Robert C. O’Brien - 29th of July 2026

[music] >> Hello, and thanks for joining this edition of IIEA Insights with me, Dan O'Brien. It's a pleasure to welcome today a former holder of the office of National Security Advisor of the United States. Robert C. O'Brien served as National Security Advisor from 2019 to 2021, acting as President Donald Trump's principal advisor on all aspects of American foreign policy and national security affairs. The ambassador is the co-founder and current chairman of American Global Strategies LLC and also serves on the President's Intelligence Advisory Board in the second term. Thanks so much for joining us, Robert. >> Thanks, Dan. Glad to be here. >> Great. Let's let's jump right in in terms of looking at your tenure. I know I'm interested and certainly our members will be interested to hear of your sort of highlights and maybe lowlights of your time as National Security Advisor. In terms of the things that you during that period you look back on, is there anything that you you feel most proud of, that you feel was a was a was a particularly good achievement, and anything that perhaps you might be disappointed might be disappointed by? >> Well, Dan, so prior to becoming National Security Advisor, I was a Special Presidential Envoy for Hostage Affairs. And that that job entailed bringing Americans home, either wrongfully detained or hostages who were held by non-state actors. So, J. J. You know, Al-Qaeda, ISIS, that sort of thing. And then trying to get the wrongfully detained Americans out of places as diverse as Yemen and uh Colombia, Venezuela, North Korea, uh Syria, Sweden, with the a rapper named A$AP Rocky. Uh and when I became National Security Advisor, I was able to put a more, uh, weight behind that and and weight behind the president's, uh, uh, policy of bringing Americans home. He he he never He didn't care about their politics. He just cared or their their race. He just cared that they had a blue passport. And then some group was trying to leverage them to, uh, change US policy or they or to get money out of us or or to demand the release release of a prisoner, a terrorist or or some or or an arms dealer or something like that. So, I I have I'm very proud of the people we brought home, uh, both of them in my prior position as a national security advisor. I think the history books will look at the Abraham Accords, the normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and and Bahrain and UAE and Morocco, Sudan, uh, Kosovo as being the the signature foreign policy event in the the first term. Uh, you know, we we talk a lot about peace through strength and that's certainly President Trump's policy. It was President Reagan's policy. I I've tried to adhere adhere to it in my career. But but too often I think we focus on the strength part of it. How many ships do we have? How many how many missiles do we have? How many aircraft carriers do we have? And you know, counting them up against the other guys and we don't focus enough on the the reason we're we're strong or we try and and maintain our strength is to get peace. And President Trump has has been particularly like in the first and in the second term successful in in leveraging American strength to to achieve peace. And so, I I I think that's something that'll be a legacy that's going to be a little counterintuitive, but, uh, I I think that's going to be his legacy as president. >> Um, anything uh, anything that you you felt you would have liked to stay on to achieve? >> Uh, there were Look, we got some bad guys. We got Soleimani, we got Baghdadi. Uh But there were I I would like to see the Abraham Accords expand to include Saudi. And Kuwait and maybe Oman and and Qatar. I I think that would have been a a real achievement. Uh we we started the Western Hemisphere campaign uh to eject the the Chinese from the Panama Canal. Uh >> [clears throat] >> and put some American bases back in the canal zone or what what it was the canal zone. Uh >> [clears throat] >> We we we tried to you know move move our agenda in the Western Hemisphere. But COVID really interrupted that. And then uh of course the election and President Biden coming in kind of saw that. So it really took it till the second term for the pivot to the Western Hemisphere to gain full force. And I I would like to see some more progress in North Korea. Which I think we did have had some uh some more success. But unfortunately during the four-year interregnum between the first and Trump administration North Korea drastically expanded its nuclear uh stockpile and and its delivery systems. And so it's going to be very difficult to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, which I think would have been a a major accomplishment that you know we we didn't achieve, but we made some progress towards. So you know there's never enough time to do everything. It's a complicated world. It's a dangerous world out there. You know we we we tried we tried our best to to get as many things done as we could, but uh ti- time time goes fast in in those offices. >> Well, and and one of the things I suppose that many people have observed has been how different the first term and second terms uh have been. I'm wondering if you see it in that way. Do you see a president who having learned from the experiences of the first term was better prepared uh for the second term to how to in terms of personnel was more prepared to take the office back. Do you see as much of a contrast between the first and second terms? And if if there are contrasts, are there particular policy positions or or things that have been executed differently in terms of the two terms? >> Yeah, so Dan, that's a a very good question and kind of kind of anticipated what what I was going to say with respect to the pivot to what the Western Hemisphere. That that would be one example. In the first term, you have to realize that the president came into office, he'd been a businessman. He didn't have friends in politics. He hadn't I don't think he'd ever stayed overnight in DC. Uh he had to rely on people sometimes who who didn't share his agenda or thought they had a thought thought they should implement their agenda or thought they should be a guardrail to the president. And President Trump if if anything is a quick learner. And so he had 4 years to to you know, so to speak speak of apprentices president. So when he came back in the in the second term, he knew exactly what he wanted to do. He he put in a team of of people that that were like-minded that would execute his his policies. And so I think the maybe the biggest difference between the first and the second term is the rapidity of the of the uh uh policy implementation that's taking place. Whether it was the the tariffs on liberation day, President Trump's always been a major of tariffs, but uh he he tackled the trade agenda with with robustness and vigor. Uh cer- certainly the the pivot to the Western Hemisphere with you know, removing the Chinese from the the Panama Canal, the operation of Venezuela to arrest Maduro who is a a major drug dealer. And giving the Venezuelan people a chance to to have freedom. And well, I think we're going to see some some real progress on that front in the next couple of of weeks and months. And uh obviously open up the the Venezuelan oil supply uh to the world and remove remove those sanctions is a big deal. And then Greenland which is I know not a popular subject in in Europe. And [clears throat] you know, I'm very good friends with the Danes and think highly of them as allies. Saw them in Afghanistan fight our war on our side and uh they're they're they're good allies but you know, we we need a situation in in Greenland where we can defend ourselves. I mean the Greenland is essential to the defense of the United States which is why we had to take it over in World War II to protect ourselves and uh if Golden Dome is going to get off the ground our missile defense system, we need to have bases with with missile interceptors in in Greenland. We need to protect the the island as well as elements from uh the the Chinese and the Russians. And so I I I think we're going to end up with a a lot of leeway and you know, we we may not end up with Greenland but we're going to end up with a lot of leeway with our our our basing rights. And you know, we we just don't have time for with Golden Dome for example, we don't have time if there's a a missile attack on America from a rogue actor or North Korea or China or Russia heaven forbid to to wake up the ambassador, get get him to to the king or the prime minister and get permission to launch a counter uh strike missile. I mean the the the it's going to be a three three or five minute window to to launch interceptors to take the the ICBM down. So we need to have that flexibility with Greenland and and uh we're we're seeing the Danes now unfortunately uh put a lot of money into defense to the defense of Greenland, put a frigid Greenland, put the Danish soldiers in Greenland to defend sovereignty of Greenland. So, I think it is it's been very successful. There was a little bit of diplomacy with a little unorthodox, I'll admit. >> Mhm. Because it it certainly was something that that shocked Europe in in terms of you know you know a demand for for a sovereign territory that that I I suppose most people even those who might support the current US president felt there there there were better ways to achieve that objective in in terms of guaranteeing American security while at the same time not making such a kind of shocking demand as seeking sovereignty of the island. >> Well, you're right, Dan, but if you know President Trump, I mean he he makes anyone who's read the article of the deal, he makes maximalist demands and by by the way, President Truman wanted to buy Greenland. It's it's not a new a new uh idea. President Truman wanted to buy it. President Eisenhower wanted to buy it. So, it's not you know, left field and Americans certainly occupied Greenland to protect to protect the the Danish in Greenland and to protect America in the past. So, it's not outlandish. But I envision and well, let's see how the negotiations go. I think they're going quite well between the Danes and then the US. Something along the lines of the British bases in Cyprus. >> Okay. >> Where there's sovereignty over the base bases and that will allow the US to protect America, but you know, maybe you know, Denmark or the Greenland the Greenlanders themselves exercise their own sovereignty over their own cities and and territory. But the the the the basis of the agreement if it's not called sovereignty, it will be something akin to that. >> Okay, interesting. I haven't heard the Cyprus model being being put forward. Um in in terms of you mentioned your experience with hostages in the past. You've also had a lot of experience at the UN during your career. I'm wondering to start with the sort of multilateral picture, um how do you how do you assess how multilateral institutions such as the UN have evolved over the decades? And I ask that both from just your global perspective, and also in terms how they help or how they might hinder increasingly or decreasingly the US to pursue its interests in the world. >> Yes, so I've got a little bit of an interesting background with the UN that's kind of intersected my entire career. I I started kind of my my diplomatic career uh as a civil servant international civil servant working for the secretariat uh in Geneva. And so I was actually you know, the guy receiving the UN paycheck and uh so I was working at the UN Compensation Committee Commission uh and handling claims against Iraq arising out of the first Gulf War. And so I I I saw from the inside for several years and then I returned uh a decade later as a as President one of President Bush's representatives at the UN. And what I tell people the UN is very bureaucratic. Unfortunately, there's still a lot of corruption at the UN which is which is unfortunate. We've seen the UN uh in large part because of the vetoes at the Security Council. Uh I mean, of course, we think our veto is great, but we don't like the Russian and Chinese veto. Uh we we we've seen a a lot of initiatives stall out at the UN. And [clears throat] so there's a a general feeling especially among conservatives conservatives in America that the UN is an African system we should get rid of it. I I I disagree with that. I I I I agree that the UN has some corruption and then the lack of the ability to to get things done, but if you didn't have a UN you'd have to invent a UN. I mean, there there has to be a place where smaller countries can come together and have [clears throat] their kind of little kind of their day court where they can get up and during the UN General Assembly talk about water and cotton and crops and then their own civil wars and then and bring the world's attention to the things that you know, we we don't normally hear about what's going on in Mali or Equatorial Guinea or even South Africa or some parts of Asia. And for these countries to have their leader come leaders come to the UN and then come to New York and and tell the world what they what they're they're facing. It's important to have that forum even if it's just just to to be a forum. But I think you know, if we I I think there are reforms that can be made in the UN. We we've recognized over the past and you know, have it that donations to the UN be be voluntary so the countries can direct their their donations to the programs that are working and that will encourage you know, less corruption and well, there there there are a whole number of things we we have a group called JUSCANZ Japan, US, Canada, uh Australia, New Zealand that uh and I think the UK was part of that as well. They they focus on these UN reforms. I I I think my faults are are UN ambassadors doing a good job. I the the the budget's being rationalized and uh and I think there's less product it is. I think one of the major problems with the end is that the Chinese Communist Party had had seen the UN as a tool that it can use to undermine the global rules-based international order to the extent that still exists or to use the UN as a as a tool for its foreign policy. And so one of the the things that the Chinese have done and and and the Russians and the the Iranians to some extent they they've paid for interns to go to the UN. And you know, they they they've focused on human like the human resources department. They focused on the the legal department. And and so by by taking over those uh mechanisms within the UN they can root out whistleblowers. They can uh have a disproportionate influence. And then they they've also tried to use their belts and roads initiative to to buy votes at the UN to put Chinese or or people who are uh leaning towards or or tolerant of the the Chinese Party of China into key positions in the specialized agencies. And so you know, we saw that with the WHO in the pandemic in the coronavirus pandemic. So I I think if if the free world wants to see the UN succeed, we we really need to work together. We need to roll up our sleeves and make sure that uh it it's not being infiltrated and subverted by the communists. >> And I also worked for the UN in Geneva for one of the agencies for a period of time. And I I think anybody who worked there would agree that some of the agencies may not be invented if they didn't exist. But I suppose the counter argument from an American perspective is that if you pull out of the W WHO, that you effectively clear the field for those countries that you would view as adversaries. And that even if you don't like them and you feel that it's a waste of money. That not being there actually reduces your influence and increases the influence of countries that you may not want to increase influence. What do you What do you make of that argument? >> Yeah, there I I generally agree with that argument. It goes to the location of headquarters as well. As you know, the United States headquarters is in New York and uh it could use some uh refurbishing, but uh the fact that you know, the the the world has to come to New York, I I I think is in the US interest. Uh again, it's controversial uh to have all these, you know, you have the tin pot dictators and the genocidaires and the the Holocaust deniers and the, you know, the the really bad basically terrorists when you get uh you know, the the Iranian diplomats coming, it's kind of frustrating to see them on the streets of New York and going to the shops and you know, cl- buying the buying the shop, buying out the inventory of the of Chanel and Gucci and and [clears throat] stores like that with the ill-gotten gains from that they've gotten been bribed by the Chinese or they they they they've taken from their own citizens. But I I think we're better off having the the UN in New York and being a member of it and and having some, you know, measure of control over it than, you know, having it uh in Bangkok and and and not being part of it. >> Uh another sort of global bigger picture question from an American perspective, from somebody who's who's been national security advisor, seen all the intelligence, and and as you part are you still connected to to the to the this administration, what what do you view as being the biggest threats to the United States going forward? >> So So, Dana, I'd like to say that two pieces if I could uh I think the I'll I'll about this in a moment. I think the long-term existential threat that that the threat that could change how we live, how our kids and grandkids live and and and actually our Irish kids and and your grandkids are going to live is a challenge for the Communist Party of China. We we've never seen a existential threat like this in in the West. Far greater bigger than the Soviet threat, bigger than the the German threat in World War II. It's [clears throat] a it's a very serious situation. I'll talk about that, but but we've got these intermediate or uh you know, kind of like initial threats that we face. We there's still jihadists here. We we see the the And then with the the mass immigration into the US and into Europe, we've got people who have been self-radicalized or radicalizing themselves on the on the internet. They don't they don't have to have a big cell. They can just go out with a machete and and maim and kill people. That that's a real issue. We we have to be be alert to global jihadism. Uh number number one, number two, we've got the Ukraine situation. We've got the a major European power, Russia, trying to change the borders of Europe by force, really for the first time since since 1938. And we haven't seen this before and the the amount of death and destruction and killing is taking place in Ukraine. It is is heartbreaking and and horrifying at the same time to see these these bombings of civilians in Kyiv. It's really a terrible thing. Uh Yeah, we we and and it's Look, there's a potential the Russians could just try to do the same thing to Poland or to the Baltic states. And so, that's a major issue. And today we're dealing with situation in Iran and the Strait of Hormuz that the US is dealing with basically alone, trying to to stop the Iranians from obtaining a a nuclear weapon and and stop them from financing their terrorist proxies. They launched the the worst genocide against Israel on October 7th and lost uh and with the support of Hezbollah, Iran, that we that we've seen since World War II since the the the Gestapo and the German troops would follow the Wehrmacht into the parts of Poland and liquidate the Jews. That's basically what happened on October 7th and and that that hasn't gotten the the attention that I think it deserves in Europe. But we're we're we're literally trying to to to save Israel, save America, and and and [clears throat] save Europe because if if the Iranians get get a nuke and they they probably don't have ballistic missiles that can reach the US yet, but they certainly do that can reach Europe or or get close to reaching Europe. So so this is this fight is is important. I I think it'll it'll be resolved soon. I think there'll be a I I think [clears throat] the Iranians will come to their senses and negotiate a good deal, but we'll you know, we'll have to see. You know, the the the missile strikes in in Jordan yesterday didn't help, but uh President Trump would like to do a deal with the Iranians and and like to have a deal that that ends their nuclear program for for starters and then hopefully we'll get there. >> A a lot of a lot of issues got a lot of ground covered there. Maybe could could I come back to the first point about China? And interesting that that you feel that it's it's a bigger threat than the Soviet Union. And presumably you feel that's on the basis of of its of its sheer size economically and and by population. >> Absolutely, yeah, 100%. I mean, 1.2 billion people, uh an an economy [clears throat] that that is almost as big as the United States economy. It's the second biggest economy in the world. And integrated to the world economy. I mean, this is a this is an isolated economy like the Russian economy was during the the Cold War. Uh and they're they're they're also motivated by the by communism. They'll Vladimir Putin says that the worst geopolitical nightmare of his his life's lifetime that the greatest failure was the the loss of the Soviet empire. The Chinese feel the same way. They feel that the the demise of the Communist Party in Russia was a terrible thing. They do not intend to have the same thing happen in China. They intend to maintain Communist Party rule. And if it was just China, that would be that wouldn't be okay because of the the the lack of human rights and for for the Chinese people, for the Uyghurs, for the minorities, for non-communists in China. But the fact is that they're trying to export their ideology and and conquer territory. So, we've got them in the Senkaku Islands in the Sea of Japan. We've got them in the in the Yellow Sea. We have them in in in the entire South China Sea from the Philippines to all the way around to all the ASEAN countries, building islands and taking over exclusive economic zone uh sea territory of the of those countries, especially the Philippines. And then of course you've got the the problem in Taiwan with uh you know, the the Taiwanese are basically surrounded on a daily basis by the Chinese Coast Guard and Navy. And blue militia and trawlers. The the Chinese Coast Guard is now hailing vessels uh in in route to Taiwan asking what they're [clears throat] you know, what's on them and exercising police power over the trade that's going into Taiwan. And and an invasion or coercive uh you know, takeover of Taiwan would be it [clears throat] could be horrific because we've seen what the Chinese done over the years. We've seen what they've done to the Jimmy Lai and the protesters in Hong Kong. We've seen what they did in Tiananmen Square. There are 6 million people in Taiwan at least that support the DPP that have called for independence, that called for democracy. And [clears throat] under Chinese Communist Party doctrine, those 6 million are traitors and they need to be liquidated. They need to be either reeducated in camps, they need to be put in prison for life, or they need to be killed. We haven't seen something like this since World War II. I mean, this is like Auschwitz on steroids. And and to believe that the Chinese would do anything would be like the you know, self-evidence and have a mass pardon or reconciliation commission or not not not or Venezuela, that's not the Chinese character, the Communist Party character. So, it's a very dangerous situation just from a human rights position, but then also with AI and quantum computing, Taiwan controls 90% of the advanced manufacturers, 90% of the advanced chips that the world uses, the world economy uses. So, if if the the Chinese get a hold of the of TSMC intact, they'll have a grip on the world economy far greater than OPEC ever did. And that's a we'd all be at their mercy. And it would take >> [clears throat] >> you take years to to to to break out of that monopoly. So, the more likely scenario is that the the Taiwanese destroy the TSMC plants and the ecosystem, or America does to to keep out of Chinese Communist hands. And then we're looking at a recession that could I heard Scott Easterling say it's estimated that we'd see a 7% decline in in the global community, and he makes us too concerned. He thinks that we far more than that. So, the US believes in the status quo. We have not recognized Taiwan as an independent country. We're not advocating for that. We're advocating for this the the status quo. It's the Xi Jinping and the Chinese that are trying to change the status quo. They're they're trying to coercively incorporate Taiwan or through the threats or actual violence. And that that that's something that the the the entire Western world in in fact the entire world whether east or west would be opposed to that. And and we should you know stand up for for Tai for the the status quo. This has nothing to do with the one China policy or that sort of thing, but it's it's the people of Taiwan should be able to choose for themselves what they what they want to do. >> Um tell me Robert, do you think there's any possibility that there could be a ground bargain struck between the US and and China that that the US would seed East Asia including Taiwan and say look that's your part of the world and you stay out of the Western Hemisphere and pull back. Do you see any possibility the president might consider such a deal? >> I I in all my actions with them that that's never come up. That that's that's kind of not an American policy to seed territory, to seed space. We don't do that. We don't we don't take space either. We you know unlike many other powers that have had you know our leverage and then the military might, we haven't taken a colony. The only thing we've asked for from any country is a place to bury our dead, a cemetery. And we we've you know left or we've maybe left some soldiers behind to defend those countries, but we didn't take Japan. We didn't take Germany. We didn't take any of the the countries that we we could have. We're we're we're not interested in that, but but we're we're interested in other countries doing that either. We don't want Russia to take Ukraine, and we don't want China to take Taiwan. We want the people of those territories and those countries to to decide for themselves what they want to what their future is, and and and let them have aspirations, you know, for for life, liberty, and happiness that uh that that that they can pursue it. And also, we can have, you know, free free and fair trade with those countries and then not be dictated to by a you know, a communist party that's intent on >> [clears throat] >> seizing all of the 5G and seizing, you know, chip making and and seizing advantages that that Xi Jinping said in the China 2025 document that they want to lead every major technical technological area. And they'll they'll do whatever it takes, whether it's the IP theft or or unfair trade practices, dumping, or non-tariff barriers to achieve it. And that that's not fair to the workers in America, and frankly, it's not fair to workers in Ireland or the Europe either. >> So, what you're saying, I very much get the sense that you feel we've gone this is Cold War 2.0. Uh possibly even worse, given that you mentioned that that you think China's fundamentally more powerful than the Soviets ever were. So, have we really just returned to a Cold War era? >> So, I I I don't think we've returned into a Cold War era yet. Uh President Trump is trying to to get along with Xi Jinping. He respects him. He you know, they they got a a very cordial personal relationship. And and and we can trade with China. I mean, as as long as it's not military uh you know, our weapon systems or dual-use systems that that would would give us the Chinese an advantage, but there's there's there's no reason we can't trade with China, we can't get along with China, but China has to has to treat us fairly. And and turn, we'll should them fairly, and and I think we can get we can get through this thing. But you know, ta- taking your neighbor's song and and trying to conquer your neigh- neighbors and and uh engaging in unfair trade practices is not helpful. So, I think I think both sides don't want a cold war and and certainly a hot war which would be, you know, truly a horrific uh event. [clears throat] You know, a a hot war between nuclear powers would be a something we want to avoid at a uh every every cost so we can't. And and I I certainly as national security advisor, when I left my condo in the morning, I'd say a quick prayer to the the God to help me keep the the US safe and and one of the one of the you know, key things there is avoiding any kind of uh >> [clears throat] >> conflict with a nuclear power that could escalate because Russia, China, the US engaged in a nuclear exchange would be, you know, devastating. So, I I I I I I don't think we're ever going to go there. I hope not, but uh we we can we there's there's there's no reason we can't go along with the Russians and the Chinese, but the their their belligerent and aggressive behavior towards their neighbors isn't helpful. >> Moving closer to home from from our perspective at least, um is US attitude towards a unified Europe and European integration. Sin- Since the Second World War, near every administration has supported the idea of European integration on the basis that it was good for America. A stronger Europe is a stronger ally. I I'm wondering, the national security strategy was published late last year, took a very different position and and frankly shocked a lot of Europeans and in in the position that it took, it it viewed more uh that it was in America's interests not to have an integrated Europe and to have individual European countries acting alone, which some people interpreted uh in on this side of the Atlantic as a as a divide and rule position, very different from all previous post-war administrations. I'd like your your your interpretation of of how the administration thinks about Europe and and European integration in particular. >> Well, look, the the main issue we have is we want a a Europe that that reflects Western values, that a Europe that's that's Europe. We want a Europe that's capable, that can [clears throat] that can help the United States in the defense of Ukraine, the defense of Taiwan, the Strait of Hormuz. Uh these these you know, what Western uh important uh Western goals and objectives, we want a Europe that can help us with that. That's that's strong, that's capable, and and that that reflects Western values. Unfortunately, some of the bureaucrats in Brussels have been have you know, with their uh >> [clears throat] >> limits on speech, with their unfair trade practices with the US, with their the the attacks on US tech companies. Uh you know, we think it's it's been less less than helpful, but but we For me for many of us, our parents or grandparents or great-grandparents came from Europe, and and you know, especially with the a nation like Ireland, you know, the the the bonds are very strong, even if you never visited the country. You know, you're Irish, and uh and you know another German, they know they're they're they're Italian, and that those bonds and and and ties to Europe are are extraordinarily strong in the United States. We we love Europe, and uh and certainly the Irish here love Ireland, and uh so so I I I I think if the European people want to integrate further, that that's fine, but but we we need to have Europe pay for a defense. We need to have a Europe that that believes in deterrence to deter deter the Russians. I mean, we're not sitting with Russians on our doorstep. The Europeans are. We need a Europe that that believes in the West. I mean, the Irish saved Western civilization. What what did they save it for? What what did they The monks translated all those, you know, Greek and and Latin documents for? It's And and research is to maintain our our beliefs, our values, and our our And our strength comes through that. And so, we we want a strong Europe. We want a Europe without censorship, without you know, denying free speech because we don't What What's the point if if if we have a woke Europe that's that's enforcing speech codes the way the Soviets did? What what what what's the point of spending so much money and effort and blood and treasure to try and defend, you know, Europe and the West if if the West is basically, you know, surrendered itself? We I I think most Americans are for a strong, capable Europe that burden shares that and that believes in Western values. And and if the people of Europe want to, you know, put more more power in Brussels, you know, God bless them, but let's just make sure Brussels reflects the values of the people and and is democratic and not autocratic. >> You mentioned Europeans paying for their their own defense, and of course that that has been certainly as long as I've been in this business, that has been a always been a call that Americans have felt that Europeans weren't doing enough for their own defense. Um but in the final few minutes, maybe maybe we just we focus on on some views you might have on Ireland. You you wrote what what some people might call a tough love op-ed in the Wall Street Journal last year. And one of the criticisms you made of Ireland was it's it's free riding. Um for those who haven't read the article or maybe uh those who have and would like to hear more, you might just elaborate on on how you and and Republican circles view Ireland, obviously a relatively small country, we're not in NATO, but it just in that issue around defense uh and and what Ireland should be doing. Uh a few thoughts on that. >> Sure, sure. Yeah, let let me start by saying uh you know, maybe other than Israel, there there's no other country in the world that has the the support and the the the affection and that that Ireland has in the United States. I mean, you know, the the St. Patrick's Day celebrations are enormous, not just the people of Irish descent, but but of almost the entire country. You know, we have Irish politicians come here and they're received by the president in the White House and by the speaker of the house and the majority leader of the Senate. I Ireland has a huge base of support in America because so many of us are from Ireland and uh we're starved out at one point or the other and had and had to come over or wanted the adventure and the the wide open, you know, country to come to, you know, try their luck and try their try and make a fortune here. And so there there's a real love for Ireland. What we've seen though is is it and there's nobody has a problem with Irish neutrality. I mean, the Finns were neutral, the Swedes were neutral, the Swiss are are neutral still. If Ireland wants to be neutral, that's fine, but neutral neutrality doesn't mean pacifism. And I mean, [clears throat] we I kind of think one of my favorite films of the last decade has been the season uh two in the film. And and [clears throat] to to see how brave and and how courageously the Irish fought in in that instance and and in our history to see how brave the the Irish were in in in taking out the the that little island to the to the east. Uh So so Ireland's got a great martial tradition. And so it can be neutral, but it can't it shouldn't be a pacifist. And I I'm really glad to see that the Irish are starting to invest more in defense. The drone program is great. The new helicopters are great. But you have to think that the the Chinese with one frigate could enforce a boycott of of Ireland if it wasn't for the Royal Navy, which is sadly a shadow of its former self, and the the US Navy, which is spread very very thin. Uh I Ireland could be blockaded by a a single Chinese frigate sitting off Angola and Namibia. Where they they will they will have a base in the next few years. They'll they'll they'll have a base [clears throat] on the Atlantic. And Ireland can't even even defend itself. It has no jet aircraft. It has no frigates. It has no no navy, so to speak. So look, I I believe just for for Ireland not not to be part of NATO or not to engage in in military action on behalf of the US or with the US as a partner, but just to defend itself, Ireland needs a military. It needs a naval service, and it needs an an air force. And [clears throat] and gone are the days of Irish poverty and and uh you know, the the the days where everyone had to immigrate to have a chance. I Ireland's become very prosperous and and uh uh advanced country and a very modern country, and it can afford a a small modern military paid for by 2 or 5% of its GDP. And that that will that will only be to the benefit of Ireland. If it actually wanted to join NATO, that would be that would be it might be a grain. But but just to protect itself and and to avoid a boycott or a blockade by the the Chinese and it should have some military expertise. And if the the Russians aren't far away either. I mean just just to your north. And and they they they've shown the capacity to cut cables uh to to engage in espionage, to engage in political assassination in the in the British Isles. I mean that and and we've seen how brutal that their invasion and occupation of Ukraine has been. So, uh I I I think I Ireland has to it's fine to depend on the US and you know, I think we'll be there for Ireland, but we need to have some burden sharing. Just like our burden sharing with NATO, we have to have some burden sharing with with a neutral Ireland so that if something does happen, the balloon goes up, that that we're there and then we can work together to defend Ireland. >> In that piece, you you also very specifically warned against courting Chinese investment. I was interested to know what was what your concerns are around that. Is it because you feel that Chinese companies will do the bidding of of of Beijing? Do Is it because you feel that in this new environment, allies have to choose um and that playing riding both horses is is not possible and that America is within its rights to insist that its allies do not deal too too closely with China. Just interested in in in in in your thinking around uh that warning. >> Sure, Dan. The The big issue is Chinese espionage. That's the number one issue and that's um Huawei has all over our economic data, our personal data, our medical records, our uh every one of our emails and and if that that happens, especially with Huawei with 5G. Every conversation you have with it's not Huawei phone is going to a a cloud of Beijing. And even if a Chinese company is just run by owned by Chinese people under under the their own their national security law, every country in in China is is subordinate to the party and has to do do the party's bidding. So, I mean, so so number number one is the espionage. Number two is the the economic impact of of the their unfair trade practices. Well, whether it's IP theft and we have great American companies, you know, doing a lot of pharmaceutical work, a lot of electronics work, a lot of uh silicon chip work in in Ireland, software development. And so, we need to make sure that the the Chinese don't steal that property, intellectual property, and uh and put our companies out out of business and and grow their their their companies as a result. Number three is the national security impact is if you have BYD cars, uh you know, Israel has banned has banned Chinese electric vehicles from from its military bases and it's thinking about banning from other jurisdictions. We don't have Chinese cars here, but every one of those cars, think of it as a sensor. As a a platform for for Chinese espionage. But but also they could be kinetically used in in if there was a war situation Taiwan or uh Ireland decided to oppose China for any reason, those cars could be weaponized and and, you know, driven into govern- government buildings, run down civilians, not work. So, there's there's there's there's a whole panel play of reasons to be concerned about the Chinese but I I'm not advocating that that they should not trade with the Chinese and that they for for non-essential for for non-national security items but the Chinese can should be allowed invited to build factories and and that sort of thing. But just be careful of of the the the dirty use and Chinese economic and national security espionage and and the potential for sabotage. >> We've hit the 45 minutes but just one question and if you want to just give this a yes no. Um you you were also critical of Ireland's position on Israel Palestine in that article. You may have seen that in the past week legislation has been passed here to ban the importation of goods from the occupied territories. Now a few dozen American politicians have previously warned that could have consequences for Ireland in terms of our relations with with the United States. Do you think that could uh have blowback? >> Yes and I'm waiting to see the the similar legislation regarding China based on their their actual genocide of the Uyghurs. It sounds like a pretty big double standard to me. >> Ambassador >> Legislation against the Arabs or I mean taking Jews out of the entire Middle East and and shoving them into Israel or Europe. So, you know, it's I hope it stops this rank anti-Semitism because you know, I don't feel that way. I I don't think most Irish people feel that way about the Jewish people. You know, we we've got a lot of similarities between us and a lot a lot of uh kind of kind of shared history and and it's unfortunate >> [clears throat] >> it's perfectly legitimate to have a to want a two-party two-state solution or a peace treaty between the the Palestinians and the Israelis is perfectly reasonable not to, to support expanded settlements. I, I get all that, but the idea that, you know, Israel's being punished, uh, a plucky little country in a very difficult neighborhood is being punished in a way that that no other country is being punished by Ireland. It, it, it's not a good look for Ireland and I, I, I don't think Americans will like it. I don't think people around the world will, will like it. >> Ambassador O'Brien, you've been very generous with your time. We appreciate it very much. We've covered an awful lot of ground. So, thanks so much again and wishing, wishing you and your staff a good day. >> [music]