Tomorrow, many world leaders will travel to Washington D.C. to attend the first Board of Peace gathering. Traditional American allies, such as the U.K. and France, have declined to participate because the Board’s goals, funding sources, and implementation strategies remain unclear. Unsurprisingly, Trump has appointed himself as Chairman for life.
Steven Cook, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, joins Jen to voice his reservations on the possibility that the Board of Peace will bring about any good. The two also discuss the U.S.’s military posturing against Iran and Marco Rubio’s role in that mess.
Steven Cook is a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations specializing in Middle East and Africa studies. He is an expert on Arab and Turkish politics as well as U.S.-Middle East policy. Dr. Cook is the author of multiple books.
The following transcript has been edited for formatting
Jen Rubin
Hi, this is Jen Rubin, Editor-in-Chief of the Contrarian, and we’re delighted to have back Steven Cook from the Council on Foreign Relations. Welcome, Steve!
Steven Cook
It’s great to be back with you, Jen.
Jen Rubin
It is good to see you. What is going on with Iran? We got a lot of boats headed that way, and there’s a lot of saber-rattling. What is Trump up to, do we know?
Steven Cook
Yeah, this is the largest deployment of American force to the region since the U.S. invasion of Iraq. We don’t have 140,000 soldiers there, but in terms of ships and planes and tankers and all the things that support all these ships and planes, it is the biggest deployment since 2002-2003, which is extraordinary. And then, of course, alongside of this deployment, you have negotiations going on, or at least there were negotiations in Geneva, in which the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner. And, his envoy to everything, Steve Witkoff, engaged in indirect negotiations with the Iranians through the Omanis. That meeting lasted about 3 hours, and the Iranians came out of it saying, we’ve agreed in principle on everything, and the scope of our negotiations. And the United States said, there’s been progress. It’s been tough, and we’ll continue the negotiation, but nobody knows when those negotiations are gonna take place.
And no one really knows what the scope is, and that, I think, is really important coming out of this, because there’s been two different ideas about what the scope is. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said the scope of negotiations will be Iran’s nuclear program, which, by the way, on the night of June 22nd, 2025, the president said was completely, or totally obliterated, was the words, Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and support for proxies. That’s what the Secretary of State has said. A number of weeks ago, the President said, well, a nuclear-only agreement would be acceptable. And then he went back on that and said, no, no, no, no, no, no, and then everybody’s very unclear. So now we’ve had this negotiation. We’ve agreed on principles and scope. Well, which is it? Is it just on nuclear? Is it on ballistic? Is it on proxies as well?
What we do know is that the Supreme Leader has said “We’re never gonna capitulate, we’re not giving up our ballistic missiles.” The negotiators have said, we’re not gonna ever stop enrichment, although we’ll… we can figure out some workarounds here. So no one knows what this progress is, and no one knows what the scope is. Meanwhile. the USS Gerald R4, the biggest, most expensive, most advanced aircraft carrier in the United States, is steaming from the Caribbean to the Middle East. I don’t know how long those things take, but by that time, there’s a lot of firepower in the region, and I think a lot of military experts are saying. You can’t have all that force in the region for in perpetuity. So you either have to use it, or you have to move it, and, I mean, there are other areas of responsibility, there’s other things that are going on in the world, so… But it’s… very unclear. Are these negotiations a feint? It’s very hard to tell.
Jen Rubin
I don’t quite understand what military force is designed to accomplish here. Because we don’t have troops on the ground. Does he think we’re going to bomb Iran into regime change? Does he think we’re going to obliterate, again, the nuclear program? What is the goal, if any, of any kind of military strike?
Steven Cook
Yeah, it’s been very, very interesting. There’s been waves of diplomats from the region coming into Washington, and they’ve been having, you know, meetings, and then they’ll have private meetings with folks like me, and they’ll say. We don’t actually know what the objective is here. And remember, this all started when the Iranian regime cracked down on protesters and killed thousands upon thousands of them, and the president said. he laid down a red line and said, don’t kill protesters, otherwise we’re gonna kill you. And then suddenly this morphed into maybe a nuclear-only negotiation, or nuclear-plus negotiation.
Which strikes me that, one, it suggests, one, the president doesn’t really have an objective. Two, never really had any intention of supporting protesters. And three, runs the risk of getting sucked into a long-term negotiation with the Iranians while they reconstitute their air defenses, ballistic missiles, and so on and so forth, which is gonna set the Israelis off. Up until this point, the Israelis have been saying, look, this is an American show, obviously we’re gonna play some sort of supporting role here, obviously we’re gonna participate if they choose to attack, but… if the Iranians and the United States get involved in this protracted negotiations, which is what I think the Iranian strategy is. All bets are off on Israeli restraint here, because they’re watching the Iranians rebuild their ballistic missile program, at least according to them.
Jen Rubin
And do we know anything about Bibi’s visit to the United States? What was discussed? What he wanted? Was he concerned there might be a deal? Was he concerned there might not be a deal?
Steven Cook
I think Netanyahu moved up his trip, a planned trip, which was supposed to be this week for the Board of Peace meeting. He moved it up a week because the Israelis’ antennas went up when the president said a nuclear-only agreement would be acceptable. And actually, the Israelis are much more relaxed about Iran’s nuclear program as a result of the 12-day war in June, and are much more worried about Iran’s ballistic missile program. Israeli air defenses were 90% effective. But they don’t have as many interceptors as they had in June, and the Iranians continue to have a fairly significant stockpile of ballistic missiles.
When I was in Israel, I saw some of the damage that these ballistic missiles did. It is significant. This is not like rocket fire from Gaza, which is also… frightening and can do a lot of damage, but a ballistic missile slamming into the side of a building is… does a lot, a lot of damage. Big craters, and so on and so forth. So… I think what Netanyahu came away with was the president is intent on negotiating, what… ended up in the Israeli press, which wasn’t as covered as closely here, was that the president seemed to indicate that they were going to apply you know, use all of America’s economic instruments to crush the Iranian economy as a way to sort of spark further uprising to bring the regime down.
I think there’s a genuine agreement that the Iranian regime is weak. I’m not sure that there’s agreement how weak it is, but that it’s clearly vulnerable economically, which is what the beginnings of the protests in December were about. massive inflation and so on and so forth. So, that seems to be, if there’s a kernel of a strategy here, the president’s gonna negotiate, put a lot of force as a way to rattle the cages of the Iranians while using economic instruments to further crash the Iranian economy. Maybe that’s the strategy? Maybe it’s not. Who knows? Who knows? You took the words right out of my mouth.
Jen Rubin
One two things about using force against Iran. One, the normal response that we would expect is that they would launch those very ballistic missiles at Israel to do more damage. So, do we have a game plan if that happens? And the second is that there would be a rally around the flag. After all of this dissension, all of these protests, would the Iranian people see this as the great Satan now attacking their country, and in fact, bolster the regime?
Steven Cook
On the first part. Certainly the Iranians, they’ve been very, very clear. If they’re attacked, they’re gonna launch on Tel Aviv. I think that’s one of the reasons why the Gerald Ford is headed to the region, is that Israel doesn’t have enough… it’s working hard to manufacture interceptors, but it doesn’t have enough, and that the Gerald R. Ford and other ships are in the area in order to provide air defense. Not necessarily participate in operations against Iran, which they may, but these ships have these capabilities that can augment Israel’s robust, but somewhat depleted capabilities at the same time.
So I think that’s what part of this is all about. It’s very, very hard to know what the Iranian people and people in the streets are thinking. I think that they… very much, I think there was a tremendous response to the president saying, help is on the way, and then it never came. I think that it’s clear that a significant part of the Iranian population does not like this regime and would like it to go away. and I think at least the Iranian oppositions that I know are concerned that this negotiation is real, and that it lends a lifeline to a terrible regime that’s killed tens of thousands of people.
But it’s, you know, after the 12-Day War, there was this idea of a rally around the flag, at least people thought that that was the case. People don’t like to be bombed. We don’t know enough about the Iranian population whether they—Like do not like being bombed more than they don’t like the regime or not? I mean, what a terrible choice, right?
We’d like to think they don’t like to be… they don’t like the regime more than they would like military, because it would be neat and clean for the United States, and it might solve some problems for the United States. In the process, might. Again, we just don’t know enough, and I think anybody in Washington or elsewhere who is certain about any of these things is not being intellectually honest. And that’s the problem that I have with a lot of this. There’s so much certainty when it’s really just certainty based on speculation and someone’s own bias.
Jen Rubin
Exactly. And this is the perennial problem that multiple presidents of both parties have had. Barack Obama had this problem when there was… Right. rumblings of a kind of a revolution. Do you want to actually strike? Is that going to discredit the opposition? So these are perennial problems, and in truth, we, as you say, we don’t have great insight, and we don’t have polling data. What I would say is, is that… Iranian people.
Steven Cook
What I would say, I didn’t mean to interrupt, is that the regime has already sought to discredit protesters without an American strike, right? It said, you know, it was Mossad agents, and the United States, and all of this stuff. It seems to me no one really believes that, so the fact that the Israelis have been so successful in penetrating all these aspects of Iranian society would suggest this regime is very, very unpopular. But what military, you know, what American military might could do… I think it’s risky. It may be, in the end, worth the risk, but the military force is one big hammer, and it doesn’t solve everything. That’s the problem.
Jen Rubin
Exactly. Now, my favorite Trump scam, and I say favorite as in the worst scam, is, of course, the Board of Peace, where people had to ante up to Trump, to get on this phony baloney board, but they’re actually meeting. What are they gonna talk about? What is this all about? And what are they gonna do?
Steven Cook
These are all these folks who’ve signed on for the Board of Peace. You’ve got, you know, you’ve got, kind of the Hungarians and other kind of Central and Eastern European leaders who are aligned with Trump. You’ve got Arab participation. What you noticeably don’t have is our traditional allies in Europe. The Turks will be there, the Israelis will be represented by the foreign minister. And so, it’s being dressed up as some, you know, board of peace, and the president is the chairman of the Board of Peace in perpetuity, and it’s allegedly something that’s gonna outmaneuver the UN Security Council, which is broken, and so on and so forth.
But I think it’s just a run-of-the-mill donor conference on Gaza. Which, like many other donor conferences on Gaza before, will produce headline-grabbing announcements of billions of dollars being donated, and even probably an announcement of troop commitments to the International Stabilization Force, that None of that will actually really happen. One, it won’t happen because Israel occupies 53% of the Gaza Strip. Hamas is in control of the other. 47% is holding onto its weapons and vowing to continue to have a political role in Gaza. Under all of those conditions. No one is gonna wanna donate a dime. to Gaza.
So, and then the international stabilization, there’s a whole host of questions about what its role will be, would it actually disarm Hamas, will Hamas… you know, we have American partners, like the Qataris, the Turks, and the Egyptians, sort of litigating this question of Hamas disarmament, and what’s acceptable to the Israelis, what’s not. And so the whole thing is a mess. What we can be assured of. Is that at the end of the meeting.
Everybody will say wonderful things about the president. There will be, as I said, headline-grabbing announcements, no other president could have possibly done this in the history of anything, and everybody’s gonna go away, and the outcome is gonna be exactly the same as the donor conference in 2014, and donor conferences in 2012, and other donor conferences.
Jen Rubin
To be clear, I seem to remember a 20-point plan, a 21-point plan that was going to bring permanent peace, and in fact, what happened was exactly what you and I had talked about, which is nothing. After the return of the final hostages and the hostage bodies, essentially nothing has changed, because they’re back to the same square one, which is Hamas is not gonna go away. Israel and other countries are not gonna invest so long as they are there. So, has anything really changed since the end of the act of fighting?
Steven Cook
No, I mean, you have, as I said, the Israelis on the yellow line, which is 53% of Gaza, which, you know, to the Israeli right-wing, is great, because it is a step towards the reoccupation of Gaza, and for the rest of the Israeli public, it is a forward line of defense that they can live with. Hamas is, again, armed, and the most important player in, that part of the remaining 47% of Gaza. I know that Jared Kushner at Davos unveiled this, you know, slideshow of what—but it’s not that different from the Gaza-Largo AI-generated video when the president announced that in February. So we are at a status quo.
There is a 20-point plan, it was 21, it became 20. And it requires Hamas to disarm, it requires, them to not have a rolling governance, it requires reform of the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinian Authority to become involved in Gaza, which the Israelis don’t want. And a cessation of hostilities, and there’s still a lot of fighting that goes on in Gaza these days.
I mean, the moment of high-intensity combat has passed, although the Israelis say they’re planning for a new offensive in Gaza because they’re saying there’s a 20-point plan, and Hamas needs to be disarmed, and no one else is going to do it other than the IDF. That may be a feint. a way to pressure Hamas. It’s also election season in Israel. But… I would not rule it out completely. So, not a lot has changed other than the fact that there… Gaza is in rubble. Israelis occupy part of it, people have been displaced and killed, and there’s been no real progress, despite all of the headlines about a board of peace. I mean, I don’t know why people take this seriously.
Jen Rubin
I know. I think it’s, you know, an easy headline, and this is the kind of thing that Trump does. It’s all for show. But I think what you said is absolutely critical. The life of those people who are still in Gaza is miserable. Terrible. They have not rebuilt. They have a daily struggle to survive, they are living in rubble. And those scenes of kids not getting enough food to eat, of society grinding to a halt, that’s still the situation.
Steven Cook
People are getting the necessary calories, there’s more aid that’s going in, but there’s still terrible bottlenecks for aid, and there’s no reconstruction. Hamas is intimidating the population, taxing the population, the Israelis are, in no mood to be generous here in terms of more aid than is absolutely necessary. Right. There’s still the craziness over dual use. So, it is… if you are a Gazan. your life is miserable. Kids are gonna lose years and years of schooling. This is a terrible, terrible situation, and this Board of Peace thing it is, again, it’s not even a great idea, right? It would be one thing it was a great idea, but it doesn’t even remotely address or challenge it, to connect to what’s going on in Gaza. Right.
Jen Rubin
Exactly, exactly. And meanwhile, there are going to be elections in Israel this year, maybe earlier, maybe at least in the fall there will be. And we… every… faction is once again positioning. Netanyahu is still very dependent upon not only the secular far right, but more importantly, the religious, right, which has other interests, including this ongoing issue of exemption from the draft. So, you know, not much changes around and around and around you go.
Steven Cook
I’m gonna lay it on you, you can hold me to account. I think it’s a better than 50-50 chance that the next Prime Minister of Israel is named Netanyahu.
Jen Rubin
Wow, wow. And there are lots of hopes, even on the center or center-left, that it might be Naftali Bennett, because he is perceived as someone more reasonable. But right now.
Steven Cook
Tone is better than the Senate. Same worldview. Actually, he has a worldview. Netanyahu’s worldview is stay in power and no worldview, but the latest thing out of Israel is that Bennett may throw his lot in with Netanyahu.
Jen Rubin
Yes, yes, and that would be… Like, I turn around. So, if you’ve seen this movie before, you’ve seen this.
Steven Cook
Stay tuned, buckle up, it’s gonna be bumpy.
Jen Rubin
Exactly. Final topic for us, the Munich Conference. We had a number of Americans who go, as usual. Marco Rubio spoke, someone described it as a Rorschach test, that if you wanted to hear good things about him talking about a common culture, whatever that means, you heard it, but Nothing’s changed. First of all, Marco Rubio, let’s face it, does not control foreign policy of the United States. It’s Trump. It’s Trump’s world, Drew. And I didn’t hear anything about reconstituting a vibrant NATO. I didn’t hear anything about one for all and all for one. I didn’t hear anything about Ukraine. Was Ukraine even mentioned in that speech? I may have missed it, but…
Steven Cook
Rubio skipped the meeting of European allies on Ukraine, but he did meet with Zelensky.
Jen Rubin
Alright, fair enough, fair enough.
Steven Cook
Wait. Okay, can we just start out for a second and say. Munich in February? Like, why do people run off to these kinds of things? I mean, at least in Davos, which I hear is awful in the accommodation travel, at least you could ski! I mean, but Munich in February seems awful to me.
Jen Rubin
Yep.
Steven Cook
Yes, I think we were talking about this. Look, I think Rubio’s speech was a sweeter tone, but basically the same substance at J.D. Vance’s finger-wagging at the Europeans last year. Which was basically, you know, get with the program, your multicultural experiments have failed, nationalism is the way to go, spend more on defense, this is… we’re part of Christian civilization, and that’s basically when you read what Rubio actually said, that’s basically what was in the speech, but like I said, delivered, you know, you catch more bees with honey, and I guess he was… there was more honey here.
Here’s the problem with Rubio giving a speech. Here’s the problem with the vice president giving a speech. Here’s the problem with everybody like me who is trying to build some sort of intellectual framework for Trumpism. There isn’t one. For 10 years…. For 10 years, he’s been telling people that he listens to his gut, and his gut alone. And that’s it, and we should take that at face value. And I think the history of his first term, and the first year, and a little bit of his second term would suggest that’s exactly right.
Let’s go back to what we were talking about before. 12, Israel, Iran, 12-day war. The president did not get on board with this. Until it was clear that the Israelis had demonstrated a technological and superiority over the Iranians, and we’re clearly gonna win this thing. He wasn’t on board with it. The whole idea that the Israelis said, oh, we were coordinating the whole time is, I think, nonsense. And so, it’s basically gut-driven. So one day he’s down with Zelensky, the next day he’s down with Putin, he’s just looking for the leverage, and there’s no framework here, so… Maybe that’s what J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio believe, is appealing to… the Republican base, when they run for president. in 2028, but it doesn’t really reflect the president’s thinking at all.
Jen Rubin
Exactly, and the president’s thinking is not linear, to put it, gently. Yeah, is that… is that fair enough?
Steven Cook
I liked it. I’m gonna use that.
Jen Rubin
Yeah, but one thing we do know, and that is that the United States, as a leader of the free world, as a defender of a rules-based order, as someone who—as a player who protects international organizations and national sovereignty, that is not in operation now. And the chances of reviving that in a new president are… It’s a jump ball, because first of all, the rest of the world may not believe us, even if we say it, and secondly, who knows who’s going to be president next? And, it’s hard to put the genie back on the bottom.
Steven Cook
I mean, what do they say? It’s easy to destroy stuff, it’s much harder to build. So let’s assume that we have a president, a next president, who is of goodwill and wants, maybe not the old order, but, you know, rebuild some of these institutions, the ones that worked, and so on and so forth. It would be well beyond their presidency, even if they’re two-term presidents. I mean, we’re talking a generational effort in which we would have to agree, and what do we agree on? But we would have to agree that some of these institutions and regimes were helpful, or some reform version of them, or some reform effort at international norms and principles and so on and so forth. It’s gonna take a very, very long time to rebuild those things, if it even happens.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely, and I will leave you with this, my friends. The solution to that, as with so many other domestic issues, is Until you have a normal, pro-democratic second party, none of that is going to be possible. Because so long as you have one party that believes in democracy, and some kind of international world order, and another that doesn’t. you’re nowhere, because the rest of the world does not know which way we’re going. So, if you think the Republican Party is on the verge of a renaissance and recovery. I’ll have what you’re having. But, not… not quite yet.
Steven Cook
Someone who studies authoritarian political systems, and ones that have regressed, it’s just an objective observation that you need to have the parties that are committed to the principles and ideals of democracy, not what’s written in a Constitution, and increasingly that has eroded here in the United States.
Jen Rubin
Absolutely. Steve, it’s always a pleasure. Take care, and I guess we’ll find out what happens at that, big donor conference.
Steven Cook
And you gotta hold me accountable on the Israeli election thing.
Jen Rubin
There we go!
