[Lemon:] Well, it looks like this president may be president this the president may have us on the brink of war, as I should say. His trade war with China and his looming war with Iran. The president threatening to send, his words, "a hell of a lot more than 120,000 American troops to the region." Can the chaotic Trump administration manage on two fronts? Let's discuss now. Fareed Zakaria is here. He is the host of CNN's "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS." So much to talk about. Thank you so much for joining us here. You know, it's almost unthinkable but the Trump administration appears to be hurdling towards confrontation with Iran. Should Americans be worried now about this?
[Fareed Zakaria, Cnn Anchor:] I think so. I think so. I mean, I think that the thing you have to give Donald Trump on China is, he is in control of that policy. It is something he has long believed. he's been bracing the states. He's been raising the ante. It's difficult to know whether it's the right strategy or not but the Chinese have been bad actors in the international trade stage. This policy toward Iran, it seems almost like we're sleep walking into a war. The Trump administration does not seem to have a plan. Donald Trump seem to essentially have subcontracted this incredibly important policy, diplomatic political military to John Bolton, his national security advisor who has long believed that what the United States needs is an active, aggressive policy of regime change against Iran, like regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan has worked out so well for us. Right? I don't think that's Donald Trump's policy. But John Bolton is pursuing a very confrontational policy toward Iran. And it's quite possible that you add to that accidents, mishaps, signaling that goes badly and we do stumble into war.
[Lemon:] But the administration is saying that Iranians are that the Iranians are threatening Americans. And as you said, you know, it's John Bolton. People are pointing fingers at John Bolton. But Mike Pompeo, as well.
[Zakaria:] Pompeo himself another Uber hawk on Iran. These guys have, for a long time, believed that the solution to the problem in Iran is not to manage it, not to have diplomatic relations, not to cut deals with Tehran but to go in and try to replace the government, which is you know, it's really a fantasy that that would get us anywhere. Again, as I said, look at record of regime change in the Middle East. But the signals they're pointing to, Don, it's important to understand, are very thin signals that seem to me more manufactured pretext for the United States to take some military action. It reminds me of nothing less than the Gulf of Tonkin incident which got us into the Vietnam War. The Johnson administration was looking for something and they were able to manufacture out of a very small incident that actually turned out historically to be not even a clear- cut case of aggression. They used it as a pretext to say look, we got attacked, we have to defend ourselves.
[Lemon:] Yes.
[Zakaria:] I think something very similar is happening here. There's no evidence the Iranians are preparing for an attack.
[Lemon:] That's what I had Congressman Jim Himes on earlier and he said the very similar things to what you're saying. Listen, there are signs that things could be changing. And this is I want to read, this is a Washington Post headlines. It says, "Trump frustrated by advisers. He's not convinced the time is right to attack Iran." It's seeming to insinuate that he feels that he may be being led on by his advisors.
[Zakaria:] I think that report makes a lot of sense. Because Donald Trump's views on foreign policy do not seem to be consistent with Bolton or Pompeo. But Trump's problem in foreign policy is he's been trying on advisors like new suits because he's not quite sure what his own views are, other than as I say on China where he has long-held consist views on all these other things. It's not clear what he really believes. So, he tries out these advisors, watches them and discovers, wait a minute, that's not exactly what I think. But what he has got in Pompeo and Bolton are two very hard lined Uber hawks who really believe that the path to some kind of durable security in the Middle East is basically to go to war with Iran. It strikes me the highly dangerous strategy. It doesn't seem to me Donald Trump's strategy but the danger is once you go down this path it's very hard to back down without seeming like you're caving, you're conceding. And Donald Trump doesn't like to concede. So that's going to be the problem. They're going to put in a position where the only way you can get out is to seem like you're backing down. Seem like you're caving.
[Lemon:] Yes. Well, even the president's usual whisperers on Fox News seem to be speaking out against any conflict with Iran. Tucker Carlson question how it's in America's interest to go to war with Iran. Laura Ingraham said it would hurt the president's reelection chances. Do you think that will make him think twice? And maybe that has to do with this Washington Post headline?
[Zakaria:] I would hope they're thinking twice fundamentally because, a, it's a really bad idea. B, it doesn't seem consistent with his own views. But this is the problem with a president who is basically subcontracting foreign policy because he doesn't really know or care much. So, he's subcontracted Middle East policy largely to Israel and Saudi Arabia. He's subcontracted Cuba policy to Miami Cubans, to Senator Marco Rubio. Most of his Latin America policy is essentially an outgrowth of immigration policy. So, there is no, you know, there is no actual American foreign policy. It is a series of subcontracted deals to the Saudis and the Israelis in the Middle East to, you know, to immigration interests in Central America. The result is we don't know what his core instincts are. But he maybe he's realizing when he's confronted with this, yes, I don't believe we should be going to war with Iran. And let me point out, an unprovoked war with a major power.
[Lemon:] It sounds like what I read from Eugene Robinson yesterday about the president just sort of winging it. I have to ask you quickly about this trade war because the president says he is OK with it. And you can see it's hurting farmers and what have you. How much damage could this do?
[Zakaria:] It could do a lot of damage. Look, Trump here, as I said, I think he's in control and he has a consistent view which is that the Chinese have been bad actors. They've been misbehaving. He's got to reign them in. He's you know, exacting a price. Where he doesn't seem to understand basic trade economics, is that we're paying the price. He keeps making it out so when you put tariffs on the Chinese, they are you know, suddenly they're paying a lot of money and it's all going to the U.S. treasury. The money is being paid by the American consumers. It's a tax. And so, you know, it's worth it if you can get a better deal with China.
[Lemon:] Yes.
[Zakaria:] But it's not worth it because of the revenues you're getting. I mean, we could raise taxes on Americans anytime and get revenues to the
[Lemon:] Get the same result. Thank you very much, Fareed Zakaria.
[Zakaria:] My pleasure.
[Lemon:] Always a pleasure. Don't miss "FAREED ZAKARIA GPS" right here on CNN Sunday at 10 a.m. and 1 p.m. We'll be right back.