DOCSLIB.ORG

Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Israel, the UAE and Bahrain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Israel, the UAE and Bahrain WTH is going on with peace in the Middle East? Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer on Israel, the UAE and Bahrain Episode #71 | September 29, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Amb. Ron Dermer Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: he Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on? Marc Thiessen: Peace in the Middle East! Danielle Pletka: God I never thought we'd have this podcast. Marc Thiessen: Who would ever believe we'd have a podcast on peace in the Middle East? Danielle Pletka: It really is ridiculous. People always ask me, "So why did you get into the Middle East as a region of study?" And I always say because it's a gift that keeps on giving. The problems there will never be solved. But in fact, it shows, sometimes they get solved. Marc Thiessen: Absolutely they do. First of all, just for a housekeeping note, this is going to be the first of two podcasts on this subject because we have today the Israeli ambassador, Ron Dermer who's joining us and then on the next episode we have the ambassadors of Bahrain and the UAE who are going to join us. So we have the three ambassadors from three countries that have reached this historic deal and it's going to be a pair of epic podcasts. Danielle Pletka: So, you know, there's been a lot of arguing because in Washington of course even peace in the Middle East isn't something that people can agree is a good thing, at least not when Donald Trump is involved. But I would add, second only to Bibi Netanyahu being involved- Marc Thiessen: You are not exaggerating because Nancy Pelosi's response was, "This is a distraction from the COVID pandemic." I mean how deep must your Trump derangement be to have literally the most significant peace deals, two in a quarter-century in the Middle East, and oh it's just a distraction. Danielle Pletka: Well, I will give credit to Vice President Biden who said something much more gracious in response but in fact, that graciousness didn't trickle down because 2 what I have now heard repeatedly is "Well, just goes to show you, Israel really doesn't care about democracy, backing all of these dictatorships in the Middle East." And it's like, I'm sorry, what? Wait, a second, what? Is that Israel's fault? A and B, is peace not better than war? Is peace not better than terrorism? Danielle Pletka: Look I will be the first to say that I think the notion of a president being elected and then putting his son-in-law who has previously only dealt with real estate in charge of the Middle East peace process is, I thought it was completely ridiculous. Marc Thiessen: He did a pretty good job. Danielle Pletka: Look, the proof is in the pudding, and as much as I think many, me included, don't want to give credit for this, you have to. You have to. Look, three leaders, that picture on the White House lawn of those flags together brought a tear to my eye. Marc Thiessen: I loved the image of the foreign ministers of Bahrain and the UAE because there were three copies of each accord. One in English, one in Arabic, and one in Hebrew, and they actually put their names and their signatures on an accord written in Hebrew. That was I thought, just a stunning moment. But I'll tell you the reluctance to give credit is two-fold. Marc Thiessen: One, no one wants to give credit to Donald Trump for anything. But two, it's a repudiation of the foreign policy establishment's view of how you deal with the Middle East for decades. We were told you have to go through Ramallah. There's not ever going to be a separate peace with the Arabs. There has to be Palestinian peace first. We were told you can't move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. If you do that's going to be provocative. Marc Thiessen: We were told that President Trump is going to destabilize the whole region by recognizing Israeli sovereignty of the Golan Heights. All of the conventional wisdoms about what the path to peace was in the Middle East have been turned on their heads because the lesson of this is, this is something that Donald Rumsfeld taught me years ago, weakness is provocative and strength is the best way toward peace. Danielle Pletka: Osama Bin Laden said something about the strong horse as well, not just Don Rumsfeld. Danielle Pletka: I'll tell you who else deserves credit for this, although not in the way people are going to think and that's Barack Obama. Because I think that Obama scared the Arab world so much with the JCPOA, the Iran deal. Scared them so much that the United States was going to turn it's back on the region and they recognized that they needed to forge new alliances. They recognized that the world wasn't always going to look the way it did for the last 40 years and maybe they ought to do something about it. Danielle Pletka: And if Barack Obama hadn't made that craptastic deal with the ayatollahs in Tehran, I think we'd still all be dancing the two-step around each other. It really AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org 3 was a wake-up call to them. Not in a good way but you know, I will give him credit, I think they wanted to take a new approach to the challenges that we face in the Middle East. The problem was that they took the wrong approach. Marc Thiessen: They inadvertently helped peace along. The decision by President Trump to pull out of Syria, the decision by President Trump to start pulling back some troops from Iraq, sent a signal, this is a theory, that sent a signal to the Arab world and the Persian Gulf allies that we're not going to be around to police the region quite as much. Marc Thiessen: And that maybe they needed another ally in the effort to do that. Do you think that Trump's pulling back and saying we're going to end these endless wars and we're going to pull back some of our troops may have contributed to this agreement? Danielle Pletka: Well, I honestly don't know but I'll say this, I don't believe that we keep troops in Iraq for the peace of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates and I don't believe that we keep troops in Syria for the peace of Israel. You know what my view is. Marc Thiessen: Look you know where I stand on this. We've talked about this many times on the podcast. I was against the withdrawal from Syria. I'm against the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I'm against withdrawing troops from Iraq. We should be keeping them there. They're at such low levels now that the added value of having a small deployment in those countries is huge but there's the famous Don Rumsfeld, the big mistakes we made in Iraq- Danielle Pletka: The second Don Rumsfeld reference in one podcast. Marc Thiessen: I know, I know. But one of the mistakes we made was that he famously said that at some point you got to take your hand off the bicycle seat. And we took the hand off the bicycle seat too soon in Iraq, but maybe Saudi Arabia and the UAE starting realizing they had to pedal on their own a little bit. And I'm not saying that justifies the actions. I'm just saying it might have been an unintended effect an intended effect, I don't know, but it might have had a role. Danielle Pletka: Well, it may have played a role. It may have been the negative example that the JCPOA was also to these guys. No matter what- Marc Thiessen: In other words, American bungling made this possible. Danielle Pletka: Well you know Churchill did say something about that. But anyway, listen we've had a terrific conversation with Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer. He has worked with Bibi Netanyahu for many, many years but since 2013 he has been the Israeli ambassador to the United States. This is actually his last year of service, he's going to head home to Israel after a very long term and some terrific work. And I have to say, he's really, really leaving on a high note. Enjoy the conversation. Marc Thiessen: Ambassador Dermer welcome to the podcast. Amb. Ron Dermer: Great to be with you, Marc. AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE | 1789 Massachusetts Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20036 | 202.862.5800 | aei.org 4 Marc Thiessen: So the first Israeli-Arab peace agreement was 40 years ago. The second was 26 years ago and then nothing happened for a quarter-century and all of a sudden we have two in a matter of weeks. What happened? Amb. Ron Dermer: Well, I'm glad you're talking about the historic significance of this because you right, it is the first time in a quarter-century and we waited 26 years between peace treaty number two and number three and 29 days between three and four. And I think it speaks to a shift, a strategic shift in the region and you can see it Marc in the way that countries and people, governments and people, I should say, in the region have responded to this peace.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 'I-Bates (18577-18976)'
    CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF WASHINGTON, D.C. 2D31IMl999 ACTION MEMO Clt-1232-03 30 September 2003 FOR: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE .L DepSec Action --~ FROM: General Richard 8. Myers, CJCs~C/(f'( SUBJECT: Service Deployment Force Ratios 1 In response to your inquiry . the following information is provided. 1 As you know. Services' Force Rotation Goals were discussed at length during ELABORATE CROSSBOW m, culminating in a brief to you on 15 September. As a result, a common method of force deployment ratio measurement has been agreed upon: number of months deployed versus number of months non­ deployed. • As \Ve have discussed, force ratios will continue to differ by Services for a variety of reasons, and each Service builds its force deployment ratio goals based on the competing demands of long-standing global contingency commitments, sustaining readiness and managing force tempo. , Current Service Ratio -Goals (by Service) are: • Navy I :3: 6 months deployed for every 18 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is each fleet unit. • Marines I :3: 6 months deployed for every l 8 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is a battalion. • Anny I :4: 6 months deployed for every 24 months nonwdeployed. Unit of measure is a brigade. • Air Force 1:4: 3 months deployed for every 12 months non-deployed. Unit of measure is the Air Expeditionary Force. • Recommend an upcoming session be set aside to meet with Service Chiefs to further explore underlying force rotation goal rationales. RECOMMENDATION: OSD and CJCS staffs coordinate meeting with Service Chiefs regarding force rotation goal rationales.
    [Show full text]
  • My Debate with Marc Thiessen
    David FraktProfessor Barry Law School Reserve JAG Officer and Former Guantanamo defense counsel Posted: September 18, 2010 01:40 PM My Debate with Marc Thiessen Earlier this week, I debated General Michael Hayden (USAF, retired), former director of both the CIA and NSA, and Marc Thiessen, former Bush speechwriter and current columnist for the Washington Post, as part of the "Intelligence Squared" Debate series from New York. I was joined by Stephen Jones, an accomplished attorney best known for defending Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City Bomber. The specific proposition debated was whether terrorists (or more accurately suspected terrorists) should be treated as enemy combatants, as opposed to handling within the traditional criminal justice system, but the debate covered a wide range of issues in the conduct of the war on terrorism. According to the audience, Stephen and I won the debate handily. For those interested in seeing or hearing the debate, it will be televised on the Bloomberg News Channel starting Monday, and it will also be available soon as a podcast from NPR, or you can watch the unedited version of the debate here. For the most part, Thiessen and Hayden voiced the usual Bush Administration talking points. Thiessen is the author of the bestselling book "Courting Disaster: How the C.I.A. Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack" which Jane Mayer of the New Yorker described as the "unofficial Bible of torture apologists." Thiessen's basic argument was that the detention and interrogation practices of the prior administration were effective, as proven by the fact that there have been no successful terrorist attacks domestically since 9/11.
    [Show full text]
  • WTH Are Deaths of Despair? Nobel Prize Winner Sir Angus Deaton on the Other Epidemic
    WTH are deaths of despair? Nobel Prize winner Sir Angus Deaton on the other epidemic Episode #52 | May 21, 2020 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Sir Angus Deaton Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: And I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on now? Marc Thiessen: We're talking about deaths of despair. Danielle Pletka: Oh, that's cheerful. Marc Thiessen: Well, you're right, it's not cheerful, Dany. I mean, look, we are now experiencing the worst economic devastation since the Great Depression. We have more than 33 damage is not being borne by the elites, who work in the information economy and who can telework and do everything by Zoom. It's being borne by those at the middle and the bottom of the economic ladder. For what Trump called the forgotten Americans. People, who were finally doing better under him for a while, and now, all of a sudden, that progress has been wiped out. Danielle Pletka: The phrase, deaths of despair, that we're using, comes from this new book out by Anne Case and Angus Deaton, two economists from Princeton University. It was actually Dr. Case who coined this term, deaths of despair, in talking about people who've really lost all hope. I think that our image of the Depression is one where we see people walking across the dust bowl with all their family belongings on the back of a cart and their ragged children, the iconic photos of this.
    [Show full text]
  • Israel: Background and U.S
    Israel: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief Updated September 20, 2019 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R44245 SUMMARY R44245 Israel: Background and U.S. Relations in Brief September 20, 2019 The following matters are of particular significance to U.S.-Israel relations: Jim Zanotti Israel’s ability to address threats. Israel relies on a number of strengths—including Specialist in Middle regional conventional military superiority—to manage potential threats to its security, Eastern Affairs including evolving asymmetric threats such as rockets and missiles, cross-border tunneling, drones, and cyberattacks. Additionally, Israel has an undeclared but presumed nuclear weapons capability. Against a backdrop of strong bilateral cooperation, Israel’s leaders and supporters routinely make the case that Israel’s security and the broader stability of the region remain critically important for U.S. interests. A 10-year bilateral military aid memorandum of understanding (MOU)— signed in 2016—commits the United States to provide Israel $3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing annually from FY2019 to FY2028, along with additional amounts from Defense Department accounts for missile defense. All of these amounts remain subject to congressional appropriations. Some Members of Congress criticize various Israeli actions and U.S. policies regarding Israel. In recent months, U.S. officials have expressed some security- related concerns about China-Israel commercial activity. Iran and the region. Israeli officials seek to counter Iranian regional influence and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. In April 2018, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu presented historical information about Iran’s nuclear program that Israeli intelligence apparently seized from an Iranian archive.
    [Show full text]
  • The Civilian Impact of Drone Strikes
    THE CIVILIAN IMPACT OF DRONES: UNEXAMINED COSTS, UNANSWERED QUESTIONS Acknowledgements This report is the product of a collaboration between the Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School and the Center for Civilians in Conflict. At the Columbia Human Rights Clinic, research and authorship includes: Naureen Shah, Acting Director of the Human Rights Clinic and Associate Director of the Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School, Rashmi Chopra, J.D. ‘13, Janine Morna, J.D. ‘12, Chantal Grut, L.L.M. ‘12, Emily Howie, L.L.M. ‘12, Daniel Mule, J.D. ‘13, Zoe Hutchinson, L.L.M. ‘12, Max Abbott, J.D. ‘12. Sarah Holewinski, Executive Director of Center for Civilians in Conflict, led staff from the Center in conceptualization of the report, and additional research and writing, including with Golzar Kheiltash, Erin Osterhaus and Lara Berlin. The report was designed by Marla Keenan of Center for Civilians in Conflict. Liz Lucas of Center for Civilians in Conflict led media outreach with Greta Moseson, pro- gram coordinator at the Human Rights Institute at Columbia Law School. The Columbia Human Rights Clinic and the Columbia Human Rights Institute are grateful to the Open Society Foundations and Bullitt Foundation for their financial support of the Institute’s Counterterrorism and Human Rights Project, and to Columbia Law School for its ongoing support. Copyright © 2012 Center for Civilians in Conflict (formerly CIVIC) and Human Rights Clinic at Columbia Law School All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America. Copies of this report are available for download at: www.civiliansinconflict.org Cover: Shakeel Khan lost his home and members of his family to a drone missile in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 2015 a Message from the Founders
    LEADERSHIP | PUBLIC SERVICE | FELLOWSHIPS | SELF-SUFFICIENCY | FREE SYSTEMS | DIGNITY | LIBERTY ANNUAL REPORT 2015 A MESSAGE FROM THE FOUNDERS “WE ARE PLEASED TO REFLECT ON A YEAR OF CONTINUED GROWTH AND ADVANCES THROUGH OUR GRANTS AND FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS. IT HAS BEEN AN HONOR TO BE SUPPORTIVE OF MANY IMPRESSIVE INDIVIDUALS, ORGANIZATIONS AND CAUSES. WE REMAIN DEDICATED TO OUR WORK AND LOOK FORWARD TO MAKING FURTHER PROGRESS IN THE YEARS TO COME. OUR THANKS TO PARTNERS, SUPPORTERS AND FRIENDS OF THE FOUNDATION FOR YOUR INVOLVEMENT, INTEREST AND SUPPORT.” -DON AND JOYCE RUMSFELD RUMSFELD FOUNDATION IN REVIEW 81 GRADUATE FELLOWS $3.9 MILLION + IN 135 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS MILITARY GRANTS FELLOWS 3 GRADUATE FELLOWSHIP $3.7 MILLION + IN 4 CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS CONFERENCES MICROFINANCE GRANTS CONFERENCES Established in 2007, the Rumsfeld Foundation rewards leadership and public service at Mission home and supports the growth of free political and free economic systems abroad. REWARDING LEADERSHIP AND PUBLIC SERVICE AT HOME Effective leadership and dedicated public servants are essential for our country’s success. GRADUATE FELLOWSHIPS TROOPS Encouraging gifted scholars to Few have committed more in our serve the nation by pursuing a nation’s service than those who career in public service and have served and sacrificed in policy-relevant fields defense of our country ENCOURAGING THE GROWTH OF FREER SYSTEMS IN GREATER CENTRAL ASIA We believe free systems, economic and political, provide the most opportunities for their people. CENTRAL ASIA-CAUCASUS
    [Show full text]
  • WTH Is Going on with the Retreat from Afghanistan? Amb. Ryan Crocker On
    WTH is going on with the retreat from Afghanistan? Amb. Ryan Crocker on withdrawal, and the consequences for US national security Episode #115 | September 1, 2021 | Danielle Pletka, Marc Thiessen, and Amb. Ryan Crocker Danielle Pletka: Hi, I'm Danielle Pletka. Marc Thiessen: I'm Marc Thiessen. Danielle Pletka: Welcome to our podcast, What the Hell Is Going On? Marc, what the hell is going on? Marc Thiessen: I've never been more disgusted in my life with what's happening with what America is doing than I am right now watching the last planes leaving Kabul, leaving behind American citizens, thousands of Afghans who risked their lives to help us, the blood of 13 dead Americans and hundreds of Afghan civilians. It is the most shameful thing I have witnessed in my entire career in Washington. I'm shifting between absolute abject pain and rage as I watch this happen. Dany, what are your thoughts? Danielle Pletka: It is the worst thing in the world that a country like ours, we've suffered defeats, we've made mistakes, we've done terrible things. Never, I hope willfully, but by mistake, we've done terrible things. And we have betrayed allies before. We've not done enough for people who need us. We've let down the Kurds in Iraq, we've let down the Syrian people, but we have never actually gone in and rescued a group of people who in turn sacrificed all for us and for our security as Afghans did, because make no mistake, we were not in Afghanistan for the Afghan people.
    [Show full text]
  • Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program
    Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program 1800 K Street, NW | Washington, DC 20006 author Tel: (202) 887-0200 | Fax: (202) 775-3199 Robert E. Ebel E-mail: [email protected] | Web: www.csis.org March 2010 ISBN 978-0-89206-600-1 CENTER FOR STRATEGIC & Ë|xHSKITCy066001zv*:+:!:+:! CSIS INTERNATIONAL STUDIES Geopolitics of the Iranian Nuclear Energy Program But Oil and Gas Still Matter A Report of the CSIS Energy and National Security Program author Robert E. Ebel March 2010 About CSIS In an era of ever-changing global opportunities and challenges, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) provides strategic insights and practical policy solutions to decision- makers. CSIS conducts research and analysis and develops policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change. Founded by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke at the height of the Cold War, CSIS was dedicated to the simple but urgent goal of finding ways for America to survive as a nation and prosper as a people. Since 1962, CSIS has grown to become one of the world’s preeminent public policy institutions. Today, CSIS is a bipartisan, nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. More than 220 full-time staff and a large network of affiliated scholars focus their expertise on defense and security; on the world’s regions and the unique challenges inherent to them; and on the issues that know no boundary in an increasingly connected world.
    [Show full text]
  • A Summer in Israel Director's Corner a Senior's Perspective
    Washington and Lee Hillel Newsletter W&L Hillel House, 204 W. Washington St., Lexington, VA 24450-2116 hillel.wlu.edu [email protected] DECEMBER 2012 HILLEL (540) 458-8443 TEVET 5773 A Senior’s Perspective ball soup or the superiority of challah bread, A Summer In Israel I did not feel any different from my peers. Brenden Strauss ’15 Natasha Lerner ’13 My first year I was relatively uninvolved in Almost four years ago to this day, I Hillel, able to count the number of events As a politically conservative Jewish received my W&L early-decision acceptance and services that I attended on one hand. college student, the Yameena Fellowship letter. I was ecstatic — knowing that this During my sophomore year, I traveled opportunity was the perfect experience school was the ideal place for me in every to Israel on a Birthright trip and became a where the entire group was able to embrace way, except possibly one: I was apprehensive sturdier presence in Hillel, attending one our love of Judaism and politics, specifically about what being Jewish in a small, southern or two events each week. While I didn’t pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. school would mean. And yet, I was also seek Hillel out due to any ostracism, I did On the program that lasted two weeks, comforted by the Hillel website, which realize that being away from my family and I met influential Israeli and American looked welcoming — posted with smiling beloved New York City meant that I missed decision makers and leaders, networked photos of Jewish students and a triumphant celebrating being Jewish: the holidays, with fellow politically conservative young announcement that the money needed to traditions, community, food, and, yes, jokes Jewish students from all around the US, build a Hillel house was finally raised and and sense of humor.
    [Show full text]
  • True and False Confessions: the Efficacy of Torture and Brutal
    Chapter 7 True and False Confessions The Efficacy of Torture and Brutal Interrogations Central to the debate on the use of “enhanced” interrogation techniques is the question of whether those techniques are effective in gaining intelligence. If the techniques are the only way to get actionable intelligence that prevents terrorist attacks, their use presents a moral dilemma for some. On the other hand, if brutality does not produce useful intelligence — that is, it is not better at getting information than other methods — the debate is moot. This chapter focuses on the effectiveness of the CIA’s enhanced interrogation technique program. There are far fewer people who defend brutal interrogations by the military. Most of the military’s mistreatment of captives was not authorized in detail at high levels, and some was entirely unauthorized. Many military captives were either foot soldiers or were entirely innocent, and had no valuable intelligence to reveal. Many of the perpetrators of abuse in the military were young interrogators with limited training and experience, or were not interrogators at all. The officials who authorized the CIA’s interrogation program have consistently maintained that it produced useful intelligence, led to the capture of terrorist suspects, disrupted terrorist attacks, and saved American lives. Vice President Dick Cheney, in a 2009 speech, stated that the enhanced interrogation of captives “prevented the violent death of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of innocent people.” President George W. Bush similarly stated in his memoirs that “[t]he CIA interrogation program saved lives,” and “helped break up plots to attack military and diplomatic facilities abroad, Heathrow Airport and Canary Wharf in London, and multiple targets in the United States.” John Brennan, President Obama’s recent nominee for CIA director, said, of the CIA’s program in a televised interview in 2007, “[t]here [has] been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures.
    [Show full text]
  • Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka Is Senior Vice President for Foreign And
    Ms. Danielle Pletka Danielle Pletka is senior vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), where she oversees the Institute’s work on foreign and defense issues. Ms. Pletka writes regularly on national security matters with a special focus on Iran, the Middle East (Syria, Israel, ISIS), and South Asia. She is also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University’s Walsh School of Foreign Service. Before joining AEI, Ms. Pletka was a longtime senior professional staff member for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, where she specialized in the Near East and South Asia as the point person on Middle East, Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan. Ms. Pletka has authored, coauthored, and coedited a variety of studies, monographs, and book chapters, including the report “Tehran Stands Atop the Syria-Iran Alliance” (Atlantic Council, 2017); the chapter “America in Decline” in “Debating the Obama Presidency” (Rowman & Littlefield, 2016); “America vs. Iran: The Competition for the Future of the Middle East” (AEI, 2014); “Iranian Influence in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan” (AEI, 2012); “Containing and Deterring a Nuclear Iran” (AEI, 2011); and “Dissent and Reform in the Arab World: Empowering Democrats” (AEI, 2008). A regular guest on television, Ms. Pletka appears frequently on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” Her broadcast appearances also include CBS News, CNN, C-SPAN, and MSNBC. She has been published in The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Hill, and Politico, among other outlets. She has an M.A. from the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University and a B.A.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminary Findings from Sunday Talk Show Study
    Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics and Public Policy September 2017 Report on Network Sunday Morning Talk Show Content and Ratings, Comparing 1983, 1999, and 2015 By Matthew A. Baum Kalb Professor of Global Communication Licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License. Table of Contents 1. Executive Summary 3 2. Program Content 5 3. Guests 7 4. Topics 9 5. Gender Preferences 13 6. Guest Demographics 19 7. Agenda Setting 20 a. Agenda Setting by Members of Congress (1980-2003) 20 b. Agenda Setting Overall (1983, 1999, 2015) 22 8. Conclusion 28 9. Acknowledgments 29 10. Appendix 1: Codebook 30 11. Appendix 2: Examples of Guest Categories 34 12. Appendix 3: Examples of Substance-Process and Politics-Policy Variables 36 2 Executive Summary We studied the content and Nielsen ratings for interviews on the three network Sunday morning talk shows—Meet the Press (henceforth MTP), Face the Nation (FTN), and This Week (TW). We compared three time periods—1983 (MTP, FTN), 1999 (all three shows), and 2015 (all three shows). In order to insure apples-to-apples comparisons, for over time comparisons, we either restricted our analyses to MTP and FTN or analyzed the data with and without TW. For “overall” snapshots we included all three shows (MTP, FTN, TW). Our goals were fourfold: (1) identify any discernable trends in the topics and types of guests featured on the Sunday talk shows, (2) identify any trends in audience ratings, (3) assess whether and to what extent trends in topics and guests correlate with audience ratings, and (4) assess whether, to what extent, and under what circumstances, the Sunday talk shows influence the subsequent news agenda.
    [Show full text]