>>> PRESIDENT BIDEN MET WITH >>> PRESIDENT BIDEN MET WITH CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS TODAY, PRESSING THEM TO PASS HIS AID PACKAGE FOR UKRAINE AND ISRAEL.

THE FAILURE SO FAR TO DO SO IS HURTING UKRAINE AND UNDERMINING AMERICA ON THE GLOBAL STAGE.

POLITICO REPORTER ALEXANDER WARD TAKES A LOOK AT HOW BIDEN'S FOREIGN POLICY TEAM COPES WITH THESE CHALLENGES IN HIS NEW BOOK, "THE INTERNATIONALISTS," AND HE JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO TALK ABOUT THE EFFORT TO REPAIR AMERICA'S GLOBAL REPUTATION.

>> THANK YOU CHRISTIANE.

ALEX WARD, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.

>> YOUR NEW BOOK "THE INTERNATIONALISTS" IS SORT OF A GROUP BIOGRAPHY OF ALL THE PEOPLE DOING BIDEN'S FOREIGN POLICY.

BUT ONE OF THE FOCAL POINTS IS JAKE SULLIVAN, ONE OF THE SMARTEST PEOPLE IN THE DEMOCRATIC FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT IN THE PAST 15 YEARS.

AND YOU START WITH HIM THE NIGHT THAT HILLARY CLINTON, HIS PATRON, LOSES TO DONALD TRUMP, AND HE FIGURES OUT WHAT THE PROBLEM MAY HAVE BEEN.

TELL ME ABOUT THAT.

>> YEAH.

I MEAN HE -- YOU KNOW, AS HE SAID, HE GREW UP SORT OF IN THE TRADITIONAL DEMOCRATIC FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT, AND HE IS NEXT TO HILLARY CLINTON AS SHE'S CONCEDING TO TRUMP.

AND WHAT HE'S STARTING TO FIGURE OUT IS TRUMP MAY NOT NECESSARILY WON BECAUSE OF HIS FOREIGN POLICY VIEWS BUT HE DIDN'T LOSE BECAUSE OF THEM EITHER.

SO WHAT WAS IT ABOUT WHAT TRUMP WAS SAYING THAT WAS APPEALING TO SO MANY MILLIONS OF AMERICANS?

SO OUT OF POWER, JAKE AND FRIENDS SPEND ABOUT FOUR YEARS IN, I CALL IT THE WILDERNESS, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS THAT WAS APPEALING TO SO MANY PEOPLE AND WHAT COULD BE BROUGHT INTO A DEMOCRATIC FOREIGN POLICY THINKING FRAMEWORK TO UPDATE IT FOR THE 21st CENTURY.

THEY COME UP WITH A PHRASE WE'VE HEARD A LOT, WHICH IS A FOREIGN POLICY FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS.

THEIR BASIC POINT IS ANY FOREIGN POLICY DECISION THAT IS TAKEN BY THE UNITED STATES NEEDS TO BE EASILY EXPLAINED TO THE EVERYDAY AMERICAN AS TO WHY IT BENEFITS THEM.

AND IF THAT CANNOT BE DONE, THEN THAT MIGHT NOT BE A FOREIGN POLICY DIRECTION WE'RE PURSUING.

>> YOU SAY IT'S A FOREIGN POLICY GEARED TO THE MIDDLE CLASS, AND YOU USE SOME EXAMPLES LIKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TRADE RESTRICTION HERE OR THERE OR HELP FOR AN INDUSTRIAL POLICY.

BUT WHAT DOES THAT REALLY MEAN?

THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT ADDS UP TO THAT MUCH MORE WHEN IT COMES TO CHANGING FOREIGN POLICY.

>> NOT NECESSARILY.

BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT THE WAY THEY FRAME IT.

SO LET'S TAKE UKRAINE.

THEY MAKE TWO GENERAL ARGUMENTS.

ONE IS THE REASON THE U.S.

NEEDS TO DEFEND UKRAINE IS BECAUSE IF RUSSIA IS NOT STOPPED THERE, IT WILL GO INTO A NATO COUNTRY EVENTUALLY.

AMERICAN SONS AND DAUGHTERS WILL GO TO WAR.

A LOT MORE MONEY WILL BE SPENT ON THAT FIGHT, MEANING IT WILL BE EVEN COSTLIER IN TERMS OF BLOOD AND TREASURE ENDEAVOR THAN IT IS NOW.

THEN THERE'S THE SECOND ASPECT, WHICH IS WE ARE SENDING OUR OLD MILITARY EQUIPMENT TO UKRAINE AT THIS POINT FOR THEM TO USE AGAINST RUSSIA, WHICH MEANS WE NEED TO DEVELOP NEWER, MORE ADVANCED WEAPONRY TO MAKE OUR MILITARY STRONGER.

AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS MANUFACTURING JOBS IN OHIO, IN MISSISSIPPI, IN MICHIGAN, IN TEXAS AND KANSAS.

SO THERE IS A REAL MIDDLE CLASS JOBS BENEFIT TO THIS DEFENSE.

THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SEND TROOPS.

THEY DON'T THINK THAT'S WORTH IT.

THEY THINK UKRAINE IS DOING A WELL ENOUGH JOB WITH THE OLDER WEAPONRY WE HAVE.

BUT WE CAN ACTUALLY DEFEND UKRAINE AND IMPROVE THE MIDDLE CLASS ECONOMIC POSITION WITH THE POLICY THEY'RE PURSUING.

>> BUT IT SEEMS THAT THE UKRAINE WAR HAS BEEN -- OR OUR SUPPORT FOR UKRAINE HAS BEEN JUSTIFIED MORE BY A SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY, AND THAT SEEMS A CORE TO WHAT BIDEN REPRESENTS, DEFENDING DEMOCRACY WHEREVER IT SEEKS TO FLOURISH AS JOHN QUINCY ADAMS WOULD SAY.

HOW DOES THAT FIT IN?

I MEAN MAYBE YOU CAST IT AS, OKAY, WE MAKE A FEW MORE WEAPONS HERE IN FACTORIES.

BUT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S THE CORE OF THE NEW BIDEN-ISM YOU TALK ABOUT.

>> I THINK IT IS TO AN EXTENT, BUT THE WAY THEY FRAMED IT AS YOU TALKED ABOUT, DEMOCRACY.

NOTHING GETS JOE BIDEN MORE ANIMATED THAN BEING SEEN AS THE PROTECTOR OF DEMOCRACY WORLDWIDE.

THAT IS WHAT HE BELIEVES APPEALS TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC AT THIS POINT.

IN THE 2020 ELECTION, ONE OF THE THINGS HE WAS ARGUING IS DONALD TRUMP IS NOT A SMALL "D" DEMOCRAT, THAT DEMOCRACY WAS ON THE LINE.

IT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT HE'S GOING TO MAKE IN 2024.

HE'S TRIED TO CONNECT THE FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY WORLDWIDE WITH THE FIGHT FOR DEMOCRACY AT HOME.

THAT YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY SAY YOU CAN BE A STRONG DEMOCRACY IF YOU'RE NOT HELPING IF FLOURISH ELSEWHERE IN THE WORLD.

SO THAT IS A BIG PART OF IT.

BUT SORT OF THE SECOND ORDER ARGUMENTS ARE TRUMP-TYPE ARGUMENTS THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE RETHINKING THEY DID AND TRUMP'S VICTORY IN 2016.

>> THE BIG NEWS THIS WEEK IN TERMS OF GREAT GEOPOLITICS IS THAT HUNGARY HAS AGREED NOW TO LET SWEDEN INTO NATO.

WE GOT FINLAND INTO NATO, NOW SWEDEN.

THAT'S A HUGE SHIFT THAT OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS OF FOREIGN POLICY ESTABLISHMENT NOBODY WOULD HAVE DREAMED OF THAT EXPANSION OF NATO.

HOW BIG OF A DEAL IS THAT, AND IS THAT JUST SERENDIPITOUS, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WAS PUSHING FOR?

>> THEY WERE CERTAINLY PUSHING FOR IT ALTHOUGH WE HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS IS FINLAND AND SWEDEN'S OWN DOING.

THEY SAW WHAT RUSSIA WAS UP TO IN UKRAINE, AND THEY HAD BEEN AGGRESSIVE IN THE ARCTIC REGION AND NORTH EUROPEAN REGION FOR A LONG TIME.

SO THEY SAW A MOMENT TO JOIN NATO, AND IT WORKED.

THEIR PUBLICS WERE ON THEIR SIDE OF COURSE.

JOE BIDEN A BIG NATO FAN LIKED THE FACT THAT NATO WOULD EXPAND UNDER HIS WATCH.

SO THIS IS WHY HE SAYS THE LINE CONSISTENTLY, YOU KNOW, THAT PUTIN WAS HOPING FOR THE FINLANDIZATION OF NATO, AND INSTEAD HE GOT THE NATOIZATION OF FINLAND.

IN THEIR MIND, YOU GO A BIT MORE SLOWLY, BUT YOU GO FURTHER WITH ALLIES.

THEY WOULD ARGUE THAT SAY RUSSIA HAD DONE THIS UNDER TRUMP'S WATCH.

ONE, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THE STAUNCH U.S. DEFENSE OF UKRAINE MOST LIKELY.

BUT YOU COULDN'T HAVE ALLIES COME ALONG AS PART OF THIS WESTERN WALL TO KEEP RUSSIA AT BAY.

>> YOUR BOOK HAS A LOT OF GREAT REPORTING NUGGETS, AND ONE THAT STRUCK ME WAS GENERAL MARK MILLEY TRYING TO CONVINCE BIDEN NOT TO DO THE ABRUPT WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN.

TELL ME ABOUT THAT DISCUSSION AND ABOUT THE FALLOUT FROM THE WITHDRAWAL FROM AFGHANISTAN THE WAY IT WAS HANDLED.

>> MILLEY ALONG WITH A LOT OF OTHER GENERALS AT THE TIME WERE ADAMANT THAT THE U.S. SHOULD KEEP SOME PRESENCE IN AFGHANISTAN.

THEY WERE ARGUING ROUGHLY BETWEEN 2,500 AND 3,500 TROOPS BECAUSE THEY WERE WORRIED THAT THE TALIBAN WOULD EVENTUALLY STORM TO POWER.

AND MILLEY, WHO HAD COMMANDED IN AFGHANISTAN, HAS LOST, YOU KNOW, TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN, WAS TELLING BIDEN, LOOK, IF WE LEAVE, YOU KNOW, WOMEN WILL BE SENT BACK TO THE STONE AGE.

THE EDUCATION FOR WOMEN WILL FALTER.

THE DEMOCRATIC PROGRESS THAT HAD BEEN MADE IN THAT COUNTRY WILL GO AWAY.

BUT BIDEN WAS LOOKING FOR A STRATEGY FROM THE PENTAGON AND OTHERS AS IF I AM TO COMMIT MORE TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN, IF I'M TO CONTINUE THIS 20-YEAR WAR, WHAT DOES VICTORY LOOK LIKE?

AND OVER FOUR MONTHS OF DISCUSSION, NO ONE COULD CONVINCE PRESIDENT BIDEN THAT STAYING IN THE WAR WAS A GOOD IDEA, THAT A VICTORY COULD BE ACHIEVED.

SO HE MADE THE DECISION TO WITHDRAW.

AND OF COURSE WE SAW THE CHAOS THAT ENSUED.

BAKED IN WAS AN INTELLIGENCE ASSESSMENT SAID IT WOULD TAKE 18 TO 24 MONTHS FOR THE TALIBAN TO TAKE OVER THE COUNTRY.

AND IT WAS ONLY A FEW MONTHS FROM THE DECISION IN APRIL.

WE SAW 13 SERVICE MEMBERS KILLED DURING THE EVACUATION.

WE SAW HUMANITARIAN STRIFE OUTSIDE THE AIRPORT IN KABUL.

WE SAW THE HORRIFIC SCENES OF PEOPLE FALLING OUT OF PLANES.

WE SAW AFGHAN ALLIES OF AMERICANS LEFT BEHIND.

BUT WE ALSO SAW A PRETTY MIRACULOUS LOGISTICAL FEAT TO GET 120,000 OR SO PEOPLE OUT AS KABUL AND AFGHANISTAN WAS CRUMBLING.

ON ONE HAND, YOU HAVE TO HOLD THAT, YES, AFGHANISTAN IS WORSE OFF BECAUSE OF THE DECISION TO WITHDRAW.

YOU ALSO HAVE TO HOLD ON THE OTHER SIDE THE LOGISTICAL FEAT THAT IT TOOK TO GET AS MANY PEOPLE OUT DURING A TUMULTUOUS TIME AND CONSIDER THE STRATEGIC RAMIFICATION.

WOULD IT MAKE SENSE FOR THE U.S. TO BE IN A WAR THAT NO ONE -- FOR WHICH NO ONE COULD ARTICULATE A VISION OF VICTORY?

BIDEN DIDN'T SEE IT.

THAT'S WHY WE WERE OUT.

>> YOU SAID IT WAS A GREAT LOGISTICAL FEAT TO GET EVERYBODY OUT, AND YET IF YOU SEE THE DISORGANIZATION, AND EVEN YOU WRITE ABOUT IT AS IF IT'S A BIT OF A HUBRIS TO THINK IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER.

SHOULDN'T PEOPLE WITH THIS MUCH KNOWLEDGE AND THIS MUCH INTELLIGENCE HAVE PREPARED MORE FOR THE WITHDRAWAL?

>> WELL, THIS WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS DID NO ONE IN THESE MEETINGS THINK 18 TO 24 MONTHS A BIT TOO POSITIVE OF AN ASSESSMENT?

WHAT THEY SAID WAS NOT REALLY.

OF COURSE OVER TIME AS THE TALIBAN WAS SWEEPING THROUGH THE COUNTRY.

THAT TIMELINE SHIFTED OR DECLINED AND SHRUNK.

BUT THE DECISION WAS MADE, AND THE MILITARY WAS THINKING, LOOK, SPEED IS SAFETY.

WE'VE GOT TO GET OUT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

SO THEY WERE ON A FASTER TIMELINE THAN EVEN THE WHITE HOUSE SUGGESTED.

THE PEOPLE AT THE STATE DEPARTMENT THAT WERE THINKING, HEY, WE NEED TO REFORM THIS PROGRAM TO BRING THE AFGHAN ALLIES OF AMERICANS HOME, THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME OR WHEREWITHAL TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE DIPLOMATS IN KABUL.

SO IT WAS A MISS.

WE CANNOT DENY THAT.

IT WAS A MISS THAT THEY REALLY DIDN'T PREPARE FOR THE TALIBAN.

THERE WAS ALWAYS PUBLIC REPORTING AS I NOTE IN THE BOOK ABOUT WHAT THE TALIBAN WAS PREPARING TO DO AND HOW QUICKLY THEY COULD DO IT.

AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AFGHAN MILITARY'S ABILITY TO WITHSTAND THAT ONSLAUGHT.

THERE ARE GENUINE QUESTIONS TO ASK OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY MISCALCULATED IN THINKING IT WOULD TAKE A LOT LONGER FOR THE TALIBAN TO DO WHAT THEY DID.

AND I SHOULD NOTE, YOU KNOW, BIDEN TO THIS DAY BELIEVES IT WAS STILL THE RIGHT DECISION TO LEAVE.

HE ASKED NO ONE TO RESIGN.

NO ONE OFFERED TO RESIGN.

AND IF YOU'LL ASK HIM TODAY, HE'LL STILL HOLD THOSE VIEWS.

>> YOU WRITE ABOUT HOW STRONG BIDEN WAS IN COMING TO THE SUPPORT OF UKRAINE.

YET YOU ALSO TALK ABOUT AN AWKWARD RELATIONSHIP HE HAD WITH PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY.

EXPLAIN HOW THEY HAD TO BALANCE THAT.

>> WE SORT OF ALREADY KNOW THAT BIDEN/ZELENSKYY DID NOT GET ALONG AND SEE EYE TO EYE IN THE RUN-UP TO THE INVASION.

THE BOOK REVEALS THAT RELATIONSHIP WAS REALLY, REALLY BAD, SCREAMING MATCH BAD.

AT CERTAIN POINTS, BIDEN WAS BASICALLY TELLING ZELENSKYY WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE THE INTELLIGENCE WE'RE SHOWING AND THAT WE'RE SHOWING OUR ALLIES?

THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING.

YOU NEED TO PREPARE.

RECALL THERE WERE MILITARY ASSESSMENTS, ONE OF MANY, BUT THE STARK ONE WAS THAT KYIV WOULD FALL WITHIN 72 HOURS.

AND THROUGHOUT ALL THESE MONTHS OF BIDEN AND ZELENSKYY CHATTING, ZELENSKYY NEVER BELIEVED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

HE BELIEVED THAT PUTIN WOULD BE TOO STUPID TO DO THAT.

YOU DID HAVE BIDEN SAYING YOU'VE GOT TO START PROTECTING YOUR CAPITAL, YOUR COUNTRY.

IN THE END, ZELENSKYY AND HIS MILITARY AND HIS TEAM WERE ABLE TO DEFEND KYIV AND WERE ABLE TO DEFEND MANY PARTS OF UKRAINE, AND NOTHING SHARPENS THE MIND LIKE SEEING RUSSIAN TANKS ROLL INTO YOUR NATION.

BUT FOR MANY MONTHS, THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION TODAY WOULD PROBABLY TELL YOU BEHIND CLOSED DOORS THAT, SURE, A LOT OF TIME WAS MISSED FOR PREPARATION FOR UKRAINE ALTHOUGH CRITICS WOULD NOTE THIS OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

THERE ARE THOSE WHO WOULD SAY THE U.S. SHOULD HAVE SENT WEAPONS A LOT SOONER TO UKRAINE TO PREPARE THEIR MILITARY FOR A GREATER DEFENSE AND PERHAPS SANCTION THE RUSSIANS EVEN BEFORE AN ATTACK.

THIS IS ACTUALLY ONE OF THE REASONS WHY ZELENSKYY WASN'T SO CONFIDENT IN THE AMERICAN ASSESSMENT BECAUSE HE WOULD TELL BIDEN IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE THIS IS HAPPENING, WHY AREN'T YOU FLOODING MY MILITARY WITH WEAPONS?

IF YOU REALLY BELIEVE AN INVASION IS TO COME, I DON'T SEE YOU GUYS PANICKING AS MUCH AS YOU SHOULD BE.

>> AND WHAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT?

WHY WEREN'T WE?

>> BECAUSE THE FEELING WAS THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GIVE PUTIN NECESSARILY A REASON TO ESCALATE.

RECALL THAT DURING THAT PERIOD, THE U.S. AND THE WEST WERE NEGOTIATING WITH THE RUSSIANS IN GENUINELY GOOD FAITH.

PUTIN WAS PUTTING OUT THESE ARGUMENTS THAT IT WAS BECAUSE OF NATO EXPANSION AND UKRAINE TILTING WESTWARD AS THE REASONS FOR WHY HE WAS CONSIDERING DOING THIS.

THERE ARE SOME AHISTORICAL ISSUES THERE THAT ARE A LOT TO GET INTO.

BUT THE U.S. SAID, FINE, IF THAT'S TRUE, LET'S TALK IT THROUGH.

LET'S SIT AT THE TABLE AND NOT THE BATTLEFIELD.

THAT WAS PART OF IT.

TO THEN PUMP UKRAINE FULL OF WEAPONS MIGHT HAVE DAMAGED THAT DIPLOMATIC PROCESS.

OBVIOUSLY IT DIDN'T WORK.

PUTIN STILL INVADED, AND HE DID WHAT HE DID.

BUT THAT WAS THE GENERAL BET IS THAT IF YOU HELP UKRAINE TOO SOON, IF YOU ARM THEM TOO SOON, THEN PUTIN'S GOING TO HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO GO IN SOONER.

>> AS WE SPEAK, ISRAEL, THE UNITED STATES, THE ARAB STATES ARE STRUGGLING IN THIS NOTION OF CAN WE GET A CEASE-FIRE IN GAZA?

AND ISRAEL SEEMS TO BE RESISTING WHAT IS GENERALLY BEEN THE CONSENSUS PUSHED BY THE ADMINISTRATION.

HAS BIDEN'S HISTORY, HIS SORT OF HISTORY OVER THE YEARS IN THE MIDDLE EAST, HELPED HIM HERE, OR IS HE SOMEWHAT HANDICAPPED WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH THE SITUATION IN GAZA AND TRYING TO GET A CEASE-FIRE?

>> I THINK IT'S HELPED HIM, BUT HE'S NEVER REALLY FACED A SITUATION LIKE THIS.

LET'S CONSIDER HAMAS' BRUTAL ATTACK ON OCTOBER 7th LED EFFECTIVELY THE ENTIRE NATION OF ISRAEL TO BACK A MILITARY CAMPAIGN TO ROOT THEM OUT OF GAZA.

NETANYAHU IS NOT A POPULAR FIGURE, IS BEING SUPPORTED IN THAT CAMPAIGN.

AND HIS FAR-RIGHT GOVERNMENT WANTS TO ROOT HAMAS OUT.

AGAIN YOU'VE GOT THE PUBLIC BEHIND HIM.

SO AS MUCH AS BIDEN KNOWS NETANYAHU, DEALS WITH HIM, THE DOMESTIC CONTEXT IN ISRAEL MAKES IT A LOT EASIER FOR ISRAEL TO REBUFF AMERICAN -- WHAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WOULD SAY SUPPORT -- THEY'RE TRYING TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS BUT IT'S LEADING TO A LOT OF MESSAGING MUDDLE.

AT THIS POINT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THEY ARE STRUGGLING TO GET ISRAEL TO DO EXACTLY WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE ISRAEL TO DO.

SO THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND NEW WAYS TO GET NETANYAHU TO FOLLOW AN AMERICAN PLAYBOOK.

>> THE U.S.

PRETTY MUCH TRIED TO FOCUS ON CHINA AND OTHER THINGS AND TO TAKE A FOCUS OFF OF THE MIDDLE EAST AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

JAKE SULLIVAN GAVE A SPEECH RIGHT BEFORE THE HAMAS TERRORIST ATTACK SAYING THAT THINGS HAVE BEEN QUIET THERE, AND WE CAN PUT IT ASIDE.

IN RETROSPECT, DO YOU BELIEVE AND DO YOU THINK THEY BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE NOT TO FOCUS MORE ON THE ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN SITUATION?

>> I BET NOW THEY WOULD SAY THAT.

BUT EVEN A FEW MONTHS BEFORE, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE.

WE SHOULD NOTE THAT ONE OF THE BIG CRITICISMS OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS THAT THEY SIGNIFICANTLY IGNORED THE ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN CONFLICT AND LEFT THAT TO FESTER DURING THEIR TIME IN OFFICE.

I SHOULD NOTE IN THE MONTHS BEFORE THE OCTOBER 7th ATTACK, AS THE U.S. WAS WORKING WITH ISRAEL AND SAUDI ARABIA TO HAVE A NORMALIZATION OF RELATIONS, A KEY COMPONENT OF THAT WAS TO IMPROVE THE PALESTINIAN SITUATION, GIVE THEM A PATHWAY TO A STATE, ALLOW MORE HUMANITARIAN AID IN, GIVE THEM A SENSE OF BELONGING.

AND THAT WAS PUSHED PRETTY STRONGLY BY THE U.S.

THEY WOULD NOT ACCEPT -- THEY WOULD NOT ENDORSE A DEAL, A NORMALIZATION DEAL WITHOUT IT.

BUT FOR MANY, THAT WAS FAR LITTLE TOO LATE.

THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON THIS ISSUE FROM THE BEGINNING INSTEAD OF LETTING THAT WOUND FESTER FOR MANY YEARS.

ONE OF THE CRITICISMS OF BOTH -- I SHOULD SAY THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IS THAT THEY DID THIS AS A BANK SHOT, RIGHT?

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE WHEN THEY WERE DOING THE ABRAHAM -- THAT WAS WHOLLY IGNORED.

WHILE THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION CONTINUED THE ABRAHAM ACCORD PUSH, THEY LEFT THE PALESTINIAN ISSUE FOR FAR TOO LATE, AND IT WAS A SIDE BIN.

THE CRITICISM IS THEIR GOAL OF IF WE DO NORMALIZATION WITH ARAB STATES, IT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO HELP PALESTINIANS.

WELL, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN TRUE OVER TIME.

IT'S CERTAINLY NOT TRUE AFTER OCTOBER 7th.

SO THAT BANK SHOT STRATEGY DID NOT WORK.

>> YOU'RE JUST BACK FROM THE MUNICH SECURITY CONFERENCE A WEEK AGO.

TELL ME WHAT THE MOOD WAS LIKE THERE BOTH ON UKRAINE AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN GENERAL.

>> AMAZINGLY GLOOMY.

I EXPECTED -- I DIDN'T EXPECT HAPPINESS, RIGHT?

IT'S A TOUGH PERIOD, AND OF COURSE THE NEWS OF ALEXEI NAVALNY'S DEATH OCCURRED IN THE EARLY DAYS, IN THE FIRST FEW HOURS OF THAT CONFERENCE.

BUT I WAS EXPECTING AND MANY WERE EXPECTING THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF PLAN TO COME OUT OF THERE.

AND EVERYONE FROM U.S. OFFICIALS, CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS, EUROPEAN OFFICIALS, OTHER OFFICIALS, THEY ALL LEFT WITH KIND OF A HANDS IN THE AIR GOING, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT TO DO.

THERE WAS A SENSE THAT BASICALLY ONLY PLAN "A" AND THE ONLY PLAN IS TO GET SOMETHING THROUGH THE HOUSE.

SO THE AMOUNT OF EUROPEAN OFFICIALS WHO ASKED ME WHAT A DISCHARGE PETITION IS WOULD ASTOUND YOU.

THAT'S HOW CLOSE THEY'RE PAYING ATTENTION.

ONE THING I HEARD FROM SENATOR SHELDON WHITEHOUSE AND SENATOR BRIAN SCHATZ.

THEY TOOK ABOUT A STORY ZELENSKYY TOLD THEM, A SOLDIER TAKING ARTILLERY FIRE BUT SCROLLING ON HIS PHONE THAT ANY PACKAGE WOULD PASS THE HOUSE.

THAT'S HOW GLOOMY THE PICTURE IS.

NO ONE COULD NECESSARILY ARTICULATE A WAY FORWARD.

SO IF YOU'RE TEAM BIDEN, YOU'RE SEEING ONE OF YOUR SIGNATURE FOREIGN POLICY ACHIEVEMENTS, LET'S SAY, THE DEFENSE OF UKRAINE, CRUMBLE BEFORE YOUR EYES.

>> ALEX WARD, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANKS SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME.