Steve Witkoff: the conflict with Russia can be resolved through trust and good relations
"Putin is a straightforward man, and he was frank with me," Steve Witkoff said in an interview with Tucker Carlson. The Special Envoy is confident that it is difficult, but possible, to resolve the Ukrainian conflict and restore relations between Russia and the United States. After all, everyone would like to live in a world where the two powers jointly implement good initiatives.
Read the full transcript of the conversation between the chief negotiator of the administration of President Donald Trump, Steve Witkoff, on The Tucker Carlson Show on March 21, 2025.
The Art of Presidential Diplomacy
Tucker Carlson: Steve, thank you so much for coming. I think you've had one of the most, perhaps, the most remarkable life success stories I've ever met. And now you're next to Trump. You ran Trump's election campaign. You are a close friend of the president, and you could work for anyone. But you don't want any other job because you're doing your own thing. And then the president appoints you as a diplomat, a negotiator on his behalf. And you are becoming probably the most effective negotiator in my memory. You're speaking on behalf of the president. I think everyone recognizes that you are an honest person, and people love you. So these are obviously the foundations of effective diplomacy. But what have you learned from negotiating on behalf of an entire country over the past couple of months?
Steve Witkoff: Well, first of all, I think President Trump is organizing a negotiating table for all of us. He really puts all his efforts into the peace processes. It's not just a slogan. It actually works. And so when he sends you to the Middle East, people there are a little scared before you arrive. This applies to me and other people who do similar work. Therefore, he organizes the meeting table and does it powerfully.
But negotiations should be results-oriented. I talk about it a lot and often. You need to be aware of what you want to achieve. This is Trump's standard plan. I sit next to the president, and we often talk about what the ultimate goal is, what he wants to achieve. And once you understand where you want to go, it all comes down to tactically figuring out which way it will be.
For example, the Middle East. You know, Tucker, when I first went there and talked with Brett McGurk, who was the envoy on Biden's behalf, he seemed to me to be a smart guy (talking about the Qatari negotiations in January 2025 between Israel and representatives of Hamas on a cease-fire and hostage exchange. — Approx. InoSMI).
He simply did not have a good boss who would set him the right tasks. Therefore, he could not speak on Biden's behalf. But I could speak on behalf of Trump, and that's what we talked about in the end. We ended up having a great conversation. He told me, "This is what I want to achieve, Steve." And so when I flew there, I did everything with the president's approval, which is crucial.
— Well, that's understandable, no one doubts that you speak on behalf of the president, you know what the president wants, because you personally know the president, you talk to him all the time. You're not some guy he just hired, and that makes a huge difference. But it also seems to me that you carefully study those with whom you are negotiating in advance. For example, what do they want?
Understanding of each side of the negotiations
Steve Witkoff: Of course, without a doubt. I always try to put myself in the other person's shoes, because a good deal should suit everyone. But I want to make this clear. When I said that I'm speaking on behalf of the president, it doesn't mean that I know what he's thinking right now. This means that I am constantly asking myself about it. He's the president. I hold my position only because of him. And I pay tribute to him by always asking one question: "What do you want to achieve, Mr. President?" That's what's important.
And now I know where to start. Next is a matter of tactics. From the point of view of the other side, it is important for me to know or have an idea of what the Israelis want to achieve. What about the Qataris? They are intermediaries at the negotiating table. What do they want to achieve here? What about Hamas? Where are they? Will they really demilitarize? Are they sure they'll do it? Will they remove the Golden Bridge from Gaza? (a reference to aphorisms from Sun Tzu's The Art of War, where the "golden bridge" is called the enemy's escape route. — Approx. InoSMI) This is all just guesswork, but first I have to figure out where my boss wants to end up. And my boss is President Trump.
— I have a feeling that you are forbidden to talk much about this topic. So what does Israel want? Obviously, this is a critical, key issue, but there are other players, what do they need? I don't know if I've ever heard anyone say that out loud. Are any Americans talking about this at all? And I think you've been criticized precisely for talking loudly about such things.
— Well, I think it's important to recognize that each side wants something. I think in the case of the Qataris, they are criticized for not being motivated enough. This is ridiculous. They are well motivated. They are good, decent people. They want effective mediation that will lead to peace. Why would they do that? Because they are a small country, and they want to be considered peacemakers.
I think the president understands this, and so do I. But we need to know that if they had a different agenda, we need to be aware of everything. Working blindly is the real problem in such negotiations. We need to know where we all are.
— I'm laughing because everything you say is obviously true. These are the prerequisites for a deal. And yet it's so different from the position of the last couple of generations of diplomats who said, "This is what we want. Shut up and do it." I think, leaving aside the moral aspect, I'm not sure that such methods were very effective.
Rebuilding Gaza: a reality
Steve Witkoff: Just another example, the Gaza Strip. You know, our president has voiced the idea of what could be done with Gaza. I returned from my first trip from there just before the inauguration, when we had permission from the Biden administration to cooperate with them.
And so. The President asked, when do you think the Gas can be restored? I replied: in about 15 years. Maybe in 20 years. He asked: why? I told him about the combat conditions. I was in Gaza: in fact, it is devastated, it is destroyed. There are also many tunnels under it — imagine Swiss cheese under the city. And then they were hit by bunker buster bombs. There's no stone left unturned.
"It's true.
— There's nowhere to lay the foundation if you're going to build something. And yet the whole world thought that there was a certain five-year reconstruction plan. And why? Because there was a Biden decree dated May 27, which became an agreement, and negotiations were held between Hamas, the US government and Israel in accordance with it. For the first time, they started talking about the five-year plan. But all his theses turned out to be false.
And now, the facts. You have to admit that this is a plan for at least 15-20 years. When we first started talking about such deadlines, everyone around us said that we didn't understand the issue at all. Until the Wall Street Journal wrote an article about 15-20 years.
So, the president's plan for Gaza was to bring people back to the former war zone. Where ammo is everywhere or where there are hidden traps. For example, a child may fall into a pit, fall 12, 15, 20 meters, and you will never find him again. Who could fix this? If something like this had happened in New York, they would have put a yellow ribbon around and no one would be allowed behind it.
And then the president was criticized, as if he wanted to create a beach resort with shiny towers and casinos. It was ridiculous. He remains realistic about what Gaza needs. Therefore, I think it is very important that you use only facts when making such decisions. And that was my assignment from President Trump. To go there, to reveal all the facts, to find out what is happening, so that then we can make a decision about where we want the Gas to go. And I think we have the best program.
Understanding the key players in the Middle East
Tucker Carlson: Definitely the best program. I mean, decisions based on honesty always work. So, okay; I think the president's goal is pretty clear. He's talked about it many times. She became the basis of his election campaign, and thanks to her he was elected. Namely, we want stability and peace in the whole world. It will only get worse for everyone if we don't have that. But as far as you know, you're one of the few people who seems willing to say it out loud. Can you just describe the three most important players in the current conflict in the Middle East? Can you tell us what you think each of them wants? What is their purpose?
— Well, Israel. HAMAS. And Qatar.
Qatar is a small country, probably with the highest GDP per capita in the world. They have huge reserves. I think they want stability. I think they want peaceful cooperation with the United States. Why? Because the whole Middle East, all the countries of the Persian Gulf want it.
By the way, this is an interesting point. Everyone thinks that peaceful cooperation is physical protection. In fact, we are talking about the fact that the United States provides a guarantee of security, primarily financial. You cannot apply for loans in these countries. So if you want to make a deal in Saudi Arabia, in the United Arab Emirates, there should be a hypothetical bank, the same JP Morgan, which will insure all military risks. There must be a guarantee that the Houthis will not launch a hypersonic missile at Saudi Arabia and destroy an artificial intelligence data center, for which we have already spent 200 billion dollars.
This is a real problem. Many of them want defense contracts so they don't have to spend too much out of their pockets. They take their oil money and actually invest it to create a better economy in the long run. Therefore, I am sure that the Qataris want stability, but so far they do not have enough credibility for such motivation. And this is a good motivation for their people.
"Amen to that." But they are often accused, almost universally in the American media, of being agents of Iran.
"That's ridiculous. Look, they are a Muslim country. In the past, they had some views, let's say, more radical. More Islamist views, but now they are quite moderate. There is no doubt that they are allies of the United States. There is no doubt about it.
— And they have a huge air base.
— Including. By the way, they pay for her upkeep themselves, to the last dollar. They have never asked us for financial assistance. The United States has never invested in this airbase. This is very unusual.
"Amazing, isn't it?"
— Yes, they pay for everything themselves. And they never asked for much. I had a conversation with General Kurilla, Eric Kurilla, who heads CENTCOM (the Central Command of the US Armed Forces. — Approx. InoSMI), an amazing person. I asked him: what do you think about the Qataris? He replied that they were special people. Therefore, everyone who is in the know understands how decent the Qataris are.
And what does Hamas want? They just want to stay there until the end of time. They should always rule Gaza. And this is unacceptable. That's why we need to know everything. We had to figure out what they needed. What they want is unacceptable. It is acceptable for them to demilitarize. Then maybe they could have stayed. Become a part of the political process. But they cannot continue their military activities. We cannot allow a terrorist organization to rule Gaza because that is unacceptable to Israel. In this case, every five, 10, 15 years, we will repeat October 7 (the day of the Hamas attack on Israeli territory in 2023. — Approx. InoSMI). So that's exactly what Hamas wants. It's impossible.
— And how would they like to do business?
— I've never sat in the same room with them, which is a bit strange, isn't it? These are negotiations where you don't have another party. You don't even know if the guy behind the wall is the Wizard of Oz or not.
"Whereas you...I mean, without revealing anything secret."
— I think we need to trust the Qataris. If I didn't trust them, negotiations without the personal presence of Hamas would become a problem.
— It turns out that you can communicate with Hamas through the Qataris.
— That's right. And Sheikh Mohammed, the Prime Minister of Qatar, is a good man. He really is…
— He's amazing, it's true!
— He's a really special guy. He is caring, I spent a lot of time with him, we managed to break bread. He's just a good, decent man who wants the best for his people. But just as you mentioned earlier, he is able to put himself in the shoes of the Israelis and the United States. And I think he will be able to explain to Hamas what they will have to do to make a deal.
— Well, yes, from the American point of view. For example, it's just hard for us to even understand what Hamas is thinking. But it's necessary. I mean, from the point of view of all processes, we have to know this.
— That's right.
Negotiations with Hamas
Tucker Carlson: Is it difficult for you to understand them? For example, are you sure that you can communicate effectively with them, even through a trusted person? Do you understand what they want, what their red lines are, or something else? Will you be able to negotiate with them?
— Well, it's hard. You know, I'll give you an example of what makes everything so difficult. I went to Gaza, then had an amazing lunch with people from CENTCOM, the military. I shook hands with everyone I met. Because who wouldn't want to shake hands with these guys?: They're on the battlefield, you know, they're defending our country. I'm talking about all of our military. And then they showed me. The Israeli Southern Command showed me a film about what happened on October 7. And these are terrible shots. It's about mass rapes.
There was footage of Hamas men cutting off the head of an Israeli soldier. I saw them sawing their heads off. You know, it's really terrible. And it's beyond anything I've ever seen. It can be traumatic, right? It can change your attitude towards these people. And I think that sometimes, as a negotiator, you have to remain impartial.
It's not easy to make decisions when you have to look at this. But I had to watch that movie, Tucker. I mean, these shootings are real. You know, we cannot ignore the reality of what happened on October 7th. Now they would tell you that they have an excuse, but there is no excuse for what happened that day. It just doesn't exist. And, unfortunately, there were flaws in the security system back then. None of this should have happened, but all these flaws only made what happened that day worse.
— But do we understand this?
— I think we understand that there were failures in the security system, some mistakes were made.
But we are human beings. We are not robots. Artificial intelligence has not overwhelmed us yet. So people will always make mistakes. There were intelligence blunders, but there were really good people involved. I have met with several exceptional people in Israel. These are truly exceptional people.
The situation is complicated, but we need to know what Hamas wants. That's if we go back to your question.
Understanding the negotiation process
Steve Witkoff: The next step is to figure out what we can give them so they can leave, because that's our main task. You know what we heard at the beginning of the conflict: Hamas is also an ideology. They are ready to die for a variety of reasons. I have personally talked about this with the president. There is nothing that we would not discuss with him before we make a decision. Yeah, that's the way this guy is.
He was chosen. Not me. Not someone else. And since he's been chosen, we'll do as he says. Then I told him: I don't think they are that ideologically stubborn. They are not so locked into their ideology. I don't think so, and I'll never believe it. By the way, I believe that they put suicide belts on young children who have not yet understood what is good and what is bad. And they tell them stories. And once you understand how much they want to live, you can convince them of anything.
—Clever, clever. Absolutely it is. How difficult was it to come to such conclusions?
— You know what? I get a lot of intelligence reports, I have some kind of access. And it just seemed to me that every negotiation has its own phases and rhythm. If I'm not there, I get second-hand information. I need to feel it for myself. You need to live everything in real time. And that's when I kind of came to the conclusion that they wanted some kind of alternative.
We are currently negotiating to perhaps stop some of the Israeli strikes and perhaps end this conflict through dialogue. And if I don't have the feeling that we can achieve anything, why would I waste my time or the time of the United States? And even worse, why would I come to the president and advise him that we can end something with a dialogue, and then we won't actually be able to be as effective? This is a bad political attitude.
If I'm not immersed in the situation, I don't evaluate it, I can't go back to the president and say: I think we can end the conflict with dialogue or we can't. And these calculations will be the same as with the Iranians, as with the Russians and Ukrainians, the same as with Azerbaijan and Armenia. So these principles apply to all the conflicts that we may be talking about today.
"I'm just going to say this for the third time. I won't repeat myself, but it's just a completely different way of looking at the conflict. Not only in Gaza, but in all the places you just mentioned. You have admitted that, you know, we sympathize with one side, but both sides have an interest, and reason can still play a role in this. Negotiations can play a role. Dialogue can play a role. I haven't heard anyone say that in a long time.
And you get a lot of insults. I do not even know if you are aware of this, because you are constantly on flights. But in the American media and social media, you are being attacked as an agent of various foreign powers. "You knew that he works for Hamas, he works for the Qataris. Like, how did he get everywhere?"
How to deal with criticism
Steve Witkoff: You know, at first I really didn't like it.
— I can imagine.
But one night I was thinking about something. After my son Andrew died, one person told me, "There won't be a worse blow in your life." It sucks to become a member of a club of people who have lost a child.
—Oh, yeah. What could be worse?
"Nothing." And then I gradually became like President Trump. I stopped paying attention to what people were saying about me. I wake up in the morning, I read the newspaper. And they're trying to explain to me why I said something or did something-it was so ridiculous, Tucker, just ridiculous. So one day I'm... like in that movie? There was some kind of movie on the tip of my tongue, it also won an Oscar. I can't remember the name. Anyway, it doesn't bother me anymore. I just stopped worrying about what the media was saying about me.
— It touched me personally. Of course, it's nothing compared to what you've been through. But it seems that some of these criticisms of you are not really sincere. No one really thinks that you, like, support Hamas or work for the Qataris. But the point is different: to throw you off balance, as if to put a leash around your neck and control you.
—Without a doubt. That's the agenda.
— That's the agenda, no doubt. And it didn't seem to have any effect.
"From all sides?"
— From all sides, of course. Oh yeah.
— I had several cases when I was initially attacked as a supporter of Qatar. By the way, Qatar is an intermediary. He is not a party to the conflict, he is a mediator. And, by the way, he was an intermediary all over the world, no different from the Swiss and Norwegians. He was a mediator in Russia, in Afghanistan, God bless him. And he did an effective job. He's good at it.
So how could I not cooperate with an intermediary? And if I don't cooperate with an intermediary, I will definitely be ineffective. I can't even do this job. I had to know everything they knew. This means cooperation. And that's exactly how President Trump acts. I learned how to run a business from him. I got into my business thanks to him — it's a real estate business. And that's his ethics, that's how he acts. And therefore, in a certain sense, I am his follower.
— I couldn't imagine it until you told me. That you've known him forever. I didn't know that.
Trump's influence and personal losses
Steve Witkoff: Yes, I always dreamed of becoming like him. Everyone was dreaming. He came to 101 Park Avenue, where I worked as a simple lawyer. All of himself, a kind of hero of a cloak and a sword. And I looked at him and muttered: "God, I want to be the same. I don't want to be a lawyer. I don't want to be a scribe. I want to be like this man." Yes, yes, I remember, that's how it was. He was the Michael Jordan of real estate for me.
— It's incredible how your life has changed. I can't believe you have the chance to figure it all out. At the end, you'll look at your own life and say, "Well, that was amazing."
— Well, the Lord has blessed me. I would never have said that before after my boy's death. But now I'm sure I've been blessed, even after experiencing such a terrible tragedy. I think my son helps me feel what is happening — I relate to many families of hostages. You know, many of them will never get their children back. Their children have been killed or, in fact, may be killed if we fail to successfully implement a peace program in Gaza.
Therefore, I believe that I can relate this empathy or empathy that I have now to them. Each of them has my phone numbers. I talk to them every day, and I think it's been a great help for them. But, even more interestingly, it helps me a lot myself.
— I believe you.
— We discussed this with the president. The other day, I hosted hostage families in the Oval Office. The president got tired and told me that he had been notified of their arrival and ordered me to bring them. Let me at least say hello to them and talk to them, but warn them that I only have a couple of minutes, it's been a hectic day.
As a result, he spent an hour and a half with them. He talked to everyone and presented them with a commemorative coin (a collectible American coin that every president has owned since the 1990s, also known as the Challenge Coin, or the "challenge coin"). — Approx. InoSMI). He listened carefully to their stories. People talked about their children who might not come home. Many of them were prisoners themselves, hostages. Do you know what an experience it is when you tell me what it really was like? Some of the newcomers lived in cages and were chained around the clock. We talked to them about how it feels to just go to the bathroom.
Or what it's like to live in the dark, or starve like some of them, or watch other people get killed. And the president doesn't have to do that if he doesn't want to. He could only get all the information from me. But for him, this is already a personal story. And this way of doing business inspires people like me who work for him.
Now this story has become close and personal for me too. That's why I went to Gaza. I became the first U.S. official to visit Gaza in 22 years. But how would you have implemented the peace agreement if you hadn't gone to the place where you need to make peace? I mean, it's interesting, right? For example, it is interesting who will try to conclude a peace agreement and who will implement it. So, what is said in the contract, what is written in the text, now we need to find out the conditions on the battlefield, but no one went there. It's kind of crazy.
— Yes, it's crazy. And it's all connected to what you've been telling me for the last 20 minutes—that you need to understand each side if you want to influence the desired outcome.
— That's right.
- yes. Again, this is a revolutionary development in American diplomacy, and I am simply delighted with it. So, finally, the biggest player in all this, of course, remains the Israeli Government. What do they want? What the Israeli government wants (not to mention the Israeli population, I have no idea). But what does the government that makes all these decisions want?
Israel's strategic position
Steve Witkoff: Well, it's very difficult. I think they are well motivated. I'm sure there are things they're trying to do. You know, for example, we would not have been so effective in our work there if Bibi had not removed Nasrallah from the scene in Lebanon. If he hadn't beheaded them, he actually beheaded Hezbollah. If he hadn't done what he did to Hamas, he would have decapitated Hamas. Now they are nowhere near the level of the terrorist organization they were before.
Both of these events speak to his relationship with Iran. Tehran uses and continues to use proxies, and so on. Today they are less inclined to do such things. And correctly. Therefore, this Iranian crescent or Islamist crescent, which everyone thought would be effective, has been largely eliminated. So Netanyahu has done an exceptional job.
But, of course, he is accused of being more concerned about the struggle than the hostages. I think in some ways I understand people who condemn him, but I don't necessarily agree with that. I think he wants to bring the hostages home if he can, but he's sure the only way to do that is to keep up the pressure on Hamas. I think he's right in a way.
Look, there are nuances and changes that occur there from day to day. We were at the Arab summit a week and a half ago. We have put forward a proposal by Hamas. They reviewed it, and rejected it the next day. We found it unacceptable that they rejected it like that. Three days later, the Israelis intervened. Guess what they're saying again. Things are changing out there, Tucker. Hour by hour, you really have to keep up to date. I think Bibi feels like she's doing the right thing. I think he's going against public opinion, because people there aren't interested in much, they just want to bring these hostages home.
— So that's what public opinion is like in Israel.
— In Israel, yes.
— You won't feel it if you only read the American media. But Israel has always been, you know, ready for debate. I realized this as soon as I started going there. They have a very active debate about their own government. People seem to feel that they can speak freely on this topic.
Hostage-taking and the soul of Israel
Steve Witkoff: I went to Hostage Square, with guards, and my guys were afraid I wouldn't make it out. I do not know if there were four or five thousand people there, and we were passing by, but I said, let's stop. We weren't actually going to. Let's stop. We didn't even have much security. But I knew that everything would be fine. I knew, that's all.
I went there and spent almost an hour there. It was a heartwarming experience. Whole families gathered there. The freed hostages. People were crying. This issue has deeply wounded and divided Israel. It's like a scar on the soul of the country. We have to get these people back.
I talked about it with Bibi, I talked about it with Dermer. But at the same time, they have a strategic view of Hamas, how to deal with it. There are times when we agree with each other on some issues. There are points where we disagree a bit, but I think they have arguments, that's what I want to say. And our approach is that Hamas cannot continue to exist. This is the president's policy. And I am the one who follows the president because he was elected. And I believe in his politics.
— And he was elected, as it seems to me, on the basis of a very clear idea of how he would like to rule the world — as much as possible. Again, it all came down to no more chaos and no more wars — again, as much as possible. The Americans were touched by this. And the world understands this, and everyone knows that this is the agenda.
And you've said many times that before we start, we discuss what we want to achieve and what our tactical considerations are. As you know, many countries in the Persian Gulf have extensive ties with Israel, much broader than many imagine. Some have signed the agreement, others have not, but all of them are constantly dealing with the Israelis in one way or another. They are not hostile to the Israelis. But no one I've talked to understands what the long-term program is. What's the plan? What do we get if we assume that everything works out your way? Do you have a good idea of this?
The economic potential of peace in the Middle East
Steve Witkoff: Well, I think we should have some idea. I believe that we should focus on results. We would be short—sighted if we weren't focused on results - I mean peace and stability.
The Persian Gulf coast represents one of the most overlooked opportunities if we achieve peace and stability in the entire region. If we resolve the Iranian issue, and everyone will be able to invest in this market... The Israelis are just brilliant from a technological point of view. They have a huge technological base. They are represented in AI, robotics, and blockchain. And that's where the UAE is today.
"I know."
— That's where Saudi Arabia is today. That's where Qatar is today. Imagine that all these countries will cooperate and create a common market. It will be much bigger than Europe. Today, Europe is faltering. Imagine that they will set up their work properly, and they will all turn out to be entrepreneurs. It's going to be amazing.
— I totally agree. I think it's all about geography. You know, for thousands of years, the main issue has been the earth. What does the map of the region look like, and who controls what? And this has had a detrimental effect on the poorer and more populated countries of the region, in particular Jordan and Egypt. Egypt has a population of 100 million people.
I think it would benefit everyone if there was a clear understanding of when all this would be done. They say that's what kind of card we want, and let's discuss it. Do you have an idea of what the map will look like from the perspective of Israel?
— When you say “map”, do you mean which countries?
— Well, look. Israel has invaded Lebanon and Syria. They are not part of Israel, but it controls them. When all this is over, what does the Israeli government expect to control? And then, if we make it clear, I think people will decide, so to speak, whether they can live with it or not. It would have a calming effect if people knew what the ultimate goal was.
Appeal to Iran and normalization in the region
Steve Witkoff: I would say that the goal starts with an approach to Iran. That's the most important thing.
So, the first is nuclear weapons. We cannot allow this to happen.
And we can discuss how bravely the president acted by sending this letter, because many did not dare to do so. And this is important. But I'll come back to that later.
So, it all starts with the Iranian nuclear program. That's the most important thing. If they have a bomb, we will get a kind of North Korea in the Gulf Cooperation Council, and we cannot allow that. North Korea has a huge influence in its region, even as a small country. We cannot allow countries to acquire nuclear weapons and gain disproportionate influence. It doesn't work. So if we can solve this problem — and I hope we can — then we should discuss that as well.
The next issue that needs to be dealt with regarding Iran is that they are maintaining puppet armies, although we have proved that this is not an existential moment. Israel has effectively destroyed Hezbollah. So they don't really pose an existential threat. It's the same with Hamas. As you know, we are in conflict with the Houthis today. We believe we will prove that they do not pose an existential risk either.
But we all need to consider these terrorist organizations as a risk factor, even if not an existential one. They have a destabilizing effect. Then we'll normalize everything. I think Lebanon will be able to normalize relations with Israel, in the most literal sense — I mean a peace treaty. It's really possible.
Syria too. According to some signs, Julani is no longer the same person he once was. People really change. You're completely different at 55 than you were at 35, that's for sure. I know by myself, I'm 68 today, and I don't look like my old self. I'm not who I was 30 years ago. So maybe Julani has changed too. They squeezed out Iran.
Just imagine: Lebanon will return to normal, Syria will return to normal, and the Saudis will sign an agreement with Israel because there will be peace in Gaza. Without a doubt, this is a precondition. This is a condition that precedes Saudi normalization. Then we will have a Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Persian Gulf, where everything will work together. I think that would be epic.
"Yeah." And I think it would benefit the whole world. That's for sure. It would be good for the whole world, because Europe, alas, is dying. And so, yes, the United States needs allies abroad, and they are all potential allies. In a sense, they are already allies. So I can't disagree with you more.
New leadership in the region
Steve Witkoff: And don't forget, Tucker, one more thing. One of the peculiarities of the region is its young leadership. Mohammed bin Salman is still young. The leadership in the UAE is relatively young. In Qatar, too. These people are free of old emotions, they want to do business, they understand, like Trump, that people vote with their wallets. Everything is right. That's why he wants to bring money into the house. It seems to me that everyone in the Council has already got into it.
— I agree. This is a matter of human nature itself. People want stability and, of course, prosperity.
But it seems to me that the conflict in Gaza is dominating all these countries and their outstanding successes both in the economy and in the public sphere. And not only Gaza, but the very idea that at any moment everything could blow up because we don't know Israel's intentions. And it seems that even the people who should don't know. Do you think sooner or later they will take it and formulate: they say, here is our plan?
The future of Gaza
Steve Witkoff: I think so. But above all, I believe that President Trump's approach to Gaza has sparked lively discussions about different approaches to solving this problem. We see the Egyptian plan, we see how the Saudis are drafting their white paper.
So I think our next steps regarding Gaza will become much more obvious over the next six months or a year. Gaza is a hotbed of tension, and we have to deal with it. And I agree with the president that the old plans are not working. The old plans, the last 40 years or half a century of 50, have brought Gaza only war, reconstruction, a new war and a new reconstruction. It was pointless. That's why the president said it's time for us to look at it differently. He was criticized for this, because it happens every time you go against the old mindset and want to introduce a new one.
— Well, a new way of thinking is clearly overdue. I think everyone understands this. Let's say we are not sure that the future of finance belongs to cryptocurrency, but we are well aware that today's system does not work, and this is dangerous. Our debt has reached record levels. Many of our so-called leaders are shamelessly enriching themselves by supposedly serving us. This is a scam.
So where will it all lead? Well, fortunately, there are options. Donald Trump has repeatedly stated that he wants to make the United States the crypto capital of the world. He has already established an Advisory Council on cryptocurrencies and recently signed a decree on the creation of a strategic bitcoin reserve. This can give ordinary people an alternative to the discredited government system and, frankly, to the dollar itself. I'm not saying that you need to withdraw all your funds from dollars, but don't be idiots, don't be stupid.
One more question, and I do not know if it is possible to answer it at all. Yesterday, I spoke with some representatives of the Israeli Government. October 7 was obviously a bleeding wound for Israel, but they destroyed the Hamas leadership. They drove out and broke Hezbollah, Nasrallah is dead. No one could even imagine that this would happen. I was there during the 2006 war. I didn't think it would come to this. However, it happened. In addition, Bashar al-Assad's power in Syria has fallen, and a more pro-Israel leader, Julani, has emerged in the country.
So from Israel's point of view, all of this seems like huge victories that until recently seemed impossible. And yet, people in Israel, whom I know personally, have a feeling that the threat has only worsened. Don't you think so?
The future of Gaza and Hamas
Steve Witkoff: Well, I visit Israel quite often, and I think a lot of people are wondering: when will the bloodshed end? At what point do we decide that's enough?
I think that's the problem. Maybe the Israeli government needs to... But listen, I understand what they're doing. Their main premise, or thesis, if you will, is that the existence of Hamas cannot be tolerated. I think we're talking about demilitarization now. That's the main thing.
Hardly anyone thinks that Hamas can be simply taken out and destroyed. That's the idea, right? That's what Hamas is. This is an idea, even an ideology, but they should not be allowed to rekindle conflicts with the Muslim Brotherhood, along with the Islamic Jihad. All these groups are active in Gaza today. We simply cannot allow a repeat of October 7th. October 7 is in many ways similar to September 11. It was the same for Israel.
— But, interestingly, it happened just when it seemed that the situation was getting better. I mean, the Abrahamic Agreements were signed. Saudi Arabia has not signed them. But there were some considerations that they could. That was the trajectory, but suddenly everything moved in the exact opposite direction. So the question arises: how to guarantee... How can we create a structure where there will be lasting peace, and everyone can just live their lives, do business, and all that?
— Well, we need a very good Gas plan. That's where we'll start. We need stability in the Gas. Stability in the Gas may mean that some will return and some will not.
But I think we need to get to a place where people in Gaza can live better, and we need to have a plan for that. It's about housing, but also about the aspirations of these people. What awaits their children? Their children are the same as ours, right? And everyone wants the best for their children. I want the best for my children. I want them to get an education and become self-sufficient.
I don't think the Gazans and their families have ever had such an opportunity. We have to provide it to them and figure out how they can use it. This is exactly what President Trump was talking about when he talked about a new way of thinking about Gaza. Therefore, we will try to determine other plans for the development of Gaza. The phrase “two States" may or may not be present.
The two-State question
Tucker Carlson: By the way, what's wrong with her? I can't hear her anymore. I want to say that my stated goal all my life has been a Palestinian State. There were disputes about what it would look like and who would control municipal services, airports and all that. And there were a lot of details that had to be worked out. But for the last five, six, or even ten years, I haven't heard the authorities even talk about it.
— Because these words are explosive in a sense, you know? I'm going to get scolded for this. It's just words to me, right? For me, a two-State solution implies a recipe for a better life for Palestinians in Gaza. Let's get to it.
But it's not just about housing. Maybe we'll talk about the AI that will come there. Maybe we will talk about hyperscale data centers that will be located there, because we need it, and people can use them, and we will create jobs for them there. Maybe we'll talk about blockchain and robotics. Maybe about pharmaceutical production.
We can't restore Gas and put everyone on welfare. We need to give people economic and financial prospects.
—That's right. They should be treated like adults. So it turns out that a two-state solution is considered controversial today?
- yes.
— But that obviously doesn't stop you. What would you say about the cease-fire that you have achieved on behalf of the President? At least that's what I understood. You went to Israel and said that the president wanted this and that, and you got it. But then it was over. What are the prospects now? What do you think we should expect next?
Trump's approach to Middle East negotiations
Steve Witkoff: I have to say this. We achieved our goal because they didn't want to contradict him. He's not the kind of person you can cross.
— So the Israelis didn't want to quarrel with Trump.
— Not only Israelis. Also, Hamas and Qatar — everyone should understand that we have to do this together. There was a lot of misunderstanding in that agreement. A lot. We eliminated it. That was the game plan.
Here is the comprehensive role of the president's personality. He made it clear to everyone that no one was counting on success. It's not even up for discussion. And that's how we came to it. I want to say that it would have taken me a ten-hour interview to explain all the details to you.
— I can't even imagine everything. But it was all presented in such a way that you seemed to come and say: this is what we will do and this is what the president wants.
— What would he like to do. That's exactly what I did. He would have done it himself. I came and said it was unacceptable. That's what we need. And that's basically what I did. By the way, why reinvent the wheel? Why not repeat after the master? He's a master. So why not use his strategy? It worked effectively.
— When I saw how you did it on his behalf, my first thought was: why couldn't Biden's people do that? I want to say that they lost for many reasons, but one of them was the ongoing conflict in Gaza. This alienated a lot of voters from them. It was a real crisis for them. You know, Muslims in southeastern Michigan voted for Trump partly because of that.
And there were many of them. I never thought I'd live to see this. And many Orthodox Jews too, it was just amazing. So why is that... They knew it was hurting them. Why didn't the previous administration do anything?
— Because Joe Biden is not Donald Trump. That's all, actually. Think about it. When entering the Oval Office, did his politicians really expect a direct mandate? I wasn't there, so it's just a guess. I bet you don't.
I'm going into the Oval Office myself, Tucker. You get a sense of purpose. That's what it feels like. We are there to work out solutions, coordinate them and decide how to achieve this tactically. That's what we do.
Let's say we're sitting in the Oval Office. Me, Susie Wiles, John Ratcliffe, Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio. These are exceptional people. Also Tulsi Gabbard. And yes, it's good and interesting for us to work together, we are a very close—knit team. He has assembled a great team this year, and I hope that it will last until the end of the term.
But we're here for solutions, so this is a conversation with the president that sets the tone. He's interested in listening to different opinions, and I think that underscores what a great leader he is. He is not fixated on any one point of view. And I am ready to consider different opinions.
It seems to me that many people have a misconception about him, that he wakes up in the morning and knows in advance how everything will be. No, he listens and wants to understand different points of view, that's for sure. He is ready to think flexibly. I suppose this is a consequence of life experience. And I think this is a great example for all of us who work with him, because we also adopt this approach for the most part.
Prospects for peace in Gaza
Tucker Carlson: Do you think there is any hope for an early end to the bloodshed in Gaza?
— Yes, absolutely. But I'm not at liberty to talk about it at this stage.
— I understand.
— But I think there are some signs. I believe that some of the actions of the Israelis are frankly unsuccessful, and some fall into the category of “there is no other way.” Something must be done. Hamas did not react. Their response was inadequate.
Please note that I warned everyone at the Arab summit. Two weeks ago, we presented a perfectly reasonable proposal at the Arab summit. It was a bridge to a peace agreement, a bridge to the demilitarization of Hamas and the discussion of a long-term truce. I submitted it ten days ago. But Hamas... their reaction was completely inadequate.
I warned everyone that this would lead to military action in one form or another. Not because I knew in advance that the Israelis would intervene — I didn't know. It just seemed to me that after such a reaction from Hamas, there could be no other way.
We can change the course of events or take advantage of the situation to make Hamas behave much more sensibly, because they have a lot of influence there, and they impose their will at gunpoint, so we must demilitarize them.
We need real elections in Gaza. There must be a fundamentally new way of thinking. We need real security forces to ensure that Israel doesn't have problems in the long run. If Israel believes that there will always be problems in Gaza because Hamas is not going anywhere, this will never end.
Therefore, the only way to resolve this conflict is to convince everyone that October 7 will not happen again.
— I know that you are aware, but the neighboring countries are very concerned about the conflict in Gaza. Shots of the strikes are playing on everyone's iPhone, there are many dead, even children. And this issue is again agitating the population of these countries, in particular Egypt and Jordan, so much so that their governments may fall. This will lead to huge chaos, including in Europe. Should this concern be considered as a factor?
Problems of regional stability
Steve Witkoff: There's no doubt that it's a huge factor, a huge one. I think King Abdullah of Jordan is doing a great job dealing with this instability, but, you know, he's been lucky in some ways. I believe that Egypt can flare up and become a hotspot. If we lose Egypt, it will negate all the successes in connection with the elimination of Nasrallah and Sinwar.
The events in Syria have become a starting point for the region. I want to say that expelling Assad was a big deal, and no one expected it. But there is growing concern in Egypt. The numbers there are simply huge — unemployment among young people under 25 is about 45%. The country cannot exist like this. They are virtually broke. They need help, and substantial help. If something bad happens in Egypt, it will set us back.
And Saudi Arabia is important too. Mohammed bin Salman is a terrific leader, but people are worried about his youth and their opinions, so we must resolve the issue of Gaza. If we settle it, Saudi Arabia will be able to normalize relations with Israel, because this is an indispensable condition. And if they normalize, we will continue to act on the basis of the Abraham Peace agreements — this, of course, is the brainchild of the president. He wants the Abraham Peace Accords to be expanded, and we are working on that. We expect to announce the accession of several new countries.
— I can't judge this because I haven't been there, but it feels like serious unrest is brewing in Turkey — echoes of what happened in Syria, which Turkey, of course, is also involved in. Many Turks believe that Erdogan is at Israel's beck and call. I want to say that if Turkey has real problems, it will be akin to a global catastrophe, because it has a huge army. Can this be considered a cause for alarm?
— I think it was, but a couple of days ago the president had a great conversation with Erdogan. Really groundbreaking, I would say. I don't think much has been said about this, to be honest. I think it's because of the Houthis, because of Israel, and because of what's happening with Russia and Ukraine.
I think Tom Barrack, our ambassador there, did a great job. It seems to me that the president has developed a certain relationship with Erdogan, and this will certainly have an impact in the future. But there are also bright spots — right now, as a result of this conversation, a whole string of good, joyful news is coming from Turkey. So I think we'll hear more about it in the next few days.
Peaceful settlement between Russia and Ukraine
Tucker Carlson: Good. If you don't mind, I would... So, here is the chronicle of events, as I imagine it, being an observer. You come and deliver the president's message. There is a ceasefire in Gaza, which, as you have already noted several times, serves as a prerequisite for a number of other events. They say you can't go any further when you have an open wound. You've dealt with it. And the president was like, “Wow, this Steve Witkoff, my real estate friend, is really good!”And sends you to Russia. So?
"That's not too far from the truth.
— I've been watching all this because we know each other. It seemed to me that it was something amazing, I've never seen anything like it. Congratulations, by the way. So what do you think about this conflict?
— I think we've made progress here, too. Look, Tucker, I'm not just saying this. Every decision was made possible by Trump. I don't get paid to say that. I'm saying this because it's absolutely true. Putin has great respect for the president. You saw what happened in the Oval Office with Zelensky. Disrespect does not establish a good relationship.
—Oh, those arrogant little countries! Just look at the situation from the outside. It is inconceivable that they would act like that.
— And they depend on us. I know better. And we are so kind to them...
"Exactly.
— But listen, this issue has already been settled, and it's really good. Everything has already been settled. I hope we will put this down to a misunderstanding and come to a peaceful solution.
But I believe that over the past eight weeks we have achieved successes in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict that no one could have imagined. I've heard that some people considered the president's last conversation with Putin unsuccessful. This is ridiculous. By the way, during the two-hour conversation we discussed the final ceasefire. And there are conditions that the Russians will demand, because a final cease—fire is difficult. There is the Kursk region, where Ukrainian troops are surrounded. That's a fact. And the Russians...
— The Kursk region is Russia.
— Yes, the Kursk region is Russia. And the Russians recaptured it. And the Ukrainian troops fell into a trap. But the president doesn't want everyone to die. This is an important point from the battlefield that needs to be dealt with. Besides, is it even recognized?
— Well, for example, I can't guarantee that The New York Times is covering this topic right now.
— It seems to me that this question is somewhat lost. I believe that in many reports, the agenda comes to the fore.
The journalist is like this: I support Ukrainians, so I will write my article from a certain angle. Look, we want Ukraine to come out of this normally. I want Russia to come out of this normally, too. Again, we are focused on the result. Under the circumstances, this means that we need an agreement that the Ukrainian people can live with. We have to push it through. And on the way to this, various Senate approvals will be required.
We want everyone to be satisfied in one way or another. That's why we want the Russians to be satisfied. We want Ukrainians to be satisfied. We are discussing this with the Europeans. By “satisfied,” I mean an agreement that everyone can live with.
I believe that we have convinced Russia to take steps that no one expected. So, in the last conversation, they agreed to cease fire on the energy infrastructure. This means that Russia will not hit Ukraine's energy infrastructure, and Ukraine will not hit Russia's. This has never been talked about before. And here we are talking.
We have never talked about a moratorium on strikes in the Black Sea before — Ukrainian shelling of Russian ships and Russian shelling of Ukrainian ships. This will now be implemented within the next week or so. There are some details to be discussed, but the conversation is ongoing. These are important milestones, really important ones.
What is the ultimate goal? The ultimate goal is a thirty—day ceasefire, during which we will discuss a permanent ceasefire. We're not that far from it. But for a thirty-day cease-fire, we need to clarify all the conditions on the battlefield, so I started with Kursk.
But Kursk is just the beginning, because the border between Ukraine and Russia stretches for 2,000 kilometers. And there are 50, 60, 70 or even 80 collisions taking place along this entire border in a variety of conditions.
Putin asked me at the meeting: “What should I do in such and such an area where we are surrounded by enemy soldiers who do not want to surrender? Should I destroy them? How do I get them to give up? I'll be glad to let them live. I'd rather they raise the white flag.”
And this situation, which Putin told me about, is just a special case. There are 70, 80, or even 90 of them along the entire border. Each has its own combat conditions, and each requires a separate conversation. This is necessary for a ceasefire, and we are discussing everything. This is a big, big deal.
Our technical teams will meet in Jeddah starting on Monday. It is very important. There are a lot of good, positive signals coming from Russia about their willingness to consider various issues. Zelensky and the president had a wonderful conversation the day after the conversation with Putin. I think this is a sign of some flexibility regarding the end of the conflict.
I don't want to sound like an incorrigible optimist, but I really hope that we will bring the parties together. We have significantly narrowed down the range of issues, so I am optimistic.
The fundamental problems of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict
Tucker Carlson: So, about Russia. Putin has been in power for 25 years, and throughout this period he has been consistent in one demand: specifically, that NATO stop approaching Russian borders and that, in particular, Ukraine— the largest of Russia's neighboring countries, not become a member of the alliance. That's how I understand it. I am sure that this requirement still occupies a central place [in his system of views], period. There is no Ukraine in NATO — without observing this condition, there is no need to talk about peace. Just as Israel does not want to see Hamas on its border, the Russians do not want Kiev to be a member of NATO. What concrete steps can the United States take on this issue?
— Well, first of all, I think that the main issue in this conflict is the so—called four regions. Donbass, Crimea. You know the names.
— Lugansk.
— Yes, Lugansk. And two more. They are populated by Russian-speaking people. Referendums were held there, during which the overwhelming majority of the population voted in favor of transition to Russian rule. I think this is the main issue in this conflict. So first of all, when everything is settled, and we are having very, very positive conversations... and Russia is controlling them.
— In general, some of these territories are now, from the Russian point of view— part of the Russian Federation, right?
— That's right. But that's always been the problem. And it's like no one wants to talk about it. It's a topic that everyone tries to avoid. The problem is that Ukraine has constitutional considerations about what concessions they can make in relation to territories. The Russians are now de facto in control of these territories.
The question is, does the world recognize that these are Russian territories? Will Zelensky be able to survive politically if he recognizes [these concessions]? This is the central issue of the conflict. Absolutely.
As for NATO, I think Zelensky (and he has a close associate, right—hand man, Ermak) - I think they have substantially recognized that Ukraine will not become a member of NATO. There were various kinds of conversations about whether they would still be able to receive "protection in accordance with Article 5," whether Kiev would be able to count on [such support] from the United States or European states in one form or another, without being a member of the alliance. And I think this issue is open for discussion.
But I think it has already been agreed that Ukraine will not be able to be a member of NATO if a peace agreement is concluded. I believe this issue has been substantially agreed upon.
— This is a kind of incredible story, the significance of which has been underestimated in the media. However, you went to Moscow, and it turned out that you met directly with Putin and spent a lot of time with him.
— A lot of time.
— Which, in a way, deserves to be mentioned, given that you are a special envoy of the president, but you are not...
— I'm not the president.
— You are not the president, absolutely right. As you know, Russians are very prone to stick to formalities, in all respects. They are very fond of formalities. So it's quite possible to imagine a scenario in which the conversation goes like this: well, it's not the president, so our president won't meet with him. But he did meet you, and you spent a lot of time together. What is your opinion about him?
— I liked him. I think he was honest with me. Of course, that's what I said. And you can imagine, because of the way I say it, that I'm being vilified. "My God, you're really saying that you like it."
— Every American president before Biden said that. Each. Clinton. George W. Bush. Barack Obama. Every president I've ever talked to... they might all disagree with how Russia is acting or something like that, but they all said, you know, Putin is a straightforward guy.
— First of all, I thought it was very kind of him to receive me. To see me. Why on earth would I take it any other way? Except that it was very kind of him. I'm the president's envoy. And in his first term, the president had excellent relations with Vladimir Putin. So, I think Putin knew that it would be difficult for the president to come to Russia at such a time. I think they will meet in the next couple of months. But I think it was extremely kind of him to agree to [meet] with me. We have to admit it.
— You have to be a very brave person to say that.
— Yes, but by the way, it's almost the same as when I said that Sheikh Mohammed is a great guy because…
"Well, he's a really great guy.
- yes. I mean, if in our country you don't act like a lemming and fall off a cliff like everyone else, then, you know, you become the target of harassment. By the way, how can we resolve a conflict with a man who is the head of a major nuclear power if we do not establish trust and good relations? I do not know how this can be done. And President Putin told me during the first meeting, "Steve, you know, I haven't talked to Joe Biden in three and a half years."
"It's just crazy.
— How would you solve this problem, Tucker? Can you imagine that we would have a conflict? I do not know what that would be. You live in this house, I live in that one. I think you've encroached on my land, but we're not talking about it. How to resolve such a quarrel?
— That's why I went there last year, because it seemed to me that we were heading for a nuclear war. And I have the impression that if no one talks to Putin... well, at least someone has to tell his position to the world, because otherwise it could end in war. That's what I thought, anyway.
Russian-Ukrainian negotiations
Tucker Carlson: Yes. It's amazing. Negotiations between Russia and Ukraine are underway in Eastern Europe, and you are obviously at the center of them. At the same time, informal negotiations are also underway in Washington, which involve many people with economic interests in this conflict. Let's be honest. Of course, there are ideological interests. And all of Washington was mobilized to fight Russia. We are at war with Russia through our puppet Ukraine. And then President Trump appears and kind of slams on the brakes. But will the conflict be resolved?
— I am inclined to believe that yes.
— It's one thing to interact with the Russians, but dealing with the eternal bureaucracy is really hard.
— But who wouldn't want to live in a world where Russia and the United States are jointly implementing good initiatives? For example, if we integrate their energy policy in the Arctic region. To share sea routes, maybe to deliver LNG to Europe together, perhaps to cooperate in the field of artificial intelligence. If we can overcome the technology migration. Who wouldn't want to see such a world? What about the presidents being able to talk to each other about Iran, where Russia has some influence? Who wouldn't want to see such a world? In my opinion, this is very logical.
— I would passionately like to see a similar world. Not for any weird purposes, it just sounds great. Why not want that? But no one in Washington wants that.
—Well, I guess that's the thing. People get attached to this or that decision because it was the one they supported before. And it's hard for them to give it up.
— Yes, that's right. But you seem to be sure that we are talking about the entire Washington establishment, and they, by the way, are not all stupid. Some of them are very smart and highly motivated. They can be persuaded to support this point of view.
Progress in negotiations
Steve Witkoff: Look at the progress we've made in Russia. We have made tremendous progress. There's no other way to say it. How is it that Putin is trying to manipulate people like me or other people who can negotiate with him? In fact, Putin stretches out his hand and says to President Trump: "I'm ready for all this." And now the president accepts it and says: "Let me tell you what I'm rea
