>>> WELL, ONLY MONTHS AFTER BIDEN HOSTED THE 75th ANNIVERSARY OF THE NATO ALLIANCE, THE CONVERSATION TURNS NOW TO HOW TRUMP'S FOREIGN POLICY WILL AFFECT THE UNITED STATES ' ROLE IN THE WORLD.

IN HIS LATEST PIECE FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES, DAVID SANGER ARGUES THAT TRUMP'S WIN ENDS A POST- WORLD WAR II ERA OF LEADERSHIP.

HE JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO DISCUSS.

>> THANK YOU, RHIANNA, AND DAVID SANGER, THANKS AND WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> GOOD TO BE BACK WITH YOU, WALTER.

>> IT HAS BEEN 75 YEARS SINCE AMERICA HAS LED AN WORLD ORDER THAT WAS BASED ON DEFENSIVE ALLIANCES LIKE NATO, BUT ALSO GRADUALLY DECREASING TARIFFS, MORE FREE-TRADE, MORE FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE.

DOES THIS ELECTION OF DONALD TRUMP FOR THE SECOND TIME MEAN THE END OF THAT WORLD ORDER?

>> WALTER, IT MAY WELL.

YOU KNOW, IN THE DAYS AFTER PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS ELECTED FOUR YEARS AGO, HE WENT AROUND TELLING AMERICAN ALLIES , THE BRITISH, THE FRENCH, THE JAPANESE, THE SOUTH KOREANS, AMERICA IS BACK.

AND WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT WAS THAT THE FOUR YEARS OF DONALD TRUMP -- HIS FIRST TERM -- WERE AN ABERRATION.

THEY WERE THE BLIP IN THE SYSTEM.

AND HE REPRESENTED THE RETURN OF TRADITIONAL ALLIANCE BUILDING.

AFTER ALL, PRESIDENT BIDEN WAS, IN MANY WAYS, THIS SORT OF LAST WARRIOR OF THE OLD COLD WAR.

COME TO AGE IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE DURING THAT TIME, HE RAN THE SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, AND HE HAD, OF COURSE, BEEN VICE PRESIDENT DURING ONE OF THE MOST CRITICAL PERIODS OF THE POST-COLD WAR ERA.

NOW, WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP'S RE- ELECTION, THE REAL QUESTION IS, WAS BIDEN THE BLIP?

COULD PRESIDENT BIDEN BE VIEWED BY HISTORY LATER ON AS THE LAST GASP OF THAT OLD ORDER?

ONE THAT YOU NOTED MARKED BY BUILDING ALLIANCES, RELYING ON NATO, BUILDING UP ALLIANCES IN THE PACIFIC, WHICH WAS REALLY A HALLMARK OF BIDEN'S FOUR YEARS IN OFFICE, FREE-TRADE, OR AT LEAST FREER TRADE, THE CONCEPT OF 100%, 200%, 400% TARIFFS IS NOW PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP TALKED ABOUT DURING THE CAMPAIGN, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE HEARD THAT COME VERY EASILY OUT OF JOE BIDEN'S LIPS.

>> WELL, JOE BIDEN SAID, "THIS IS NOT WHO WE ARE."

HE KEPT SAYING THAT WHEN TALKING ABOUT IT, BUT LET'S LOOK AT AMERICAN HISTORY.

FROM THE TIME OF WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON, WARRING AGAINST ENTANGLING FOREIGN ALLIANCES, WE HAVE GENERALLY BEEN SKEPTICAL ABOUT GOING ABROAD FOR MONSTERS TO SLAY.

IS THE SORT OF A NATURAL THING THAT AMERICA HAS FELT AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS TRUMP GOT ELECTED?

>> THAT CYCLE OF HISTORY HAS BEEN A PART OF THE FABRIC OF THE UNITED STATES, AS YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT ITS HISTORY.

PEOPLE HAVE WRITTEN MANY A BOOK ABOUT WENDY'S CYCLES COME INTO PLAY.

SAMUEL HUNTINGTON WROTE ABOUT HOW THEY HAPPEN EVERY 70 YEARS, OTHERS SAW PARTICULAR TRIGGERS IN AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR IT.

BUT, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IT IS A RECURRING THEME.

IT WAS CERTAINLY A THEME IN THIS ELECTION, ALTHOUGH I DON'T THINK A DOMINANT THEME.

I THINK WHAT GOT TRUMP ELECTED OVER KAMALA HARRIS, AS YOU WOULD EXPECT, MUCH MORE DOMESTIC ISSUES, INFLATION, THE SOLDIER WAYS -- SOCIAL WAGE ISSUES THAT TRUMP KEPT PRESSING.

YOU SAW HIM TAKE OUT A LOT OF ADS ON TV, AND YOU SAW THEM ON SOCIAL MEDIA, ABOUT TRANS ISSUES.

YOU DIDN'T SEE MANY ABOUT NATO ISSUES.

>> PRESIDENT PUTIN OF RUSSIA CONGRATULATED TRUMP.

I THINK HE SAID, HE PRAISED TRUMP'S DESIRE TO RESTORE RELATIONS WITH RUSSIA AND TO END UKRAINE -- UKRAINIAN CRISIS.

DO YOU THINK THERE IS A POSSIBILITY -- AND IS IT A GOOD THING OR BAD THING -- THAT TRUMP WILL WORK WITH PUTIN AND IN THE UKRAINIAN WAR?

>> YOU MAY WELL END THE UKRAINIAN WAR, AND I KNOW MANY PEOPLE, BOTH WITHIN TRUMP'S CIRCLE AND SOME OUTSIDE, WHO THINK THAT WITH TRUMP COMING IN, THAT WAR MAY BE OVER WITHIN A YEAR OR SO.

I AM NOT SURE I FULLY SIGN ONTO THAT, BUT IT IS NOT ONLY A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE WAR ENDS, IT IS A QUESTION OF HOW IT ENDS.

SO, THE BIDEN BY WORDS HERE WERE NOTHING ABOUT UKRAINE WITH UKRAINE.

WHICH IS TO SAY, WE ARE NOT GOING TO GO NEGOTIATE AROUND YOUR BACK WITH VLADIMIR PUTIN AND DECIDE THE LINES BETWEEN RUSSIA AND UKRAINE.

YOU HAVE NEVER HEARD THOSE WORDS FROM DONALD TRUMP.

AND WHEN HE SAYS THAT WE WILL END THE WAR IN 24 HOURS, MANY BELIEVE THAT WHAT HE IS REALLY SAYING THERE IS THAT HE WILL END THE WAR BY CALLING PUTIN, SAYING, OKAY, WHAT DO YOU DO YOU NEED?

WHAT IS THE DEAL WE CAN STRIKE?

PUTIN WILL SAY, WELL, WHY DO WE START WITH THE 20% OF UKRAINE THAT I NOW BASICALLY OCCUPIED.

AT WHICH POINT, THE THEORY GOES, HE WOULD THEN CALL ZELENSKYY AND SAY, DO I EVER HAVE A DEAL FOR YOU?

ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS GIVE UP 20% OF YOUR TERRITORY AND THIS WAR WILL BE OVER, AND YOU WON'T HAVE SUFFERED THESE AWFUL CASUALTIES.

>> AND WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ZELENSKYY SAYS "NO?"

>> THEN, HE SAYS, WELL, I'M NOT REALLY SURE WE CAN CONTINUE SUPPORTING YOU AT THE LEVEL WE HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING YOU.

>> AND WHAT IS THE DANGER OF THAT?

I MEAN, WHY IS IT BETTER TO KEEP THIS WAR GOING ON FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS?

>> IT MAY NOT BE BETTER, BUT THE QUESTION IS, IS THE MESSAGE THAT YOU SEND AROUND THE WORLD, THAT PUTIN CAN BE REWARDED FOR INVADING ANOTHER COUNTRY, AND ENDING UP WITH SOME OF THIS TERRITORY.

OR, IF YOU VIEW IT THE WAY I THINK PRESIDENT TRUMP AND MANY OF HIS ADVOCATES VIEW IT, DO YOU SAY, LOOK, ALL WARS AND WITH A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT?

ZELENSKYY HAS BEEN INCAPABLE OF GETTING THAT NEGOTIATION GOING.

WE ARE GOING TO HELP HIM ALONG IN THAT PROCESS.

>> TELL ME WHAT YOUR VIEW ON THAT IS?

>> WELL, MY VIEW ON THAT IS THAT AT THE END OF THE DAY, MY GUESS IS THAT THIS WAR WILL ONLY END WITH TERRITORY EITHER BEING GIVEN TO RUSSIA, OR KOREA LIKE, GIVEN A DISPUTE, THAT IS TO SAY THERE IS AN ARMISTICE OF SOME KIND AND AN AGREEMENT TO NEGOTIATE ON TERRITORY AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE.

NOW, IN 1953, THIS LOOKED TERRIBLE TO THE SOUTH KOREANS, BECAUSE THEY WERE SAYING THEY HAVE LOST TERRITORY OF THEIR OWN, THAT USED TO BE THERE IS.

IF YOU WOULD SAY TO THE SOUTH KOREANS BACK THEN, YOU KNOW, IN 70 YEARS PLUS, YOU WILL BE ONE OF THE WORLD'S LARGEST ECONOMIES, AND YOU WILL BE ABLE TO TRAVEL, YOUR CITIZENS WILL BE ABLE TO TRAVEL THE WORLD, AND YOU WILL BE AMONG THE MOST ADMIRED MANUFACTURING COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD, AND A HIGH TECH COUNTRY, TO BOOT, MAKING PRODUCTS THAT EVEN THE UNITED STATES, IN SOME CASES, IS HAVING A HARD TIME MAKING.

I THINK THE KOREANS WOULD HAVE TAKEN THAT DEAL.

THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE THAT DEAL TO THE UKRAINIANS, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE, GIVEN THE TALENT THAT WE HAVE SEEN THE UKRAINIANS HAVE, THAT THEY SHOULD THINK ABOUT REBUILDING THE COUNTRY, AND THAT THAT IS A BIGGER ISSUE THAN TERRITORY.

I AM NOT SURE ZELENSKYY THINGS THAT WAY, AND GIVING AWAY TERRITORY MIGHT BE THE END OF HIM, POLITICALLY.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS AT THE END OF LONG WARS.

WHERE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE UKRAINIANS IN THIS CASE ARE UNLIKELY TO BE ABLE TO DEFEND ALL THEIR TERRITORY POINT IN YOUR BOOK, "NEW COLD WARS," YOU TALK ABOUT HOW GENERAL H.R.

McMASTER, WORKING WITH TRUMP AS NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER, SAID THAT TRUMP FELT HE COULD BREAK THROUGH WITH PUTIN ON A PERSONAL LEVEL, AND McMASTER SAID, "DON'T GO DOWN THAT PATH, THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE A GOOD IDEA."

WHAT HAPPENED?

WHAT CAN YOU TAKE FROM THE FIRST TERM?

AND DO THINK YOU WILL TRY TO HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP IN THE SECOND TERM?

>> OH, I'M CERTAIN HE WILL.

FIRST OF ALL, ONE OF HIS CRITIQUES OF PRESIDENT BIDEN IS THAT BIDEN AND PUTIN ONLY MET ONCE.

THEY MET IN JUNE OF 2021, THAT WAS OVER A TAX THAT EMANATED FROM RUSSIA, AND HIT THE AMERICAN OIL AND GAS PIPELINES.

IT WAS NOT LARGELY ABOUT UKRAINE.

THEY BARELY COMMUNICATED SINCE.

NEVER MET IN PERSON DURING THAT TIME.

I AM QUITE CERTAIN THAT PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP BELIEVES THAT WHAT WORKS IN DIPLOMACY IS WHAT HE WOULD CALL GREAT MAN DIPLOMACY, THAT HE CAN TALK TO VLADIMIR PUTIN, THAT HE CAN TALK TO XI JINPING, THAT XI WOULD NOT DARE TO TAKE TAIWAN, BECAUSE HE THINKS THAT TRUMP IS BLINKING CRAZY, THAT IS WHAT HE TOLD THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, RIGHT?

SO, HE IS VERY MUCH OF THE BELIEF THAT THE PERSONAL DIPLOMACY IS THE KEY TO ALL OF THIS.

I THINK THAT CAN BE A BIT OF A TRAP BECAUSE THE CHINESE LEARNED HOW TO PLAY PRESIDENT- ELECT TRUMP BY DANGLING PRAYED TRADE DEALS.

PUTIN SEEMS TO THINK THAT A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM THAT PUT VERY FEW LIMITS ON THE RUSSIANS.

BUT, I AM SURE THAT TRUMP BELIEVES THAT HE CAN BRING ABOUT PEACE IN UKRAINE AND THE END TO THE NEW COLD WARS THROUGH THE STRENGTH OF HIS PERSONAL PERFORMANCE.

>>> ONE OF THE BIGGEST SHIFTS IN THE PAST SIX, SEVEN YEARS HAS BEEN THE GROWING ALLIANCE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND CHINA.

TEACHING AT THE KENNEDY SCHOOL WITH GRAHAM ALLISON, OF COURSE, AND YOU CERTAINLY KNOW THE BISMARCK WARNINGS ABOUT LETTING YOUR TWO ADVERSARIES GET CLOSER TO EACH OTHER THAN TO YOU.

IS THIS A HUGE MISTAKE IN FOREIGN POLICY?

AND WHAT CAN TRUMP DO TO REVERSE THAT GROWING ALLIANCE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND CHINA?

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS ALLIANCE BARELY SHOWED ITSELF DURING THE FIRST TRUMP TERM.

AND EARLY IN THE YEARS THAT BIDEN WAS IN OFFICE, HE DIDN'T EVEN IN KNOWLEDGE THAT IT WAS LIKELY TO HAVE IT.

I ASKED HIM ABOUT THAT AT A PRESS CONFERENCE ABOUT A YEAR INTO HIS PRESIDENCY, THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE RUSSIA-CHINA PARTNERSHIP -- I WOULDN'T CALL IT A FULL ALLIANCE -- IS A REAL THING?

AND HE SAID, NO, I DON'T THINK THESE 210 -- THESE TWO COUNTRIES CAN GET TOGETHER.

BY THE TIME HE DID HIS LAST PASS CONFERENCE AFTER THE NATO SUMMIT IN THE SUMMER, HE ADMITTED HE HAD A PROGRAM TO TRY TO GET BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES, TO TRY TO STOP THIS THE WAY NIXON AND KISSINGER AS HE WROTE IN YOUR KISSINGER BIOLOGY TRY TO MAKE THE OPENING TO CHINA TO KEEP THE CHINESE AND THEN SOVIET UNION FROM COMING TOGETHER.

NOW, BIDEN WOULD NOT DESCRIBE THE ELEMENTS OF THAT STRATEGY AND MY GUESS IS THAT IT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT COVERT AND A LOT OF IT WAS AIMED AT STOPPING THE FLOW OF TECHNOLOGY FROM CHINA, TO REBUILD THE RUSSIAN MILITARY.

BUT, THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A POLICY TRYING TO GET IN THE WAY OF THIS RELATIONSHIP.

NOT TERRIBLY SUCCESSFUL.

WE NEVER HEARD, DURING THE CAMPAIGN, NOT ONCE, ANY REFERENCE TO THIS.

THE BIGGEST CHANGE IN GEOPOLITICS IN THE LAST FOUR, FIVE YEARS.

DURING THE CAMPAIGN, WE NEVER HEARD IT COME OUT OF VICE PRESIDENT HARRIS' MOUTH, WE NEVER HEARD IT COME OUT OF TRENTO PRESIDENT-ELECT TRUMP'S MOUTH.

SO, WE DON'T KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WILL TRY TO INTERFERE IN THAT RELATIONSHIP.

MY GUESS IS HE IS SO TRANSACTIONAL THAT HE BELIEVES HE CAN SORT OF NEGOTIATE SIDE DEALS WITH EACH ONE OF THEM, AND THAT THAT ALONE WILL SORT OF WEAVE IN THE LIGHTNESS.

I DON'T THINK HE IS GOING TO LOOK AT THIS IN SORT OF A GRAND STRATEGIC KISSINGER WAY.

>> AMID ALL THE TURMOIL IN THE MIDDLE EAST RIGHT NOW, WHAT EFFECT WILL TRUMP'S ELECTION HAVE, ESPECIALLY ON ISRAEL'S WAR AGAINST HEZBOILLAH, HAMAS, AND FOR THAT MATTER, AGAINST ALL IRANIAN PROXIES, AND PERHAPS EVEN IRAN?

>> SO, IF YOU ARE NETANYAHU, YOUR STRATEGY IS JUST, PAY OFF.

NETANYAHU, FROM EARLY IN THE YEAR, WAS BASICALLY WAITING OUT THE ADMINISTRATION.

SHE WOULD GET THESE LETTERS FROM SECRETARY OF STATE BLINKEN, OR SECRETARY OF DEFENSE AUSTIN SAYING, THERE ARE LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON THE WAY YOU CAN USE AMERICAN PROVIDED WEAPONRY, AND IF YOU DON'T ALLOW AID INTO GAZA, OR IF YOU ARE USING THOSE WEAPONS AGAINST CIVILIANS, THERE WILL BE RESTRICTIONS.

AND HE BASICALLY TOSSED THEM ASIDE AND SAID, LET'S WAIT FOR THE ELECTION, BECAUSE HE KNOWS THAT THE TRUMP VIEW -- IN FACT, WE BELIEVE PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID THIS TO HIM IN A CONVERSATION WITH NETANYAHU A FEW WEEKS AGO -- IS, "DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO."

AND SO, THE ERA OF RESTRICTIONS IS GOING TO BE OVER, AND THAT WAS THE MESSAGE THAT HARRIS WAS TRYING TO SEND OUT IN MICHIGAN, TO THE ARAB POPULACE, AND OTHERS, WHO WERE VERY UNHAPPY WITH THE WAY SHE DEALT WITH THE WAR AGAINST HAMAS IN GAZA, AND HER WAR WAS, AT LEAST WE ARE PUSHING NETANYAHU A BIT.

TRUMP WOULDN'T PUSH HIM AT ALL.

>> FORMER DEFENSE SECRETARY PANETTA SAID THAT TRUMP WOULD GIVE NETANYAHU A BLANK CHECK.

IS THAT SORT OF TRUE?

AND IF SO, WHAT WILL HAPPEN?

>> I THINK THAT PROBABLY IS TRUE.

I DON'T THINK YOU ARE GOING TO SEE PRESIDENT TRUMP WITH ANY RESTRICTIONS.

I THINK THE PLACE WHERE THE RUBBER WILL HIT THE ROAD ON THIS, WALTER, WILL BE ON IRAN ITSELF.

YOU REMEMBER DURING THE FIRST TERM, PRESIDENT TRUMP TALKED A VERY TOUGH LINE AGAINST IRAN, BUT HE PULLED BACK ONCE OR TWICE WHEN THERE WERE OPPORTUNITIES TO GET INTO A DEEPER CONFLICT WITH THEM.

HE DID ORDER THE KILLING OF GENERAL SOUL MONEY, ONE OF THE MOST ELITE MILITARY COMMANDERS IN IRAN, BUT HE PULLED BACK FROM OPENING OF A BROADER WAR WITH THEM.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS VIEW IS, NOW.

BUT, THE IRANIANS HAVE SAID, OF COURSE, WE BELIEVE, SEND OUT, OR AT LEAST TRY TO ORDER UP TEAMS AGAINST TRUMP WHEN HE WAS CANDIDATE.

THEY DENOUNCED HIM.

THEIR CYBER OPERATIONS IN THE UNITED STATES WERE ANTI-TRUMP, EVEN WHILE THE RUSSIANS WERE PRO-TRUMP.

SO, MY GUESS IS THAT TRUMP COMES INTO OFFICE WITH A MUCH HARDENED VIEW ABOUT IRAN, AND WAY MAY WELL NOT STAND THE WAY OF NETANYAHU IF HE DECIDES TO GO AFTER IRANIAN NUCLEAR FACILITIES, FOR EXAMPLE, AND SO FORTH.

I DON'T KNOW THAT NETANYAHU IS GOING TO DO THAT.

HE HAS HESITATED HIMSELF A FEW TIMES, BUT CERTAINLY, THAT WAS A BIG CONCERN OF THE BIDEN ADMINSTRATION JUST IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS.

>> ONE OF THE SUCCESSES OF TRUMP'S FIRST TERM IN THE MIDDLE EAST WAS THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS, AND THERE HAS BEEN A SENSE THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A GROWING ALLIANCE WITH SAUDI ARABIA, SOME OF THE GULF STATES, ISRAEL, ALL AS PART OF AN ALLIANCE AGAINST IRAN.

DO YOU THINK THAT IS A STRATEGIC SHIFT THAT COULD HAPPEN IN THE SECOND TRUMP TERM?

>> I DO, AND THAT WAS A LINE OF CONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION AND THE BIDEN ADMINSTRATION.

JOE BIDEN DID NOT HAVE VERY NICE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT TRUMP FOREIGN POLICY, EXCEPT WHEN IT CAME TO THE ABRAHAM ACCORDS.

WHERE ON THAT ISSUE AND THE ISSUE OF SUPPORTING U.S. TECHNOLOGY AGAINST CHINA, THEY PRAISED THE WAY TRUMP WENT ABOUT IT.

AND OF COURSE, THEY WERE TRYING TO RECONSTRUCT THE SAUDI ARABIA DEAL IN THE DAYS BEFORE THE OCTOBER 7th, 2023 ATTACKS.

THEY HOPE THAT THAT MIGHT COME BACK THIS YEAR.

IT DID NOT.

I THINK IT IS VERY POSSIBLE THAT TRUMP MAY PUSH IN THAT DIRECTION, AND IF HE DID, I THINK THAT COULD ACTUALLY CHANGE THE DIPLOMATIC COMPLEXION OF THE MIDDLE EAST.

>> DAVID SINGER, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> GREAT TO BE WITH YOU, WALTER.