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

hello Tom mr. president for the skit great to see I think was a few things mr. president thank you for sitting it's great to be with you former Secretary of State Dean Acheson many years ago wrote a famous book present at the creation about the role he played in shaping the post-world War two world and I wonder I wonder what you feel present at right now do you feel present at the disintegration um what what is it what do you think's going on out there that accounts for so many states seemingly collapsing um and the kind of level of disorder that we're seeing well first of all I think you can't generalize across the globe because there are a bunch of places where good news keeps on 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 solidifying and that's a huge part of the global population I think that the trend lines in Latin America are good Central America we've got some real problems so overall I think that there is still cause for optimism but I do believe that what we're seeing in the Middle East in particular oh and parts of North Africa is an order that dates back to World War one starting to buckle under a variety of different strengths and you've written about this some you know part of what you see is the Cold War gone and the the proxy battle between the west and the Soviet system propped up a lot of governments that work very strong what was left then were a series of authoritarian regimes that weren't producing the kind of economic growth and civic and political hope that allowed it to sustain themselves you combine that with globalization technology all the forces we're familiar with and the Arab Spring was going to come sometime the didn't know what spark was it was going to be but now what you have is an end of the old order but a very rocky path to this new order being built and you know one way to characterize it is you've got old autocratic systems you have new systems but no Civic traditions there no economic framework that can sustain itself and so the populism all gets channeled into some very negative ways particularly around extremist ideologies and fundamentalist ideologies that have no chance of delivering for the people in these countries in the 21st century but our simple organizing principles that allow people to you know recruit and gravitate towards them and it's a very dangerous time for that reason in the Middle East and North Africa and parts of the Muslim world the other trend that you see is because in part great power competition is lessened the United States militarily is so dominant and you know the likelihood of a face-to-face standoff between the big countries has been reduced partly because of global economic integration what you see are a lot of regional contests between those of us like the United States who believe in an international set of rules some rules for the road that can underwrite joint prosperity and a more traditional view of spheres of influence and wanting to you know the big countries wanted to muscled little countries and to gain advantages with respect to trade or with respect to maritime rules what have you and that's a broader contest as well and and those things I think are merging our goal should be to help usher in a new order in places like the Middle East and North Africa but also to recommit countries to the broader project of setting up a series of international rules and norms that can serve everyone but that is a big long term challenging project and when you compound it 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 and in various places how do you react when you hear in our debate well at only President Obama on the Syrian rebels had only we kept 10,000 people behind in Iraq this disorder never would have emerged yeah well part of it is just to look at the facts with respect to Iraq my predecessor regardless of what you thought about the the original decision to invade I think through the heroic efforts of our military was able to pass on to the Iraqis a democratic system and a sovereign state that democratic system in sovereign state for reasons of politics that would be familiar to any politician here in the United States decided it wasn't good politics to sign an agreement that would allow the United States troops to stay there in the middle of the Arab Spring and the notion that somehow we you know could force them to do that ran contrary to the very objective that the Bush administration had laid out which was Iraqis are going to make their own decisions they squandered an opportunity and and I've been I think pretty clear about the fact that had the Shia majority seized the opportunity to reach out to the Sunnis and the Kurds in a more effective way passed legislation like de-baathification that that would have made a difference I don't think that's a can be disputed the flip side of it is they had done exactly what they did and we had had 10,000 troops there that would not have prevented the kinds of problems that we've seen anyway the difference would be we'd have 10,000 troops in the middle of this case as opposed to having a much more limited number with respect to Syria it's always been a fantasy this idea that we could provide some light arms or even more sophisticated arms to what was essentially an opposition made up of former doctors farmers pharmacists and so forth and that they were going to be able to battle not only a well-armed state but also a well-armed state backed by Russia backed by Iran a battle-hardened Hezbollah that was never in the carts and so I think that be finding that now because you're trying to arm people find people what do you find there's there's there's not as much capacity as you would hope you you know the truth is that one advantage that countries like Iran have in this region is they've been playing the proxy game for a long time and they've made heavy investments they're not constrained by Congress they're constrained by basic norms or international law or budget or budgets and so you know if you have a 30-year ramp to build up fighting force like Hezbollah that can be somewhat effective but that what I think the broader point we need to stay focused on is what we have is a disaffected Sunni minority in the case of Iraq majority in the case of Syria stretching from essentially Baghdad to Damascus or in that region in between and unless we can give them a formula that speaks to the aspirations of that population we are inevitably going to have problems and Assad hasn't learned that lesson unfortunately there was a period of time where the Shia majority in Iraq I think didn't fully understand that they're starting to understand it now unfortunately we now have ISIL which as I think very little appeal to ordinary Sunnis on the other hand they're filling a vacuum and the question for us has to be not simply how we counteract them militarily but how are we going to speak to a Sunni majority in that area a Sunni majority or a Sunni population in that area Sunni population elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa that right now is detached from the global economy feels no stake in it doesn't see any prospects for themselves that's a dangerous situation and it's going to require a whole-of-government effort not just our military but our diplomacy our economic and social and cultural and civic power and we've got to stitch together coalition's and that's going to be our main task over the next next several years how close are we in Iraq to getting the kind of government there that at least could give us a platform to intervene in ways that are non-military is Maliki staying is he going are they I think I think we're I'm more optimistic about it than I might have been if you had asked me the question a month ago they've now elected a president they've 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're close it has been encouraging to see key figures in the Shia Iraqi population recognizing that they have to make accommodations in order to hold the country together when you have as important a person as the Grand Ayatollah Sistani stating that a government has to abide by a constitution and also recognize the diversed interests of the country that helps if the Iranian has been helpful I mean well I think I think what the Iranians have done is to to finally realize that a maximalist position by the Shias inside of Iraq is over the long-term going to fail and that's by the way a broader lesson of for every country if you you want just a hundred percent and the notion is is that the winner really does take all you know all the spoils sooner or later that that government is going to break down sooner or later the society breaks down when you have very sharp sectarian or ethnic divisions so I think we have a chance to get a government in place that in the abstract recognizes the need to compromise now getting them to actually compromise and to actually function you know is going to take some time and it's a lot tougher to do now than it might have been back in 2006 2008 2009 2010 so I think we've lost we've lost a big chunk of time here it's important the way you're challenging them the debate always tends to be about us that everything happens there is either because Barack Obama did or did not do something and they actually have agency well and and and you know this is something that the American people I think in innately understand sometimes Washington doesn't understand you know we are a sole superpower in the world and we remain the one indispensable nation there's there's no issue in which our leadership is critical but what the American people get what our military understands what anybody who's involved in these problems recognizes is that we cannot do for them what they are unwilling to do for themselves we can do it temporarily that's essentially what the US military did after 2006-2007 in Iraq our military is so capable that if we put everything we have into it we can keep a lid on a problem for a time but for a society to function long term the people themselves have to make decisions about how they're going to live together how they're going to accommodate each other's interests how they're going to compromise when it comes to things like corruption the people and their leaders have to hold themselves accountable for changing those cultures when it comes to making investments in education and the next generation they've got to decide this is more important than a Swiss bank account or more important than some big status building that they want to build you know those are all decisions that folks have to make what we can do is to present to them a vision that would allow them to succeed we can help them and partner with them every step of the way but we can't do it for them there's a tendency there to say I'm strong why should i compromise I'm weak how can I compromise and it sends to us late you never got to get that that the middle ground that's on a rock - two questions one is what triggered yesterday what what happened in your own mind yesterday said I've got to act in a different way um you know we involve the military number one and number two why don't you struck me in your speech last night was that you framed the argument for for intervening in purely humanitarian grounds and that I wondered why you didn't anchor it that connect force with a political outcome I mean it in this sense that seems to me Kurdistan right is actually exactly the kind of entity that is building a allistic decent they're not pure democracy yet but tending in the right direction and that I think we're justified in using force to protect that and also signaling everyone in the neighborhood this is the kind of thing we want to protect well a couple of things I'd say first of all what what I announced yesterday is actually an extension of what I said back in June when ISIL start stirring on the March and entered into Mosul which was I as commander-in-chief will always do what's necessary to protect our men in German around the world and I've been very clear about the fact that we've got an embassy in Baghdad we've got a consulate in Erbil and we've got to make sure that they're not threatened which means that part of the rationale for my announcement yesterday was an encroachment close enough to or beale that it would justify us taking shots just for pure protection of US personnel and facilities with respect to the mod Sinjar and the easy to put poor men women and children who are trapped on top of that mountain I always said that we can't solve every problem but when you have a new unique circumstance in which genocide is threatened and a country is willing to have us in there you have a strong international consensus that these people need to be protected and we have a capacity to do so than we have an obligation to do so the point you make about the broader strategic concern how do we push back on esel but also preserve a space for the best impulses inside of Iraq that very much is on my mind and that has been on my mind throughout I do think the Kurds used that time that was given by our troops sacrifices in Iraq they use that time well and the Kurdish region is functional the way we would like to see it and it is tolerant of other sects in other religions in a way that we'd like to see elsewhere so we do think that it's important to make sure that that space is protected but more broadly what I've indicated is that I don't want to get in the business of being the Iraqi Air Force I don't want to get in the business of for that matter even being the Kurdish Air Force in the absence of a commitment of the people on the ground to get their act together and do what's necessary politically to start protecting themselves and to push back against ISIL so the reason that we did not for example just start taking a bunch of airstrikes all across right Iraq as soon as ISIL came in was because that would have taken the pressure off Maliki that would have taken the pressure off Baghdad the thinking would be you know what we don't actually have to make compromises we don't have to make any decisions we don't have to go through the difficult process of figuring out what we've done wrong in the past all we have to do is let the Americans bail us out again and we continue to go about business as usual and what I've been saying to every faction within Iraq is we will be your partners but we are not going to do it for you we're not sending a bunch of US troops back on the ground to keep a lid on things you are going to have to show us that you are willing and ready to try to maintain a unified Iraqi government that is based on compromise that you are willing to continue to build a non-sectarian functional security force that is answerable to a civilian government you do that and then you've got a strong partner with us and we do have a strategic interest in pushing back ISIL we're not going to let create some Caliphate through Syria and Iraq but we can only do that if we know that we've got partners on the ground who are capable of filling the void we can we might we can run them off for a certain period of time but as soon as our planes are gone they're coming right back in and so if we're going to reach out to Sunni tribes if we're going to reach out to local governors and and leaders they've got to have some sense that they're fighting for something and as horrible as ISIL is we should be able to provide them some inducement to peel them away but not if you know we continue to see the same kinds of dysfunction in Baghdad that we've been seeing for too many years mr. president are you worried about Israel today do you worry about Israel's long-term survivability I've been there for last month's you know what would last week but I'm watching the war what does it feel like to you well it is amazing to see what Israel has become over the last several decades I mean you think about the the dream of the early Zionists and you know to have scratched out of rock this incredibly vibrant incredibly successful and wealthy and powerful country is a testament to the ingenuity and the energy and vision of the Jewish people and because Israel is so capable militarily I don't worry about Israel's survival others can cause as real pain you it's a really bad neighborhood and they can inflict you know casualties and destruction in parts of Israel but Israel is going to survive that's not the issue I think the question really is how does Israel survive and you know how can you create a State of Israel that maintains its democratic and and civic traditions how can you preserve a Jewish state that is also reflective of the best values of those who found it Israel and in order to do that it has consistently been my belief that you have to find a way to live side-by-side and peace with Palestinians you have to recognize their interests you have to recognize that they have legitimate claims and this is their land and neighborhood as well and so you know this is why we have worked so hard against the advice of realists if said you're wasting your time to try to move the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government closer and closer together to an agreement on on a two-state solution and I will tell you that at this point the problems are not technical I mean they're difficult challenges you know how do you how does Israel make sure that it is secure from the Jordan Valley on in anybody who's been to Jerusalem understands that how approximate the West Bank is to Jewish population centers and you know in today's world with the kind of weaponry that's available you know it's understandable that israel needs to have a lot of confidence in the security system if we had a independent West Bank but I sent one of our top generals General Allen who had been the commander of coalition forces in Afghanistan and he spent a lot of time working with Israelis and asking them about their security needs in their own terms not telling them what they needed but say okay what is it that you need and let's find some solutions and solutions are obtainable the challenge now is political it's a question of will Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that he believes in a two-state solution and Bibi has said that he wants to help bring that about when it comes to nitty-gritty though the politics in Israel has shifted pretty heavily towards the right the the settler movement coming out of Israel I think has made it much more difficult to shape a serious compromise on the Palestinian side I think Abu Mazen is genuine in his belief in a two-state solution and peace he has recognized Israel if you look at the performance of security forces in the Palestinian Authority and their cooperation with IDF they have performed pretty admirably but he has also been unwilling to seize the moment all too often and so there's this 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 in view conversely the enemy of Abu Mazen is not Israel it's those same nihilists who want to undermine any kind of moderate reasonable modern vision of what a Palestinian state might look like but they can't bridge the gap of trust and obviously the situation in Gaza has made it worse not better what I worry about right now is in the absence of a serious belief in a two-state solution that the Palestinians start losing hope and when they start losing hope then the prospects for growing extremism or violence is of significant concern and what is also true last point I would make is that the way that Hamas has completely distorted the possibilities of Gaza you've written Aventis that the notion that they can spend incredible resources and engineering on tunnels the craftsmanship is amazing instead of 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 did not have the autonomy they might have wanted is a disaster their willingness to embed rocket launchers in population centers knowing that by then firing those rockets they're inviting retaliation they can end up killing their own people is is appalling so I have no sympathy for Hamas but as I said at the press conference a couple of days ago I have great sympathy for the ordinary person in Gaza that really does feel trapped on you not just caught in the crossfire but even when it's quiet basically doesn't have the capacity to fulfill their ambitions because they are pendant and and restricted so is it time maybe for for you to basically bring them both here and say historically Israelis and Palestinians have kind of needed the American presidents play the heavy to be able to go to their cabinet say I would never do this but that Obama that guy that did that son of a he made I would never do this but he made me is it time for you to play the heavy well you know we had been doing that behind the scenes I've had some pretty tense conversations with both sides throughout this process but going back to something earlier that we talked about you can lead folks to water they've got a drink and so far at least they haven't been willing to in part because the the politics in their societies are working in opposite directions I am Prime Minister Netanyahu's poll numbers are a lot higher than mine yeah and and you know we're greatly boosted by the war in Gaza and so if he doesn't feel some internal pressure then it's hard to see him being willing to make some very difficult compromises including taking on the settler movement that's a tough thing to do with respect to Abbas it's a slightly different problem in some ways Bibi is too strong in some ways Abbas is too weak to bring them together and make the kinds of bold decisions that Sadat or Bagan or were being we're willing to make it goes back to what you said if you look at the Middle East I mean all the successful political arrangements always work no Victor no Vanquish that's never ultimately and yeah and right now you don't see that dynamic so what we're going to continue to push but I think that 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 twenty years from that and that's the hardest thing for politicians to do is is to take the long view on things speaking of someone whose poll numbers are in my view tragically up um Bladon or Putin right um two questions mr. president either um did something snap with him I don't say that glibly I oppose NATO expansion I oppose NATO expansion because I believe that there was no problem in the world we could solve without Russia and we've seen that on Iran we send it on Syria and I know part of this is is is payback for that but um I mean we made it we made a terrible trade we traded Russia for the Czech Navy you know it was a really a thing there's before your time but it was a bad trade nevertheless we are where we are is it time you know again maybe for you and miracle to sit down with him and just say look lad Amir 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's someplace you can go only because to try to manage the Middle East now I mean when you seek help he's gotten with on Iran Syria giving you you know is there any way out of this a couple observations I'd make first of all we had a very productive relationship with Russia in my first term when President Medvedev was primarily serving as the face of Russian diplomacy and Prime Minister Putin was still behind the scenes obviously as the key power in the country and we were able to make some very significant progress if you look back at what happened when Putin decided to run again for the presidency for the first time he was challenged politically and we started seeing this anti-american anti-western sentiment and sort of the proto Russian nationalist almost as are as you know attitude as early as his campaign because you'll recall there were protests in the streets where you and thousands of people were gathering and it seemed as if I think from his perspective he was losing control and approved successful form politically and so he kept playing that game I think he does have genuine concerns about not just NATO expansion but also missile defense our unilateral pullout of the ABM Treaty our decision to first go into Iraq I think he views our decision internationally to work with a coalition to go into Libya all as examples of the u.s. throwing its weight around in ways that are contrary to Russian interests and some of those you know I think he can make a rational argument I disagree with them but I actually think that the situation in Ukraine caught him by surprise they this wasn't some grand strategy what what happened was that his crony Yanukovych was so corrupt and had made promises to sign a European agreement then had to go back on it suddenly you've got these protests in Ukraine people saying look at Poland we were at the same place as they were 20 years ago and now suddenly they've shot up into a genuinely prosperous European country and we're still stuck with this kleptocracy and who I actually spoke to Putin and tried to broker an agreement that would quell the violence allow Yanukovych to play out his term but would devolve power to the Rada and Yanukovych took off because what he realized was well if suddenly the Parliament has more power they may start looking into the stuff that I've been doing and Putin I think caught flat-footed on that improvised in himself into Crimea and now what you've seen is a smaller and smaller circle around him fierce Russian nationalists suddenly having his ear the escalation of Russian state media cranking up this you know you know jingoism and and I'm not sure that you know this was all planned but he now finds himself in a place where his poll numbers very high he's got he's stirred Russians into a frenzy the majority of them actually believed that the Ukrainians for example shot down the Malaysian Airlines plane and so finding an off-ramp for him becomes more challenging having said that I think it is still possible for us because of the effective organization that we've done with Ukraine with the Europeans around Ukraine and the genuine bite that the sanctions have had on the Russian economy for us to arrive at a fair accommodation in which Ukrainian sovereignty and independence is still recognized but there is also recognition that Ukraine does have historic ties to Russia the majority of their trade goes to Russia a huge portion of the population are russian-speaking and so they're not going to be severed from Russia and if we do that a deal is possible ideas should be pacient but you know one of the things that I have discovered during the course of my presidency is just because something makes sense doesn't mean actually happens that's true domestically and in in in foreign policy and so I think we are a dangerous time in part because the position of the separatists has weakened I think Putin does not want to lose face and so the window for arriving of that compromise continues he could invade and he could invade and and if he does that will I think set us on a course not to a new Cold War but trying to find our way back to a cooperative functioning relationship with Russia during the remainder my term will be much more difficult what's the biggest thing you've learned - in foreign policy um Yara Chiron once said there were things I could see from here that I couldn't see from there when I became prime minister yeah what's the biggest takeaway for you well I there are a couple of things I think that what we've done well and what I push my net team now to build on is recognizing not just problems but also opportunities the Africa summit that we just had didn't get a lot of coverage here was dominated by the Ebola scare but we had 50 countries show up and wasn't a lot of posturing wasn't a lot of stock speeches you had a continent that 20 years ago was perceived as falling off a cliff that now has six of the 10 fastest-growing economies because of the work that not just my administration but the Bush administration Clinton administration have done along with our international partners and and the countries themselves they have drastically cut hiv/aids drastically cut tuberculosis and malaria you are seeing a growing middle class when you travel around Africa the interest not in aid but in markets and reform and private-sector investment is is remarkable and you know what we now are are seeing is that we are as well positioned as any country including China which has made a lot of investments primarily because they want to get natural resources out of Africa we are positioned better than anybody to really partner with a young vibrant continent that has huge geopolitical implications the same with our pivot to Asia a lot of people have questioned well what does this really mean concretely is this just for show but the truth of matters we've been showing up in Asia in a way that we hadn't done for a decade and now our alliances with traditional allies like Japan Korea the Philippines Thailand molasses have never been stronger we have a deeper relationship with the ASEAN countries in Southeast Asia than we ever have before they are wanting us to be in there much more heavily than than before and as a consequence there are great commercial opportunities as well as you know strategic possibilities there that didn't exist same is true in Latin America where you remember when I came into office yet shabbos the thinking was that that was the future of Latin America that's all been pushed aside and it's now countries like Chile and Peru and even a country like Colombia that had so many problems that is now on the move and they want relationships with us so I guess the point is that we've been looking at opportunities even as we're trying to manage problems I have learned however that and this is just a lesson that I think American presidents have to learn over and over and over again is that when we intervene militarily there are unintended consequences sometimes it's necessary for us to do it but we have to think those consequences through I'll give you an example of a lesson I had to learn that still has you know ramifications to this day and that is our participation in the coalition that overthrew Gaddafi in Libya I absolutely believe that it was the right thing to do when people say look at the chaos shoulda let Qaddafi's stay there they forget that the Arab Spring had come full force to Libya and had we not intervened it's likely that Libya would be Syria right because Gaddafi was not gonna be able to contain what had been unleashed there and so there'd be more debt more disruption more destruction but what is also true is is that I think we underestimated our European partners underestimated the need to come in full force if you're going to do this then it's the day after Gaddafi's gone when everybody's feeling good and everybody's holding up posters saying thank you America at that moment there has to be a much more aggressive effort to rebuild societies that didn't have any Civic traditions right you've had a despot for 40 years in place there are no traditions there to build on unlike Tunisia where there was a civil society and that's why they've been more successful in transitioning so so that's a lesson that I now apply every time I ask the question should we intervene militarily do we have an answer the day after he's had boots on the ground or is that that's a that's I think across the board I mean they're going to be certain discreet moments where you say this is going to be cleaned and we can get something done but on a big project that involves a society and complete turmoil you know we have an obligation to think it through the last thing I've learned and I suspect we're running out of time so so you know I want to I want to make sure I get this in is how you know we as Americans have I think a valuable trade which is a self debt and so every so often we wonder are we in decline you know what's happening to American leadership we're being overtaken by somebody whether it's the Russians or the Japanese or Chinese you go around the world things don't run unless we're there you go to a multilateral forum we set the agenda you look at any particular project on health on education on energy you name it everybody's looking to us in terms of okay how how should we make this work sometimes people resent it sometimes folks will resist it because of their own self-interest but the the thing that I'd like Americans to recognize to understand is that we have the best cards and if you look at where we were when I came into office and where we are now not only is have we seen improvement on every economic index but there there are key shifts and for example energy that are game changers they weren't the only major power in the world that other than Russia but I economically Russia I don't consider a major power but we're the only ones who genuinely are about as close to energy independent as you can be for an economy of our size and wealth what we've done on clean energy where you're starting to we've we've increased wind power by threefold solar power tenfold means that we have the opportunity to to lead in places that every country envies our ability to train people at our universities and our community colleges is still unparalleled our immigration system if it would get fixed remains an envy of the world because we still attract the best in the brightest eye when people tell me that we have to worry about Russia I try to remind them long-term nobody's trying to immigrate to Moscow nobody thinks that's the place of opportunity where you know if I've got a good idea I'm going to be able to get some make something happen they want to go to Silicon Valley they want to go to you know one of our leading universities to do their research in to get things going and and so the the biggest impediment to American leadership is not external we are the strongest military with the most dynamic economy we that the what what is going to be the measure of success in the 21st century is all our stuff it's all knowledge it's all innovation it's all openness it's all ability to to blend cultures this is all our thing it's empowering individuals the thing that's going to hold us back is going to be us and and if if we make good decisions then we will continue to be not only the dominant power but a benevolent force around the world are we making good decisions Oaks I feel when I look at Washington from abroad yeah I I look it feels like we kick around this country like it's a football and it's not a football it's actually a Faberge egg I mean you can we can drop it we can break it I mean enough dysfunction on all these core issues that you've talked about and that's what I worry about because I feel so many times we're saying to the world do as we say not as we do it not like we used to yeah I would distinguish between American society and American politics hmm men truth is that countries should continue to do as we do in looking at our private sector operates in many ways our universities operate how our communities and our nonprofits operate we still set a pretty darn good example yeah you think for all our problems how the American people responded after 9/11 and I give someone like President Bush enormous credit for this there wasn't suddenly this huge surge of anti-muslim sentiment in this country you know there were problems sporadically but overwhelmingly people had you know what those are Americans and and our tradition is we don't make distinctions like that so so the health of American society I don't worry about too much you know I worry about sometimes our eating habits that you're watching too much TV man overall I think we're in pretty good place our politics are dysfunctional and and something that I said earlier is serves as a warning to us and that is societies don't work if political factions take maximals positions and the more diverse of the country is the less it can afford to take maxilla positions one of the great benefits of America has been that we're not ideological we're not utopian we're visionary we're optimistic but we're also practical you Vic terno vanquished at the end of the day is how we got here and and and what you've seen in terms of our politics partly because of gerrymandering partly because of the balkanization of media so people just watch what reinforces their deepest biases now partly because of big money in politics is increasingly politicians are 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 things we need to move forward on we need to reform our immigration system that would be good not just for our domestic economy but for our position in the world you travel around latin america nothing would more reinforce an admiration for the united states than us doing that you know we need to rebuild our infrastructure you go to the Singapore Airport and then you come back to one of our airports and you say huh you know we're not acting like a superpower like going from the Jetsons to the Flintstones exactement you know you we need to revamp our education system K through 12 in particular and you know you look at what Finland's doing with its kids and you look at what we're doing with our kids and you say you know we're falling short and all these things are doable and and our fiscal position actually now is such you know deficits been cut by more than half where we're in a position to make some smart investments that have huge payoffs that historically have not have not been controversial historically have garnered bipartisan support but because of this maximalist ideological position we've been blocked and I have to say here you know I've been speaking in generalities and try not to be too political but that that ideological extremism and maximalist position is much more prominent right now in the Republican Party than the Democrats Democrats have problems but overall if you look at the Democratic consensus it's a pretty common sense mainstream consensus it's it's not a lot of wacky ideological nonsense and by the way it generally is fact-based and reason based via we were not denying science we're not denying climate change we're not pretending that somehow you know having a whole bunch of uninsured people is the American Way I mean we're doing things that are pretty sensible and I'm optimistic that these things go in cycles and that the Republican Party eventually will free itself from the grip of this kind of extremist ideology but it's a it's necessary to happen so mr. president before we leave I want to talk later on for a second because if there's a game-changer in the Middle East it seems to me if we could somehow in the iran-us cold war that is so distorted the region but that requires the Iranian leadership it seems to me too forgo a policy that says our hostility to America is just central to our ability to rule here in the negotiations in in Vienna are you see any hope do you have any hope that these could actually produce the kind of Accord that maybe could open other avenues of collaboration there's no doubt the opportunity is there whether we can get it done you know I'd still put it a little less than 50/50 but the logic of it is compelling but we're a very different society than Iran I think the Supreme Leader of Iran has a different worldview it's fair to say than I do the state sponsorship by Iran 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 getting a nuclear deal done where they give up the pursuit of nuclear weapons but still have some capacity for nuclear power which is what they say they want the supreme leader himself is forsworn ever developing nuclear weapons well 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 suddenly their economy opens up and they're a big sophisticated country with a lot of talent you and the degree to which they could then grow and naturally assume leadership in the region alongside other countries rather than depend on trying to undermine under countries for leadership if I'm a run I'd be a lot more confident and look around and say to myself you know what in this neighborhood we could have the strongest economy we could have the best innovation and we don't need nuclear weapons we'd be better off we if we can open this thing up and there's more trade and commerce and exchange of ideas all that now that the problem is obviously that that that threatens certain interests inside of Iran so the reason that this may not happen is if the IRGC or certain mullahs inside of Iran say you start opening things up and suddenly our grip on power weakens and new ideas come in and so maybe we don't want that you know that may prevent us from getting a deal done on our side I think it's important to recognize that the kind of deal were structuring involves having absolute verification that they cannot develop breakout capacity and if we're able to attain that without resort to military force that's greatly preferable the only way you can really prevent a country from getting nuclear weapons ultimately is because they decide not to do it in today's you know knowledge the knowledge is there and the resources of even a country is dysfunctional in poor's North Korea let's put it this 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 we can we can take military action that slows that effort but our best bet is to actually get an agreement and by the way that's usually in our interest particularly in this environment because we don't want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that's dangerous and the proliferation dangers are obviously clear so so what we've got to do is is to find a formula in which Iran not only has a modest enrichment capacity to serve peaceful domestic purposes that we can verify doesn't provide them with breakout capacity and that is scaled over time so that the sanctions don't all immediately drop off but step by step as we gain more confidence they gain more confidence as well it's there to be had whether ultimately Iran can seize that opportunity you know what we'll have to wait and see but it's not for lack of trying on our part you know is that listen to you last night you know everyone's saying what what's President Obama going to do what's Obama going to do you know China today is the biggest energy investor in Iraq at some point I mean do you say to them or want to say to them you know it's time you become a stakeholder in this system I mean not a long line I do say I do say that to them and and and they do that they are Free Riders and then they've been Free Riders for the last 30 years and it's worked really well for them yeah and and I've joked sometimes when my inbox starts stacking up I said can't we be a little more like China nobody ever seems to expect them to do anything yeah when this stuff comes up but it's for that same the same reason that I think people look to America in ways they don't look to China they recognize that yeah in the annals of human history it's been pretty rare for a superpower - yes act in its own self-interest yes occasionally make mistakes yes you know think in in terms of what's in it for us but also more often than any time in human history a big superpower saying you know what's what's in it for everybody how does this help other people how are we will how should we act in a way that is reflective of our values and yeah that's not how the Chinese operate now that's a disadvantage for us in many ways but it's also an advantage and it's the reason why we're exceptional and well I'm glad I'm the president United States of America thank you so much for your time is to give that to really appreciate enjoy to really enjoy - thank you thank you yeah great alright really good thank you guys

Channel: The New York Times

Views: 255,139

Rating: 4.5542521 out of 5

Keywords: Barack Obama (US President), Israel (Country), Palestinian People (Ethnicity), Gaza City (City/Town/Village), China, Libyan Civil War (Military Conflict), Libya, United States Of America (Country), Politics, Iraq War (Military Conflict), Iraq (Country), The New York Times, NY Times, NYT, Times Video, nytimes.com, news, newspaper, feature, reporting, palestine, gaza strip, foreign policy, arab spring, asia, indonesia, latin america, central america, middle east, africa, russia

Id: nnRNszsza_8

Length: 59min 42sec (3582 seconds)

Published: Sun Aug 10 2014

Reddit Comments

[u/vigorous]

That was then.

This is now: Ukraine is a ‘Failed US Project, a Battlefield With No Solution’ - Firtash

Maria Zakharova said today Russia suspects the US is holding back evidence on MH17.

We strongly suspect that Washington knows who downed the MH17 flight but won’t reveal the truth.

[u/vigorous]

"I don't want to be Iraq's air force..."

Unfortunately, this overly frank interview given to Friedman has been and will inevitably be taken as an admission of US employment of IS as a tool.

I do not think it is that. IMO it is an admission of Obama's tendency to overthink things and to listen too much to what he recently described to Goldberg as the "foreign policy establishment" (the Borg)

• W Patrick Lang