Susan B. Glasser is POLITICO’s chief international affairs columnist. Her new podcast, The Global Politico, comes out Mondays. Subscribe here. Follow her on Twitter @sbg1.

Subscribe to The Global POLITICO on Apple Podcasts here. | Subscribe via Stitcher here.

Susan Glasser: Welcome back. This is Susan Glasser from The Global POLITICO and once again, our guest this week is Senator Jim Risch. We’re incredibly grateful to have him as our guest on The Global POLITICO. He’s fresh off of not only a trip to South Korea and the Olympics, staring right into the eyes of North Korea. You could see that from your hotel room, right, sir?


Sen. Risch (R-Idaho): It wasn’t the hotel room, but I’ve been close enough that I could see across the DMZ. So yeah, I’ve been close.

Glasser: And you also went to the Munich Security Conference right before that. Was that just one trip or two?

Risch: It was two trips. The other one was the weekend before.

Glasser: Although North Korea was also a theme, in a way, of that visit to Munich.

Risch: Well, that’s an international security conference and I think all the issues are on the table when you talk about global security threats. And so obviously, that’s a big one.

Glasser: Well, you made some headlines with your comments to the gathered elites at Munich when you talked about North Korea and just how seriously the Trump administration back here in Washington is taking it. You said that war would be “very, very brief” with North Korea, but only because it would produce such catastrophic effects, basically. It would be a cataclysm, I think you said, just of the likes that we’ve never really seen. There was a lot of discussion about what you meant the comments to signal with that—and are you seeing that President Trump is really actively considering taking the country to war?

Risch: Well, that’s kind of some of the headlines that came out of that. In this day and age, particularly in this place in Washington, D.C., everything is about Donald Trump, and this really should be about Kim Jong Un. He’s fully in charge of this. Kim Jong Un is going to determine the outcome of this. He’s going to determine the way that it resolves, and it’s all up to him. But instead, they did write headlines saying, “Trump was ready to go to war,” etc. And that was not the intent. The articles very accurately quoted what I said. The headlines didn’t represent what the article was all about.

Glasser: Well, and it’s a good example actually in this moment of crisis and signaling there is so much that can go wrong at every step of the way—

Risch: That’s right.

Glasser: Because it’s not just the misreading that Donald Trump and Kim Jong Un can do of each other, but also, even understanding what messages are being transmitted. I thought it was very interesting that you and Senator Shaheen, a Democrat who is also on the Foreign Relations Committee with you, who made the trip—that you two had been briefed before you went over and that you didn’t believe that the Trump administration was considering the so-called “bloody nose strike.” Who was briefing you and what do you think is under consideration?

Risch: Well, the people I was briefed by are going to remain unnamed, but I can tell you this: it was the highest, highest possible level of briefing you could have on that, and I want to be very clear on this: there is no bloody nose strategy. The word “bloody nose” has never been used by the administration. Somewhere along the line, some reporter coined that. It is a strategy that is dumb and it’s not one of the strategies or the opportunities that were given to the president as he mulls this over and decides what action to take at that particular time.

So let’s get that off the table. Let’s have everybody understand that. And there’s a lot of reasons, not the least of which is I suppose that kind of a strategy would be a punch that was thrown. Well, in this situation, if a punch is thrown, the reaction is going to be very swift back-and-forth, as it escalates very quickly. And thus, getting to the point that I described.

Glasser: Right, well, that’s the thing. I think that’s what has had everybody so alarmed is recognizing that any military action by either side was likely to escalate very quickly in this situation.

Risch: And that’s true—

Glasser: But there have been reliable reports that the administration has been actively considering a variety of military options, regardless of the name.

Risch: And it is true that virtually all options are on the table and those options have been presented to the president, both military and otherwise. We’re still in the “otherwise” stage right now. Look, you’ve got to start with nobody wants this. The president of the United States doesn’t want it; really doesn’t want it. Nobody wants this because the consequences are just so stunning. And that’s true whether you’re talking about nuclear confrontation versus a non-nuclear confrontation. And it’s primarily because of the geography.

If you sit down, take a map, and map this out, and place on the map the armament that North Korea has and that we have, you can see that there are millions, literally millions of people that are in harm’s way if the firing starts.

Glasser: Well, I know you went to South Korea for the Olympics and you also had the chance to meet with top South Korean officials. I believe you dined at the South Korean seat of government with Ivanka Trump—

Risch: I did with the president.

Glasser: With the president. How alarmed would you say the South Koreans are about the prospect of war?

Risch: Well, interestingly, not as alarmed as we are, and the reason for that is and there’s been stories written about this in the media over the last years as this thing has heated up, and that is they are so used to living with the bombastic language that comes out of North Korea that they just get on with life, whatever is said. I think people here view it in a much more serious way because you don’t have every word that is uttered in North Korea published in our newspapers. Whereas the South has very robust news organizations and they have debates and the country is divided, really, on whether you use an appeasement theory on the North or whether you use other means.

And so they’re a free country. The Korean Peninsula would be a really good study for all American children and everybody in the world as to what happens under the circumstances. Whereas after World War II, the Communists invaded from the north, the South resisted. The U.S. joined the South and as a result of that, the South was able to hold on, got an armistice at the DMZ. And now, if you travel in South Korea, it is a first-world country. They chose democracy, rule of law, respect for human rights, a free enterprise, a free-market system.

And the people live there very, very well. A hundred yards away across the DMZ is the exact opposite end of the spectrum and you have people who are living as prisoners under a despot—it’s just staggering.

Glasser: It’s like one of those twin studies, right?

Risch: Yeah, that’s true. It really is and it shows what the difference is between communism and a democracy.

Glasser: But did you come away feeling that there was a lot of pressure from the South Korean side on Washington right now to be more open to negotiations?

Risch: Well, certainly, the Moon administration feels that way. But as I said, the populace there is divided. Prior administrations took a much more hardline approach than the appeasement approach. But having said that, the president of the United States has said, and I agree with him, that talking is good. And we have not had a good experience talking with the North. As you know, we were misled in the half-a-dozen or so other talks that we’ve had, and they wound up not very good. But nonetheless, talking is good and the South Korean President Moon said to me that he wanted to see talks.

And I told him, “So do we.” And we were sitting in the middle of the—

Glasser: Do you think that’s really true, though? I want to challenge you because President Trump has said that talks are good, but he’s also contradicted his Secretary of State and said, “Not right now.” I mean, do you think—

Risch: Well, that was some time ago that he made that—That was months ago when Secretary Tillerson was attempting to get the North interested in talks when they weren’t interested in talks, and President Trump was in the same position.

Glasser: So you think he’s changed?

Risch: Well, he has changed. He has said publicly, very recently, “Talks are good.”

Glasser: No, I know. But he also said publicly that you senators are scared of the NRA. He says a lot of things.

Risch: Well, I’m going to let you go there with that maybe.

Glasser: Fair enough. Let’s bring it back to Washington. You are in line to become the new chairman, potentially, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee if Republicans hold onto the Senate as we expect.

Risch: So they tell me.

Glasser: So obviously, we want to find out what your plans and thoughts are for that. But just quickly on North Korea: if it were to come to the worst, you said the president is prepared, if need be, to pursue a military option. Does Congress need to authorize that and would you be in favor of it?

Risch: Well, first of all, I’ve sat through dozens and dozens of hours of debates over who has what power are held by the 1st branch versus the 2nd branch. You can trace this debate back to George Washington and every president has believed that they have certain military powers. And this president is no different than his predecessor, Barack Obama. It was no different than his predecessor, George W. Bush.

The fact of the matter is whether they do, whether they don’t, it’s pretty much irrelevant because they do have the ability to do the things that need to be done to defend the country. Look, I’ve spoken with the president. He is a determined person. Whether you like or dislike President Trump, he is a person of strong will. He is a person who, when he makes up his mind and is determined to do something, he will do it. And he has said and telegraphed plainly what his view is of the North Koreans possessing a weapon that can threaten the United States with a nuclear bomb and that Kim Jong Un needs to listen to him very carefully.

He’s not dealing with Barack Obama anymore; he’s dealing with Donald Trump and Donald Trump is committed to the defense of the American people here on the homeland. Committed, deeply committed.

Glasser: So you’re not answering on the question of whether Congress would need to weigh in on any military course of action?

Risch: I think every president has viewed themselves as being in the position that if they needed to take military action to defend the country, they would do so. Should Congress weigh in? Yes. In fact, the founding fathers put in the Constitution that war-making powers would lie with the 1st branch of government.

The difficulty is living in the 21st century, 100 senators sitting around in togas and debating this for two years doesn’t really deal with the situation at hand. So I think that debate is irrelevant. I think it’s important what the president of the United States knows, believes, and thinks he needs to do to defend the American people.

Glasser: So tell me a little bit about the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Obviously, Senator Corker has had his ups and downs with President Trump. It’s a challenge to exercise oversight of any White House, given their outsized role in the executive branch and setting foreign policy. Do you envision changing or taking it in a different direction with your efforts?

Risch: Well, Bob Corker is a really good friend of mine and I think has done really well as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee and it’s been an honor to serve with him. But every human being has a different way of doing business. When it comes to the Foreign Relations Committee, we have a role to play on foreign policy. Obviously, there’s two parts to foreign policy: one is the construction of that foreign policy and the other is the execution of the foreign policy. We would be engaged substantially more in the construction, but we also have our role in the actual execution of foreign policy. It would be my intent that we exercise those roles robustly.

I intend to engage with the administration on that. I would probably do it less publicly. I’ve had a fair amount of interaction with the president, both before he was elected president and as president. I’ve agreed with him, I’ve disagreed with him. Every time I’ve had conversations with him, he has treated me with nothing but respect. Having said that, I’ve never taken my disagreements with him public, and we have talked about them and sometimes, we wound up getting on the same sheet of music, and sometimes we didn’t.

Glasser: On substantive foreign policy things or stylistic issues?

Risch: Yes, on substantive foreign policy things. And particularly early on. In the president’s past, he really did not deal much in foreign policy. And of course, you come to Washington, D.C. and there’s a lot of people who have been steeped in it for years and years and years. When you’re interfacing, it becomes at times awkward, but he’s gaining traction on this. I think he’s dealing with it substantially better than what he started with, which is to be expected because obviously, experience is a huge asset, particularly when you’re dealing with diplomacy.

Glasser: Well, let me ask you quickly: how concerned are you about the situation with the State Department? You were just in Korea, for example, There’s no envoy for Korea.

Risch: Right.

Glasser: There is no diplomacy. There’s no one. In fact, our envoy is leaving just this week. We don’t have a new ambassador.

Risch: That’s a really good question. Let me say this as kindly as I can: those of you in the national media have really, really blown this out of proportion. Are there issues? Of course, there’s issues. There’s always issues. Under every administration and in every department. Would I like to see more vacancies filled? Of course, I would. Are there things I would do differently? Yes. But this business about the crisis and all that; yeah, there’s a handful of people that have left. I don’t doubt that at all. The administration during the Obama administration brought in a lot of people who had a very different view of things then this administration does.

Frankly, if they think they should take work elsewhere, that’s a judgment that only they can make. But look, there are thousands of people employed over there. The turnover was really de minimis compared to the number of people that are there.

Glasser: So you don’t perceive that there’s an issue with conducting diplomacy with North Korea, for example, right now? Given that we don’t have any leadership—

Risch: No, I don’t think so at all. I traveled over to South Korea with a person who is probably one of the most knowledgeable people. She was sitting at the table at the talks when we’ve had talks before. We have a deep bench when it comes to North and South Korea, a deep bench. We have a chargé d’affaires that has been there a long, long time. And I’ve traveled a lot to countries and dealt with ambassadors. When there’s no ambassador and there’s a charge d’affaires there, things are not a whole lot different than if there is an ambassador there.

Obviously, the title is different, but we got along very well when we were there.

Glasser: I want to pick back up on this point you made about President Trump and that you see, in fact, an evolution as he’s become more experienced on foreign policy—

Risch: Be careful where you take this, but go ahead. I know where reporters always want to take it when you talk about President Trump’s evolution, but go ahead.

Glasser: No, no, no. I want you to tell me. Give me an example of his evolution. Senator Corker, I did an interview with The Global POLITICO at the very beginning of his tenure. So this was before Senator Corker said that President Trump was leading us to World War III. But he made the observation that he felt Trump came into office determined to be somewhat of a “wrecking ball” when it came to how we’ve approached foreign policy in both parties before. I’m curious whether you share that assessment of where he started out or give me an example of how he’s changed.

Risch: I don’t share that here. I wouldn’t at all classify his coming in and wanting to be a wrecking ball. This president, like every president, wants to be successful. He understands how important our relationship is with other countries. He takes a more strident approach than other presidents have. I think we can all agree that this president is different than the other presidents that we’ve had. But look: this is America. We are a strong country. We will weather this and get through this, just like everything else. And that’s the strength of the government and the country that we have.

As I said, I think that probably he was more strident when he came in. And as I’ve watched things, I think that he has moderated in that regard and picked up on how important diplomacy is. I don’t share Bob’s view on that. I think things are moving along as you would expect. Look, I meet with the Europeans.

Glasser: Yeah, I know you were quoted as saying that to them.

Risch: I don’t know where I was quoted as saying it, but I’ll tell you: if you think that there are people here in America wringing their hands, you ought to meet with the Europeans.

Glasser: I have.

Risch: I said, “Look, we’ve been through a revolution. We’ve been through a civil war. We’ve been through two world wars. We’ve been through all of these different things and we’re still standing and we’re doing just fine.” And we are going to be just fine.

Glasser: Were they saying anything different to you now? Like when you were at Munich as compared with say, like six months ago or last year. Has their level of alarm changed in any way?

Risch: I think that it’s like all things. I think they’re getting used to him to a degree. With the Europeans, it’s all about Iran and the Iranian nuclear agreement and they are—I hope that they’re coming around to understanding where President Trump is coming from and they have the opportunity to do some things that will keep the agreement in effect.

If they make a mistake on this and they, at times when I’ve spoken to them; some time ago. I think they’re starting to think about this a little bit more. But look, we are not—those of us who oppose the agreement are not happy with where we are. Indeed, these Europeans even say they’re not happy with where we are. Those of us who were critical of it, we argued as strongly as we could with the negotiators that you can’t just make this about the nuclear question. And they were saying, “Oh, no, no. It’s just about nuclear.”

Glasser: But looking forward, are you at the point where you’re already ready to say it’s okay if President Trump blows it up?

Risch: What I am okay with is doing what the president is attempting to do, and that is to get the other bad things that Iran is doing on the table. What you had is you had a bad boy in a classroom doing at least a half a dozen bad things. Okay, you resolve one of them. That doesn’t mean, oh, it’s okay now. You’ve still got a bad boy in a classroom doing five bad things and we need to really focus on those, and that agreement should never have been signed without getting concessions on those other five things. And that’s what we are attempting to bring the Europeans to. They have some interest in that and they need to have an interest in that. Because if they don’t have an interest in that, they may very well find out that the United States is going to take a walk on the agreement.

Glasser: What’s your current assessment? Give me a percentage chance that the agreement is—

Risch: I really don’t want to do that. What I want is I want the Europeans, our friends the Europeans, and we have a lot in common with the Europeans and they are our friends. But what I want them to do is to have a little more appreciation for how frustrated the president and a lot of us are on the fact that you’ve still got Iran killing people all over the world, partially with money that we gave them under the agreement. That’s disgusting to a lot of us and that’s got to stop. And if it doesn’t, things are going to happen differently.

Glasser: So you’re also a very senior member obviously, on the Senate Intelligence Committee right in the middle of this Russia investigation. Just the other day, you had the heads of the intelligence agencies up on the Hill testifying that America is still under an ongoing attack, and also, that they haven’t been ordered specifically by the president to take direct action in response to that. What’s your view? I mean, have we responded?

Risch: I saw Admiral Rogers’s testimony and the questions on his testimony and I saw how the press reported it. I think it was highly inaccurate. Admiral Rogers tried to explain to the committee that he was doing everything he could possibly do. And they said, “Well, a question was asked, well, have you been directed by the president of the United States?” He said, “No, he wasn’t.” Well, he didn’t have to be. That’s his job. You don’t have to go in every day and have the president tell you what your job is. Listen, Admiral Rogers is a great guy. He knows how to do this stuff. I’ve dealt with him for years on the Intelligence Committee and I have high confidence in him.

Back to the issue itself. This has been going on for a long time. This is nothing new, particularly for those of us who have been involved in intelligence work. We have a real appreciation and understanding of what the Russians have done over the years. And it’s not just here in America. They mess in every election they possibly can. They were active in the French elections in ‘17, in the German elections in ‘17.

Glasser: The Dutch.

Risch: The Austrian. Sometimes, it’s covert like it was here in the United States. Sometimes, it’s actually overt like it is in Austria, where they have their own political party; in Austria it’s all done openly and they finance it openly. And you have a combination of covert and overt. So the Russians—you have to understand the Russians and that may be a long stretch, but they are out to cause disruption. That’s what they’re doing and they do it through various mechanisms and when you have a free country like America, it’s very easy for them to buy ads or to put out things on the internet or what have you, and they’ll do their best to disrupt.

The best thing that’s happened is the lights have been shined on this. Americans aren’t stupid. After this has happened, everything they see now in this kind of arena, they’re probably going to question and question the source of it.

Glasser: So you said last year, right at the beginning of January when the administrations were changing that there would be real repercussions in response to—

Risch: There have been.

Glasser: Okay, do you feel that there have been?

Risch: Yeah, there have been. And there have been a number of things that have been put in place to dissuade the Russians from doing this sort of thing again. There are some oligarchs that are very, very uncomfortable as a result of what we’ve done.

Glasser: So you are spending obviously, a lot of time on the Senate Intelligence Committee on the investigation of the allegations about 2016 and you’re much more familiar as a result also with f where the Mueller investigation is at. President Trump has said it’s a “witch hunt” and a “hoax.” What’s your view?

Risch: I don’t want to. You guys always try to ask those questions that pit us against each other. Look, he has said what he has said. I’m on the committee. I know what I’ve seen, what I’ve heard. We will have a report for you and you will be able to lie it side-to-side with what the president said, and then you can make your analysis of it. We’re going to go wherever the facts lead us and we have looked at thousands and thousands of pages, interviewed innumerable people.

I’ve actually got a pretty good feel of where we are right now, and we need to move this thing along. I know the chairman of the committee; Chairman Burr is doing an outstanding job of making this work and he wants to make sure that everyone feels that we’ve turned over every stone we possibly—

Glasser: A couple of weeks ago, we had Senator Warner as the guest on The Global POLITICO and he said that he felt the committee was working pretty well and in a more bipartisan fashion certainly than on the House side. And in his view, he said, “Virtually every member of our committee, Democrat or Republican, would agree now on the facts more or less; that Russian sought to intervene in 2016 on Trump’s behalf with an array of both traditional spycraft and not so traditional methods.”

Risch: Senator Warner is not speaking for me; he’s speaking for himself.

Glasser: Okay, so you don’t think there’s a consensus—

Risch: We will lay out exactly what we believe when the report comes out. I think it’s premature for him to say that, but he’s a senator like everyone else. He’s entitled to—

Glasser: It’s interesting to hear you say that. He also said that he felt that there were some “very significant” new lines of inquiry that the committee had opened up as a result of information it received at the end of 2017. Do you think that’s an accurate statement?

Risch: I would take out the word “significant,” but other than that, I would agree with it. There are many, many, many lines of inquiry that have opened up, have closed up, and have moved along. But look, we’re going to get through this. This is my third investigation. I was on the torture investigation. I was on the Benghazi investigation, and now I’m on this investigation. I can tell you: I have such confidence and a good feeling about the intelligence community, how bipartisan it is, what good work it does. Next to the Ethics Committee, I’d say it’s probably the most bipartisan thing I do up here. Until—

Glasser: It’s bipartisan, but you don’t agree on all of the facts—

Risch: Until you get an intersection between politics and the Intelligence Committee work. Then it becomes much more difficult. Neither the torture investigation, nor the Benghazi investigation wound up with a unanimous report, and now we’re going to have a third one. We’ll see if we get a unanimous report. We haven’t voted on the report yet.

Glasser: I would say that for those who are listening, there’s a little bit of a skeptical body language on whether—

Risch: Well, we’ll see.

Glasser: Now, I know you don’t like it when people are asking you about President Trump’s tweets and about his quotes, but—

Risch: Yes, I don’t.

Glasser: But I’m going to ask you anyway.

Risch: Feel free.

Glasser: A couple of things. First of all, there is an emerging theme that whether it’s reassuring European allies or not, that when it comes to foreign policy, you shouldn’t pay attention to his tweets; you should just pay attention to what he does. What is your view about the significance of the president’s communication with us by tweet?

Risch: Well, I’ve run 33 times for public office. My initial election was 1970. Throughout that period of time, I dealt with reporters who said, “This is terrible. You politicians never tell us what’s on your mind.” Indeed, when I got to Washington, D.C., they said the definition of a political catastrophe was when a politician said what’s on his mind. Well, folks, you’ve got somebody right now who tells you what’s on his mind at any moment, at any time. So it is what it is and I guess everybody will deal with it as they deem appropriate. Maybe it falls in the category of “be careful what you wish for,” but you’ve got somebody who tells you what’s on his mind clearly and precisely, and using the technology that most people use today to communicate.

Glasser: On his mind today was your former colleague, Jeff Sessions, his attorney general, who he has been criticizing in a most extraordinary public fashion. Do you think those attacks on Sessions are fair? Are you worried about the institution of the Justice Department?

Risch: Jeff Sessions is a close, close, close personal friend of mine. He took this job from President Trump because he wanted to do this job. I can’t think of anybody better to do this job than Jeff Sessions. The last thing I’m going to do is try to inject myself between what he is doing and what his boss thinks of it. Those two need to resolve it. They don’t need my input on that.

Glasser: Last question, because I know you have to go, and this has been a great conversation. I look forward to when you become the Foreign Relations chairman and we can do this every week. I’m sure you’ll want to bring in—

Risch: We’ll see. My dad said, “We’ll see.”

Glasser: In 2016, when President Trump was running, you said you did vote for him, although you found it to be a “distasteful” vote. Have you changed your mind?

Risch: Well, that was right at the time when the tapes were released. I started out—

Glasser: The Access Hollywood tape.

Risch: Yeah, I started out—I was a national surrogate for Marco Rubio in his campaign. Marco and I are close friends. I sit next to him on the floor, on Intelligence, on Foreign Relations, on the Small Business Committee. In fact, he’s going to be chairman of the Small Business Committee when I leave. He and I are very, very good friends. I do more with him, I think, probably than I do everybody else, with the exception of my colleague, Mike Crapo. Donald Trump won the primary fair and square. He went through a very difficult election. He was elected by the states to be the president of the United States.

I accept that and he is what he is and when you’re doing this, when you’re in governance, and particularly when you’re in the 1st branch and you have to work with the 2nd branch, you work with the second branch.

Glasser: Okay, thank you so much for taking the time. I’m really grateful. Nice to talk.

Risch: All right, thank you.

Glasser: Thank you, good.