saudi Arabia and the UAE and Egypt that will take control over Gaza.
The problem with this very clean and sort of passage and the situation is that the condition is that the IDF will hand over the stick to the U.S.
only when Gaza is totally free of Hamas. Now, maybe President Trump believes, maybe someone told him that this will take three or two weeks,
but the IDF says it will take at least three years.
So, basically, when President Trump is saying to Prime Minister Netanyahu, it's OK to go in fast, it means that it's either some kind of a secret plan
that we don't know, or maybe more realistically, that President Trump gave the authority the OK to continue to war endlessly, because this will not
end in two or three weeks.
GOLODRYGA: Well, President Trump has already said -- I mean, he said in an interview here, and this goes back to your word conflicting, because Trump
is stating what's pretty obvious that this war is damaging Israel, as he has said. He said, there's no question about that. They may be winning the
war. They're not winning the world of public relations, you know, it is hurting them. They're going to have to get this war over with. And that was
just on Friday in an interview with the Daily Caller.
[13:35:00]
To your point, it seems very unrealistic, this planning for the day after. There was a meeting in the White House just last week. The Washington Post
had some details of building the Riviera of the Middle East, including A.I. projections in all of that.
But at some point, it does appear that Trump is going to get sick of having to deal with this as well, especially as we get closer to the midterms. It
was interesting to have Foreign Minister Sa'ar even weigh in and express some questions about the direction of this military takeover of Gaza City.
He just came back from Washington, D.C. and he is very clear-eyed about the role that Israel is playing on a global stage right now. A number of
countries planning to come here next -- in the next few weeks to recognize a Palestinian State not included, will be P.A. officials, and that is a new
edict from the State Department here.
Nonetheless, what is the response to a growing number of countries stating that they will in fact recognize a Palestinian State?
BERGMAN: First to your previous point, President Trump said exactly the same in an interview he gave in April, 2024. So, it seems that he's
consistent with that, meaning he doesn't like the war. He believes that this damaging the Israeli international position. He thinks it needs to
end. But in the year and a half, the past and eight months that he has been in the White House, he has not forced Prime Minister Netanyahu. And I think
he's the only person in the world that can do that now.
To your last point on the international recognition of a Palestinian State, this is something that as many other things that are happening to Israel,
to Israeli public, to the Israeli -- to international situation, that the Israeli government is either ignoring or blaming the rest of the world, as
much as they are blaming now President Macron for the failure of the negotiation. And sometimes they're blaming Hamas.
GOLODRYGA: Yes.
BERGMAN: To blame Hamas for failing the negotiation. It's like blaming Hamas for October 7th. Of course, it's their fault, but then it's up to the
Israeli government when dealing with such a terrorist organization, to do whatever they can to bring the hostages back home and end the war, and they
don't recognize. This is beyond -- and above everything, they don't recognize this responsibility, not on what happened on October 7th and not
on anything happening afterward. And much of the time right spent by this government is to just shift the blame on everything to others.
GOLODRYGA: And except, obviously, taking responsibility himself as well. Instead, Netanyahu, it appears, is weighing annexing parts of the West Bank
in response to a number of countries now recognizing a Palestinian State. Ronen Bergman, I'm so sorry we are out of time. We'll have to leave it
there. Really appreciate you joining us. Thank you.
BERGMAN: Thank you.
GOLODRYGA: And we'll be right back after a short break.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
GOLODRYGA: Well, since President Trump returned to office more than seven months ago, the U.S., as we know it, has been undergoing some dramatic
shifts. As we mentioned earlier, prominent hedge fund billionaire Ray Dalio warned this week that the nation is sliding into a 1930 style autocracy.
So, how did we get here? Former Clinton Secretary of Labor Robert Reich believes what we've been seeing today is the result of a series of economic
and political choices made in the last 50 years. And he chronicles them in his recent memoir, "Coming Up Short."
[13:40:00]
It's a great title, I have to say. He joins Walter Isaacson to discuss what Democrats should do to respond to Trumpism.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Bianna. And, Robert Reich, welcome to the show.
ROBERT REICH, AUTHOR, "COMING UP SHORT" AND FORMER U.S. LABOR SECRETARY: Well, thank you. Walter, It's good to see you.
ISAACSON: Your book is "Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America." I want to focus on that subtitle. because one of the things that struck me when I
read the book last night is that you take your own life story and make it into an allegory about America in that period. How'd you do that and why?
REICH: Well, first of all, "Coming Up Short" is indeed a double entendre because, as you know, I'm very short. But also, America, I believe, came up
short, in the sense that I was privileged to be a member of the post-war baby boom. I don't presume to know exactly how old you are, Walter, I think
you're younger. I'm sure you're younger than I am.
But that post-war baby boom generation, the year I was born featured just within a few months of my birth Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Donald
Trump. And the book focuses really on what we did, not necessarily those individuals entirely. I also include Clarence Thomas and many others of us
who came to our adulthood in the 1960s, 1970s and had an opportunity to take the legacy we were given by the so-called greatest generation. And
continue that legacy in terms of building a very strong American middle class and a stronger democracy.
But we came up short in the sense that we ended up with Donald Trump as president. And I think that Donald Trump is not the source of our problems.
What I say in the book is that Donald Trump is more the consequence or the culmination of a lot of failures over the last 40 or 50 years to deal with
widening inequality and the problems faced by the American working class that ultimately chose him as president.
ISAACSON: One of the themes in your book is bullying. And you were bullied as a kid. And in some ways, you say that's what's happened to the average
American. Explain that.
REICH: Well, I became quite sensitive to the issue of bullying, because I am short and I was, like many children are, bullied in school. But one of
my protectors, one of the older boys I kind of leaned on or relied on to take -- to protect me from the bullies, himself was bullied in a much more
profound way. When he was registering voters in 1964, his name was Michael Schwerner. He and two other civil rights workers were murdered by the Ku
Klux Klan. And then, in many ways, Walter, changed my life and my view of bullying.
I began to see the bullying was about power. It is about power. It's about people with power, abusing that power and treating others without power in
ways that exploit them. And I'm talking about employers and employees or men bullying women or white supremacists bullying black people. I mean, you
see bullying all over.
And as inequality has widened in America over the last -- certainly the last 40 years, the opportunities for the bullies, those at the top who have
a great deal of resource to take out their bullying on people who are weaker than they are have increased.
I mean, Donald Trump is the bully of bullies. I think that he was elected and in part because a lot of people who felt so bullied by the system saw
him as somebody who could bully everybody else. Of course, he is not a representative of the working class. He actually has provided huge tax cuts
to the wealthy and deregulated Wall Street and deregulated the environment and made, I think over time, the working class much more vulnerable.
Nevertheless, that was his selling.
ISAACSON: Wait, wait. Then why did that -- why did he get a plurality of the votes?
[13:45:00]
REICH: I think he got a plurality of votes in 2024, you're referring to, because the Democrats did not come up with a response to the bullying. You
see -- and I get at this in the book, and this is something that I've been harping on, Walter, for years, and that is that the Democrats need to
explain to the working class -- to the vast middle class that has felt bullied why the market is rigged against them. Democrats need to point out
that large corporations and the wealthy people who are putting huge amounts of money into American politics are doing this in ways that hurt much of
the middle class and certainly the working class. And as a result, the Democrats have not provided as has Donald Trump and some Republicans before
him, an explanation.
Now, the Trump explanation, remember, has been about cultural bullies. The Trump explanation has been well, it's the deep -- you know, the deep state
or it's immigrants or it's people who are different such as transgender youth. I mean, the cultural culprits here are not responsible for why most
Americans feel bullied. But if the Democrats don't point out the real bullies, then there's no opportunity for anybody to know what's going on.
ISAACSON: When did Democrats lose touch with the working class?
REICH: Well, I -- In the book I trace it back to the -- really the 1990s. I mean, I am very, very proud to have been a member of the Clinton
administration. I think we accomplished a great deal. But I think that Bill Clinton and a lot of the Democrats associated with the Democratic
Leadership Council, do you remember them, the moderate -- so-called moderate Democrats, the new Democrats, they refused to -- and were
unwilling to really make the kind of alliance with organized labor, with the grassroots groups, name the kind of brutality and the bullies that were
really beginning to have a great deal of power in America because of all the money in American politics.
And I think that -- and in adopting free trade and in deregulating Wall Street and in taking their eyes off monopolies and allowing the companies
to basically bash unions and get rid of unions, all of this helped pave the way for Donald Trump.
ISAACSON: In the book, actually, you trace it even further back to some extent, even to "The Port Huron Statement" and the progressive left of the
'60s and '70s. Explain how you think that may have led the Democratic Party astray of getting too much into this progressive left ideology.
REICH: Well, I don't really take on, as you point it -- as you put it, progressive left ideology in the sense that I think the core problem, I
mean, at the Port Huron Statement I viewed as a very important -- I still do view as a very important statement with regard to the kind of populist
leanings of our generation, my generation. But I think that it left out the working class.
And many of the reform movements of the '60s, '70s, and '80s left out the working class. I mean, the Woman's Movement was very important, obviously.
The -- even the Civil Rights Movement, the Voting Rights Movement, I mean, I was part of that, the anti-Vietnam War movement, the movement to provide
equal marriage rights. All of them terribly important. But what was left out was the working class and the labor movement and the core
responsibility of the Democratic Party as a legacy of Franklin D. Roosevelt to represent the people who did not have power, represent people who were
really left out of power.
But it's not too late. I think that Donald Trump and the Trump administration gives the Democrats and progressives an opportunity to do
what they did not do in the '80s and '90s, and even at the turn of this century. And that is reclaim the ground that was lost.
[13:50:00]
Because the Trump administration is really something that is so different from what the conservative Republicans had represented and tried to
achieve. It is, in a sense, an administration that is more closely aligned, and I'm going to use a word here that I rarely use and I apologize in
advance, but the Trump administration is closely aligned with fascist movements in history and right-wing movements in Europe, Neo-Nazi movements
around the world, particularly in Europe.
And this gives the ground, this gives the Democrats enormous ground, enormous opportunity to refashion a coalition and create a new multi-
racial, multi-ethnic, multi-class coalition that it is not just based on democracy. Yes, that's important, that's critically important. But it's
also based on widening prosperity for everyone.
ISAACSON: You use the incredibly loaded word, fascism. And in your book, you have Henry Wallace, the Democrat, very progressive Democrat, writing an
essay about fascism. I think it's in the 1940s.
REICH: 1944. Well, it was interesting. Henry Wallace, a vice president at the time to Franklin D. Roosevelt, wrote in the New York Times magazine a
very important article, lost mostly to history. I tried to revive it. In which he warns of American fascism. And this is at a time we're fighting
the Second World War, but he sees, Wallace sees, he writes this article with a permission of Franklin Roosevelt, he writes about the underpinnings
of monopolization of the very crude efforts to destroy American unions, labor unions, the efforts of white supremacists to reassert themselves
through this kind of the quiet fascism that he sees.
It's an undercurrent in America that Henry Wallace identifies and that undoubtedly has been there before and is -- has been there since -- at
least since the 1930s and is now expressing itself in ways I think Wallace had very presciently seen possible.
ISAACSON: You talk about the populism of the right and moving towards authoritarianism. Is there a possibility of an economic populism of the
left, and who do you think would -- how would that be expressed within the Democratic Party in the U.S.?
REICH: Well, there is a populism of the left. I mean, the -- Bernie Sanders was the best exponent and an expression of that. But he was saying
something that resonated with many Americans, and that is that we've got to take our country back economically from big corporations, from wealthy
people that are abusing their wealth and their power.
I mean, he was hearkening back to something that Louis Brandeis, the great jurist, was reputed to have said in the 1920s, which is that America has a
choice, we can either have great wealth in the hands of a few people, or we can have a democracy, but we can't have both. And Bernie Sanders came very,
very close to getting the Democratic nomination. Now, history will not know whether he could have beaten Donald Trump, who was also improbable.
I remember, Walter, I was doing a book in 2015, some research for a book. I went around many places in the Midwest, of the south, doing kind of focus
groups, really free-floating focus groups. And I remember asking people all over the country particularly in the Rust Belt, in the south, if you had to
vote today, who would you vote for your next president? Now, this is 2015 when Hillary Clinton was the punitive nominee for the Democrats and Jeb
Bush was the punitive nominee for the Republicans.
And I kept on hearing again and again, people saying, well, we want either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders. And I remember thinking, wait a minute. How
can you put Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders in the same sentence?
[13:55:00]
But the fact was that even in 2015, people who felt bullied, and I'm going to use that metaphor because it really does describe the people that I met
and so many people across the country, and still does, they wanted somebody who would stop the bullying.
ISAACSON: Robert Reich, thank you so much for joining us.
REICH: Well, thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
GOLODRYGA: All right. That is it for us for now. If you ever miss our show, you can find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast.
And remember, you can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thanks so much for watching, and goodbye from New York.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
