Return to Transcripts main page

Fareed Zakaria GPS

Interview With Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif; Cyber War, The Worst Case Scenario; Lessons From Athens, How To Beat Populists; Europe Versus Greece; Anti-Americanism In The Age Of Trump. Aired 10- 11a ET

Aired July 21, 2019 - 10:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[10:00:25] FAREED ZAKARIA, CNN ANCHOR: This is GPS, the GLOBAL PUBLIC SQUARE. Welcome to all of you in the United States and around the world. I'm Fareed Zakaria.

We'll start today's show with Iran. The Islamic Republic's foreign minister was in New York for U.N. meetings this week. And he sat down for an interview about the sky-high tensions between his country and America. Does Javad Zarif believe Donald Trump wants war?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MOHAMMAD JAVAD ZARIF, IRANIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: I think he doesn't want war with Iran but that's not what the people around him are interested in.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

ZAKARIA: And America's would-be Oval Office holders all want to know one thing. How can they beat the country's populist president? Well, I suggest they listen to Kyriakos Mitsotakis. He just beat his nation's populist in a landslide.

I will have an exclusive interview with the new prime minister of Greece.

Also, from swords to rifles, from machine guns to nukes, the world is constantly adjusting to new ways of war. So when will it set rules of the road for cyber war. Former Counterterrorism Chief Richard Clarke says it needs to happen soon.

But first, here's my take. You often hear that in these polarized times Republicans and Democrats have deadlocked on almost everything but the real scandal is what both sides agree on. The best example of this is the Defense budget. Last week, the Democratic House, filled with radicals according to the Republicans, voted to appropriate $733 billion for 2020 Defense spending. The Republicans are outraged because they along with President Trump want that number to be $750 billion.

In other words, on the largest item of discretionary spending in the federal budget, accounting for more than half the total, Democrats and Republicans are divided by 2.3 percent. That is the cancerous consensus in Washington today. America's Defense budget is out of control, lacking strategic

coherence, utterly mismanaged, ruinously wasteful and yet eternally expanding. $14,000 toilet seat covers and $1,300 cups -- yes, cups -- are par for the course. Last year, after a quarter century of resisting, the Pentagon finally subjected itself to an audit which itself in true Pentagon style cost over $400 million.

Most of its agencies, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, failed. The then deputy defense secretary Patrick Shanahan admitted, "We never expected to pass." Donald Trump says he's a savvy businessman, yet his attitude towards the Pentagon is that of an indulgent parent, "We love and need our military and gave them everything and more," he tweeted proudly last year.

Far from bringing Defense spending into some rational system, he has simply opened the piggy bank while at the same time trying to slash spending on almost every other government agency. The much deeper danger, however, is spotlighted by Jessica Tuchman Matthews in a superb essay in the "New York Review of Books." Matthews points out that we think about Defense budgets in a fundamentally erroneous way. Tying it to overall GDP. But the Defense budget should be related to the threats the country faces, not the size of its economy.

"If a country's GDP grows by 30 percent," she writes, "it has no reason to spend 30 percent more on its military. To the contrary unless threats worsen, you would expect that over time Defense spending as a percentage of a growing economy should decline."

The United States faces a world influx to be sure but surely not a more dangerous world than during the Cold War. It now spends more than the next 10 countries in the world put together, six of which are close allies like Britain and France, and the real threats of the future, cyber war space attacks require different strategies and spending and yet, Washington keeps spending billions and billions on aircraft carriers and tanks.

In the case of the latter, Matthews points out, the Army tried to get Congress to stop spending on new ones. It has more than 6,000 tanks. No luck. There are even more fundamental questions about the structure of the Pentagon. Why do we have an Air Force if the Army, Navy and Marines each has its own air force?

[10:05:04] Why does every service have its own representative to lobby for spending in Congress?

Dwight Eisenhower was the kind of Republican who had a pragmatic skepticism about government. He was the kind of seasoned general who understood that peace came from a combination of military strength and diplomatic engagement. That was why in his farewell address, he spoke about the dangers of the military industrial complex. 60 years later, it looks like one of the most prophetic warnings any president has ever made.

For more go to CNN.com/fareed and read my "Washington Post" column this week, and let's get started. Tensions between Iran and the United States are at the highest level

since President Trump pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal and re- imposed sanctions. Last month, Iran shut down an American drone prompting Trump to almost launch retaliatory strikes but then instead to impose a fresh set of sanctions on Iran's leaders.

It was in this highly charged atmosphere that Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif arrived in New York last Sunday for U.N. meetings. Last weekend, the staff of Iran's U.N. mission and Minister Zarif were all put under severe movement restrictions by the United States government. He is not allowed to come to CNN studios, so we met on Wednesday before the latest news at the Iranian ambassador's residence.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Foreign Minister Zarif, pleasure to have you on again.

ZARIF: Good to be back.

ZAKARIA: You know a lot of people think that the Iranian government is trying to raise tensions in the Persian Gulf by interdicting tankers, by in a sense signaling that it could in various ways block the flow of oil from the Straits of Hormuz.

ZARIF: Well, you see, we are in the Persian Gulf. We have 1500 miles of coastline with the Persian Gulf. We control the Strait of Hormuz. It is -- I mean, these waters are our lifeline. So their security is of paramount importance for Iran. But throughout history, Iran has provided security in these waters.

The United States is intervening in order to make these waters insecure for Iran. You cannot make these waters insecure for one country and secure for others.

ZAKARIA: Do you believe that as a result of this, whoever is to blame, you could have an escalation which would result in a military incident?

ZARIF: Well, in such a small body of water, if you have so many foreign vessels, I mean, accidents will happen. Do you remember 1988 when a U.S. warship in deep waters shot down an Iranian civil airliner killing 290 passengers? So accidents, even catastrophe, can happen under these circumstances.

ZAKARIA: Do you think with tensions being as high as they are, there is a possibility of war?

ZARIF: Well, you cannot simply disregard a possibility of a disaster but we all need to work in order to avoid one. There is a war going on right now. It's an economic war. An economic war against Iran targets civilian population and President Trump is on the record saying that he is not engaged in military war but in an economic war.

Economic war is nothing to be proud of because in a military confrontation, civilians may become collateral damage, whereas in an economic war, civilians are the primary targets.

ZAKARIA: Were you surprised by the ability of the United States, of the Trump administration, to essentially stop you from engaging in any international economic activity from even selling your oil on international markets, just one country?

ZARIF: Well, it is regrettable not just for Iran but for the international community that the United States can in fact bully important players in international markets to obey its rules against both international law and against their own interest. It is certainly regrettable. We will continue to set our ways. You will find --

ZAKARIA: But your production is way down.

ZARIF: It is way down but we will find ways to mend the situation. As you have seen our currency market has stabilized now after a year of fluctuation and it's going -- I mean, it's improving, it means that we will continue to face these difficulties with pride and with prudence.

[10:10:13] ZAKARIA: The -- a lot of people who believe that your -- the noose is around your neck, that the United States has got you in a situation the economy has declined, the INF has shrunk by 5 percent or 6 percent, the currency is -- did go down almost 50 percent or 60 percent. Are you cornered?

ZARIF: No. I think the United States has founded necessary because of its own mistakes to put excessive emphasis on its economic might to weaponize the U.S. dollar and as any analyst would tell you in the medium and long-term this is bound to have a negative impact on the predominance of U.S. dollar in the global economy. You see now that many countries including U.S. allies are moving away from dollar using their own national currencies.

Last year, Iran and Turkey used their national currencies in 35 percent of their trade. Others are doing the same. China and Russia decided to put aside dollar in their national -- in their bilateral endeavors. You now have a non-dollar denomination oil market in Shanghai.

These are realities of the day because of the excessive use and the weaponization of dollars so at the end of the day, because of U.S. desperation of this obsession with Iran that they want to destroy somebody else's legacy and put aside this nuclear deed that was negotiated, they're using -- overusing their dollar strength and at the end of the day it would cost them.

ZAKARIA: Do you think that you will be able to sell oil to China and India in the next few months?

ZARIF: We will continue to sell oil. To who and how is going to be a state secret because otherwise U.S. will go and prevent us from doing that. But we will continue to sell oil. The international oil markets cannot survive without our oil. ZAKARIA: Secretary Pompeo has restricted tightly your movement and

actually the movement of Iranian embassy staff even. He says he doesn't want to give a platform to you to spew Iranian propaganda. Why should he not get a chance to speak on Iranian TV? Will you here say that Secretary Pompeo can go on Iranian TV?

ZARIF: I'm grateful to you for coming to our residence to do the interview instead of me coming to your studio. That's a burden on you and not on me. I'm very happy to be here with you. I think the restrictions that have been put on our staff, not on me, remember, I come here for a few days, three buildings is usually what I stay in here. Our mission and the United Nations.

I don't have any other business here in New York. I don't come here for sightseeing. I've done enough sightseeing during my student days here in the United States so I don't need to do sightseeing.

But the restrictions that they have put on staff of our mission are inhuman. The children cannot go to school. These are unacceptable. They are limited to an undiplomatic neighborhood for residents. This is unheard of. These are against the headquarters agreement. The United States agreed to hold -- to have the honor of hosting the U.N. headquarters.

It comes with some commitments, with some obligations, but as far as Secretary Pompeo's appearance on Iranian television is concerned, he has been rejecting requests for interviews by Iranian journalists and I'm sure he will find enough requests from him, from Iranian TV, from other Iranian media, and if he decides to accept them on the same terms that I accept, appearing on American media, I'm sure he gets a chance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: More with Javad Zarif in just a moment. When we come back, I asked him whether he thinks Donald Trump wants war or regime change.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:18:02] ZAKARIA: We're back now with more of my interview with Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Foreign Minister Zarif, Donald Trump says he doesn't want war with Iran. He also says most recently he does not want regime change. Do you believe him?

ZARIF: I think he doesn't want war with Iran. I think he doesn't care about who rules Iran. He doesn't want regime change, but that's not what the people around him are interested in, and I think it is important for President Trump to look at the people around him. We take him at his words, that he doesn't want war. He doesn't want regime change but I can assure him that there are a few people around him who are on the record saying that they want war and regime change. ZAKARIA: I've been told that President Trump sent a letter to the

supreme leader of Iran in which he essentially offered to restart negotiations.

ZARIF: Well, President Trump did not send the letter but Prime Minister Abe brought his message, verbal message, and the supreme leader dissent very carefully. The problem is we cannot start negotiating with every new American administration.

Any country will deal with another country based on the fact that governments represent their countries. There was -- I mean, we just had an election here in the United States. We didn't have a revolution. You didn't have a revolution here in the U.S.

President Trump succeeded President Obama. Administrations have executive agreements. They have treaties. But they have all sorts of agreements that continue to be binding on the country. You cannot simply say, I don't like the previous administration and I want to renegotiate evening they did.

That may be an internal issue for you but for us, we spent several years, hours, days, weeks, months, nights, one of negotiating sessions that we had with Secretary Kerry started at 9:00 in the evening and ended without a pause at 6:00 the following morning.

[10:20:21] This is not something to renegotiate. Now if President Trump says that this is -- this was not a treaty, this was just an executive agreement, these are domestic issues. But he has violated enough treaties. Do you remember INF? Do you remember NAFTA? Remember UNESCO. Remember many other.

ZAKARIA: But let me propose a win-win. You said that there has to be a win-win for a -- so he has to win something, too. And the win would be that you agree to go back to the negotiating table. There is a suspension of these new sanctions, the U.S. suspends while you talk but you agree to talk about the nuclear deal ballistic missiles and Iran's regional activities.

ZARIF: Well, first of all, we did not need the negotiating table. We are at the negotiating table. The United States left the negotiating table so if they put sanctions aside, they can come back to the negotiating table and they can start discussing with us. At the negotiating table we have always discussed the nuclear issue. How to implement the agreement that we have. So they are more than welcome to do that.

On missiles and regional issues, we have not seen the seriousness of the United States in implementing what they already agreed to. We have to see the seriousness of the United States. We are not going to negotiate about our defense. It's a historical emotional attachment for our people. Our people went through eight years of war when they were being targeted, when they were being showered with missiles and bombs and even chemical weapons, and nobody gave us the minimum means of defense.

Everybody from the then Soviets who gave the Iraqis midair planes to the Americans who gave them AWACS Reconnaissance, to the French who gave them extra set missiles to the Brits who gave them Chieftain tanks to the Germans who gave them chemical weapons. Everybody helped them. Nobody even allowed us to buy a single missile to defend ourselves.

So it's impossible to tell the Iranian people that while the United States is selling $87 billion worth of military equipment, why Saudi Arabia is buying $87 billion worth of military equipment, and the United States is selling over $50 billion worth of military equipment to our region, to the Persian Gulf, every year that they expect us to abandon our only and most important means of defense.

ZAKARIA: So let me ask you, we don't have much time. What is the win for President Trump? You say there has to -- the only way that you're going to get out of this is a win-win, not a lose-lose. How do you give President Trump a win?

ZARIF: Well, President Trump can in fact find a mechanism to have international peace and security through agreement, through understanding rather than through confrontation. He made the very prudent decision not to start a war by deciding not to attack Iran in retaliation because he knew that he -- we would have responded and then as I said, you can start the war but you cannot end it. So that was a very prudent decision and he can take credit for it. He can take credit for restoring a good treaty that made both Iran and the United States and the rest of the world safer.

He can also take credit for the fact that he has been able to make sure that international agreements are abided by. So these are all important wins for President Trump and for the United States and I'm sure this is going to be a very important legacy for him.

ZAKARIA: But that sounds like there is going to be a long cold war right now.

ZARIF: Well, we have been under pressure from the United States for 40 years. That's not new for us. We've been to safeguard our interest, to safeguard our people, in spite of that. But the United States you see prevented us from getting means of defense. We built them ourselves. They prevented us from getting fuel for our -- for a U.S. build nuclear reactor, we produced a few ourselves.

They prevent us from making the money that is needed by selling our oil in order to feed our population, to buy medicine for our population. We'll find ways of circumventing it.

[10:25:03] They should not come and complain afterwards. I think these are not our preferences. The people of Iran prefer to have engagement but if the United States wants to prevent us from engagement, we will not simply accept to either submit to the will of a foreign power or to simply allow our people to suffer. We will find ways around it and the United States will accept the consequences.

ZAKARIA: Foreign Minister, pleasure to have you on.

ZARIF: Good to have you at our home. (END VIDEOTAPE)

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, is it possible for the world's powers to agree to a new arms agreement but this time for cyber war? That's what Richard Clarke says must happen when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: Did you know that Russia has the know-how to disrupt the U.S. power grid? Were you aware that China could mess with America's natural gas pipeline system? Both are true according to probably the best source you could ask for, the heads of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies. Let's not forget Russia's attacks on the U.S. elections in 2016 or that major American corporations are hacked all the time now.

The question is what can citizens, corporations and the government do to protect against all this?

[10:30:00]

It is one of the questions of our time and it is asked in a terrific new book, "The Fifth Domain: Defending Our Country, Our Companies and Ourselves in the Age of Cyber Threats." The book was co-written by Robert Knake and Richard Clarke, who joins me now. Clarke was the White House Counterterrorism Coordinator under President Clinton and George W. Bush.

So let me ask you, what is the worst case scenario which isn't sort of that outlandish, but a kind of cyber war, right? That is possible?

RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER SPECIAL ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT FOR CYBER SECURITY: It's possible according to the Head of U.S. Intelligence. As you said, the Russians are in our power grid. Chinese are in our natural gas pipelines. But since that announcement, the White House intentionally leaked we are now in the Russian power grid, so this creates a crisis instability situation, where in the period of tensions, there is an incentive to go first.

And there's a belief, I think, in some corners (ph) that cyber war is okay because nobody dies. It's not lethal, so we can do it. You saw that a few weeks ago when Trump decided, oh, I don't want to kill anybody in Iran by bombing in retaliation for the downing of the drone. I'll just do a cyber attack.

The problem is, at some point, cyber attacks become so painful that people hit out with conventional attacks. The Israelis did that two months ago, where there was a Hamas cyber facility attacking Israeli sites. And the Israeli has got fed up with it and bombed it.

So the notion that cyber can stay in cyber space is wrong. The Pentagon's own public policy is that if we in the United States get hit badly enough for the cyber attack, we will respond with conventional forces.

ZAKARIA: And what do you think can be done about it? CLARKE: Well, it would be nice to have arms control. You know, I'm old enough to have participated in arms control on strategic nuclear weapons and weapons in Europe. And when we started, people said, oh, you can't get there from here. It's too hard. The Russians will never agree. You'll never be able to come up with the verification measures. I hear all of that now when I propose arms control for cyber.

But, yes, it takes awhile and, yes, we don't know the solutions right now, but we have to begin the process. And the Trump administration has eliminated the people in the State Department who were doing that. The Trump administration eliminated the position in the White House that was thinking about that.

ZAKARIA: But the argument people would make is, unlike arms control, unlike nuclear weapons, the problem here is you can get attacked, you cannot know where it came from, they can plausibly deny it. The damage is sort of difficult. You know, the nuclear weapons had a kind of simple symmetry that allowed you to say, if you send a nuclear weapon our way, we'll send one your way.

CLARKE: I hear that the attribution problem, which is what it's called, is so hard. But if you go to the Justice Department website, you will see the names and photographs of the Chinese, Russian, North Korean and Iranian military officers who are doing the hacking. We know who they are. NSA is very good at this. We know who they are and we got their pictures.

ZAKARIA: So you think it's possible? And, presumably, there will be some virtue and everybody getting involved in this conversation, the Russians, they even -- so you'd bring Iran, North Korea, everyone to the table?

CLARKE: As the second step. As the first step, I would get a community of like-minded nations together, basically, the Europeans and our Asian allies, and say, look, you're all being attacked too. You're all vulnerable too. Let's agree on some international norms of behavior, as we have in the real world, don't bomb hospitals.

Now, the Russians do bomb hospitals in Syria, as you well know, but norms help. So let's start by getting our friends together, agreeing on the dos and don'ts of cyber war and then invite everybody to the table.

ZAKARIA: What would you do about the Russian hacking, potential hacking of the next U.S. election?

CLARKE: Well, first of all, I'd pass the Wyden -- Senator Wyden Bill, which is already -- it's a bill similar to what's already passed the House to give the 4,000 counties and 50 states in the U.S. the money they need to begin to secure their election infrastructure.

Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, is blocking that bill. And you have to wonder why. Even Marco Rubio and other Senate Republicans are in favor of it. And you have to wonder if perhaps the reason Mitch McConnell is okay with the Russians hacking our elections, doesn't want to do anything really stop it, is he thinks the Russians will, again, hack in the Republican's favor.

ZAKARIA: Well, Richard Clarke, a pleasure to have you on.

CLARKE: Thank you.

ZAKARIA: Next on GPS, the new Greek Prime Minister has been in office for less than two weeks but he's already speaking out exclusively to me. America's presidential hopefuls probably want to hear what he has to say.

[10:35:00]

He won a landslide victory over Greece's incumbent populists. The story of how he did it when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: And opinion piece on The Washington Post this week asked the question, has Greece found the formula for defeating populism? It's possible that it has. You see, after almost five years in power, Greece's left-wing populist, Syriza Party, was roundly defeated in elections early this month.

The victor, a decidedly unpopulist former banker who went to Harvard, his name is Kyriakos Mitsotakis. Monday will mark just two weeks that Mitsotakis has been in office. The Prime Minister joins me now exclusively.

Congratulations, Prime Minister.

KYRIAKOS MITSOTAKIS, GREEK PRIME MINISTER: Thank you very much. Thank you.

ZAKARIA: So when you decided to run for office and to lead the party, you were confronting a situation where Greece had seemed to have succumb to forces of populism both on the left but also right with the right-wing, Golden Dawn Party. How did you see the situation and why did you choose the strategy you chose?

MITSOTAKIS: My strategy was very, very clear. I was convinced that you can never beat the populists by playing their own game. So my bet was that, at some point, the Greek people would crave for serious policy-oriented, result-oriented policies, and this is what we delivered to the Greek people.

[10:40:05]

And so I would say by judging by our results, the strategy was successful.

ZAKARIOA: You defeated Syriza, and now, that one can understand, in a sense, the party was in power, people get tired of them. But what was also striking about the election is the right-wing populace, the Golden Dawn collapsed. Why do you think that happened?

MITSOTAKIS: I think, Fareed, that, you know, after ten years of crisis, the Greek people have had enough with politics of anger, of rage, of pointless nationalism. And in a sense, after experimenting with populism, I think that the pendulum is clearly swinging in the opposite direction.

So we managed to defeat the extreme right by coming up with an agenda that was patriotic but certainly not nationalistic and by focusing the problems that people really care about, issues that have to do with taxation, over taxation, issues that have to do with lack of investment, how do we create new jobs, issues that have to do with improving the efficiency of the public sector.

So, in a sense, this was a vote that obviously was -- in my mind was probably more rational than emotional but it was the expected backlash after four years of a very incompetent government being in power.

ZAKARIA: You said you decided it wasn't worth playing the populace game, which means you didn't want to sort of try to bander (ph) to the same kinds of issues and voices that populism was doing. Now, in the United States, in Europe, there are -- there is this debate about whether center parties should try to recognize, you know, in the case here, its concerns over immigration and things like that.

I realize with -, there's a slightly different issue. But, in general, do you think that, you know, one has to recognize there is this wave of populism and, you know, in much of the western world, it is about immigration and so you -- did you try to show you that were tough on some of the issues that seemed to have fueled populism?

MITSOTAKIS: Well, Fareed, a lot of the grievances upon which the populace feed are very real grievances and they have to be recognized. Usually, the answers offered by populace are not the correct ones. They're very simplistic and they don't really address the problems.

In Greece, we also went through a significant immigration crisis in 2015. More than a million people came through Greece and ended up -- most of them ended up in Western Europe. So, of course, immigration is an issue for us. And we have the solutions that we have proposed are, you know, very reasonable. Of course, we need to monitor our borders better but we also need to change our asylum rules and we need to make sure that we use European funding in a more efficient manner.

ZAKARIA: Up next, the new Prime Minister's views of Europe, America and President Trump. Don't go away.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[10:45:00]

ZAKARIA: We are back now with my exclusive interview with Greece's new Prime Minister, Kyriakos Mitsotakis.

Prime Minister, one of the striking features of populism in Europe has been the attacks on the Europe, on the European Union, on the European Union's program, the bailout of the austerity program in Greece was not popular. Were you seen as pro-European and did that not hurt you? MITSOTAKIS: Well, I am a committed European, at the same time, I acknowledge that a lot of mistakes were made in implementing the austerity programs in Greece by our European partners. And at the same time, I always believe that attacking Europe without any real justification and placing all the blame on Europe was doing great injustice to the European experiment.

I mean, we should not forget that, overall, the European integration process has been very successful as far as my country is concerned. We have greatly benefited from our participation in the European Union and from our participation in the Eurozone.

Of course, there are things within Europe that need to change. But attacking Europe as a whole or fighting for the disintegration of what we have achieved is not going to do us much good. And an interconnected world, Europe needs to be united in order to punch above its weight.

ZAKARIA: One of the things that I've always been struck by is when you look at European attitudes towards the United States, the country that is often ends up being the most anti-American, again, by public, you know, pew (ph) surveys and things has been Greece.

And now, you were regarded during the campaign as clearly kind of un- American. In fact, you were attacked as pro-American, your Harvard degree, a banker. How come it didn't hurt you to be seen as pro- American?

MITSOTAKIS: Well, I think these attitudes have changed. You're right to point out that maybe 10, 20 years ago, Greece -- Greek public opinion was quite anti-American. I don't think this is the case any longer.

One of the good things that the Syriza government did was not to change our policies of strategy partnership with the United States. Greek-American relations are at an excellent state, it is not a competitive relationship in terms with the rest of Europe and it is a relationship that can be further strengthened.

You know, as far as my personal background is concerned, I'm quite proud about my C.V. I'm considered to be a drawback in my political career. But, certainly, attitudes in Greece have changed and Greek public opinion is no longer anti-American as it was maybe 20 or 30 years ago.

ZAKARIA: How are you going to navigate relations with Donald Trump? Trump is in all of most of Europe quite unpopular.

MITSOTAKIS: Look, I've had a chance to have a quick chat. I had a longer chat with Vice President Pence, a short chat with President Trump. Again, I look at fundamentals of the U.S.-Greeks relationships and they are very, very solid.

[10:50:05]

And in that sense, I'm eager to work with President Trump to further improve the quality of our relationship.

And there is much more we can do, especially on the economic front. As I told you, one of my main goals is to completely change the attitudes of the international investment community in Greece and to turn Greece into an attractive investment destination. And there's clearly more room to attract more U.S. capital in foreign direct investments in Greece.

ZAKARIA: Prime Minister, congratulations again and thank you so much.

MITSOTAKIS: Fareed, thank you very much.

ZAKARIA: And we will be back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ZAKARIA: While some workers race to deliver the millions of products sold on Amazon Prime Day, others took the opportunity to strike overworking conditions, proclaiming, we're humans, not robots. Those protesters were human, but the robots are coming. Amazon added 1,000 robots to its workforce in the last five years, according to a new study by Oxford Economics.

[10:55:03]

In fact, just in the last two decades, the number of robots used around the world tripled to 2.25 million.

It brings me to my question, how many robots will be in the workforce by 2030? 5 million, 10 million, 20 million or 50 million? Stay tuned and we'll tell you the correct answer.

My book of the week is Daniel Okrent's "The Guarded Gate: Bigotry, Eugenics and the Law That Kept Two Generations of Jews, Italians and European Immigrants Out of America." The title says it all. The book is a gripping account of a dark wave in American history, and, yes, it does bring to mind some of the forces that play in America right now.

The answer to my GPS challenge this week is C, 20 million robots will be in use by 2030 with some 14 million in China alone, according to Oxford Economics. So while many have heralded the end of the era of Made in China, actually, the world's great workshop looks poised to cement its position as the leading global manufacturer. Internationally, this trajectory will cost some 20 million people their manufacturing jobs, even as it increases productivity and economic growth.

What's behind the shift? Robots are rapidly becoming cheaper than humans and their capabilities are improving exponentially, not to mention, robots don't protest, at least not yet.

Thanks to all of you for being a part of my program this week. I will see you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[11:00:00]