John Delaney, a 2020 Democrat you likely forgot about, has a serious foreign policy plan

The most well-thought-out foreign policy among 2020 Democratic presidential candidates doesn’t belong to Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, or even Joe Biden.

No, that distinction — for now — belongs to John Delaney.

The former Congress member from Maryland is polling far, far behind his opponents, but that hasn’t stopped him from releasing a specific vision about what he’d do in the Oval Office. That specificity extends to his foreign policy, the area where a president has far more ability to act without restrictions.

In an hour-long conversation, Delaney spoke to me about how he’d handle Iran, deal with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, push back on China, combat climate change, and much, much more.

While most presidential aspirants avoid policy specifics, especially this early in the race, Delaney hasn’t when it comes to his foreign policy. That means he’s set the bar for the rest of the field, and may bring up his plans during the debates next week.

To be clear: None of this means Delaney necessarily has the best foreign policy proposals, just the most specific.

Our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.

Trade

Alex Ward

What is the Delaney Doctrine? How would America act in the world during a Delaney administration?

John Delaney

The Delaney Doctrine is based on global engagement, diplomatically and economically, while continuing to maintain a very strong US military. My view of the world is much more in line with kind of the post-World War II US foreign policy model than I think other people running for the nomination seek.

Take the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement. I was one of the few Democrats to support it at the time who’s now running for president. In many ways, that agreement really framed how you thought about the world. Do you think it actually makes sense for the United States to be engaging, or are you trying to turn back the clock?

Alex Ward

In your Johns Hopkins speech, you said, “My vision embraces free trade and leverages trade agreements to support US jobs, both through US exports and to compete in the global economy.” That is a clear break from what Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) have said. They argue the US needs to restructure foreign trade and US capitalism to better serve the American worker.

You seem to be saying the US should pursue more free trade deals like the TPP and support the globalized economy. If that’s the case, do you plan to put measures in place to save American jobs that could go elsewhere?

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

John Delaney

I don’t think it was a bad decision to enter into free trade agreements, but I do believe it was a terrible decision not to invest in our country while we were doing that.

It should’ve been obvious to the people making free trade decisions in the 1990s and early 2000s that parts of our country would face severe problems. It was irresponsible not to pair trade agreements with robust domestic economic programs.

We should’ve told the American people, “Listen, we’re entering into the TPP because it’s good for us economically and it’s really good for us geopolitically. But at the same time, we’re going to spend a trillion dollars investing in infrastructure in the United States.”

We can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. We can’t ignore the world we’re in and where it’s going. And we can’t tie our hands in terms of exerting leadership internationally, which is what we do when we don’t enter into trade agreements. But we also have to prioritize our industrial policy here at home.

China

Alex Ward

America’s trade and industrial policy is inextricably linked with China now. You said in your speech that you would “pursue a get-tough approach with China that aims to eliminate Chinese theft of US technology and intellectual property and unfair barriers to American exports and investment.”

How do you actually get China to do all that? The Trump administration has put tremendous pressure on Beijing regarding these issues, and so far there has been very little movement.

John Delaney

The president was more right on China than he was wrong in terms of the scale of the problem. I just think his diagnosis and his prescription of the problem are wrong.

He thinks the big issue is the trade deficit. And while I don’t love the trade deficit, for me the central concern is China’s intellectual property theft. The only way you can really deal with that is to work with our allies and actually create a coalition along with US private companies.

I’m not saying tariffs can’t be part of this, but if you’re trying to negotiate with China alone, as Trump is, then you’re ultimately not going to solve the problem.

Alex Ward

So President Delaney would try to create a global coalition to counter China’s economic practices?

John Delaney

Yes, but on a variety of issues. China is also manipulating currency and building illegal islands in the South China Sea.

Alex Ward

If I’m sitting in Beijing, I’m seeing a Delaney administration join the TPP and create a coalition to combat my foreign and trade policies. Add to that your call not to reduce the defense budget and it sounds like a Delaney administration is quite antagonistic toward China.

John Delaney

When I look at why China has become our rival economically, I attribute it to three things: 1) they worked hard, 2) they made smart investments, but 3) they also didn’t play by the rules. So a Delaney administration would applaud the fact that China worked hard and made smart investments: It’s been positive for the world and resulted in huge numbers of people lifted out of poverty.

But a Delaney administration would also insist that China play by the rules. I’m not talking about bringing down China; I’m talking about getting them to become a responsible member of the global economic order.

Wang Zhao-Pool/Getty Images

Alex Ward

What gives you any hope China will become a responsible economic leader in the world, especially since President Xi Jinping may run an increasingly authoritarian regime for life?

John Delaney

There’s a lot at stake for both countries. The US and China will soon have to decide if we are going to continue to coexist economically, which in many ways has been successful for both countries, or if we’re going to go down our own paths.

I don’t think it’s in China’s or America’s interest to go it alone. And a rational China will appreciate that. I’m not saying it’ll be easy, but it’s the most important foreign policy issue I’d face as president.

Israel and the Palestinians

Alex Ward

The Democratic Party is very focused on the US-Israel relationship. So far, most candidates have been very critical of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and have called for a rethink in how close the countries should be.

In your speech, you said you are “completely committed to the security of Israel and recognize them as one of the most important and enduring allies to the United States.”

The question you might get from Israel critics, then, is why are you in such favor of a close alliance with Israel?

John Delaney

Israel is clearly our strongest and most enduring ally in the region, and one of our strongest and most enduring allies, period. I have been an outspoken proponent of a two-state solution, which I have always supported and will continue to support.

I think that’s ultimately in the best interest of Israel. I think it’s ultimately in the best interest of the Palestinian people — but for that to succeed, it’s ultimately got to be a negotiation between those two. As president, I would continue to be an unwavering advocate for that solution and push it and push it and push it.

Alex Ward

Would you keep the US embassy in Jerusalem?

John Delaney

I’ve always thought of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, so that was not an issue for me. What was an issue for me was the president’s decision to move it without it being part of some larger negotiation or discussion to advance the two-state solution. It wasn’t the right decision to move the embassy absent something larger that could be accomplished with that important, symbolic gesture by the United States of America.

But at this point, I’m not going to move it back to Tel Aviv and get into a game of ping-pong with the US embassy.

Spencer Platt/Getty Images

Alex Ward

But Palestinian leaders have said they won’t negotiate for peace as long as the US considers Jerusalem the capital of Israel. So how would you push for a two-state solution and also recognize Jerusalem as the capital?

John Delaney

Look, the current president hasn’t been viewed as a legitimate advocate for a two-state solution. So when we have a new president, I think everything changes, to be honest. It’s hard to take anyone’s statement and not put it in the context of our current president, who, again, didn’t try to get anything tangible accomplished as part of moving the embassy.

Alex Ward

What did you make of Israel’s response to the Gaza border protests, where, as you know, Israeli forces killed and injured unarmed Palestinians?

John Delaney

The challenge that Israel has had for a very long time is that most of the people around it not only question its very existence but don’t want it to exist. That requires a very different mindset than most of us are accustomed to, where we live in a country where our neighbors don’t question our existence or don’t want us to exist.

I always encourage everyone around the world, Israel or anyone else, to deal with situations as appropriately as possible.

Iran

Alex Ward

Let’s move to Iran. You said in your speech that you would seek to rejoin the Iran nuclear deal but that you would “negotiate tougher terms on Iran upon reentry.”

What are those tougher terms?

John Delaney

I voted for the nuclear agreement in Congress, but not because I thought it was a perfect agreement. I thought it was imperfect in one very material way, and that is the duration of the agreement was too short. The agreement would’ve been so much better if it would’ve lasted long enough so that the current leaders in Iran weren’t around when it expired.

Alex Ward

Specifically, how much longer?

John Delaney

I think 20 years would’ve been great, 50 years would be fabulous.

Alex Ward

To be blunt, you hope the agreement lasts longer than Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei remains alive?

John Delaney

Yes. None of us know if the next one’s going to be better, but at least there’s a chance.

I also would’ve loved for the deal to address Iran’s ballistic missile program, its poor human rights record, and its support for terrorism. Iran didn’t want to negotiate those things. As a result, we have every right to respond on those issues because Iran didn’t want to put those things on the table.

Alex Ward

What makes you confident that Iran would be willing to even have that negotiation again? It already signed a deal and saw the US withdraw from it. Seems like you’d not only have to overcome immense distrust but also an even tougher set of talks if you want to put much of Iran’s behavior on the table.

John Delaney

I don’t think I expressed extreme confidence in my speech, but I do have confidence in my ability to get things done. I think I’m a much better dealmaker than the current president, both as a businessperson and as an elected official.

I, quite frankly, thought we could’ve come to an agreement on those issues in the first deal. It’s somewhat inexplicable to me why they weren’t able to get it the first time. And the honest answer is I don’t think they really pushed for it.

AFP/Getty Images

Alex Ward

President Delaney wouldn’t have signed the Iran deal, then?

John Delaney

If I was president and my team came back to me with that agreement, I would’ve pulled out my pen and crossed out the 10-year deal limit and said, “We really need 20,” and I would’ve sent it back.

But I want to make clear: I’m not criticizing what the deal did on monitoring and dismantling Iran’s nuclear program.

Alex Ward

As you know, the Trump administration and others suspect Iran was behind recent attacks on oil tankers traveling in the Middle East. Does that merit a military response?

John Delaney

If they attack a US oil tanker, yes, absolutely. My role is to deploy the US military in situations where I’m defending the direct interest of the citizens of the United States of America. So if Iran were to attack a US tanker or US ship, of course that would be on the table.

Alex Ward

To be clear: Would a military response be “on the table” if Iran attacked a US oil tanker, or would you definitively response with force?

John Delaney

Iran attacking US citizens or US property is absolutely something I would respond to.

Alex Ward

With military force?

John Delaney

Yeah — if they’re attacking us with military force, absolutely.

North Korea

Alex Ward

Iran will certainly keep the next president busy, as will North Korea. You’ve seen Trump engage in two summits with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. While they’ve led to little of substance, we have seen missile tests mostly stop and the return of some hostages.

John Delaney

I support the Trump administration’s discussions with North Korea. We have to have discussions with our “enemies.” That’s the point of diplomacy. And so the Delaney administration looks forward to continuing these discussions and working toward a denuclearized North Korea.

Alex Ward

Would you join Kim for a summit?

Carl Court/Getty Images

John Delaney

Since I have not criticized the president for actually holding summits, it would be hypocritical for me to say that I would never do that.

Alex Ward

Would a meeting with Kim be conditions-based? Would you need to see progress at the working level in order to sit down with him?

John Delaney

Absolutely. Absolutely.

Alex Ward

Do you believe that North Korea will ever give up its nuclear weapons?

John Delaney

I don’t know if it will, but I think there’s a chance.

Alex Ward

How big a chance?

John Delaney

It’s hard to asses that. We’re so far away from that outcome, but that’s the goal. I ultimately want to be the president who denuclearizes the Korean Peninsula, but I will prepare for a world where that doesn’t happen.

Alex Ward

There are many who say North Korea would never give up its nuclear weapons, mainly because the Kim regime wants them for its survival; therefore, America’s strategy should be to contain the North Korean threat instead of pushing it to dismantle its nuclear arsenal.

John Delaney

That may be the midterm goal. But the ultimate goal for the world is to denuclearize as much as possible, which I think is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of a president. Nuclear weapons remain the No. 1 risk to world security by all measures.

Any responsible president has to really be committed in their bones to this notion of denuclearizing the world, and I’m committed to that. So yes, I would like a denuclearized Korean Peninsula.

Russia

Alex Ward

Would you try to reenter arms control deals with Russia like New START or the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) that the Trump administration is in the process of withdrawing from?

John Delaney

Yeah. Absolutely.

On the INF: I don’t think Russia was complying with it, so we’d have to reenter it on better terms. In total, though, the relationship with Russia is going to have to be reset by the next administration.

Kenzaburo Fukuhara/Pool/Getty Images

Alex Ward

How would you handle Russia, then?

John Delaney

Russia is certainly not our ally, but we don’t want it to be our enemy. We don’t want to go back to the Cold War.

We have to deal with our nuclear weapons. Between us and them, we have by far the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, so we have a responsibility toward each other to maintain dialogue on reducing the number of them.

We have this shared interest with Russia around the war on terror. And there’s lots of things we can be doing together to do that.

But none of that means a Delaney administration would tolerate, at any level, Russian interference in our elections. I’d counter the destabilizing efforts that [Russian President Vladimir] Putin has been engaged in around the world and in Europe particularly.

I just think we have to be clear-eyed about what our relationship with Russia is: It’s neither enemy nor ally.

Alex Ward

Safeguarding US elections will certainly be a major focus of the next president. How does America do that?

John Delaney

First, we need to be hardening our infrastructure around election security substantially.

Second, we need to change our laws as it relates to basic things like disclosure. If I take one of my political ads and I put it on television, I have to say, “Paid for by John Delaney for president.” But if I put that same ad on social media, I don’t have to make that disclosure. It’s ridiculous that we allow entities of any sort to engage in political persuasion without disclosure on social media. I think that really opened the door to Russia to do what they did last time.

Third, we have to pass laws dealing with deepfake videos, because I think we’re potentially susceptible to foreign actors manipulating videos that are completely realistic and mess with the minds of the American people.

Alex Ward

That’s all very defensive. Would President Delaney take offensive measures to stop Russia from interfering in elections?

John Delaney

For sure, there are also tangible things we have to do offensively. We need to use our offensive cyber capabilities to counter enemy interference in our elections, or attacks in general.

Alex Ward

I’m sure you read the New York Times report that the US is hacking deep into Russia’s power grid. Is that the right approach or a step too far for you?

John Delaney

We have to defend our democracy, period, end of story. But when you defend your democracy, you build up your defenses and fortify yourself, which we haven’t done enough of. And then you have to do things offensively to make sure people know that if you try to mess with our elections, you’re going to get a big fat punch in the nose.

Alex Ward

What’s a big fat punch in the nose in a Delaney administration?

John Delaney

I think some of that stuff is appropriate. I can’t comment specifically on what more has to be done, but I’m certainly not against those things.

Cybersecurity

Alex Ward

You’ve called for the creation of a Department of Cybersecurity. Would that include civilian and military functions?

John Delaney

No, we‘d separate the two. I think the offensive capability should stay with the military.

Alex Ward

So you would basically take the cybersecurity functions out of the Department of Homeland Security and put it into Department of Cybersecurity?

John Delaney

Yes.

Stephanie Keith/Getty Images

Alex Ward

Would the chief of that department be a Cabinet-level official?

John Delaney

Yes. Absolutely.

Alex Ward

Would you take other civilian functions out of other agencies? The State Department has some cyber diplomacy staff, for example.

John Delaney

I haven’t completely mapped how we would create all of this as efficiently as possible. But my sense is the Department of Cybersecurity would house all those capabilities.

Climate change

Alex Ward

Most Democratic presidential candidates are making combating climate change a central pillar of their foreign policies. Would you?

John Delaney

I think climate change is obviously a very, very big foreign policy issue, but I haven’t talked about it as the only foreign policy issue. You can never say anything is more important than dealing with nuclear weapons. But look, the US military calls climate change a threat, which shows how serious they think it is.

We need to get the US to net-zero emissions by 2050, but it’s got to be achieved in a way where we don’t break the back of the American worker. If you put forth proposals that break the back of the American worker, you’re never going to actually get them done.

The progress we make on the climate has to also contribute to a global solution, because we know countries like India and China are building tons of coal power plants, the population is booming in Africa, and energy demands are only going to rise in Asia.

Alex Ward

So what would you do about all this?

John Delaney

The first thing I want to do in my first year as president is pass a very large carbon-pricing mechanism, or a carbon tax. It puts a price on carbon, and then it takes all the money that’s raised — which is substantial, trillions of dollars over 10 years — and it gives it back to the American people in the form of a dividend.

So it kind of goes out one pocket and into another. And in the meantime, we reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 90 percent, according to Columbia University. I believe I can get that done with a coalition of all the Democrats in Congress and Republicans who live in coastal states.

I’m going to pair that with a fivefold increase in the Department of Energy’s research budget, because we need new battery and transmission technologies. I’m going to pair it with increasing renewables credits. I’m going to pair it with getting back into the Paris climate agreement. I’m going to pair it with the launch of something I call the “Climate Core,” which is part of my national service program to get young people engaged.

And I’m also going to pair it with the launch of this new industry, which shorthand I call “carbon vacuums” but is more technically known as direct air capture or negative emissions technologies.

They literally suck carbon out of the atmosphere and they allow you to recycle it into something that’s productive. The problem is they’re really expensive and they’re subscale. But we can solve that problem — and the private sector can solve it — if we create the right incentives.

Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Alex Ward

You’ve seen the UN report that says we really only have just over a decade to avoid climate catastrophe. It seems like your plan will work too slowly to avert that disaster.

John Delaney

Think about it like this: Imagine a big boat sailing down in the ocean. It’s a certain distance from the dock. There’s a certain point we have to shut off the engines. The boat’s still going to move for a long time but hopefully won’t crash into the dock.

People put so many deadlines in climate that I think it’s always important to focus on what the consensus goal is, which is net zero by 2050. Now, to get to net zero by 2050, you have to start having some stuff in place by 2040, or 2035, or 2030.

War

Alex Ward

In your speech, you said you don’t want to cut defense spending, which puts you at odds with most Democrats running for president, but you also wouldn’t cut diplomacy or development spending. Why do you want to keep the defense budget at least where it is, and how will you pay for all this? What trade-offs will you have to make?

John Delaney

One of the reasons I don’t call for cutting defense is because we’re not even talking about what the mission is. We’re relying on an 18-year-old authorization for military force. That’s ridiculous. In my first 100 days, I want the Congress to give me a new authorization for military force.

Alex Ward

To authorize what, exactly?

John Delaney

Well, for the war on — the war we’re engaging against — in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, in all these places. We should not have an open-ended, non-geographic-specific authorization for military force. I will demand that the Congress send me a new authorization for military force that has a term no longer than five years, and has geographic limitations as to where I as commander in chief can deploy our military.

Alex Ward

Would you stop American military engagements authorized by the 2001 law until you get the new one?

John Delaney

No, because I have to do my job.

We want peace with a purpose here, and I want to have a new authorization that is based on a real debate in Congress, so that we actually have the mission of the American military more publicly defined for the American people. That will allow us to talk about defense spending in a smarter way.

John Moore/Getty Images

Alex Ward

What if the Congress doesn’t give you that?

John Delaney

I have authorization from the Congress of the United States of the American people; I’m not going to ignore that authorization. And I, as commander in chief, am going to do what I think is in the best interest in the national security of the American people. On principle, I’m not going to stop engaging, because that would be against the interest of the American people.

But I will continue to make my case and demand that Congress do its job and give me a new authorization for military force.