EXCLUSIVE FULL INTERVIEW: Obama on the World | The New York Times

Hello, Mr. President, it's a pleasure to see you, I think there are some, Mr. President, thank you for sitting with us, it's a pleasure to be with you, former Secretary of State D'eson many years ago wrote a famous book present in the creation about the role He played in shaping the post-World War II

world

and I wonder, I wonder how you feel present right now. Do you feel present in the disintegration? What is going on out there that explains so many states seemingly collapsing? Yeah. Um and the kind of level of disorder that we're seeing, first of all, I think it can't be generalized across the

world

because there are a lot of places where the good news keeps coming.

Asia continues to grow. And you know, I think not only is it growing but you're starting to see democracies in places like Indonesia solidify and that's a large portion of the world's population. I think the trend lines in Latin America are good. In the United States we have some real problems, so in general I think there is still reason for optimism, but I think what we are seeing in the Middle East in particular, in all and parts of North Africa, is a dating order. Going back to World War I, starting to buckle under a variety of different strengths, and you've written about this, you know, part of what you see is the demise of the Cold War and the proxy battle between the West and the Soviet Union.

The system propped up many governments that were not very strong. What was left then was a series of authoritarian regimes that were not producing the kind of economic growth and civic and political hope that allowed it to sustain itself. In themselves, you combine that with the technology of globalization that all the forces were familiar with and, uh, the Arab Spring was going to come at some point, you didn't know what spark it was going to be, but now what you have is the end of the old. order, but it is a very difficult path towards this new order that is being built and you know one way to characterize it is that you have old autocratic systems, you have new systems but there are no civic traditions there, there is no economic framework that can sustain itself same.

And so all populism is channeled in very negative ways, particularly around extremist ideologies and fundamentalist ideologies that have no chance of benefiting people in these countries in the 21st century, but are simply organizing principles that allow the people to uh uh you know recruit and gravitate towards them um and it's a very dangerous time for that reason uh in the Middle East and North Africa and parts of the Muslim world um the other trend that you see uh is because um partly great The Competition for power has been reduced. The United States is so militarily dominant and, you know, the likelihood of a head-to-head confrontation between large countries has been reduced in part because of global economic integration.

What you see are many regional contests. among those of us, like the United States, who believe in an international set of rules, some rules of the road that can ensure joint prosperity, and a more traditional view of spheres of influence and who want, you know, the big countries that They want to strengthen small countries and gain advantages with respect to trade or with respect to maritime rules, what do you have? And that's a broader contest too. And I think those things are merging. Our goal should be to help usher in the beginning. A new order in places like the Middle East and North Africa, but also recommitting countries to the broader project of establishing a set of international rules and norms that can serve everyone, but that is a big long-term challenge. term. challenging project and when you combine that with the pressures of things like climate change, you know, it's not surprising that right now at least what you're seeing is a lot of chaos in various places, how do you react when you hear INR? debate well, if only President Obama had armed the Syrian rebels, if we had only kept 10,000 people in Iraq, this mess would never have arisen, yeah, well, part of this is just looking at the facts, regarding Iraq, my predecessor, no matter what.

Did you think about the original decision to invade? I believe that through the heroic efforts of our military we were able to convey to the Iraqis a democratic system and a sovereign state, that democratic system and a sovereign state, for political reasons familiar to any politician here in the United States decided that it was not good politics to sign an agreement that would allow American troops to remain there in the middle of the Arab Spring in the middle of the Arab Spring and the notion that somehow uh, uh, you know, we could force them to do that was counterintuitive to the goal. same thing that uh uh the Bush administration had established, which was that the Iraqis were going to make their own decisions, um, they blew an opportunity, uh, and I've been, I think. quite clear about the fact that if the Shia majority had taken the opportunity to reach out to the Sunnis and the Kurds in a more effective way, passing laws like deification, that would have made a difference, uh, I, I don't think that's uh, uh.

You can argue, the other side of the coin is that if they had done exactly what they did and we had had 10,000 troops there, that wouldn't have prevented the kind of problems that we've seen anyway, the difference would be that we would have 10,000 troops in the middle of this chaos rather than having a much more limited number with respect to Syria, it has always been a fantasy this idea that we could provide some light weapons or even more sophisticated weapons to what was essentially an opposition. made up of former doctors, farmers, pharmacists, etc., and that they were going to be able to fight not only a well-armed state, but also a well-armed state backed by Russia, backed by Iran, a battle-hardened Hezbollah, uh, that was never in the cars uh and so I think you're finding out that now CU you're trying to arm people find people what are you?

We found? There is not as much capacity as you expected. uh, you know, the truth is, um. I know that one advantage that countries like Iran have in this region is that they've been playing the power game for a long time and they've made huge investments, they're not limited by Congress, they're not limited by, you know, ground rules. uh or international law budgets uh or budgets and then you know if you have a 30 year ramp uh uh uh to build a fighting force like Hezbollah that can be somewhat effective um, but what I think is the broader point that we need to stay focused on what we have is a disaffected Sunni minority in the case of Iraq, the majority in the case of Syria, stretching essentially from Baghdad to Damascus, or in that region in between, and unless we can give them a formula that "Talks about the aspirations of that population.

Inevitably we are going to have problems and Assad has not learned that lesson, unfortunately. There was a period of time when the Shiite majority in Iraq I think did not

full

y understand that they. We are starting to understand it now, unfortunately, we now have Isil, who I think has very little appeal to ordinary Sunnis, on the other hand, they are filling a void and the question for us should not simply be how to counter them militarily, but what? How are we going to speak to a Sunni majority in that area? A Sunni majority or a Sunni population in that area.

A Sunni population in other places, in the Middle East, in North Africa. That right now is separate from the global economy. are at stake, they do not see any perspective for themselves, that is a dangerous situation and it is going to require an entire government effort, not only our army, but also our diplomacy, our economic, social, cultural and civic power and We have to unite coalitions and that will be our main task during the coming years. How close are we in Iraq to getting the kind of government there that can at least give us a platform to intervene in a way that is not military?

Is Maliki staying? It goes? I think I think we are? I'm more optimistic about this than I might have been if you'd asked me the question a month ago. Now they have elected a president. have elected a speaker of the house, the final step is to elect a prime minister and allow that prime minister to form a government. They are close. It has been encouraging to see key figures of the Iraqi Shia population recognizing that they have to make adaptations to keep the country together, when you have someone as important as Grand Ayatollah Sistani stating that a government has to respect a constitution and also recognize the various interests of the country.

That helps, have the Iranians been helpful? I mean, well, I think I think what the Iranians have done is finally realize that a maximalist position of the Shiites within Iraq is going to fail in the long run and By the way, that's a broader lesson for every country, If you want just 100% and the idea is that winter really takes everything, yes, all the loot, sooner or later that government is going to break down. Sooner or later, society falls apart when there are deep sectarian or ethnic divisions, so I think we have an opportunity to establish a government that, in the abstract, recognizes the need to compromise, now get it to actually compromise and that actually work, it's going to take some time, and it's a lot harder to do now than it might have been in 2006 or 2008, 2009, 2010, so we've wasted, we've wasted a lot of time here, I think it's important.

The way you challenge them, the debate always tends to be about us, that everything that happens there is because Barack Obama did or didn't do something and, actually, they have agency and, you know, this is something that Americans People I think innately understand that some

times

Washington doesn't understand, you know, we're the only superpower in the world and we're still the only indispensable nation. There is no issue where our leadership is not critical, but what the American people do. I understand what our military understands, what anyone involved in these problems recognizes is that we cannot do for them what they are not willing to do for themselves, we can do it temporarily, that is essentially what the US military did. .

US after 2006 and 2007 in Iraq. Our military is so capable that if we put everything we have into it we can control a problem for a while, but for a society to function in the long term, the people themselves have to make decisions about how they are going to live together. how they are going to adapt to the interests of others how they are going to compromise when it comes to things like corruption people and their leaders have to take responsibility for changing those cultures when it comes to making investments in education and Next Generation they have to decide that this It's more important than a Swiss bank account, or more important than some, you know, the big status building that they want to build, you know, those are all decisions that people have to make.

What we can do is present them with a vision that allows them to succeed. We can help them and partner with them every step of the way, but we can't do it for them. Yes, there is a tendency to say: "I." I'm strong, why should I compromise? I'm weak, how can I compromise? And it tends to oscillate, you never understand that middle ground that is EX about Iraq, um, two, two questions, one is what triggered yesterday, what happened in your own country. Remember yesterday you said I have to act in a different way, you know, involve military number one and number two.

One thing that struck me in your speech last night was that you made the argument for intervening in purely humanitarian matters. reasons, um, and I was wondering why you didn't anchor it that connects strength to a political outcome. I say it in this sense, it seems to me that the Kurdistan right is actually exactly the type of entity that is building a decent pluralism, they are not. pure democracy still, but trending in the right direction and I think we are justified in using the Force to protect that and also signal to everyone in the neighborhood that this is the type of thing that we want to protect well, a couple of things that I would say uh First of all, what I announced yesterday is actually an extension of what I said in June, when Isil started in March and entered Mosul, which was, I, as commander in chief, will always do whatever it takes to protect our men. and women from all over the world and I have been very clear about the fact that we have an embassy in Baghdad, we have a consulate in Bbill and we have to make sure that they are not threatened. which means that part of the reason for my announcement yesterday was a close enough weed invasion that would warrant us taking injections just to protect our staff and facilities from uh the m syar and uh the poor uh men. women and children who are trapped on top of that mountain.

I've always said we can't solve every problem, but when a unique new circumstance arises where genocide is threatened and a country is willing to have us there. You have a strong international consensus that these people need to be protected and we have the capacity to do so, so we have the obligation todo it. The point you make about the broader strategic concern, how do we push back? elel, but also how to preserve a space for the best impulses within Iraq, that is on my mind, that has been on my mind the entire time, I think the Kurds used that time, uh, that was given by our sacrifices of troops, uh, in Iraq, they built that time, well, uh, the Kurdish region, uh, is functional the way we would like to see it and is tolerant of other sects and other religions. uh in a way that we would like to see elsewhere, so we think it's important to make sure that that space is protected, uh, but more generally what I've indicated is that I don't want to get into the business. of being the Iraqi Air Force, I don't want to get into the business of even being the Kurdish Air Force in the absence of a commitment from the people on the ground to act together and do whatever is politically necessary to start protecting themselves and fighting against Isol, so the reason why, for example, we didn't start getting a bunch of airstrikes all over Iraq as soon as ISO came was because that would have taken the pressure off Maliki, that would have taken the pressure off Baghdad, the The thought would be, you know, we don't really have to compromise, we don't have to make any decisions, we don't have to go through the difficult process of finding out what we've done wrong in the past, all we have to do is let it happen.

Americans rescue us again and we will continue doing business as usual, and what I have been telling all the factions inside Iraq is that we will. We are your partners, but we will not do it for you. We will not send a group of American troops back to the ground to control things. They will have to show us that they are willing and ready to try. maintain a unified Iraqi government that is based on a commitment that you are willing to continue to build a functional non-sectarian security force that answers to a civilian government, do that and then you will have a strong partner with us and we have a strategic interest in doing go back to Isol.

We are not going to allow them to create some caliphate through Syria and Iraq, but we can only do that if we know that we have partners on the ground who are capable of filling the void. We can, we could, we can expel them for a certain period of time, but as soon as our planes leave, they will come back in, so if we are going to approach the Sunni tribes, if we are going to approach the governors and local leaders. They have to have some sense that they are fighting for something. And as horrible as Isil is, we should be able to give them some incentive to get rid of them. but not if you know that we continue to see the same kind of dysfunction in Baghdad that we have been seeing for too many years.

Mr. President, are you worried about Israel today? Are you worried about Israel's long-term survivability? I've been there for the last few months, you know, last week, but I'm watching the war, what does it feel like for you? Well, it's amazing to see what Israel has become in the last few decades. I mean, you think about um uh. The dream of the early Zionists and you know, to have brought this incredibly vibrant, incredibly successful, rich and powerful country out of the rock, is a testament to the ingenuity and energy and vision of the Jews. people um and and because Israel is so militarily capable uh I'm not worried about Israel's survival um others can uh cause Israel pain yeah uh it's a really bad neighborhood and uh they can inflict uh you know uh casualties and uh uh destruction uh, in parts of Israel, but Israel is going to survive, that's not the problem, um, I think the question really is, uh, how does Israel survive, uh, and uh, you know, how can you create a state of Israel that maintains its uh democratic and civic?

Traditions, how can you preserve a Jewish state that also reflects the best values ​​of those who founded it in Israel, and to achieve that, I have always believed that you have to find a way to live side by side? peace with the Palestinians you have to recognize their interests you have to recognize uh that uh they have legitimate claims and this is their land and their neighborhood too um and so you know that's why we've worked so hard um against the advice of the realists who have He said that he is wasting his time trying to bring the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government closer and closer to reaching an agreement on a two-state solution and I will tell you that at this point the problems are not technical.

I mean they are difficult challenges, you know, how does Israel make sure that it is safe from the Jordan Valley? Anyone who has been to Jerusalem understands how close the West Bank is to you and Jewish population centers. You know in today's world with the type of weaponry that is available. You know, it's understandable that Israel would need to have a lot of confidence in the security system if we had an independent West Bank. But I sent one of our top generals, General Allen. who had been the commander of Coalition forces in Afghanistan and spent a lot of time working with the Israelis and asking them about their security needs on their own terms, not telling them what they needed, but saying, well, what do you need? ? let's look for some solutions and solutions can be obtained the challenge now is political it is a matter of will prime minister Netanyahu has said he believes in a two state solution and BB has said he wants to help achieve that when possible As far as it is concerned to the heart of the matter, although politics in Israel has moved quite a bit to the right, the settler movement coming out of Israel, I think has made it much more difficult to get a serious compromise on the Palestinian side, I think Abu Maazin is genuine in his belief in a two-state solution and peace.

He has acknowledged Israel if you look at the performance of the security forces in the Palestinian Authority and their cooperation with the IDF, they have performed quite admirably, but he has not been willing either. to see the moment too often and so there is a constant nickel and diming that goes back and forth between what should be allies, because the enemy of Israel is not the Palestinian Authority, the enemy is those like Hamas who have a nihilistic vision. On the contrary, Abu Maazin's enemy is not Israel, it is those same nihilists who want to undermine any kind of moderate and reasonable modern vision of what a Palestinian state could be like, but they cannot close the trust gap and, obviously, the La situation in Gaza has worsened, not improved.

What worries me right now is that, in the absence of a serious belief in a two-state solution, the Palestinians begin to lose hope and when they begin to lose hope, then the prospects of growing extremism or violence are cause for concern. great concern and what is also true, the last point I would like to make is that the way in which Hamas has completely distorted the possibilities of what you have written about this, the notion that they can spend incredible resources and engineering on tunnels, I mean , the craftsmanship is incredible instead of focusing on building schools and roads and doing some of the things that the Kurds, for example, were able to do even though they didn't have autonomy. that they might have wanted uh it's a disaster um their willingness to insert rocket launchers uh into population centers knowing that by firing those rockets they are inviting um uh retaliation that may end up killing their own people uh it's appalling so I have no sympathy for Hamas, but as I said in the press conference a couple of days ago, I have great sympathy for the ordinary person in Gaza, that they really feel trapped, yes, not only caught in the crossfire, but even even when they are don't worry. he basically doesn't have the ability to fulfill his ambitions because they are trapped and restricted, so is it time for you to basically bring them both here and say you know that historically the Israelis and the Palestinians have needed the American president? to play hey so I can go to his office and say I would never do this, but Obama, that guy that son of a bitch just did, I would never do this, but he did to me, is it time for you to play the heavy paper?

Well, you know, we've been doing that behind the scenes, um, I've had some pretty tense conversations with both parties, uh, throughout this process, um, but getting back to something earlier that we talked about, um, you can take people to water. I have had a drink and, at least so far, they have not been willing to do so, partly because the politics in their societies are working in opposite directions. Prime Minister Nyah's poll numbers are much higher than mine, yes, and you know, us. He's very driven by the war in Gaza, so if he doesn't feel some internal pressure, then it's hard to see him willing to make some very difficult compromises, including taking on the settler movement, that's a hard thing to do. regarding abas, it's a slightly different problem in some ways BB is too strong yes, in some ways abas is too weak to bring them together and make the kind of bold decisions that a Sadat, a beon or a rabbi were willing to mean, come back to what you said, if you look at the Middle East, I mean, all the successful political agreements were always no winner and no victor, that's exactly what it is ultimately, and and and and right now you don't see that dynamic, so we're I'm going to keep pushing, but I think it's going to require leadership among both the Palestinians and the Israelis to look beyond tomorrow or next year or even five years from now and look 20 years from now, and that's the hardest thing for the people to do. politicians is taking a long-term view on things by talking about someone whose poll numbers, in my opinion, are tragically high um Vladimir Putin right um two two questions Mr.

President um you did something rough with him um and I'm not saying that gly I oppose the expansion of NATO. I oppose the expansion of NATO because I believe there was no problem in the world that we could solve without Russia and we have seen that in Iran we have seen it in Syria and I know that part of this is revenge. uh, that's why, but um, I mean, we made a terrible trade, we traded Russia for the Czech Navy, you know, it was really, I think this was before your time, but it was a bad trade, however, we are where we are. , it's time?

You know again, maybe for you and Miracle to sit down with him and just say look Vladimir, you know, I mean, we need you, we're ready to build you a ladder, not to give you Ukraine, but I mean, is there somewhere that you can go alone because trying to manage the Middle East now, I mean, when you think about the help that has been received with respect to Iran and Syria, it says to you: is there any way out of this? I would make a couple of observations, first, we had a very productive relationship with Russia in my first term, when President M.

Medv uh served primarily as the face of Russian diplomacy and Prime Minister Putin was still behind the scenes. , obviously uh as the key power in country U and we were able to make very significant progress, if you look back at what happened when Putin decided to run for president again for the first time, he was challenged politically and we started to see this anti-American and anti-Western sentiment and, uh, kind of a proto. Russian nationalist almost zaris uh uh you know the attitude from his campaign uh because you'll remember there were protests in the streets where thousands of people were gathering and it seemed like from his perspective I think he was losing control um and it turned out to be successful for him politically. , so he continued playing that game.

I think he has genuine concerns not only about NATO expansion but also about missile defense, our unilateral withdrawal from the ABM Treaty, our decision to go to Iraq first, I think. He sees our decision internationally to work with a coalition to go to Libya as examples of the United States exerting its influence in ways that are contrary to Russian interests and some of which you already know, I think he can. make a rational argument although I don't agree with him, but actually I think the situation in Ukraine took him by surprise, this was not a great strategy, what happened was that his friend Yanukovych was so corrupt and had made promises to sign . a European agreement then had to go back, suddenly you have these protests in Ukraine, people say: look at Poland, we were in the same place as them 20 years ago and now suddenly they have skyrocketed to a genuinely prosperous European country and we are still trapped in this kleptocracy.

U and I talked to Putin and tried to negotiate a deal that would quell the violence and allow Yanukovych to do his bidding but would return power to the rat and Yanukovych took off. because what he realized was that if suddenly parliament has more power they could start investigating the things that I've been doing and Putin, uh, I think he was surprised by that improvised device on himself in Crimea and now what you've done made. What you see is an increasingly smaller circle around you. Fierce Russian nationalists suddenly have their ear. The escalation of Russian state media adding to this.

Yes. You know the jingoism. And I'm not sure you know. This was all planned, but.now he is in a place where his poll numbers are very high, he has, he has sent the Russians into a frenzy, most of them actually believe that the Ukrainians, for example, shot down the Malaysian Airlines plane, and that's why they found an exit ramp for becomes more challenging after saying that I think it is still possible for us because of the effective organizing that we have done with Ukraine with the Europeans around Ukraine and the genuine impact that the sanctions have had on the Russian economy. oh so that we reach a fair agreement where Ukraine's sovereignty and independence are still recognized, but it is also recognized that Ukraine has historical ties to Russia, most of its trade goes to Russia, large portions of the population are from speaks Russian, so uh, they're not going to be separated from Russia and I, if we do, a deal is possible, a deal should be possible, but yeah, one of the things that I've discovered over the course of my presidency is simply because something makes sense.

It doesn't mean that it will actually happen, that is true domestically and in foreign policy, so I think we are in a dangerous moment, partly because the position of the separatists has weakened. I think Putin doesn't want to lose face, etc. the window for reaching that compromise continues to be that he could invade, I mean, he could invade, and if he does, I think that will put us on a course not toward a new Cold War, but trying to find our way back to a The cooperative functioning relationship with Russia for the remainder of my term will be much more difficult.

What is the most important thing you have learned in foreign policy? You're the one who said there were things I could see from here that I couldn't see from there. when he became prime minister, what is the main takeaway for you? Well, there are a couple of things. I think what we've done well and what I push my team now to build on is recognizing not only the problems but also the opportunities. The Africa Summit that we just held did not have much coverage here, it was dominated by the Ebola scare, but we had 50 countries present and there were not many positions, there were not many common discourses.

There was a continent that 20 years ago was perceived as falling off a cliff and that now has six of the 10 fastest growing economies because of the work that has been done not only by my administration but by the Bush administration, the Clinton administration, along with our partners. internationally and in the countries themselves, HIV and AIDS are drastically reduced, tuberculosis and malaria are drastically reduced. You're seeing a growing middle class. When you travel through Africa. The interest not in aid but in markets, reforms and private sector investment is notable. Did you know? We are now seeing that we are as well positioned as any country, including China, which has made a lot of investments mainly because they want to get natural resources from Africa.

We're better positioned than anyone to really partner with a young, vibrant continent um, that has huge geopolitical implications, same with our pivot Asia um, you know, a lot of people have asked well, what does this actually mean specifically? uh, you know, this is just for show, but the truth of the matter is that we've been showing up in Asia in a way that we haven't for a decade and now our alliances with traditional allies like Japan, Korea and the Philippines, Thailand, Those alliances have never been stronger, we have a deeper relationship with Southeast Asian countries than we've ever had before, um, they want us to be there, much more than before, and as a consequence, there are great business opportunities, as well as, you know , strategic possibilities that did not exist.

The same thing happens in America. The United States, where you remember when I took office, you had Chávez and the thinking was that that was the future of Latin America that had been left aside and now it's countries like Chile and Peru and, you know, even a country like Colombia that I had so many. problems that are now in motion and want relationships with us, so I guess the point is that we have been looking for opportunities even as we try to handle the problems. However, I have learned that this is just a lesson that I think American presidents have to learn over and over again that when we intervene militarily there are unintended consequences, some

times

we need to do it, but we have to think about those consequences.

I'll give you an example. I had to learn that that still has ramifications to this day, and that is our participation in the Coalition through Gaddafi and Libya. I absolutely think it was the right thing to do when people said, look. In the chaos, they should have let Gaddafi stay there, they forget that the Arab Spring had come in

full

force to Libya and if we hadn't intervened, Libya would probably have been Syria, right? Because Gaddafi was not going to be able to contain what had happened. It was unleashed there, so there would be more death, more disruption, more destruction, but what is also true is that I think we underestimated our European partners, we underestimated the need to come in full force, if you are going to do this, then It's the day. after Gaddafi is gone, when everyone is feeling good and everyone is holding signs that say thank you to America, at that time there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies that had no Civic Tradition, right, you've been desperate for uh 40 years of existence, there are no Traditions to build on, unlike Tunisia, where there was a civil society, uh, and that is why they have been more successful in the transition, so that is a lesson that I now apply Every time I ask the question, should we intervene? militarily, we have a response the next day: boots on the ground or that's it, I think across the board, I mean, there will be certain discrete moments where you say this is going to be clean and we can get something done. fact, but in a big project involving a society in complete upheaval, you know, we have an obligation to think it through, the last thing I learned and you know, I suspect we're running out of time, so, uh. you know, I want to, I want to make sure that I include this, that's how you know that we as Americans have, I think, a valuable exchange that is self-taught and so from time to time we ask ourselves if we're in decline, you know what? is happening to you?

American leadership we are being overtaken by someone you know, whether it's the Russians, the Japanese or the Chinese, um, you go around the world, things don't work unless we're there, you go to a multilateral forum, we set the agenda, hey, look. In any particular project about health, energy education, whatever, everyone looks at us in terms of well, how should we make this work? Sometimes people resent it, sometimes people resist because of their own self-interest, but the What I would like Americans to recognize and understand is that we have the best cards and if you look at where we were when I took office and where we are now , not only have we seen improvements in each economic index, but there are key changes, for example, in energy that change the rules of the game.

I mean, we're the only major power in the world other than Russia, but economically Russia I don't consider a major power, but we're the only ones that are really as energy independent as possible for an economy of our size and wealth, um. , what we've done with clean energy, uh, where are you starting, you know, we've increased. um wind energy for uh three times solar energy ten times uh it means we have the opportunity to lead in places that every country envies um our ability to um train people in our universities and our community colleges uh is still unparalleled our immigration system Yes It would be fixed and it is still the envy of the world because we still attract the best and the brightest.

Me when people tell me that we have to worry about Russia. I try to remember them for the long term. Nobody is trying to immigrate to Moscow. Nobody thinks that's the place of opportunity where you know if I have a good idea I'm going to be able to get something to make something happen they want to go to Silicon Valley they want to go to uh uh you know one of our leading universities uh uh to do their research and making things work and so um the biggest impediment to American leadership uh is not external we are the strongest military we have the most dynamic economy we the uh what what will be the measure of success in the 21st century is all of our things , everything is knowledge, everything is innovation, everything is openness, everything is the ability to mix cultures, all this is our thing, uh, it is empowering people, which will sustain us.

We will be us again and, if we make good decisions, we will continue to be not only the dominant power but a benevolent Force throughout the world. Are we making good decisions? Because I feel it when I look at Washington from abroad. yeah, look, it feels like we're kicking this country like it's a soccer ball and it's not a soccer ball, it's actually a factory egg. I mean, can we drop it, can we break it. I mean, there's enough dysfunction in all these core issues you have. I spoke up and that's what worries me because I feel like a lot of times we tell the world to do what we say, not what we don't like, like we used to do.

Yes, I would distinguish between American society and American politics. The truth is that uh. Countries should continue to do what we do by looking at how our private sector operates in many ways, how our universities operate, how our communities and our nonprofits operate, we still set a very good example, you know, you think you know. for all. our problems, uh, how the American people responded after 9/11, and I give someone like President Bush enormous credit for this, there wasn't all of a sudden this huge surge of anti-Muslim sentiment in this country, you know, there were problems sporadically. , but overwhelmingly, people had to do it.

Say you know what those Americans are and our tradition, uh, we don't make distinctions like that, um, so the health of American society doesn't worry me too much, um, you know, I worry about it, uh, sometimes, uh. You already know our eating habits and watching too much TV, maybe in general. I think we're in a pretty good place. Our politics are dysfunctional and something I said before serves as a warning. And societies do not. It works if political factions adopt maximalist positions, and the more diverse the country is, the less it can afford to adopt maximalist positions.

One of the great benefits of the United States has been that we are not ideological. You know, we are not utopians. We are visionaries, we are optimistic, but we are also practical. There is no victory, we do not win, at the end of the day that is how we got here and what you have seen in terms of our politics, partly because of Jerry's management, partly because of the balkanization of the media so that people just see what reinforces your deepest prejudices, you know, partly because there is a lot of money in politics, politicians are increasingly rewarded for taking the most extreme maximalist positions, and sooner or later that catches up with you and you end up .

Not being able to move forward on the things that we need to move forward, we need to reform our immigration system, that would be good not only for our national economy but also for our standing in the world. You travel through Latin America. Nothing would reinforce more. uh an admiration for the United States than for us doing that, you know we need to rebuild our infrastructure, you go to the Singapore airport, uh, and then you come back, uh, to one of our airports and say, uh, you know we're not acting as a superpower it's like going from Jetson to The Flintstones exactly you know we need to revamp our K-12 education system in particular and you know you look at what Finland is doing with its children and you look at what we're doing with our children and you say , you know we're falling short and all of these things are doable and our fiscal position now is such that you know the deficits have been cut by more than half, where we're in a position to do something smart.

Investments that have enormous benefits that historically have not been controversial have historically gotten partisan support, but because of this maximalist ideological position, we have been blocked and I have to say here, you know, I've been talking. in general, uh and uh, trying not to be too political, but that ideological extremism and maximalist position is much more prominent right now, the Republican party than the Democrats, the Democrats have problems, but in general, if you look at the Democratic consensus, it is quite common. The point of the general consensus is that it's not a lot of extravagant ideological nonsense and, by the way, it's usually based on facts and reasons.

We are not denying science. We are not denying climate change. We're not pretending that. In some ways, you know, having a bunch of people without insurance is the American way, I mean, we're doing things that are, you know, pretty sensible and, you know, I'moptimistic that these things go in cycles. and that the Republican Party will eventually free itself from the clutches of this type of extremist ideology, but it needs to happen soon, Mr. President, before we leave out, I want to talk about Iran for a second because if there is a Cher game in the Middle East.

It seems to me that if we could do something about the Cold War between Iran and the United States that has so distorted the region but requires Iranian leadership. It seems to me that we should renounce a policy that expresses our hostility toward the United States. it's just critical to our ability to govern here in the negotiations in um in Vienna. Do you see any hope? Do you have any hope that this can produce the kind of cordon that can perhaps open up other avenues of collaboration? No doubt. the opportunity is there, if we can achieve it, you know, I would still put it at a little less than 5050, but the logic is compelling.

Look, we are a very different society than Iran. I think the Supreme Leader of Iran has a very different worldview, it's fair to say that I, yes, Iran's state sponsorship of terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, you know , means we should be very suspicious of how they operate. Regionally, but if you look at the logic of reaching a nuclear deal where they abandon the pursuit of nuclear weapons but still have some capability for nuclear power, which is what they say they want, the supreme leader himself has resigned for good. developing nuclear weapons well, if that's the case, you can, we can come up with a formula where they have some modest enrichment capabilities that are used for domestic purposes, for peaceful purposes, and in return, all of a sudden, their economy opens up and they're a large, sophisticated country with a lot of talent, yes, and the degree to which they could grow and naturally take leadership in the region, alongside other countries, rather than relying on trying to undermine the leadership of other countries.

I'm Iran, I would have a lot more confidence and I would look around and say to myself: you know? In this neighborhood we could have the strongest economy, we could have the best innovation, um and uh, we don't need nuclear weapons. It would be better if we could open this up, uh, and there's more commerce and exchange of ideas, all of that now. The problem is obviously that that threatens certain interests within Iran, so the reason why this may not happen. is if the irgc uh or certain reflections within Iran say that you start to open things up and suddenly our grip on power weakens and new ideas emerge, then maybe we don't want that, you know, that can prevent us from reaching an agreement ,uh.

For our part, I think it is important to recognize that the type of agreement that we are structured in involves having absolute verification that they cannot develop breakthrough capacity and if we are able to achieve that without resorting to military force, it is much preferable that the only one. The way you can really prevent a country from getting nuclear weapons is ultimately because they decide not to currently, knowledge is knowledge, knowledge is there and, uh, a country's resources are dysfunctional and poor. , like North Korea, let's put it that way. In the same way, if North Korea can get a nuclear weapon, there's no country that can't get it because they can't even feed their people, but if they're determined enough, they can get it, so, you know, we can, we can. take military action. that slows down that effort, but our best option is to reach an agreement and, by the way, that is of great interest to us, especially in this environment, because we do not want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that is dangerous and the proliferation dangers are Obviously it is clear, so what we have to do is find a formula in which Iran not only has a modest enrichment capacity to serve peaceful domestic purposes that we can verify does not give them breakout capacity and that expand.

It is time for the sanctions not to be eased immediately, but step by step, as we gain more trust, they also gain more trust. It is there to see whether Iran will ultimately be able to seize that opportunity. You know, we'll have to do it. wait and see, but it's not for lack of trying on our part, you know, as I listened to it last night, I know everyone saying what is President Obama going to do, what is Obama going to do, you know, China is the biggest investor today. in energy in Iraq. at some point I mean, do you tell them or do you want to tell them that you know it's time for you to become a stakeholder in this system?

Then they've been free writers for the last 30 years and it's worked out very well for them, yeah, um, and sometimes I've joked, uh, when my inbox starts piling up, I said, can't we be a little more like China? no one ever seems to expect them to do anything when these things come up, but it's for that same reason that I think people look at the United States in a way that they don't look at China, they recognize that, yes, in analyzes of human history it has been So. It's pretty rare for a superpower to act in its own self-interest, occasionally make mistakes, you know, think in terms of what's in it for us, but ALS is also more prevalent than at any other time in human history. the great superpower is saying you know what's in it for everyone, how this helps other people, how we are, how we should act in a way that reflects our values ​​and you know that's not how the Chinese operate now, that's a disadvantage for us. in many ways, but it is also an advantage and it is the reason why we are exceptional and why I am glad to be the president of the United States of America.

Thank you very much for your time. Sir, I really appreciate it. Enjoy it. I really enjoyed it thank you very much, yes, great, very good, thanks guys.