and, and everything, and so flowing from that, including the likelihood of foreign terrorist returning and again, using afghanistan as a base plan, terrorist operations around the world. so this is a retreat by the united states, from the international stage, something by and believe then since at least 2009 se, se, ironically, trump believe dana to, i think it's a mistake for the u. s. i think it's a mistake for well, we'll stability certainly it's a mistake for the people of afghanistan. well, in fantasy trump's deal, the date of a withdrawal was made the 1st you don't think that makes any difference. now look, i think all by and did was extended a couple months and it showed how, how little planning had been done, either by the trump administration or by for the execution to withdraw itself. i should note my own polling on this subject, i think affirms what other people have observed. that while at the beginning, many people said the withdrawal itself was executed poorly and no question about

that. but it's caused them to rethink the consequences. the withdrawal itself, the return of taliban to power, the greater risk of terrorist attack, obviously calls into question the legitimacy of the withdrawal of decision. fundamentally, i think people now realize we are less secure after the withdrawal than we were before the withdrawal. you said that biden changed in that answer in a way. what do you, i mean, he said when he was helping to confirm you at the state department, to anyone, my disagreements with you that you were to competent? i wish you were ambassador. i was, you were dumb to get a bit of shorted you. you're competent and honorable. what do you think the president meant by the now president meant by that? i think i took it as a compliment. this sort of a backhanded compliment to be sure, but the look i, i've been on the opposite side of joe biden on almost every major question in foreign policy for a long time. and i think that was a recognition. we disagree didn't. they didn't have the usual politics of personal

destruction issues. they could go after me on so they had to try something else. i don't think is going to appoint. you have national security adviser anytime soon. perhaps the top objective in your, in your book as regards afghanistan, you make clear as to prevent the potential resurgence of isis just tell us what you think isis k actually is because we had cause eyes x, y. that's minutes. roman's lucky while on the program, who negotiated actually with by the in the bus, he claim that it was trumps. the mother will bombs the, like a was nuclear bomb that was dropped by tremble. and i've got a son acted as a recruitment sergeant for isis, but is that i civil rights as kay? this is complicated. these different terrorist terrorist groups. terrorist factions don't have the identity cards that they can show. i'm al qaeda isis. kate, i'm this, people drift back and forth. i think the, the main threat right now of regrouping terrorists in afghanistan is al qaeda. i

think ok is never really left. i think they've been embedded with caliban in their exile across the border and pakistan for the last 20 years. and i think al qaeda will take advantage of renewed taliban control to recreate the sanctuaries, the rear base area that they used afghanistan before isis is a new phenomenon. but look in iraq and syria. it was an offshoot of al qaeda and isis k, which is the acronym for the isis affiliate claims to control the tip. roughly the territory of afghanistan is just another manifestation. the tragedy at the mosque. you mentioned the seller bombing occurred a few weeks ago. i c k 2 credit for both for shi masks. isis k, obviously fanatic. sunni terrorist group, but there's rivalry between isis k and taliban. but i, i could, i've already today,

i could see a coalition between them tomorrow this, this is a changing environment in afghanistan. obviously, just a couple months ago, they were an exile across the border. now they're in control and congo. i expect to see there to be further developments, but i think it's hard to predict. but what i would say is that this potential for congregating terrorist from anarchic areas around the world, toward a more hospitable government in afghanistan, i think it's something we should all be we're, i mean the kind of an obviously say their sworn enemies with isis k. and you seem to say that they'll kind are embedded within it. we've had the taliban on this program. there are defacto negotiations going on between nato governments in the taliban. you mean they're kind of negotiating with al qaeda more or less? well, i think there's a danger that there's, if there's a big question, whether there's a new moderate taliban leadership or whether it's the same old crew that governed

afghanistan in the late 1990 s. i think it's still early to make a final conclusion. but i think the early evidence is not very encouraging that moderate forces have somehow taken over with taliban. and i think it's one of the reasons why even the by the administration has been hesitant to unfreeze afghan assets, turn them over to taliban to resume humanitarian assistance. until we find out whether they're still a terrorist group as they seem to be or whether there's something else the europeans through the european union have jumped in a little bit early. i think they may come to regret that a lot of money. they seem to be giving, i mean, some might say it was off to rule the united states and britain that were trying to overthrow outside of syria. and that meant that of course, alliances were made with groups affiliated to i said ok, they're in syria and i mean everyone knows the us history and the history with the

legit in is that there's another case of a terrible blow back that isis k is actually a kind of descendant of british and u. s. policy in syria since 2011. well, i don't think so. i mean, i think what happened in to take it back to the iraq syria theater is that after brock obama withdrew american forces from iraq in 2011. because really what could go wrong, everything? everything was taken care of best when ice. this arose in western iraq and, and eastern syria. and we had to go back in to counter this new threat or more virulent form of al qaeda. so i hardly think that it was in reaction to our withdrawal that we saw isis arise. i think it was the spread of this terrorist mentality which, which was of course, even the rate of course one can say that then it's still a descendant of u. s. u k policy because of the invasion of iraq. i mean, i, i the, the,

i way with them. i, well, maybe it all goes back to british imperialism in the 1000 everything. yeah. and uh huh. no, this is more recent over the, the 2001 what i should, i mean, before we leave afghanistan, i should just quickly say, you have warned that a taliban victory in gobble gives them potential access to 150 nuclear weapons. what do you mean that was misquoted from a, from an earlier interview, what i've said was, i worry that the take over by taliban in afghanistan could provide aid and comfort to radicals in pakistan, pakistani taliban itself, other terrorist groups that the pakistani government created along with the extremist in the inner services, intelligence directorate, and other parts of the pakistani military if those extremists took control and pakistan than that government would have access to the country store nuclear weapons. my ma'am,

so did you make that point when you were national security advisor and what no one listened to you, the potential for absolute catastrophe. i did make that point several times. i thought it was a compelling reason to keep american un nato forces in afghanistan. obviously that was not persuasive. donald trump and wouldn't have been persuasive job. well, it's not necessarily meaning a continued occupation. it could mean other policies, but clearly that's a terrifying prospect. i should just because we go to trial here of julian sanchez coming up. you appointed richard grinnell is i right. yours who took over is acting national security advisor. when you know i didn't to point 8 and richard grinnell worked for me in new york and he was the spokesperson for the u. s. mission to you . and when i was un ambassador, will you ever privy to this thing about grinnell and trump organizing and assange? pardon deal if he revealed his sources as news to me? well, i have to go to the actual bombing of syria that you are

a national security advisor at the time. and some might say that also emboldened, i says, i'll kinder in syria because you a defacto defending isis elk. adrian, syria, what did you, what do you, how do you look up on that to attack on syria or in 2018? we certainly weren't defending isis or, or anyone else way would have seen it. that was, well, they would be wrong to see it that way. what happened was the syrian government used chemical weapons, probably chlorine based against civilian targets in and around damascus. almost exactly one year earlier in april 2017. the syrian government done, same thing us had responded militarily and clearly aside, had not been deterred from engaging in that kind of conduct again. so this was actually started my 1st day in office, april the 9th 2018. it was a busy week, but the british,

the french came together well as we did another retaliatory attack in response. i don't think that deterred assad either. but to me, it was, it was evidence that the, that the danger of the anarchy we saw in syria with presence of ryan forces hes both coming over from lebanon to support the sad regime. the accumulation of chairs forces in and around england was a compelling reason to keep us in nato forces in northeastern syria, just another place trump wanted to withdraw from. so this was part of the complex a dealing with in the trump administration to maintain stability, which was n u. s. interest rather than withdraw and see or return either to terrorist control or iranian back control. yeah, you didn't mention, you mentioned the regional allies, they didn't mention russian troops. you don't think it was compelling when mad. dog, mathis from the pentagon, said if that missile strike, it killed russian soldiers. it would have been war with moscow. i don't know when,

when mad is said that, but i can do this if it's in the he, it's in the context of that that the joint chiefs of staff chairman joe dunford, called his russian counterpart shortly before the strike and syria, as he had done the year before, to, to say, look, you see what's happened here with chemical weapons attacked by the assad government and just want you to know that we're not going to sit idly by so that you know, you need to look out for your russian forces. we understood fully and i think that's what madison is saying, that if we were not careful that there might be a collateral damage, which we didn't want. this was not in any sense and that brush was and that the assad regime all be of that. you said the putin was lying about it not being a chemical attack. you also say in the book that actually didn't. that's right. that was the russian position and that was in zenick. all the evidence indicates.

yeah, obviously very controversial. but you do mentioned in the book of antonio gutierrez, who slammed the strike for not having un security council approval. it was a being ridiculous kind of symptomatic of the fact, the lack of authority of the you and secret general in the you. and now you famously said it can demolish a whole lot of flaws in new york. it doesn't make any difference. i think the organization is grin locked in and it's political institution. sad say largely a failure. if we've gone to the security council, i think we almost certainly would have faced a russian and chinese veto. the administration had not gone for security council approval in 2017 and i did the british, nor the french show felt there was any need for security council approval. so i think we were well within our rights to conduct the strike with without reference to the security council. i master boldenall, stop you that more from the 27th national security advisor of the united states after this break to what we've got to do is

identify the threats that we have. it's crazy confrontation, let it be an arms race is on offense. very dramatic development, the only personally i'm going to resist, i don't see how that strategy will be successfully, very difficult time. time to sit down and talk with those to chill. what tristan's goal is to chill to begin with, each one is a way to assess my william. that is the school is out of it is a curriculum was left the keenest with position for food or it got put him in junior was a deal. it's the key for them to saying that it's easy issue

with no, i mean, unless you put that amount with power to store you with a look forward to talking to you all that technology should work for people. a robot must obey the orders given by human beings, except where such order that conflict with the 1st law show your identification. we should be very careful about on personal intelligence. and the point obviously is to great trust rather than fear a job with artificial intelligence. real summoning with

obama protective own existence with a welcome back. i'm still here with the former us ambassador, the u. n. and the 27th us national security advisor, john bolton, quite a lot of us subsidy to the you. and i know that under trump you got out of unesco, biding took you back in. did you advise of national security adviser that some of that us subsidy to the u. n. g, we reduced, i've long felt based on my tenure in new york is un ambassador and other positions . i've held that the u. s. money is, is wasted in many respects miss sent in many respects. and my overall reform proposal for the un is to abolish what are called assess contributions, which are essentially mandatory. the u. s. stays around 2022 per of the budgets and

most agencies, i'd make all contributions from national members of the you and i'd make all. busy contributions, wow, but i mean, there must be people all over the world. you believe that would agree with all this . why did you get nowhere with all of this, the notion to make contributions, voluntary, unfortunately didn't have agreement all around the world. but i think if it did, it would be like a su nami, sweeping through the halls of the un. i'm in the un security council of coal is ratified, and the u. s. a. j. c. b. o. a. what prospects do you think and what's the delay since by didn't go back in of the iran nuclear deal? i know you're, you're an opponent. i don't know whether you think you think the option is to attack iran militarily. i'm not sure what your view is of iran u. s. relations in by the administration for all. busy public purposes remains committed to trying to get back into the deal and to get to run back into the deal . i think the deal is fatally flawed when it was agreed in 2015. it hasn't gotten

any better with age. i think the regime and tara is committed to getting deliverable nuclear weapons. it's never showed any evidence. what is your views a well known about what, what should the policy be? now, the best step forward given how unpopular the karen regime is inside afghanistan, is to find ways to split the top leaders in the revolutionary guards and the armed forces and to reflect what is the wide spread view among the population out. plenty of places where there aren't western reporters reporting how unpopular that regime is and see if it can't be overthrown. give the government to the people of iraq using the title of that. i thought it is quite popular in afghanistan, and iran is obviously taken maybe a 1000000 refugees there. and iran has been linked to the talks. i mean, obviously the new afghan talks happening in most regime in iran did the unpopularity the regime. and iran, i think bad is that it's,

it's only through regime change in iran that you're going to get a strategic decision. they're not to pursue nuclear weapons, but obviously the last time there was a successful regime change by the u. s. was against the democratic lead monster dec . bernie saunders fond of talking about that. isn't that how you got into this mess? i know douglas has a big hero of yours. he actually seeing that when he is with the president, for sure, i should say we did it with the british, but it was actually most of back who had violated the iranian constitution at the time. and i think it was, it was far more elements of popular opposition to most dec support for the shot. it lead it led to the islamist revolution of $979.00, and then it followed it best. you're, you're engaging and a post hoc air go back, found it. now i've, i lived in iran. i got to tell you. and sanctions didn't affect rich people in iran,

your vocal supporter of sanctions. i mean, do you know how many thousands of ordinary iranians men, women, and children are killed by us in nature? sanctions on iran, you think it's a price worth paying like madeline albright with the 500000 iraqi children. now it says that the sanctions have never been directed against the medicine or you know the hives. but the effects are caused by the mishandling of the iranian economy, the corruption among even the mullers themselves, who have grown there, they and their families grown. you know, there is a case of you, except that, you know, it's shoring up. i mean, cuba is a good example here. you sanction the country you create support for that government, whatever the color that government is, i think cube is a good example. the islands recently been swept by anti regime demonstrations. they're primarily from young people and this is, this is a significant in for you. i already in the streets and it's not anything quiet now

. thousands, thousands all over the island. i know in the book you're concerned about venezuelan help for cuba. the washington tank cpr claims 40000 children may be killed by sanctions on venezuela. why did you not want trump to meet madura? apparently trump expressed a desire to meet madura and you treated this guy. guido, as a president, as face strange anecdotes in your book about the wedding ring of his wife, you might have to explain about one another. trump project, trump and go. trump had a feeling for authoritarian leaders like bottom your food near to want asian tank chem john non douro is just part of that, that, that a group of people. and i think he decided ultimately on his own. he didn't want to do it. but the, the, the clear policy we had was to support the constitutional process in venezuela. and the, the duly elected legislature had declared bureaus,

fraudulent election, invalid. and therefore there was a vacancy and the presidency, which one guy know was elected to fill. and we recognize that government, i might say this constitution was written by hugo chavez in his early days. so he always supported chavez. i know ambassador, and that's why i'm a freshman. but if you don't, but it, subscribe to churchill, george, or maybe trump wants to speak to madura the country with the law, just no noise reserves. why not? as his national security advisor say you set up a meeting like that kim jong? well, maybe not like the kim jong and when obviously i look at the question is what, what is in the interest of the people who venezuela interested the united states? and i think we saw very clearly that chavez enduro had driven the country into poverty. they had, they had taken, as you say, a country is to 40000 people not being killed by us sanctions. look at that. that

is that is somebody's estimate. there's simply no evidence for that. it is the case that the medical system in venezuela over a period of 20 years of chavez bureau rule has been, has been, has been just devastated. and as has the economy more broadly now, i know you are privy to the highest secrecy documents. you must have been because trump tried to try to take you to go for the book just to check for the 50 letter, the 6th time, the young lady, any secrets. but all those documents must show that china is headed to become the most economically powerful country of this century. why? why are you against strategic arms limitation treaties given that that would arguably give china call those to make more nuclear warheads, more nuclear missiles than even the united states possesses today? well, we, we could talk about the, china's economic future. i think it statistics are inflated to say the least and i think it has enormous internal problems. people don't recognize,

but on the strategic weapons issue, what i have said is that i think we have to recognize that we're no longer in essentially a bipolar nuclear world. russia and the united states that was true and cold war days, there were smaller nuclear powers, china, britain, france, others. but in those days, if you are going to have arms control, it was, it was a bipolar negotiation today. and we read in the newspapers from commercial satellite overhead of chinese construction of hundreds of new ballistic missile silos, which are obviously being excavated to put in missiles carrying nuclear warheads. china's capabilities in the nuclear field are expanding enormously. so what i've said consistently, when i was in the government, the before that and since i've left, if we're going to have new strategic weapons negotiations with russia, china has to be included. it makes no sense whatsoever to pretend that we're still

living in the cold war, bipolar nuclear error. exactly. except that policy has li moved to moscow in beijing together. u. s. nate to a policy has moved moscow and b jane closer than ever as you know. i don't think it's us policy that's moving close together. i think they have a grown closer. i think that's moscow's choice, and i think it's a big mistake for russia. i think rushes got a lot of oil that it's happy to sell to china. it's got strategic weapons, it's happy to sell china, but i think brush is making a very bad decision by casting its lot in the future for the rest of the century, potentially with china. i think it is in danger of losing over a long period of time control over much of russia, east of the euro mountains. i mean, you've got a country with a huge population and not many natural resources south of russia, with in that part of a lot of natural resources and very few people that doesn't speak long term

strategic stability from the russian point of view. and i would just urge people in russia who are thinking about this issue to think long and hard before they get too close to china. but what would you say if you have that? and we have to, to the national security adviser, even there is a u. s. s joint strike carrier strike fleet right now, sailing to china's maritime borders. and even boris johnson is sending his aircraft carrier to china. i mean, as a, as the basis increases, the number of troops increase around russia. as the navies of nato approached china . wouldn't you, me advising alliances with china? i very strongly believe that it's not in russia's long term interest to get closer to china by splitting away from, from the potential for closer relations with the west that we had after the collapse of the soviet union. i think we've lost a lot of time and opportunity and yeah,

the way we were russia tried that. and as we know, the agreement with global job is broken. and we've seen u. s. policy as regards a iraq, afghanistan, and libya. syria. we've seen what nato thinks of relations with russia, a alliance nato remains the defense of alliance. and i would just say, and perhaps you and i should discuss this at greater length and in a future broadcast. i think russia's greatest security lies moving west, not moving east. i just go to find the us then, obviously by the cove it pandemic. i don't know what you think the mistakes were by the trump administration, with your writing a day, maybe a sequel to this book about that element. but of course, criticism came for you. why did you abolish the national security council's pandemic response unit? just ahead of the coven virus that killed hundreds of thousands of americans met in the world. i didn't abolish it. i did something really bureaucratically, quite

a responsible. i merged it with the biological weapons unit of the national security council. and in fact, if you look both the bob woodward's book, if you look at reporting in the new york times, the national security council staff, these very people in early january 2020, we're raising red flags about the dangers of coven. they were doing exactly what they were intended to do. the problem is not a bureaucratic re shuffle within the n s. c staff. it was tom on willingness to take proven seriously at the beginning because he worry, it would re, uh, re effect his re election efforts. do you see the world without a strategic arms? imitation treaty is getting more dangerous or less dangerous? well, i think it depends on what countries like russian try to want to do with their strategic weapons. i think russia and the u. s. could find in a combination we did when i served george w bush as his under secretary of state for arms control. we signed the treaty

moscow in 2002, which reduced the operationally deployed strategic nuclear forces, both countries think as possible again, but i think you cannot do that in the absence of having china participate. but do you think germany should boycott nordstrom? do i do him again? you say? sure. i think work, i think it's a mistake to become strategically dependent on any, on any particular source of energy. and this is something that ronald reagan warren to europe about in the $908.00. that's it for one of your favorite shows or the last see who will be back on wednesday, the 12th of january, but until then stay safe. and you can watch all our interviews by subscribing to our youtube channel. i'm falling us on all our social media. ah. i was diagnosed with cancer in 2000 lives when the doctors told me the cancer was

incurable. i knew i had to make a change. so i decided to travel to one of the most toxic places in america, florida. one of florida is biggest industries and best kept secrets, is fostering and the biggest player in $85000000000.00 industry is mosaic. and i, there are reports of millions of gallons of contaminated water now flowing into the florida aqua may pro, there's a chronic oh, what do you mean? i don't love to hear that word poets name, but that's what it is. in 2013 my, all our family dog, my brother, who was 21 years old, myself and my father were all a 100. wow. yeah. hold on. i'm a good player, right? yeah, yeah. maybe they'll actually learn that more help is more important in

a ah, ah, please dogs and buns are deployed against empty lockdown demonstrators in amsterdam . they cities may, i gave the order to break up a 1000 strong, illegal rally with covey cases, steadily surging. we look at how big pharma managed to benefit from the pandemic throughout 2021 from a power supply crunch, and reco bargains in flux, the soaring inflation and all time the high homicide rates. we look at what may 2021, a difficult it states. and also on the way for 19 years

headman.