[00:00] John, before you join the CIA, you knew how the game works. You knew how dangerous it was and actually how countries play. You had a family as well. What made you put everything on the line? I had just finished a tour in Athens where I was the subject of an assassination attempt. When I first arrived in Pakistan, I declined the gun cuz I was afraid that I would just kill somebody. When Bill Clinton was elected, we were told every recruited asset who had a problem with human rights was to be
[00:30] fired. And they went through and fired fully 1/3 of all of the recruited assets in the CIA. If you want to know what the communists are doing, you're going to recruit members of the right-wing death squads. Sometimes members of those death squads kill Catholic nuns or massacre villages. All of that changed on September 11th and it went back to what it was during the battle days. >> John, before you join the CIA, you knew how the game works. You knew how dangerous it was and actually how
[01:00] countries play. You had a family as well. What made you put everything on the line? Well, I'm not sure I can give you a direct answer. When when I was 9 years old, I told my parents that I wanted to be a spy when I grew up. And they humored me by buying me, you know, walkie-talkies that kids get when they're little and disappearing ink, you know, and things like that. But when I was 16, I told my father that I wanted to be a spy in the Middle East specifically. And then I went to school to study Middle Eastern
[01:31] uh Middle Eastern studies. Islam, oil, things like that. So, I I don't really know if it was one specific thing that made me want to do this. I never really thought about the danger. Even though before I went to the CIA, I met casually with people who were in the CIA to talk about what they did and what different components of the agency did. The The danger never really registered
[02:02] with me until 9/11. For me, it was all, you know, fun and games for the most part. >> But even still, you you had a family at the time, right? Yes. But just the sheer fact of joining the CIA and working either A as a spy or in counterterrorism units comes with inherent danger. Yes. I mean, did that ever cross your mind? No, because, you know, when you're in your 20s or 30s, you think that you're indestructible. And uh and and looking back, I did think
[02:33] I was indestructible. I remember when I got back from Pakistan, my mother asked me if I was afraid, and I said, "No." Now that I think about it, no. She said, "Really? Why?" And I said, "Because I was so busy that it just never occurred to me to be afraid." You know? And and I wasn't armed for the most part in in Pakistan. I had just finished a tour in Athens, where I was the where I was the subject of a of an assassination attempt. And I
[03:04] was still a little rattled PTSD-wise from my tour in Athens. And I declined the the gun when I first arrived in Pakistan because I was afraid that I would just kill somebody. And so um I thought just better to not have a gun because everybody around me was armed. So, if there's going to be a shootout, well, you know, I'm going to just hope for the best and hope that my colleagues can take care of me. When we went out for the Abbottabad raids, of course, I I was armed, but it took me a couple of
[03:35] months to ease into that. >> Isn't that part of the job? Yeah, it is part of the job. And I remember a colleague of mine kind of tapping me on the chest and saying, "Come on, let's go." And then he said, "Hey, you where's your bulletproof vest?" And I said, "Oh, I I didn't put it on. I said, I hate the way it it feels and I said, it's 100° outside and it's going to make me sweat and be dehydrated. I just hate it. And he's like, are you crazy? And I said, but I don't have a gun on me
[04:05] either. So, I don't know. Like I say, you're just kind of counting on your colleagues to cover you for the for the evening. And what did you think you were joining when you first joined? I mean, what were your motivations? They must have been some preconceived ideas that you had. Sure, but I but I felt very confident that this was not the CIA of the 1960s and early 1970s. So, when I when I joined, before I joined,
[04:35] I had dinner one night with the the boyfriend of a school uh fellow student in graduate school. And her boyfriend was working had worked for the agency for three or four years and he knew I was pretty advanced in the hiring process and so we got together for dinner, the three of us. And I was asking him, you know, well, what about MK Ultra? What about, you know, assassinations? What And and
[05:07] he said, all of that has changed since 1975. All of it has changed. We we seriously don't do that anymore. And he was telling me the truth. That truth lasted from 1975, well, legally until September 11th, but it started to decline under William Casey in the 1980s during the Reagan administration, you know, Iran-Contra, for example. Uh and uh and uh cocaine
[05:39] uh that ended up in Los Angeles. So, it began to change, but but when when Bill Clinton was elected, Uh we were told within the first day or two of the Clinton administration that we were going to respect human rights and that every recruited asset who had a problem with human rights was to be fired. And they went through and fired fully 1/3 of all of the recruited assets in the CIA. And I remember saying to a
[06:10] colleague, "Wow, Clinton is serious about this. This really is a different CIA." But again, all of that changed on September 11th and it went back to what it was during the battle days. Why do you think 1/3 were fired? I mean, when you go through the recruitment process at the CIA, you're vetted thoroughly. They look at every piece of your background. And also, I'm assuming do tons of psychological tests and beliefs and lie detectors and so on and so forth.
[06:43] Why do you think that 1/3 of the CIA was had those beliefs? >> Well, no, it wasn't 1/3 of the CIA. It was 1/3 of the assets recruited by the CIA to be informants. So, listen, if you want to if you want to know what, you know, the communists are doing in the jungles of Colombia, you're going to recruit members of the right-wing death squads that are going after the the rebels in Colombia. And so, sometimes members of those death squads kill
[07:13] Catholic nuns or massacre villages. John McCain once said, "Never get into a fight with a pig because you both get dirty, but the pig likes it." And that was the situation that we were in. So, the Clinton people came in and said, "No more close relationships like this with death squads, whether it was in Colombia or El Salvador or Guatemala or whatever." You know, if we had recruited somebody, for example like like Manuel Noriega
[07:44] that was going around killing communists. That was the end of the relationship. Coming back to your CIA um recruitment. I mean, what did service mean to you personally? Well, I come from an immigrant family. All four of my grandparents were from the island of Rhodes in Greece. And they were so grateful for the opportunities afforded them here in the United States that they always stressed public
[08:15] service. And so when when it came time for me to graduate from college or from graduate school I only considered public service. I only considered CIA foreign service, Capitol Hill. That was it because they instilled in us this idea that we had to give something back to this country. And I took that very seriously. Was there any other way of giving back? I mean, was that the only way you saw of giving back or was that the ultimate way of giving back? Well,
[08:46] my parents were both elementary school teachers, public school teachers. And certainly that's a way of giving back. Uh my sister went into My sister got a degree in um nonverbal communications. So she's ended up speaking American sign language and worked with the deaf and things like that. That was a way of giving back. But I had such a fascination with international affairs and especially with the Middle East that I wanted to do something international. And I had traveled extensively in college. You know, there's kind of
[09:17] this this idea that your junior year you do a semester abroad, you backpack all around Europe. I took that very seriously and I did it multiple times. And I just fell in love with you know, travel. It's I I I've never gotten rid of the travel bug. It sounds like a a mix of a travel show and the James Bond movie, right? So, from when you were a kid, you had a fascination and you wanted to be a spy. You then studied Middle Eastern studies, which gave you What did it give you? Why Middle Eastern studies? I mean, did it give you the
[09:49] love of the history? Did it Was it the language? Was it the people? From when I was a kid, I I can't I can't really give you a straight answer because I'm not really sure myself what it was. But when I was a kid, I was absolutely fascinated by the Middle East. And oddly enough, especially fas- fascinated by the Persian Gulf. And so, I mean, I was in I I was given this week-long scholarship to take a a class at Penn
[10:19] State University when I was a junior in high school. And I went to the university bookstore uh just to see what these, you know, college these college kids were reading. And there were books on the Middle East. And so, I wasn't in that class, of course. It was a college class, but I bought all the textbooks um for these Middle East classes. And just to read about, you know, dynastic succession and and the history of the Bedouins and the creation of first of the of the uh
[10:52] the uh Trucial States and how they became the United Arab Emirates and the history of Saudi Arabia, which which then led to the House of Saud, that that tome that is the full the complete history of Saudi Arabia. I forgot I loved it. I didn't know that the Rashid family controlled the peninsula before the Saud family, and then they fought this fight. When I was finally stationed in Saudi Arabia and I met a member of the Rashid family, we talked about that. And he's like, "Yeah, imagine how I feel. This used to be our kingdom, and
[11:22] now look at us. We work for them. We have nothing." And it was just fascinating to me. I loved the history. I loved the the the mathematical construct of the language, I loved the poetry. And um and I the first time I went to the Middle East, it was like, you know, ah, finally. Just fell in love with the place. What's your favorite place in the Middle East at the moment? >> In terms of physical beauty, I don't think anything can rival um Oman.
[11:53] The way the cliffs, 1,000-ft cliffs crash straight down into the sea, is just a sight to behold. In terms of history, and I love history, I have never been any place as magnificent as Damascus. You know, you look at these things, you look at these things in the center of Damascus today that are mentioned in the Bible. That's how old they are. And then, you know, I spent two of the happiest years of my life in Bahrain.
[12:25] I I love Bahrain. I love the Bahraini people. I'm still in touch with the Crown Prince. We went to college together. And I I I just can never get back enough times. It's so wonderful. And then, you know, you can't short short change Cairo and the magnificence that's Cairo or even Jerusalem. Incredible. I can't get enough of it. It is. It is. And uh I met This was about 15 years ago. And
[12:56] there was somebody who used to work very closely with the Sultanate of Oman. And he was from the Zawawi family. Mhm. And uh they do and his father, I mean, I met the son, and his father was in the car with the with the Sultanate at the time and there was a car crash and he was uh unfortunately the gentleman that died, but uh you know, they're so open-minded. They were taking actually restaurants back from the UK um to Oman to be able to to just improve the place. And it's not
[13:27] just Oman isolated. I mean, at the time I mean he was friends he were close friends with Garry Kasparov and they were crafting this amazing golden iPhone to give to him with a chess a custom chessboard being made. And I remember we were sitting at the Claridge's Hotel and and and look, uh it it it was brilliant memories. Uh you know, we we were having a good chat and uh uh a good time. And just to see the progression at that time until it's immense. I mean, when you look at
[13:59] the rest of the Western world and how the GCC countries are pushing forward, it is unbelievable. Unbelievable. Now, in most cases Bahrain and Oman aside, it's nice to have a bottomless pit of money. That's great. But, you're right. Even in Bahrain and Oman, which don't have oil and don't have those giant incomes, the development is absolutely astounding. It's incredible. Why can't every Why
[14:30] can't every country do this? I I don't know. You know, you back then when I was when I was living there 30 years ago, um Bahrain really didn't have anything. And so, we would drive to uh Saudi Arabia uh to Al Khobar or Dammam or Dhahran to um we would go to dinner, we'd go to the souk, we'd go to the mall, buy some dates, whatever, drive back across the causeway. Um the first time I went to Doha, there was only one building in the
[15:00] country that was more than three stories, and that was the Marriott Hotel. Um otherwise, everything was made of mud, everything was small, and then this development occurred. And they all look like Dubai now. It's just incredible. There's a reason why after the the start of the civil in Lebanon, Bahrain became the banking center of the Middle East because they knew exactly what to do to attract those banks and businesses. It's incredibly friendly. It's a an
[15:33] incredibly friendly environment for business with the Emirates being even friendlier and Doha being even friendlier. So, they don't they don't really have to have oil anymore. It's it it doesn't matter anymore. Do you think it's easier to do business there? I mean, I know a lot of people from the UK, the US, from Europe, they've moved to Dubai, they've set up companies in ADGM or DIFC. And they're saying, "Look, for us to get a license to do business in let's say
[16:05] the financial sector, trading sector, money business, it's so much easier. They make you jump through so many hoops over here in the States and you know, you do one thing wrong and they're on your case like a ton of bricks." Yes. And and you know, money is just flowing into the place. Why do you think that is? What Why is there so much bureaucratic tape in the Western world? I mean, they're shooting themselves in the foot. See, this is kind On one hand, this is the price of democracy. On the other hand, we go through cycles where we have
[16:36] socialist or or progressive governments versus conservative governments. It goes back and forth. Um in the West, I mean. I've got a friend right now who's trying to register a company in Spain. Well, he's been trying to register this company in Spain for the last 8 months and just can't get it done. Well, in in the Emirates or or in Qatar, you could register a company in 15 minutes. You just register. That's it. Now, the only downside is you have to have a local sponsor. But that's easy. That
[17:08] takes 15 minutes. So, they're just not dealing with this history of of regulation and and in some cases, lawfare, they just don't have that. It's all about business. And in Europe, it's not about business. It's about regulation. Yeah, I totally agree. And that's why we could probably see all of this rapid development over there. Um just shifting back to your your work, what's the dumbest or most surreal thing that you've seen in the field? Nobody's
[17:39] ever asked me that question before. Well, I'll let you judge whether this is dumb or just unfortunate. But I've told this story a couple of times. The night that we captured Abu Zubaydah and dozens upon dozens of Al-Qaeda fighters. We caught so many people that night that we had to bring them to our safe house for interrogation in shifts, 10 at a time. They would come in a in a paddy wagon that the Pakistanis had uh had loaned us. And so, the first
[18:09] group of 10 prisoners came in and they were wearing hoods. And this idiot who worked for me, who so desperately wanted to be in charge, and he kept talking about the men under my command. And I would say, "There are no men under your command. I'm the chief here. You are here at my invitation." So, he brought these 10 in and I said, "Why are they wearing hoods?" He said, "We don't want them to see our faces." I said, "Are you seriously telling me that you have never read the
[18:41] Geneva Convention? It is a war crime for them to be hooded. Take the hoods off." And he says, "Wait, don't take the hoods off." And I said, "Oh." I said, "You are committing a war crime." He said, "Well, I'm going to report you to headquarters." I said, "I'm already reporting you to headquarters. Take the hoods off." And so, we took the hoods off. We reported each other to headquarters and I got in trouble. Why was that? Because they didn't give a about the Geneva Convention. Who's going to Who's going to sue the CIA? Who's going
[19:12] to have standing to sue the CIA? And name one court anywhere in America that's going to punish the CIA for violating the Geneva Convention. That's it. Was that standard practice? I mean, in situations like this when they're in a foreign land, there's going to be situations, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm looking at this from a CV point of view, an outstand outsider, there's going to be situations where conventions, rules,
[19:43] they go out the window. Yeah. Right? And it becomes standard practice. Where is the line? Where is the Where is the line in the sand? I think the line in the sand changes depending on who's in charge and depending on the political environment in Washington. In the not just immediate post-9/11 period, but the post-9/11 period that went well into the Obama administration.
[20:13] In the decade or decade and a half after 9/11, there were no rules. There were no rules, and we we see now even, you know, 23 years after the capture of Abu Zubaydah, that that the courts don't care that there were no rules. The courts are still finding in favor of the CIA. Most recently 2 weeks ago. Uh in the in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. So, I think that that has largely
[20:47] changed. Maybe I shouldn't even say that because with Donald Trump, he's he's challenging courts, and the courts are just backing down. You know what? I don't know. That's a tough question. I I I used to believe that we were that we were a country governed by the rule of law. And that's not really 100% true. It wasn't at all true immediately after 9/11. It was just like the wild west. With the CIA going out there grabbing
[21:17] people, killing them, rendering them, disappearing them, and the courts didn't care. What still keeps you up at night? You know, to tell you the truth, what keeps me up at night is overly aggressive American leadership that could result in a miscalculation or in an unnecessary confrontation with one of America's adversaries. For example, I really worry about China, not because of China, but because of the American government
[21:47] provoking China. And this is not a dig at Donald Trump. Joe Biden was just as guilty of this as as Donald Trump is. Uh and then you have the likes of of Nancy Pelosi, for example, going to Taiwan and announcing a major purchase of F-35 fighter jets. Why? Why provoke the Chinese like that? You know, why why work to convince the Filipinos and the Australians that the Chinese are on the brink of it of an invasion of those countries? When we
[22:19] know that the Chinese don't have a uh history of imperialism. They just don't. They have one overseas military base in Djibouti that they share with us. So, I worry about an American miscalculation, especially as it relates to China. I think we are unnecessarily provocative to the Chinese. Do you feel that sometimes when I watch the news, right, personally, I see
[22:49] a lot of things. I mean, I there's there's mainstream news like legacy media, and then there's new form news like, you know, Patrick Bet-David, Joe Rogan, um Russell Russell No, Russell Brand. I've forgotten the other guy's name anyway. Um Bartlett, Steven Bartlett. Sure. And these are the largest podcasters in the world. Right? Sure, everyone has to pick a side, but when you're you're soaking up all the information and you're making a decision on what you are seeing, I
[23:20] take a step back on a human level and I say I ask myself why. Why would someone do this? Why would a country do this? I mean, even if you look at some of the comments on the news YouTube videos, a lot of people are confused asking why. Why are we provoking this war? Why Ukraine? Why X? Why Y? Why Z? It doesn't make sense. The logical thing to do would be to de-escalate and try to use some other diplomatic measures or strategic measures or different sciops if they have to, which I'm sure they're
[23:50] going on in the background anyway. So, why are these blatant stupidity steps, is what I call it, happening, John? Please shed some light. That's a great question and it's a question that that I find myself asking myself all the time and I will admit to you that I have consistently um underestimated Donald Trump. You know, in the first term I I I struggled with the notion that maybe
[24:21] Donald Trump was mentally ill or was so he was just so out of his element that we were watching just day after day of buffoonery. And I think I in part I underestimated him. In part it took him that long to get comfortable in the position. But I'll I'll give you an example. first, right? We know from the 1920s that these massive tariffs don't work. If anything,
[24:53] they're going to raise inflation in the United States and and break the economy. But then today we hear that the CEO of Nvidia is meeting with Trump. That they're talking about chips for the Chinese. We know that Trump loves these big overarching deals that settle all outstanding issues. Was that the plan all along? Did we underestimate Trump? And did we did we think that he was pursuing uh
[25:24] he was pursuing tariffs just for the sake of pursuing tariffs or is there really going to be a big overarching deal with the Chinese? It's I struggle with this. But maybe I've just missed it. And he was right and I was wrong. Do you think that comes from I mean look, I I have liked Donald Trump in a business sense uh because of the art of the deal. He's a good negotiator, he's a good businessman, he's successful.
[25:56] And when it came to politics, I think I'm in the same boat as you. I didn't actually understand what was going on. I was trying to and you know, a part of me was saying this guy is not stupid. Right? He's he's a clever guy. He's not he's not coming from a politician's perspective. He's coming as a businessman. And a businessman, they don't show their cards. You know, they don't go in and say, "Hey, this is transparency, what I'm going to do, what I'm not going to do. This is how big the carrot is, this is how long the stick is." It's you keep that as a mystery as
[26:28] a negotiate as as a bargaining chip. Right? And if you've noticed everything that he's done, he's destabilized and brought things back together. Destabilized and brought things back together. So while everyone is running around you know, scrambling to understand what happened, then ah some news comes out, well oh that makes sense now. So he's always keeping people at the edge of their seats. That's my analysis of him. I could be right, I could be wrong. I don't know. But what are your thoughts on that?
[26:59] Yeah, I have to agree with you and I don't know if if I'm right or if I'm wrong. You know, maybe he's he's you know, not in his right mind, but you know, a broken clock is right twice a day. But then, you know, he'll do something like he'll bomb Iran after president after president after president has refused to do that. He goes and does it at the behest of the Israelis. And then lo and behold, the Iranian government announces that
[27:29] it's still open to continue negotiations. Like, what? Why would they do that? If anything, if I were the president of Iran, I would absolutely positively seek to build a nuclear weapon now because it would be the only thing to protect me from the Israelis. But no. Now they announce, "Okay, we're ready to resume negotiations." Absolutely incredible. So, maybe there's something that he knows that we don't know. Otherwise, I can't figure out what's happening here. Maybe what you see what he in my mind,
[28:02] it sets a new precedent because what he knows could be good or bad, right? They could continue to do to build whatever they want anyway. Maybe there was not full destruction that day. I mean, if you knew that you know, things were heating up, would you or let's say your garage was going to get robbed and you had a beautiful classic car in there, a Porsche. And said people keep saying, "I'm going to come for that Porsche. I'm going to come for that Porsche." Would you keep it there? You'd move it. You'd do something, right? However, maybe I'm over over simplifying things and maybe, yeah, it
[28:33] was successful. However, there was a retaliation, right? From Iran. Okay, albeit a showman retaliation, but they did something that I didn't expect. They used a ballistic missile >> Yes. that the Iron Dome could not stop. That's right. Doesn't that set a new president or precedent saying, "Hold on a second. You you've got an Iron Dome, but we can get through it. But we won't. We choose not to." In fact, that that can be traced back even a little farther further. Um
[29:04] do you remember in the first go-round between the Israelis and the Iranians, um Israelis bombed Iran and then the Iranians uh sent drones, hundreds of drones. But they told the Israelis in advance, "We're going to send drones." And then they warned both the Iraqis and the Jordanians, "We're going to send these drones so they're going to overfly your territory." And it was hundreds of them. Seven of them got through. Now, these were slow-motion drones. We're not talking about hypersonic missiles here. These are just regular old drones. And seven of them got through.
[29:36] And that was a lesson for everybody that this Iron Dome is actually penetrable. And so when it came time to really fight the Israelis, and the Iranians chose to use ballistic missiles, they were able to successfully target the likes of IDF headquarters, for example, or IDF communications, and penetrate the dome again. So, you know, there's been a lot of speculation too about the the ceasefire. I really believe the ceasefire came about not at the request of the of the Iranians, but at the request of the
[30:07] Israelis because they were out missiles. I think they had fired all their missiles. You know, it's a finite number. You're buying them from the United States. So, it's a finite number, and I think they just used them all. And they couldn't continue this this fight any longer. So, they needed time to regroup. And they the only way they could do that was was with a ceasefire. And one other thing, too. When the United States uh bombed Iran, the Iranians, of course, in order to save face had to respond. And so they
[30:37] bombed Al Udeid airbase in uh Qatar. But they informed the United States 2 hours 2 hours before that they were going to launch. So they launched a missile. The US knew it was coming. At first the US said that it dropped harmlessly in an isolated part of the uh of the base. It turned out that wasn't true. Uh it hit a communications uh dome, a geodesic dome it that housed top secret communications. So the Iranians got lucky.
[31:07] But the US didn't respond. The Iranians saved face. Everybody decided, "Okay, we're all even. Now we can move on." And so maybe they are ready for for talks again. And all of this happened while I think Saudi Arabia announced that it was going to normalize relations with Iran, right? Just Well, yeah. That actually started 6 months or so before um before the uh the Gaza
[31:38] operation began. You know, the the the Saudis and Iranians have long hated each other and distrusted each other going back to the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Nobody seems to remember the takeover of the Holy Kaaba in Mecca where Iranian uh radicals uh that had infiltrated the crowds attending the uh the uh uh Hajj uh took over the Kaaba and and held it. Saudi special forces
[32:10] attacked. Hundreds of people were killed. And then for years afterwards, Iranians were banned from the Hajj. So there's always been this distrust and there have been periods where diplomatic relations were cut off that lasted as long as periods where there were diplomatic relations. The US was always happy about that. Because so long as things were bad between Saudi Arabia and Iran, the Saudis returned to us to defend them. Well, now things are not so bad between Saudi Arabia and Iraq.
[32:41] And they've exchanged ambassadors, they've reopened embassies. Um Mohammed bin Salman went to Tehran. Uh Araqchi went to Riyadh. Things are actually going pretty well. We don't like that. And then the Saudis were going to open relations with uh diplomatic relations with Israel as part of round two of the Abraham Accords. And so in order to stop that, Hamas launched the October 7th uh attacks.
[33:12] So, it's like we're on the brink of some kind of peace. It's a peace that does not include the Palestinians, which is what makes the Iranians so angry and those of us who believe in Palestinian human rights. Um but the Saudis don't care. The Israelis don't care. Donald Trump doesn't care. And so they want to push this whole thing forward. If you are in I mean, how would you resolve that? Like I I watch Piers Morgan and I watch the debates on,
[33:43] you know, majority of the major channels. And both sides are obviously very passionate, right? And I'm sure both sides can make a valid case as to why they are fighting, right? So deeply. Whether it's right or wrong, right? It's their beliefs. I mean, how would you resolve this knowing what the two sides are trying to do, right? I mean, how Dennis Ross, who was the long-time special envoy for Arab-Israeli peace. Across presidents, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush.
[34:16] Um Dennis Ross says there are no new ideas. All the ideas have been thought of. And all of them have been rejected by one or more parties. So, something has to be imposed. Now, the situation is constantly changing, so you can't take an idea that would have worked in 1990 and say, "Well, this this was a good idea 1990. Let's just do it now." It doesn't work like that. You can't impose these ideas because the situation on the ground constantly changes. You know, people talk about the debate between the one-state solution
[34:46] and the two-state solution. Honestly, I think we're looking at a three-state solution, right? There's no connection between Gaza and the West Bank. They don't even like each other. And I think that Gaza has to be some sort of independent entity. And I think that that the West Bank should be a free and internationally recognized Palestine with the East Jerusalem as its capital. And they can work the the map like they did in uh in January of 2001 and figure that out. But um there's an idea being
[35:18] floated now. It's been reported in the the left-wing Israeli media that I think could possibly be the basis for future talks. And that is that Gaza becomes semi-independent in that it agrees to disarm and it's administered by Saudi Arabia. Right? So, there's no military uh the Saudis would be the police force. Gaza Palestinians would not be allowed to to bear arms. And then the Saudis would build a port, an
[35:50] airport, an electrical grid, a sewage treatment facility and get the economy started. But, it would be Gaza for Palestinians. And I think that that might be the basis for future talks. >> Do you think it's gone too far now? Oh, I think it's gone way, way too far on both sides. You know, killing civilians is not going to get you anything that you're that you're going to be proud of, right? It's going to get you a missile up your ass is what it's going to get you. And and we see I mean, what do they expect the Israelis to do? We
[36:21] know the Israelis don't respect human rights. We know the Israelis are perfectly happy to kill women and children, and elderly, and blow up hospitals, and and starve people, and make them die of thirst. They're perfectly happy to do that because they don't care about human rights. So, what did the what did Gaza Palestinians What did Hamas think was going to happen after attacking this this music festival? Th- That in large part they did to themselves. I mean, I'm not excusing Israeli
[36:52] atrocities, and that's what they are. They're they're crimes against humanity and war crimes, and Netanyahu and those around him should be in the dock at The Hague. Don't get me wrong. But, with that said, it's like nobody should be surprised that this has been the Israeli reaction. Number one. Number two, we see what happens when the Palestinians try to go the peaceful route. The Israelis crush them
[37:22] and destroy them, and steal their land, and and take radical settlers from the United States to resettle them. Look at what's happening in the West Bank. It looks like Bosnia now, where these little islands of of Jewish settlers completely surrounded by historically Palestinian land. That is absolutely unacceptable. And so, you know, the the Emir of Bahrain once said uh to me, we were sitting at his beach house,
[37:53] and he said George H.W. Bush was the last American president that gave the Arabs a fair shake. And I think that that's true. I think that the Arabs have not had a a president an American president treat them with equality and equanimity since George H.W. Bush, who cut off loan guarantees to Israel because they wouldn't stop building settlements. And every president since then has
[38:23] kowtowed to the Israelis. The settlements not just have to stop, they have to go. They have to be destroyed just like the settlements in Sinai were destroyed when Israel returned Sinai to Egyptians. This this takes me back to what we spoke earlier on about the how, the why moment. Like you we're watching the whole world is watching and the audience is probably thinking how is this even allowed? We know it's
[38:54] illegal. It's been proven it's illegal, but how and why is it been let to happen? I mean, why isn't somebody stopping this? Why are people, leaders, world leaders, powerful countries just standing and watching this happen? Why? It is not possible to overestimate the power of the Israel lobby in the United States. Not possible to overestimate the amount
[39:24] of money that they are willing to pour into American elections. And so they essentially buy seats in Congress. And if the members of Congress who are who are elected don't support is Israeli line adequately or appropriately, they are primary and they are thrown out and replaced with a pro-Israel uh member of Congress. It's gotten to the point where Yeah, I think it's
[39:54] something like 70% of congressmen and senators have have taken AIPAC money. I think I'm pretty sure it's 70%. It may even be higher than 70%. And I'll tell you another thing, at the staff level and I've said this before, but my very first week on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee staff um the AIPAC lobbyists came to the office and they could not have possibly been any more friendly. Hi, congratulations.
[40:26] Welcome to the Foreign Relations Committee. We would like to give you an all expenses paid trip to the Holy Land at not Israel. The Holy Land. And we're going to give you a tour of all the Christian holy sites and it's going to knock your socks off. I said no, thanks. I can pay for my own vacations if I want to go to Israel. Well, most people in the office took the trip. They went and then of course they feel
[40:57] indebted to to AIPAC and indebted to the Israelis for spending all this money and everything was first-class, the finest hotels, wonderful meals, escorted uh tours of all of the holy sites. They just buy the support. But, there's an iron fist that comes along with it that if you don't tow the line, they crush you. And you mentioned something about, you know, working with different presidents of the United States. I mean, you were under Obama and um
[41:29] Clinton. Sorry, uh Clinton to Bush, right? And Obama was I think the one that gave you trouble at the time. And how was it working for each of these presidents? Oh, presidents had vastly different levels of interest in intelligence and international affairs. George H. W. Bush, I I came in I came into government at the very end of the Reagan administration. And then George H. W. Bush not only had been vice president for
[42:00] eight years, um but he had been CIA director and he had been ambassador to the UN, ambassador to China. So, he had this deep knowledge and understanding of international affairs and a and a passion for it. So, he was fascinated by it and by what we did and was constantly asking for special analytic products. So, we were in like constant communication with the White House constantly. Bill Clinton was
[42:32] briefed twice in 8 years as president. He didn't have even a vague interest in international affairs. Uh Jim Woolsey, who was the CIA director uh in the Clinton first term, said that not only did he never meet with the president while he was president, he said he wasn't sure the president would recognize him in a meeting. Al Gore was interested. Al Gore was briefed 6 days a week. Al Gore was the
[43:04] one who went to the Arab-Israeli peace talks at Camp David. But, Bill Clinton couldn't care less. Remember, it was the economy, stupid. Remember that? Well, you you're too young, but in 1993, that was the the unofficial slogan. It's the economy, stupid. And so, that's all he cared about was the economy, which was great throughout the 1990s cuz he was so focused on it. Um and then there was George W. Bush. George W. Bush, God bless him, he probably didn't even he couldn't even locate these countries on a map. So, it
[43:34] was it was Dick Cheney that was in charge of uh of international affairs and of intelligence and defense and the Gulf War not the Gulf War, but the Iraq War and the Afghanistan War and all this other stuff. And then there was Barack Obama, and I think Obama was a very unique president in that his only qualifications were were 2 years as senator, 2 years as a senator. He didn't know what the heck he was
[44:05] doing. And so, he was very easily manipulated by the CIA. Did the mission change? It always changes depending on who the president is. Yes. So you felt I mean did one of them make you question whose side you were really on? Well, yeah, George W. Bush. Yeah. What did he do that was different? I mean why? You can't just have a standing orders kill everybody. That's just not I mean that doesn't even mean anything. Kill everybody. Yes, I was upset after 9/11 too, which is like everybody else was,
[44:36] but as I said earlier, we're we're a nation of laws. We're a country that's governed by a constitution and whether we like their politics or not, we have to respect their their legal protections and we didn't. And that lessened us as a country. So yeah, everything literally everything changed under George W. Bush. In fact, you know, I I worked for a deputy director of the CIA, Jim Pavitt, who used to say every day as a mantra, the job of the CIA is to recruit spies to
[45:07] steal secrets and to analyze those secrets so that the president can make the best informed policy. On 9/12, the CIA became a paramilitary organization whose job it was to kill our enemies or to kidnap them and send them to secret prisons to face torture. So it changed dramatically. Why was Clinton so nonchalant? Why didn't he Why
[45:37] wasn't he briefed? Why was he out He was a six-term governor of Arkansas. So he had zero uh experience in international affairs. When I say six-term, Arkansas was an unusual state at the time in that the governor was elected for a two-year term. So every two years he came up. He actually it six terms, he was five terms and he lost once. So over the course of 12 years he he spent five terms as the governor of of
[46:07] Arkansas. So for him it was all about developing Arkansas' economy. Al Gore on the other hand was elected to uh the House of Representatives when he was, you know, 30 years old. And then he was elected to the Senate just a couple of years later. So this was a very young man who was elected vice president of the United States and through his entire governmental career he was laser-focused on foreign affairs, defense, and intelligence. And so they were actually a very good
[46:37] match. So that Clinton could focus on the economy and Gore could focus on foreign affairs. So it wasn't as bad as people make it seem. So I mean, when you first hear, "Well, the president's only brief been briefed twice." Right? In in in isolation. That says one thing, right? So Yes. to the a person listening to that it's, "Well, he didn't know what's going on." Well, he didn't need to know everything that's going on. But >> Exactly. He needs to know what matters.
[47:07] >> And and Gore, like I said, Gore was briefed six days a week at 7:00 in the morning. And every time there was something important, he would brief the president. So, you know, we made strides. They they were not long-lasting strides, but strides in relations with North Korea, for example. We came within a whisker of actual of actual peace in the Middle East. under Clinton. That was Gore driving those policies, but Clinton endorsing them. So if if the
[47:37] president needed to know something or if the president needed to approve something, Gore ensured that that would Speaking about, you know, North Korea, I mean, l- look at the Well, what do you make of Trump, you know, flying over there, shaking the guy's hand, "Hey, what's up? How you doing? Oh, nice rockets." You know, walking around uh nonchalant. I mean, what what does that say to you? What Why was there so much polarization? What was the difference about? Trump took a lot of heat from the foreign policy
[48:08] establishment here in the United States because he legitimized Kim Jong-un by meeting with him. My view is that that's exactly what we should be doing. We've had administration after administration after administration work so hard to not talk to our enemies, and we accomplished nothing when we don't talk. So, I had no problems whatsoever with Donald Trump engaging with the North Koreans and meeting personally with Kim Jong-un.
[48:39] At the very least, what he accomplished was for about 3 years, he dialed back the risk of of an accidental conflict between our two countries. I think we should we should still be engaging the North Koreans. And did that change anything internally within the CIA as well? No, it was my understanding that the CIA was certainly opposed to any rapprochement with with the North Koreans, but then at the same time, when when there are North Korean
[49:11] negotiators exposed to the United States, that opens up opportunities for intelligence collection. Whether purposely or or um or in a more roundabout way. And so, if you're if you're a CIA operations officer, if you're the leader of of you know, the CIA's operations directorate, you're going to want your officers to have access to North Korean negotiators. Because they're not going to be in North Korea. The The talks took place in Singapore,
[49:42] right? And I think the second round was where? Vietnam or something like that? So, um Yeah, if you're the CIA, you you want these talks to happen. And for the audience, for the people that don't know your background, your job title, and what it was. I mean, if you could give a a snippet of what >> Sure, sure. So, I joined the CIA in January of 1990. And I spent the first 7 years as as an analyst on Iraq.
[50:13] And then I switched to counterterrorism operations, and I was there for the next 8 years. I served overseas in Riyadh, Kuwait, Manama, Islamabad, Athens, and in New York at the United Nations. I blew the whistle on the CIA's torture program. Later on, I went to prison for 2 years for doing that. I would do it again tomorrow if I had if I had to and if I had the opportunity. I went into the private sector for a little while, but then went to the Senate Foreign
[50:44] Relations Committee as the chief investigator. And then for the last 10 years, I've been a writer, an author, a commentator, talking about these kinds of issues. Well, that's brilliant. That's actually commendable. I mean, you refused to enhance interrogation techniques. >> I was the only person who refused to be trained in torture. Yes. But what made you say no? I believed strongly that it was illegal, besides being immoral and unethical. And
[51:15] it simply doesn't work. It made us It diminished us as as a people, as a government. And it put us more on par with those that we were seeking to destroy. We got nothing out of it. If anything, we were damaged because of it. I mean, why did it continue for so long if it was not working? There was a desire for revenge after 9/11. And you have to remember, 9/11 was the greatest intelligence failure in American history. 3,000 Americans died
[51:47] in one day because the CIA didn't do its job. And so there was this desire to just destroy everybody. Kill as many Al-Qaeda fighters or operatives or leaders as we possibly could. And um and then those that we captured, there was there was a desire on the one hand to try to uh disrupt the next attack, but on the other hand there was a desire to make them suffer. And about 9/11, you know, there are all these conspiracies and
[52:20] people from ex-governmental roles coming out. I mean, this is this is not news. It's all public information. I mean, it was aired on the BBC saying, "Hey, there was explosions. No tower could fall like that." Um there was detonations. There was another tower. It brought the you know, one of the channels were broadcasting something. A tower fell earlier or later. I mean, what do you say to all of that? I mean, these are credible people um coming into the public domain saying, "We have you
[52:51] know, I'm a professional uh uh construction guy. I'm a professional demolition expert. I have never seen a building fall in a vertical fashion downwards like it did that day." I mean, what do you say to that? >> I'm not an engineer. I'm not an architect. Um but I was inside the CIA's Counterterrorism Center uh in the in the year and a half uh prior to the 9/11 attacks. Um I know that Al-Qaeda did those attacks. I know that Al-Qaeda flew
[53:23] planes into those buildings. I don't know I I can't respond to, you know, the physics of of the towers collapsing upon themselves. Um I have never seen any evidence ever that this was an inside job or that there were explosives planted inside the buildings. Never have I seen any evidence. I've heard a lot of speculation, the speculation that you mentioned. But I know that this was not an inside
[53:53] job. >> No, that's it. You know, it's good to clarify that from your perspective because it was very sad what happened. It was a tragedy. You know, many people lost their lives. It was horrific, you know, for morale for the country. And I feel that people mentioning these sort of things, I don't know, maybe it's it's their own version of misinformation or a psyop. Coming back to your you the you know, the the the whistleblowing, let's say, right? Did you do it we mean was it courage? Was it desperation? Was what
[54:24] was it? What were you feeling at the time? It was not courage or desperation. It was it was a desire to tell the truth. The the president was lying about the torture program. The CIA was supporting those lies about the torture program, and I believe that the American people had a right to know what the country uh what what the uh CIA rather was doing in their name. And so, I had the opportunity to do that in December of 2007. And I decided to
[54:55] tell the truth. I said that the CIA was torturing its prisoners. I said the torture was official US government policy. And I said that the policy had been personally approved by the president. >> And for clarity, you you technically got charged for revealing an identity. So, there's a nuance there, right? >> first I was charged with three counts of espionage for revealing the torture program, as well as uh one count of uh violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.
[55:28] And one count of making a false statement. We were never really sure what the false statement was supposed to have been. But I hadn't committed espionage. Talking to ABC News and the New York Times is not espionage. So, those espionage charges were thrown out. Uh but yeah, I I confirmed the name of a former colleague uh to a reporter. The name was never made public. But that was the charge that they got me on. Was there a moment before you were about to do it? I mean, talk me through
[55:59] the events leading up to that because it was a big thing. Yeah. >> You know, you were putting yourself on the line. You were going against the most powerful government in the world. I mean, was there a moment that you nearly said, "You know what? I know, you know, it's the right thing to do, but I'm not ready to ruin my life like this or go through what I'm about to go through." I I really believed that I was doing the right thing. And at first, the day after my revelations, I was
[56:31] surprised at at how big of a story it was. It was page one around the world. That surprised me. The FBI began investigating me at the request of the CIA the very next day. And they were they investigated me for a year, and then the FBI declined to prosecute me saying that I hadn't committed a crime. And I really believed the whole thing was over. It was It was then when Barack Obama was inaugurated that
[57:01] John Brennan asked the FBI to secretly reopen the case against me. And then that's when they they finally got me. Three years later. They followed me for 3 more years. They tapped my phones. They intercepted my emails. And then they got >> What was going through your mind at that point? Because you knew this was happening. This was like uh I mean, from the same taking you back to your childhood and wanting to be a spy, this is all part of the movie. Yeah. This is the part of the movie, right? >> Yeah. Yeah, you're right. Well, on the on the one hand,
[57:32] your your whole life collapses around you, right? Uh you don't you don't know where to turn. You just do what you can to survive, you know, day by day as this as this thing is happening to you. But then, on the other hand, I I believed in my heart that I was right and they were wrong. I I I used to say all the time, "The agency trains you. It teaches you that everything in life is a shade of gray, right?
[58:02] And that's not true. That's not true. Some things are black and white. They're right or wrong. And torture was simply wrong. And so, I decided to embrace it. And looking at the disparity, right? You told the truth and they locked you up for it. There was torture happening and they got promotions. I mean, what does that tell you about the system? They got more than promotions. They got multi-million dollar book deals
[58:34] to write their memoirs. They all got rich from this torture program. And indeed, the two contract psychologists who came up with the torture program, uh James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen, uh they charged the uh CIA $108 million to to carry out this program. So, yeah, I went to prison and I went bankrupt and they all got rich. What do you mean they charged $108 million to carry out Mitchell and Jessen? What what did that mean? They were not CIA employees. They were
[59:05] contractors. They said, "Look, we came up with this thing called enhanced interrogation techniques. We'll We'll train your people your people how to do it. Uh but that'll be $108 million." And the CIA And the CIA wrote them a check. Do you think what they did to you is for national security or was that a warning to the next guy? Oh, no, they came right out and said that the point wasn't to prosecute Kiriakou. The point was to make an example so that if anybody else is thinking of
[59:36] going public, this is what happens to them. And you served 23 months. 23 months. Yes. And what did prison take from you that you never got back? Nothing. Prison taught me things. Like I say, I embraced it. I embraced it. So John, you you said prison taught you things. I mean, let let me add something to that. What did prison teach you that Langley never could? Prison opened up a world
[1:00:06] that I would never have had access to otherwise. You know, there's this ongoing joke that everybody in prison is innocent. Well, you know what? A lot of people in prison are innocent. We are the most overregulated, the most overcriminalized country in the world. We have 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prison population. We have the longest sentences for crimes compared to our European allies.
[1:00:37] And every year for the last 20 years, Congress has created 50 new crimes, not 50 new laws, 50 new crimes every year. That is something that was legal a year ago that is now a felony today. That's that's a problem. That doesn't make us safer. It makes us weaker. We've become a prison of of we've we've become a a carceral country is is what it is. Why do you think that
[1:01:08] is? Because of the nature of our political system where in order to win votes, you have to appear to be tough on crime. And the way you do that is you you create new crimes and you increase penalties year after year after year. We've been doing that since the Nixon administration. Was God ever an influence in your life? >> Yeah. In fact, where's my wallet? I keep I keep a a picture of Saint Nectarios of Aegina uh in my wallet, my patron saint. And um
[1:01:41] yeah, he was an influence. I'm I'm a practicing Greek Orthodox Christian and my faith has always been very important to me. And I knew I knew based on the teachings of the church fathers, the lives of the saints, I knew that I was doing the right thing. And one last final question is if the younger you the man walking into the CIA for the first time was watching this right now, would he be proud of who you've become? Yeah, I think so. Yes. Yes.
[1:02:13] You know, my ex-wife said to me one time on a real down day, she said, "You are much stronger than they think you are." And she said, "You just have to remind yourself." And and in the end, you know, I took the CIA's best shot and I came out stronger on the other end. If they thought this would silence me, they didn't know me at all. So, I came out ahead at the end of this. John, I highly
[1:02:43] respect you. Thank you. I had so many more questions for you. We'll definitely do this again. I look forward to >> Uh this is one of many and thank you for your time. God bless you. Thank you.