Xenia
Hello, this is open to Debate and I’m Xenia Wickett. In the late 1980s, Harvard professor Joe Nye introduced the concept of soft power, the ability to shape others’ preferences through appeal and attraction rather than coercion. The US has long taken advantage of international enthusiasm for Levi’s jeans, Coca-Cola, Hollywood, jazz, among other things, and through these has championed its values such as freedom, transparency, and an open media and economy. For decades, soft power has been central to US strategy. It played a role in President Reagan’s vision of America as a beacon of hope. A Chatham House study I led some years ago surveying European politicians, academics, journalists, and business leaders, found that this ideal of America was central to their positive image of the United States. But Donald Trump has taken a different approach cutting funding to soft power initiatives from U-S-A-I-D to Global Media Networks, including the Middle East Broadcasting network.

Xenia
Today we’re focusing on what this rollback means for us influence in the Middle East. Some argue it was a necessary correction, real politic over wishful thinking, but critics warn it was a weakening of America’s long-term influence in creating a vacuum into which rivals like China and Russia are stepping. Was Trump right to roll back such soft power efforts? Were they ineffective and waste and a waste of resources to explore these questions? Let me introduce our debaters arguing Trump was right to be hard on soft power. In the Middle East, we have Faisal Sayed Al Mutar. He’s an entrepreneur and founder and president of Ideas Beyond Borders, a nonprofit that operates several programs in the Middle East, designed to increase critical thinking and civil rights across the region. He’s also a fellow at George Washington University’s program on extremism. Faisal, welcome.

Faisal
Thank you so much for having me.

Xenia
And here to argue Trump is not right to be hard on soft power. In the Middle East, we have Jeff Gedmin, president and CEO of the Middle East, broadcasting networks, a congressionally funded media network. Now, one of the targets of Doge, Jeff previously headed up radio free Europe and has LED think tanks in London, Berlin, and Washington focused on international relations and diplomacy. Jeff, welcome Seia.

Jeff
Thank you. Glad to be here.

Xenia
Let’s get to our opening statements. We want each of you to take a few moments to explain your position. Faisal, you’re up first and are arguing yes, Trump was right to be hard on soft power in the Middle East. Please tell us why.

Faisal
Sure. Well, good morning everyone. I do have the most difficult job in the world right now, which is defending Donald Trump, and Jeff has the second most difficult job in the world, which is defending US foreign policy in the Middle East in particular. So the United States, as you know, have spent trillions of dollars in the wars of Iraq where I’m from, and Afghanistan, billions of which went to aid only to replace the Taliban with the Taliban and Iraq with another proxy in Iran. When you land in Baghdad right now, just couple meters outside the Baghdad International Airport, you see a picture of QMS money and Aya, despite the fact that the United States, and I’m sure Jeff will defend probably the Middle East gas network, spent roughly a hundred millions a year supposedly trying to change the hearts and minds of that place. But you might be saying us like, well, let’s not talk about the places it only that has heart power as well, like Iraq, Afghanistan, let’s talk about Jordan.

Faisal
When the United States spent billions of dollars so-called propping up so-called civil society in Jordan and promoting democracy and all of these stuff, while we’ve seen a protest recently in Jordan in Ahman where we also operate, who do you think they were cheering for in this protest? Do you think they were cheering for Thomas Jefferson? No, you’re wrong. They were cheering for Abda, the Spokeperson of Hamas, who actually led Hamas in this media efforts after October 7th. So that’s what people, despite the fact that the United States has spent billions of dollars in this place trying to promote freedom and democracy, let’s look at the mother of the Arab Supreme Tunisia, where the United States have spent millions if not billions of dollars also trying to promote its own values. Well, Tunisia right now is more authoritarian than it is than before the Arab Spring. So let me just kind of give a framework on that is that the United States have spent since the Cold War, roughly about 30 to 40 billion, and the Middle East today is more closed, more authoritarian, and more people hate America.

Faisal
So if you think that was in any shape or form, a functional government program that I think you might want to consider, Jeffrey has and the US HC global media has I think one of the most impossible jobs in the world. Many of these programs like the US HS global media, which in Middle East started 2004, they most like I think what I call came after the American success or maybe the American arrogance after the fall of the Berlin Wall Back in the day, if you look what that America used to be, you’ll not be able to differentiate much between a speak by a Democrat or a speech by a Republican. Both Republicans and Democrat had very clear stance that the Soviet Union was an enemy, and there was a very clear messaging that the United States, democratic, capitalistic, a Christian or multicultural, rural religious was good and the Soviet Union, the communists, and they are poor.

Faisal
And you go to a supermarket in Walmart where it’s filled with a lot of goods and then you look at the supermarket in Moscow and people are starving. Well, unfortunately that world is over right now and the American conviction of these values, I would argue no longer exists. America is now more polarized than ever. America itself doesn’t believe in its own values. That was actually, that started at the beginning of the show, the US Congress, which funds the US Agency of Global Media, according to a lot of reports from Pew and others only received 20% approval rating from the US public. So for those who are in the younger audience, that’s called one star review at Yelp, that is what the US Congress approval right now and where they asked many of the Americans, whether they believe American values are actually working, the majority of them say no. So I hope that you’ll consider whether America actually believed in the values that the claims it does.

Xenia
Faisal, thank you so much, Jeff. You disagree. You believe that Trump is not right to be hard on soft power in the Middle East. You have four minutes to make your case

Jeff
Xenia. Thank you. And Faisal, thank you for those challenging introductory comments. And I hate to disappoint the audience, but I don’t disagree with everything you’ve said. Here’s some framing remarks from my side. Number one, it’s undoubtedly a predicament and a problem and challenge now that with the presidency of Donald J. Trump, I would say funding for soft power broadly is down and hubris is up. That’s a problematic, toxic, actually combination of things. Second thing I would say is it’s easy fa to describe the problem. It’s much harder, and I hope we’ll do that in this debate today in identifying ways to manage the problems. I don’t say solve the problem singular, but I say manage the problems plural. The next thing I like to say is it’s my vision. I’m speaking for myself, but I think the company I lead right now, middle East, broadcasting networks, it’s not my interest in imposing anything American at all.

Jeff
And as a matter of fact, we have markets and audiences the moment they tune out and turn off the television, the video, the podcasts, the talk shows, the debates, that’s when we really know that we failed. But there’s still appetite for us funded media across the Arab Middle East and Northern Africa. Doesn’t mean we’ve solved things, doesn’t mean that there aren’t problems, doesn’t mean that we don’t have problems with credibility actually, but we still have audiences. And the penultimate thing I would say is I think it’s important to understand in context that when the Cold War ended fa, the Soviet Union, which was a self-declared enemy of the United States, of the west of like-minded liberal nations and peoples across the country, the hubris that you described came first and foremost, not from the United States but from the region. And I don’t think it was hubris at all. Tens of millions of people across central Europe and Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union celebrated they wanted to join a different kind of world and different kind of society. And last but not least as we’ll dig into these problems in these next minutes. It’s my view that often, perhaps not always, as they say, imperfect action trump’s perfect inaction. So whatever the litany of complaints and criticism are for me and back to Donald J. Trump, quitting, stopping, surrendering, packing up, going home is not a very compelling option.

Xenia
Jeff, thank you so much. I just want to put out on the table, first of all, just for full transparency, of course, you face have actually worked with the Middle East broadcasting network NBN in the past. Just a quick question, what’s changed your mind?

Faisal
First, as a recipient, I considered myself a child of the American soft power. I grew up with Middle Eastern Broadcasting network, what I grew up Iraq. I also grew up with a French soft power when Monte Carlo, which was the radio of France, used to broadcast the voices of defectors of the Bath Party into Baghdad during the nineties. I would say the moment that changed my mind was actually during the Obama administration when Obama signed the Iran deal. And then the United States was giving absolutely mixed signals and mixed messages of what did it actually stand for? And I was talking to many of the employees of the US Agency, global media with us, and they had no idea what to do.

Xenia
I was like

Faisal
A hundred million dollars budget, but they don’t know what to do. I’m like, okay,

Xenia
Dunno what to do and thank you for that. And Jeff, can I just ask you an introductory question quickly? What drew you to this arena?

Jeff
So I think in your personal and professional experience, traveling in Eastern Europe from Hong Kong to Ahman, everywhere I’ve been as a professional, we all have our perspective. For me, having grown up in the United States of America, I think that with all our hypocrisies and double standards and flaws and deficits, we can count them forever and ever. There’s an interest for me as an American, but I think actually a demand from people involved for us to play some role, not no role. So that’s where I am, that’s where I come from.

Xenia
Thank you both for your introductory remarks. Before we move on, I want to try and summarize your arguments briefly. Faisal, you described that there were billions of dollars that have been spent by the United States to development, and yet if we look at Afghanistan and Iraq, the Taliban are back to leading Afghanistan and Iraq is much the same. In fact, millions and millions to change hearts and minds and little has been impacted. You talked about Jordan and Tunisia more authoritarian than before the Arab Spring. You talked about the Cold War and now the Middle East is more authoritarian and more people hate the United States. You noted that immediately after the fall of the Soviet Union, Democrats and Republicans sounded the same, espoused, the same broad beliefs, and that is no longer the case. There’s huge polarization in the US today, and so it can’t, soft power can’t be effective.

Xenia
Jeff, you started by saying, I don’t disagree with everything that Fassal has said. It’s easier to say what doesn’t work. It’s far harder to manage the problems, but there’s still an appetite for the US media in the Middle East and North Africa. There are still audiences for the us. When the end of the Cold War took place, tens of millions across the region celebrated. And you concluded by noting that imperfect action trump’s inaction, quitting surrendering is not a compelling approach. So let me dive straight in and if I can to both of you, but perhaps start with you, Jeff. What is the US actually trying to achieve with soft power in the Middle East? Is it democracy? Is it peace and stability? Low oil prices, containment of Iran? How has the US soft power historically supported some of these aims?

Jeff
So Zenya, thank you. I think as we all know on this debate today, the United States and Washington is not a monolith. We’re competitive, pluralistic democracy and depends on who you’re asking, the defense department, the White House, the Congress, republicans, Democrats think tank space, independent media and so forth. It’s my own view. This is my view that there’s something terribly idealistic and aspirational about this. How about that? I said those words in the era of Donald J. Trump, idealistic and aspirational. And then per definition, this is the stuff of long-term. I think broadly speaking, I think it’s a public good for the united, it’s government and citizens that people have a more or less favorable view of the United States rather than a hostile or aggressively antagonistic view. But I think if you’re looking around the globe, I think it’s a good for peace and security. When we support, we don’t impose, we don’t dictate, but we support what accountable government rule of law, vibrant civil society, political pluralism, respect for tolerance and diversity. Each nation finds its own way to embrace or express those values. But I think broad support of those values is a public good contributes to peace and security and to an American interest. But this is idealism and aspiration. It doesn’t happen this year or next.

Faisal
I mean, I agree with Jeff. I think the polarization is there and that’s why I personally, even though I received an offer to job by the Middle East Podcast network, I started my own organization. I think it’s our responsibility as American citizens because I’m an American citizen to campaign for our people and ask for private donations to support these ideals. I think that the American taxpayer, knowing that the American taxpayer belongs in all different political, that some of the people who might not support any kind of the initiative that the US A ID or the US political network does, then they shouldn’t support it. And I think my position is that I do believe that the United States, private citizens, private foundations, that those who believe in the values of democracy and human rights and pluralism should fund their fellow people around the Middle East who believe in these ideas.

Faisal
What I don’t think is that the one that comes with an American baggage and the American flag. And I think that one of the reasons why many of the programs have not been successful in the region, and I think most of the evidence and the VC shows that is that because they come with an American flag, they don’t come with genuine interest. It’s very obvious that the United States does not stand for these values. The best example, when the United States, well, Joe Biden called MBSA pariah, but then when he wanted to lower the oil prices, he went down and shake hands with MBS. So people in the Middle East are not ignorant. They’re not stupid. The reason why the US government led programs cannot succeed is because of that hypocrisy. While the private organizations can have much more genuine trust because of the fact that they’re not connected to the government

Jeff
Il, I think you’re stuck on double standards and hypocrisy. I think we have to live with that. I’m sorry, Switzerland has double standards and hypocrisy, so we can come back to that. Second thing is all the other competitors and partners in the region have state funded broadcasts. Iran does, Saudi does. Qatar does, U does. And so you’re arguing the United States. Please leave the court. I don’t think so. And the third thing I’d say is I’m all for this private initiative and private funding, absolutely 300%, but at the same time, let’s not be naive about that either money has, if not strings connections, so I can go out and get it from this or that corporation or this or that high net worth individual. But they too have interest and they too will be seen in the region as tainted, colored, affiliated or influenced.

Faisal
So I agree. The reason I think the countries you mentioned like Qatar, like the UAE and Saudi also, I mean they have the most successful media in the region, whether it’s Sky News Arabia that they bought from the uk, whether it’s Al Mesha, part of the major reason of their success is the fact that they follow a very consistent policy. And yes, some of that policy might change, but it’s not as polarizing as what the United States has. So I think they have, by the default, they have a very competitive advantage. They are from the region. That also makes a more competitive advantage. I think that my main argument, and I think we have done it a lot within the private sector, and maybe I don’t want to argue about the logistics in that, is that I think America can do a lot of what it’s doing right now in soft power, but with 10 to 20% of the price,

Jeff
Sorry,

Faisal
I think is that I’m not advocating for entire eradication of these. I think it can be done with much cheaply and can achieve exactly the same impact that it has right now, and that’s a win-win for everybody.

Jeff
Forgive me, so forgive my interruption. Of course. So I’m all for better price, I just say BN, middle East, broadcasting networks 24 7, television digital, 22 countries, two Apache helicopters. If you tell me do it for one, honestly, we could do it for one. But Donald Stray, Trump doesn’t want to give us a half of a helicopter. He wants to close his second, I’d say is noted. The advantage of the local indigenous media is tremendous. And still people come to us because they want to know what Americans are thinking, good or bad, right or wrong. And actually they want to come to us. They want to know and encounter Israeli voices with all the antipathy and all the anxiety and all the disappointment, frustration. We’re the one platform that gives Israelis regular platform. So there’s a niche. There’s a niche.

Xenia
Can I just pick up on that point Jeff, and a question for you, Faisal Jeff said to Apaches, soft power is generally much more inexpensive if one can put it that way than military use. Donald Trump has made it very clear that he doesn’t want to be bought into a military enterprise in the Middle East. So can you how in the absence of soft power and the absence of wanting to use the military and given the cost of the military, just give us your understanding of why this therefore makes sense to shut down American soft power in the region.

Faisal
So defending the consistency of Donald Trump is definitely something that I always get a struggle with. But I mean if you think about some of talking to foreign ministers and ministers who signed the Abra Abrahamic Accords, for example, during the Trump administration, they look at it in kind of double at sword. The American withdrawal from the Middle East can be both positive and negative at the same time. The reason why it’s positive because that third party that’s trying to fix stuff is no longer there. Part of the reason why some Arabs and some Israelis are actually more accepting of Israel today, especially the ones in the Gulf States compared to before, is that because they see that they’re actually kind of stuck with the Israelis is that now the Americans withdrawing, they’re like, okay, our neighbors there is Iran, which is next to us, is much more dangerous, who’re more likely to now work with Israel than before because America is no longer in the region.

Faisal
And they get the signals through the both administrations, through the Obama administration when the Houthis is attacked and then afterwards. So American withdrawal from the region, I don’t think it has to be viewed only through a negative lens because it’s actually allowing the region to integrate and talk to each other more. And the Middle East podcast war is not the only channel that provides voices to Israelis is the UAE that provides channels to Israelis, the sky news Arabia del many of the channels. So now the UAE is picking up the tab because they feel their survival is on the verge. I think that US withdrawal is not a negative thing. While in terms of heart power, I mean I think that, I wouldn’t say I’m against a lot of the hard power, especially when some of it is asked by the region. Many of the US military bases are there because of some of the allies in the region wanted. So I think is that it’s actually viewed that is to some extent what a lot of these regions want. They want hard power for them to counter terrorism. They want hard power for them to stop some of the hhy attacks. And at the same time they

Xenia
Still, but it’s more expensive. I mean, hard power is more expensive than soft power to weed.

Faisal
Many of the countries in the region, especially in the Gulf States, pay for that hard power. So it doesn’t come with a lot of cost to the Americans, I think because when it comes with the cost to Americans, that’s what I think the resentment is building. I think many Americans would want their America to be loved, but they see the bill, they’ll probably will like, I’m not sure I want to pay 35 billion.

Xenia
FA mentioned the Abraham Accords, which of course were brokered by the Trump administration his first term between Israel and several Arab states, and it didn’t rely on traditional soft power tools. So doesn’t this suggest that a hard power, hard nosed, interest driven approach can succeed

Jeff
Zia? I think it can. And I am a proponent of hard power too. And I think we’re looking at things in complement, and if we’re thinking about a vision and strategies plural, you need different instruments and different methods and tactics that are short and medium and long-term. Then let me also say, if I may go right back to Faso for a moment, I think this is a fact, and I don’t mean this as American hubris, but I think it’s a fact that still today it may change. Donald Trump’s mentality, attitude and outlook may change this very quickly, but today the United States in Europe, Asia and the Middle East still plays a useful role as what referee umpire, mediator, and were it to be the case faithful as they say, be careful what you wish for. We will leave resentment toward the United States will diminish, let’s say maybe, but vacuums get filled and they’re candidates and the Canada is not Qatar and the Canada is not Jordan, the Canada is not Morocco. The candidates are Iran, China and Russia. And as a proposition of vision and values, I don’t wish for that. And I’d like to say millions maybe across the Middle East will not wish for that either.

Faisal
There is some truth to that In terms of the Arab Barometer reports, which does a lot of research on now, they just published one on South power. I mean China, Russia are viewed very favorably in the region despite the American software money being spent. And there is a lot of reasons for that. One of the things is that China has visted in a lot of big infrastructure projects that actually impact daily lives of people. And that’s not only, you see it in the Middle East, but you see it in Africa. Most of the 5G networks in Africa is built by China. Many of the roads are built by China. And when you ask many of these people, why do you like China more than the United States? Is that the reason is that in many cases people see the Chinese products, they see the clean roads, they see better airports, they see all of these things that actually change the daily lives of people. Well, in the United States mostly they have a workshop that is being done at the Marriott about climate change and gender-based violence and for the daily lives of people they see a contract. So I think there’s something to be learned from the Chinese model in terms of how they actually leverage that soft power.

Faisal
But there’s a part of me and also there’s actually something, speaking of democracies, I mean the Germans for example, deve, which is the German broadcasting network, they did this interesting thing of hiring most of the comedians from the region and they gave them studios all across the Middle East and they were able to get far more popular than the United States and any other European nations because they did this very creative niche thing that made them very successful. So I think is that, let’s rethink, how can we do better? Because there’s a lot of room there.

Jeff
Well, Faisal, I love that I’ve just made a note. Hire comedians for in the N Middle East broadcasting networks. What we have, as you know, you know we have unbelievable here in the US and across the region, unbelievable and unmatched talent, knowledge, expertise. And I’ve been in this job for 11 months. Give us a little bit of time, give us Donald J. Trump a little bit of runway. I would just say this in reply. So one thing that’s important in my view is that you’re right, we can learn. So China has a certain approach and tactic that is constructive and effective at times. I’d only tell people when they talk to me. However, don’t think for a moment that the business of China’s business only, it is strategic. It is highly political and this comes from a highly autocratic, top down command and control human rights violating country. And the second thing I’d say, I dunno if I’m moving to you or you moving to me in this debate, but I think we do have a problem in particular right now with hubris overreach and the notion of imposition. And I think if we can reign that in and you can accept that the United States still needs to be in the US funded soft power game, maybe we end up at a good place.

Xenia
What are the stakes geopolitically and specifically for the United States if the US loses its dominance in the Middle East, if making a presumption here of course, that America has some leverage and dominance in the Middle East, what are the consequences both geopolitically and to the United States if that diminishes and maybe fa you first?

Faisal
I think it’s like it shouldn’t be viewed in this black and white terms. I mean the United States has massive influence over the world through Facebook and Instagram and Twitter. I mean most of the Arab Supreme has actually happened on social media that was built by the United States. So I think is that the United States can still have, and they still do have a lot of influence in the world through the private sector. So I don’t think it has to be in very black, white terms is that if we cut US funding for US agencies in dc, suddenly the US will have leverage. So I think the US will always have leverage. The other thing is that the US can always be a good model. I mean according to a lot of research is that a lot of people in the Middle East still want to study at US universities.

Faisal
The Saudis still pay scholarships to send their students to the United States. So I think there are things that the United States is really good at and that it has a very good education system that a lot of people go to. It has very vibrant private sector that uses a lot that people around the world uses its products and people prefer it to some of the Chinese because yes, Facebook doesn’t take as much of your data as TikTok does. So I think is that the US still has I think a lot of power and I think the people will not actually see a difference. That will be my argument. If all of this US funding for a lot of the government runs over, power will run away.

Jeff
I think this debate about soft power in the United States, US funded soft power takes place in a context that I’m very concerned about, I think is very important. The United States right now is in the midst of a debate, starkly put maybe a little bit exaggerated for effect, but not too much a debate between those who believe in retrenchment, withdrawal, isolationism, fortress America, and those who wish to see us stay engaged and internationalist in outlook. We can talk about how much by what method, when and where. But internationalists and engaged il, it’s true Facebook and Twitter and all these things. You spoke to the good news, you didn’t speak to the bad news. Freedom, freedom, freedom. It’s fantastic. And what we’re losing in the United States is with freedom, restraint and responsibility running across the culture and the political discourse. And then finally, where does this go? If Donald J. Trump has his way broadly, it means some version of Fortress America. It means spheres of influence around the world and the candidates who will dominate those respective spheres, as I’ve said before, will likely be China, Russia and Iran. Think about vision, think about values and all our flaws and hypocrisies, what kind of world you want to live in in the next 10 and 20 years. I believe in the imperfect American influence world and not the perfection of Russian, Chinese and Iranian autocracy.

Faisal
So I’ve paid on the numbers, the United States has paid 350 billion in the Middle East in soft power, but it’s more authoritarian today. And what do you think went wrong? Why do you think these programs didn’t achieve their unintended outcomes?

Jeff
So it depends on what you mean by the intended outcome. And I’m going back to something you said earlier. If mean 22 nations that are perfect liberal democracies at peace with one another, I would say that’s not coming. Whether we spend don’t spend reduce or triple down in the next five or 10 or 15 years for a variety of reasons that you would know far, far better than I. So I go back to aspiration and idealism, but indeed you’re right face. So you have to measure these things in some ways. And I don’t know precisely how to do that. I’m going to throw a bow in your way. If you had looked at radio free Europe in the 1980s pre Gorbachev and we had spent 40 years tens and tens of millions of dollars on Voice of America and radio free Europe and Radio Liberty, you know what? We had communist dictatorship everywhere and there’s no Gorbachev and then suddenly Gorbachev comes and it all dissolves. And then we have these people like Lake Len and VA Hale saying thank you. It was a beacon and source for years and years. So it’s not a very good answer to convince you and we have to find ways to measure progress. But I have to say there’s also a leap of faith involved in these things.

Faisal
I think we’re seeing it with radio for Europe is that the Czech Republic has offered to buy a lot of and fund radio for Europe, which is great. It means that the people in the region are taking agency for their own future and not that the United States is picking up the tab. And I think that’s one of the unintended consequences of a lot of the US foreign aid and intervention is that it has created a lot of dependency on these programs and they didn’t give people agency for them to take a future in their own hands. While we have seen in Eastern Europe, central Europe is that people actually took agency while the programs that the US has done in the Middle East are quite different, that they created more dependency and less agency.

Xenia
Can I just close Jeff with pushing that back to you? I think it’s a really important point. What we’ve seen from this administration, not least in the recent signal media, that HE and Vance of and Trump very resistant to spending money that Europeans or others can spend when it’s benefiting those parts of the country. So parts of the world. So can you just maybe close us out from this section and say a word about why is Faisal wrong and what are the consequences of it? Not having an American label but still actually taking place.

Jeff
So I’m happy if it takes place and I’m delighted if the EU and Britain want to step more and do more. They already do lots of important things. I’m happy with that. I mean we can let lots of things go and arguably some of these things will be more effective to Vice President Vance and Secretary Hexes and others. Their view is a view of retrenchment. I mean just don’t forget that they’re not interested broadly in alliances. I think we know that by now. There’re certainly times in Europeans and I don’t think that they have a view that alliances and engagement advance American influence and interest. Lemme just one quick word because it’s related to that. You hear from President Trump and Vice President Vance and others constantly that Americans don’t want to do this. Well, let’s engage Americans and listen and learn from Americans. We have 29,000 troops in South Korea today. That’s hard power. There’s no movement in the United States to remove those troops. Most Americans think it’s an overhead cost for peace and security in East Asia for U-S-A-I-D, our aid agency. We’re closing, closing, closing. And the administration is celebrating, celebrating. And Americans saying, thank God it’s 30% of our budget. Well, someone should say to my fellow Americans, it’s less than 1% of the budget. Maybe we can have a different conversation if we get our facts straight.

Xenia
Now we’re going to bring in some other voices to ask questions of our debaters. First stop. We have Al Toi, who’s a senior foreign affairs correspondent for Politico. Al, please come in with your question.

Speaker 4
Thank you so much. I am really grateful to be here. My question involves trade. I realize that trade is a very complicated issue right now with the Trump administration, but when I’m overseas I often hear leaders saying that they prefer trade to aid, that that’s what will really help their populations in a more sustainable way. So can increasing US trade sub in for the loss of soft power in the Middle East. And I direct it to both of you

Faisal
1000000%. That is what people love American products. I think that’s something that America is really good at. It’s one thing that people all around the region, I mean just to give you I think an example, we can all see what are the protest in the Middle East calling for more usaid. You don’t see any now with the United States cutting the funding, there are more protests in the streets of Ahman for the leader of Hamas that you have leaders that people protesting for the US A ID program. And the reason for that is because this money hardly makes it to the people. While US products do US trade, people use Instagram, people use Facebook, people use iPhone, they interact with the US through its movies. So I think it’s like increasing US trade, increasing US investments, mutual benefits works for everybody. I think that’s the best use of your soft power.

Jeff
So thank you. And Noal, thank you for the question. I think the challenge is many of these debates and in Washington DC many of the become very binary and it’s either this or it’s that. And so my view, certainly we need diplomatic tools. Of course we need economic tools and leverage and trade. I’m going to make the case quickly for aid and sometimes even sanctions. And then of course part of this so-called toolkit, a variety of means of soft power too. I’m not against aid actually I’m for trade. Absolutely the trade versus aid, more trade, more trade, more trade. I understand that the history shows that that is far more effective in lifting people out of poverty over time. But aid to zero it out when it’s a relatively small budget. I would rather reform it, restructure it if you will reduce it. But I think there are lots of things that aid does from feeding people to assisting civil society to promoting and supporting minority rights in a different country at a given country at a different time. So I’m portrayed, but I’m not for zeroing out aid. I think aid still has a role.

Faisal
May I suggest one reform if possible as I think instead of aid, I would love it to convert into investments. So the United States invest in startups and the people over there and the United States might make money in return. So in that way, American taxpayer doesn’t feel that they are losing money. I think that we can convert that model from aid to investments and we have that in my organization end up being very successful and much less costly.

Xenia
Thank you. And I understand that’s what your organization invests a lot of time and energy in doing. Thank you Nahal for your question. It was a great one. Next up we have Joshua Keating, a senior correspondent at Vox covering foreign policy and world news. Josh, welcome. What question do you have for our debaters?

Speaker 5
Thank you so much both of you. It’s a great conversation so far. We focused on US soft power aimed at the Middle East, particularly in the media. I wanted to ask about how it goes the other way. As was mentioned earlier, many countries in the Gulf have their own state backed media organizations. IMI based in the UAE has invested in a number of US media companies. Full disclosure, I used to work for one. And so I guess my question is should that be a cause for concern that these governments clearly have their own media branches aimed at American citizens? Is that something we should be worried about and should that inform the debate over how the US enters the media market in the Middle East? Thank you,

Jeff
Josh. Thank you. So I’ll take part of it and I’ll leave the rest to the more than able and eloquent. First of all, let’s compete. We believe in competition. They’re competing. I see no reason why we should take our ore out of the water. Part of the competition, of course, hard and long-term is to make sure that citizens who consume our media, broadly speaking, have the right level of literacy and judgment. I don’t mean that in a condescending way, but there’s a lot of weakness out there. And if it comes to one in our region, I’ll call it our region in the Middle East, rt Arabic seems to be very successful and very effective. And they have high end production value. They have charismatic personalities. And you know what they do? They have facts. They’re verifiable. They exaggerate for effect. They commit sins of omission and ready. They lie. Wow, it works. We want to compete against that.

Faisal
I think it’s like the other thing unfortunately or fortunately is that CGTN and Russia today, they also have a products that many people in the Middle East agree with. There was this leak from the Chinese foreign minister in meeting with one of the Arab foreign ministers and he told them, see we were never part the Chinese. Were never part of the crusades. We have always done trade with the Arabs and we have a relationship that is good with the Muslim mal while the Americans and the Europeans are part of their Christian invasion. So they have a message that resonated for every product there is. So there’s a larger conversation to talk about why Russia today has been more successful. In terms of the question, I mean I think it’s good to be worried. I mean I recommend everybody to watch the interview that Tucker Carlson did with the foreign minister of Qatar, who also happens to be the prime minister.

Faisal
And I mean talk about being eloquent that foreign minister is very eloquent and he was able to send very interesting messages about how Qatar and the MAGA base actually have a lot in common because they both believe in family values and anti-war culture and tradition and things like that. So I think there is a lot of causes of concern. I think we should be concerned that many of these players, whether good or bad or somewhere in between, have the ability to navigate the American space while we don’t have an influence in their nations. And if we had an influence, what I think was most of the debate is about is whether it’s been good influence, I think is that we should be concerned. I think that many of these countries have their interest and sometimes these countries could be allies. I mean Norway spends billions of dollars in aid, sorry, in lobbying efforts in Washington dc Many countries use America as a vehicle to achieve their own self-interest. And I think we should be always worried about and making sure that the US interests always triumphs the interest of other countries speaking as an American. But yeah,

Xenia
Thank you Josh for your question. Great question. Let me bring in our last questioner. I want to welcome Sean Tandon, who is the US State Department correspondent for A FP, the International French News Organization. Sean, what’s your question?

Speaker 6
Thank you. Thanks for doing this. In an interesting conversation. I wanted to take a step back a bit in terms of looking at what actually the metrics are for judging the success of soft power Faisal. You mentioned a little bit about how the failure to persuade the Middle Eastern republics and US foreign policy goals. What is actually the goal of US soft power? Are there broader goals, perhaps the encouraging political pluralism, tolerance, perhaps some broader social issues and can the US actually be successful in that by using soft power or are we looking for specific policy goals out of this?

Faisal
I mean, my tion will be short. I don’t think the US has any, they don’t know what they’re doing. They don’t have any concept of what they want to achieve. So when you don’t have outcomes, you’re not going to. And because of the polarization and the shift between Democrats and Republicans and things like that, that policy keeps changing. So I think part of the main failure is the fact that there is no consistent outcomes. Jeff will tell you it’s going to be democracy and pluralism. There is another administration that comes in and says, no, it’s about stability and counter-terrorism. And that is the Iraq war in 1 0 1. They kept changing the mission of the Iraq war every four years. And that I think is a very big disadvantage of US foreign policy that cannot achieve anything.

Jeff
So I’m going to add in fa. Okay, fair enough. We’re not clear. Iran is Ron Sports, Houthis, Hamas, Hezbollah and militia in Iraq. So you can either submit to that vision so clear, just so clear, or you can help us as allies in refining and clarifying our vision. It seems to me that we get back and back stuck on the flaws, the problems blemishes, but it’s still compared to what. And so be careful again what you wish for because you have a great ally. Donald J. Trump wants us to come home, watch in his third term, he’s staying for three. He says watch, celebrate. We’ll come home and see what compares compared to what looks like across the globe and in the greater Middle East. It’s not a vision that I have great confidence in

Faisal
Mean Trump. Not to make a joke, but Trump is the closest can get to Middle East. He’s pursuing a third term. He had has son-in-law to do negotiations. It cannot get more Middle Eastern than that, Jeff.

Jeff
Well yeah, that’s troubling. Is it not to,

Faisal
I know Tucker

Jeff
Carlsen his, I know you’re joking, but his proxy and ally Tucker Carlson comes to the Greater Middle East and meets with rulers and speaks to family values. Well, the beholder for me, bullying other nations and allies or intimidating and bullying fellow citizens here in the United States. That’s not my definition of family values.

Xenia
Sean, thank you so much for your question. You clearly got both of our debaters engaged with that one. Let me just follow up because you’ve said something a couple of times, Jeff that I think is worth pulling on the thread a couple of times. You’ve mentioned this idea of long-term, this isn’t a long-term. This has negative long-term implications. So can I ask you to just pull on that thread a little bit? What do you mean by that? What are the longer term implications? And then fassal perhaps you can respond to that

Jeff
Of course. So zenya by all means, I think one of the things that we Americans in Washington do and fail with very frequently is to be clear about the problem. We’re endeavoring to manage tackle, I don’t say solve, but to manage or tackle. And right now we’re in a moment in American politics where every problem looks like a nail and we have lots of hammers and they’re very big hammers. I don’t think that’s very sensible, rational and can be very productive in the long term. So we have these tools and certainly we have hard power and certainly we have diplomacy and certainly we have economy trade, not versus aid, but I would say trade plus aid and in some instances sanctions. And I think for some of these things, and back to our subject of soft power, I don’t think any of this is quick turnaround. I don’t think it’s highly utilitarian or transactional. And I think we’re offering soft assistance in the name of soft power. Decisions get made in the countries by the peoples and we’re not able to dictate, don’t want to dictate and shouldn’t impose that outcome. So for this soft power conversation, Nia, I believe we’re in it for the long run. I think we have testimonies around the world that speak to the idea, stick with us, just stay with us. Don’t look for the transaction or outcome stick with us.

Xenia
It’s this idea of we were successful in the Cold War because we had a long-term vision and we stuck with it. Faisal.

Faisal
I think that I would say one of the positive things that what Trump administration did is that it gave us a pause about these programs. It is asking us to rethink. And I’m very glad that some programs are already being restored, including the National Endowment of Democracy that funds a lot of democratic projects. But I think there is to be a national conversation within the United States in 2025 about what the country actually stands for and what it wants to export around the world. I think there is a disagreement. I think what I disagree with Jeff on is that I don’t think Americans, they agree on the, I mean I’ve been living in this country for more than 12 years, I don’t think. And the US government is a democracy, at least for now, claims that represent the American people, the American people. There is no agreement of what the United States should stand for and what can export.

Faisal
And I think because of that, your job Jeff will always going to be impossible because you don’t know what to broadcast to the world if you don’t stand on a place that actually claims to have certain values. It was much easier during the Reagan administration. It was actually even easier during JFK because when they were talking about the Soviet Union foreign policy, you couldn’t differentiate who’s talking now. You had Obama made the deal with the Iranians, you had Trump killing Kum Soleimani, you had Biden going back to the Iranians and you had Trump. Now Oli, God knows what he’s going to do. There is no consistency. So I think is that there is a conversation that needs to happen of what does America really stand for? And because after that conversation then you can commit to long-term projects because as of now, it’s just you’re doing, you want to do a magic wand, then you want to fix things and you’re not going to fix things.

Xenia
Now’s the time to bring it home. With closing remarks. Faisal, you have the first opportunity for a closing remark. Give us the highlights of why you believe Trump was right to be hard on soft power in the Middle East. You have two minutes.

Faisal
Well, thank you so much again for having me. It was a really wonderful conversation. I think what it really started is it really ignited a very important conversation about the United States in the 21st century, United States, 2025, its relations to the Middle East and how we can develop better programs within the government and ideally outside the government of how to expand United States power around the world. The programs started in a day during the Cold War that keeps mentioning about the Soviet Union University of the United States. The world now is far more complicated. The US message is very gray and doesn’t know what it’s doing. It used to be before, let’s super supermarket example. Now the best airports in the world are not in democracies. They are in autocracies. The best airports in the world are in Doha and Singapore and United Arab Emirates. That message of the United States is the great, you should follow us.

Faisal
It’s no longer working. Many people are trying to define their own identity in the 21st century. Some of that things that the United States might like and some of it might not, but I think is that there is to be a national conversation, which I’m glad this actually could spark. It, is that what does the United States stands for? And if it stands for democracy, it stands for freedom. At least be consistent with it because no matter how much money you flush, no matter how many billions of dollars you spend on the Middle East, the results show no result of any improvement. And I think the US today is much weaker $350 billion later than it was before I spent it. Thank you very much.

Xenia
Thank you Faisal. And now, Jeff, you have the final word in this debate. Convince us again why you disagree with the statement that Trump was right to be hard on soft power in the Middle East.

Jeff
Zenya, thank you. And of course, as we’ve said in this debate, he’s not being hard on soft power. He’s closing soft power. And I think that fa and I would probably agree, reform, yes, restructure, yes, reduction, yes. But Donald J. Trump is not being hard on anything. He’s closing things. He’s withdrawing America. Three points. Number one, fa. I don’t want to fix things. I want to identify ways in which we can manage some things to make them appreciably better over time. Number two, the United States of America. Now I’m speaking American to fellow American, you. It’s 334 million people across 50 states. We have a big problem with polarization, as you’ve said, fragmentation, increasing sectarianism. I don’t know what to do about that because I can’t solve that. And I don’t know if one person, politician, or president solves that, but that’s the cards we’re dealing with. We have to tackle that and at home, find ways to make things better.

Jeff
And the last thing I would say, as a reminder to all of us, we all seem to think that it’s such chaos and turmoil today, and we’re not clear about our vision and values and power abroad. But give a thought to those good old days in the United States of America where we got it all right. Slavery, segregation, the turmoil and violence over desegregation. Vietnam, Watergate, hyperinflation. I think we’ve had since the founding of the Republic, 47, 48, 49 recessions. It was never as good as we thought it was. And we may do and did pretty well. And the very last thing, I don’t think we’re exporting democracy. I don’t think we’re working in the utilitarian transactional area. I think we’re trying with others to create a little bit of hope. And for me, that’s very noble and very decent and worth doing.

Xenia
Thank you, Jeff. And that concludes our debate. I’d like to thank our debaters, Faisal, and Jeff, we so appreciate you showing up, approaching this debate with an open mind of bringing your thoughtful disagreement to the table. In short, you’re being open to debate. Thank you for being here and to al, Josh and Sean for coming in with your questions. They really did expand the conversation into new areas. Thank you.

Faisal
Thank you so much.

Jeff
Thank you.