National security correspondent for politico. Then what would be next to her is matt, our boss who is global editor at political and privacy editor in chief of politico. And had been at the wall street journal before that. Last but not least is editor in chief of Foreign Policy magazine. Delighted to all three of you here. Welcome to you. Matt has been here before but a warm welcome to you as well. Im going to jump in and natasha will join us when she arrives and i want to start with the latest developments of this year, and that is a situation with iran. I wanted to ask it to do maybe jonathan i will start with you if you dont might and they will come back this way and reverse the flow. How do you think the president has handled the situation with iran . First of all thank you for having me here and thanks to all of you for listening. I had a funny thought today which i never expected to enter my head, which is if iran doesnt respond any further than it has today, or yesterday, and if the United States, the Trump Administration, doesnt respond beyond the extent which it has already, this might actually turn out okay, which like i said was not something that it wouldve anticipated even a few days ago. The mistakes i think began at the very beginning. Trump acted without the approval of congress which is problematic. The legality of the strike was problematic. The timing of the strike was highly problematic. The administration keeps insisting that it was done because soleimani was involved in an imminent attack. Thats problematic for two reasons. One, because its not like he was an actual bomb planter himself. Iran is highly institutionalize country. He was a very good general but one of many generals in the countries arm. Its not like iran is a terrorist or position where decapitating or where killing one leader decapitates the organization. And theres no evidence that a terrorist attack was about to occur because the administration hasnt provided us with any evidence. There was also good reason to believe that it would lead to a rapid and very worrisome cycle of escalation between iran and the United States that would quickly lead to war. And then the unexpected happened. Happened. Iran responded in a very restrained and moderate way, seems to have deliberately avoided casualties both american and iraqi, and the United States, donald trump, responded in a limited and restrained way for the moment. I think in part because what were seeing in this whole episode is the two sides of trump at war with one another. One is the site of trump that favors belligerence at all moments and has to show hes a bigger man than anybody else or whoever hes confronting. And the other is the side of trump thats quite conflict averse at its determined not to get dragged into especially another buddy were in a middle east, which is convince the American Public wouldnt support. So think weve seen a vacillation between those two. But thats the best Case Scenario where we are right now. Things dont get any worse but even if that happens we are back where we were, say, toward the end of the Bush Administration where we have no nuclear deal. We have an extremely hostile iran face extreme hostile United States. Prospects for negotiations between the two whatever trump may think i think absolutely nonexistent. And then of course its the situation is that stable and is unlikely to remain where it is today and part of trumps problem in his speech at the was is going to start ratcheting up sanctions begin. If he does that makes it extremely likely that the iranians will find ways to come under their policy of extreme resistance, in response to american policy of extreme pressure, to start poking the United States again. If that happens then i think we were off to the races all over again. Matt, how do you sit . I would say until proven otherwise, trump is a master of two things, messaging and reading the public mood. I think with the end of you got a Pretty Simple sentence here. The democrats are finding themselves a difficult position to try to counter it. We killed the guy who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of americans, potentially. Someone who caused a lot of trouble in iraq since 2003, saved assad, is on one side of the war in yemen. We killed a bad guy, period. Thats going to work very well for assuming it doesnt get any worse. I dont see a contradiction between his move to deal with solomonic and then now step back. That again is a reading of the public mood. Americans are not going soleimani is not a wellknown as osama bin laden, but i think the case has been made that this was not something which anyone feels any regret over. If six months now we are in a hot war in the middle east and there are american soldiers die, yes, that would be 2005 iraq war at its lowest point but we are not there. I think if youre sitting in the white house today, you are feeling pretty good about it. Nancy, how do you see it and maybe if you can give us a flavor of what your readers might be saying as well . On readers come down of both sides also and i engaging that from our letters to the editor. I think trump is a couple of things going for him. I think american ignorance. Who was soleimani . He was not on anyones radar. Im just talking about americans in general turkey was not osama bin laden. Yes, he has done a lot of damage, over there. I think american forgetfulness, i think self interest will rule as long as matt and Jonathan Bove said here nothing escalates here. Both said will go back to can i afford to pay the rent . Was my healthcare insurance . All legitimate issues. I think also forgiveness. We are a forgiving people also. The ball is in the Democrats Court now. He has kind of, trump has played this well we didnt think he was going to but hes played well as he plays other missteps well. We now see, say, and Elizabeth Warren who had the temerity to actually call soleimani what he was, a terrorist and a motorist terrorist, murderess terrorist because the leftist and you cant say anything that sounds complementary to trump. The democrats are going to have to find their voice, their backbones, their principles in this issue and beyond. Lets stick with the democrats on this issue. How do you see this affecting, if at all, the democratic primary, the nomination race . I dont, i really, really dont unless again Something Big happens here. My colleagues and i have were saying a fascinating its been watched to watch the democratic primary plan. Between isolationists, but even joe biden template experience card i think has been pushed by the strength of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party to take may be a more hostile stance on this that he would otherwise do. Again if youre sitting in the white house and the progressive wing of the party is shaping the response on solomonic, the weight it shaping the debate over medicare for all and around a lot of other issues, suddenly it makes trump go from being kind of off the mainstream, a little more into the american mainstream and in a strange way the safer choice for americans, which we would never thought we would be here at this point in the campaign. Jonathan, you see it having an impact on the democratic race . Does it play to the advantage of somebody like buddha judge who served in the military . First of all i agree that with nancy if, if think stay with it are the conflict doesnt as click that its not going to be much of an issue going forward. And certainly not the debate moderators to ask about it, if they tend to shy away from Foreign Policy questions or titles to the campaigns spontaneous make a big issue out of it big one done are. They are determined not to talk about Foreign Policy. I know this because ive reached out as one of the Campaign Staff for interviews over the last six months and ive been told by camping managers and at virtuay every one of the campaigns will, we know at some point going to focus on Foreign Policy but, frankly, we really, really dont want to and so were not going to even to the work to engage into something forces are hand. This idle think on on its own is going to be the thing that forces their hand. I think biden is embracing this issue. A great place to strength. I think thats right and it also plays to sanders strength because he has this very clear sort of leftwing isolationists pacifist position. Its a very clear issue for sanders. Its a very clear issue for biden. A some potential for buttigieg as well before the other states too nuanced for them to make anything out of it. I think it was actually sanders clarity on this issue that rattled Elizabeth Warren into walking back to our original and i would say on point assessment. You also touch on the reaction and how this is playing with floridas two senators come with the congressional members as well. How are they playing this . Is it along the lines you described as a split . Absolutely. I think youre solidly the hide trump and solidly behind what rubio and scott, marco rubio and rick scott, yes. Do you see if this issue is contained and it doesnt get any worse, looking down the horizon, all three of you, are there Foreign Policy issues that could prove important, maybe not pivotal, in the election . Usually our elections about the economy or things of that nature. Anything you could imagine that on Foreign Policy level that is coming down the pike . Nationally, its not as clear perhaps through the lens of immigration, and how that continues to be handled or mishandled depending upon which side you follow up on. Also in florida, south florida, venezuela and cuba, to a far less degree haiti, but tps is a Foreign Policy issue. I think as a saw in the pew results, china is, has been, will continue to be what the soviet union was maybe 30 years ago and kind of focusing the conversation, not just about americas role in the world but also what america is. It is the power that is rising. Trump has been very successful in turning the narrative around china toward we work quite, you know, the markets, the Business Community was always very prochina and that is changed dramatically in the last three years. Its not only trump, i think your singer from some of the rising republicans like marco rubio, nikki haley who are focusing on china as an issue as i think thats the one that will be with us in this cycle and beyond. I think matt is exactly right. Another slot on the pew research showed American Voters dont care about Foreign Policy when it is called Foreign Policy. But what did do care about is economics and trade and terrorism. Insofar as Foreign Policy is involved in both of those issues and it certainly is in the trade will already, and if the conflict with iran leads to terrorism in a way that affects americans living within the United States, then i could make it a major issue in the campaign against. Could ask the two of you may be just about secretary pompeo, indications i guess even he has said he is not planning to run for the senate seat in kansas. There was an article describing pompeo, i think was Andrea Mitchell wrote that he is the most powerful secretary of state in a long time. How would you describe the Foreign Policy process underway with a brandnew National Security adviser, also a prety secretary of defense . You can tell me if i dont have to give you permission, i know he will do that, that the starkest example of how things have changed is this memo that trump purportedly got a few days ago or a week or two ago outlining the options for how to respond to the missile strike, irene missile strike of the u. S. Iraq he base that included option e, takeout soleimani. I think that option when not a dent on the memo earlier in the Trump Administration because you had adults in the room, as her booty calls bigger curate moderates like responsible policymakers like mcmaster, like mattis, who were making sure that options like that were not getting to the president. Many of you in this room who served in government know, you dont put a crazy choice on a memo to your principal if you dont want your principal to take that decision. This was a decision that pompeo very much wanted the president to take, and there was nobody with any stature equivalent to is his to take it off the memo. Hold on one second. This chair was not for allies should. Its actually for natasha. Filing a story im sure. Thank you. Matt, go ahead. I would ask you what you think of whats been said so far, natasha. I think this is an interesting parallel between the early obama years and later on. When obama came in he felt he needed adult supervision. You had clinton, the pentagon, gates and panetta, did he put people radin that he was comfortable with. Trump has done that sooner that obama did. I think he seems to like obrien and the tosh would know better than i do. He has a Good Relationship with pompeo, and esper. For better or for worse i think you surrounded by people that he is both comfortable with and sees eye to eye with. I dont want to question my competitors reporting on this, but theres been other reporting that the soleimani option did not just come out of the box in the middle of december and is something that has been talked about for several months. Clearly, pompeo and mike pence had been bending his ear on this. So i guess you can disagree with the decision might seems that in a way theres a more functional process and whatever you use the word processed to make our to the Trump Administration you should pause because it doesnt really apply often but there seems to be a semblance of a functional process around Foreign Policy that you may not have before where you had that committee of rivals or register yes, but lets say a highly determined process, right . With, that leads really in one direction. It is a certain kind of process, and certainly it is a process of more in tune with the president in desires, but arguably its not the best process because its not presenting him with as many options as i think it did before. Latasha, you want to jump in on sort of a Foreign Policy decisionmaking process, pompeos role versus obrien versus esper . We havent mentioned one of the player, mike pence. Thats probably already been said here that pompeo is probably the most powerful secretary of state since kissinger. Hes kind of the defense secretary, secretary of state, and the chief of staff have all wrapped in one turkeys a person the president would trust the most. Esper is holding to pompeo, and the same goes for the cia director. Anyway, thats what were told. The idea of any kind of check on his worst impulses is moot at this point. Obrien has been a yes man, kinder through and through. He is not challenge him in a way that john kelly did, for example. Thats what people are kind of worried, special if he gets reelected in 2020. Really the only check theres going to be on the president is congress, and as weve seen, beverly has a work out so well. He was impeached by how is that going to turn out in the senate . Probably he will be acquitted rather quickly. The amount of constraints that are on him at this moment i really week, and i feel like the people that are thrown him more and more obviously are more beholden to them and are more protrump than they ever have been. And i would say it took him a while to get to this point. The flipside is, i feel its a little odd to say this, but what you set aside there is suddenly some stability. Hes not fighting with a tillerson. Hes not fighting with a kelly. The revolving door of his inner circle seems to have slowed, if not stopped. Theres a flipside here also to what remains worrisome. You touched, nancy, a little while ago on the issues of cuba and venezuela, very important to people in this community. Could you maybe talk a little bit about how the administration has handled those issues and how you think it is seen here as well . I think that when reason, we wrote an editorial last year with a headline called marco rubio, trumps sycophant. Got a lot of page views, but i think that for all the antipathy between them during the campaign, as long as rubio has trumps ear on venezuela and cuba, that relationship, that relationship, that reluctance for rubio to actually really listen to his better angels here, if he still has them, will remain. But yes, venezuela remains a very big issue here, as does cuba. The lack of tps being offered to venezuelans who are already here really does stick in their craw and i think they will also be sticking with talk. Just on it venezuela note, we are still seeing this backdoor diplomacy happen. Its just come out in the post, the washington post, that Rudy Giuliani was trying to make some kind of deal with maduro. This is fundamentally the issue with trumps Foreign Policy, that he is people radin that he really trusts that are not necessarily in government that dont have any relevant experience, and hes going to rely on them always more than he does the people that, his advisers who have, whats left of them, have relevant experience. Do you have an insight into the Pompeo Giuliani dynamic . There were phone calls between the two it appears. But given that giuliani does seem to be playing on a number of issues that really would be the responsible of the secretary of state can do have a sense of the dynamics . Yes. Pompeo sees sees julie as a thorn in a site and he views him as someone has to deal with because the president naturedly use giuliani as a security blanket. They have known each other for decades. The go back a long time since their new york