Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon Eastern on.
Speaker 2: Applecarplay and then Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Speaker 1: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 1: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the Thursday edition of Bloomberg's Balance of Power.
Speaker 3: I'm Joe Matthew in Washington, where we start today with
Speaker 3: our focus on the Pentagon. A late scheduled news conference
Speaker 3: by the Secretary of State had a lot of folks
Speaker 3: thinking we were going to hear about an authorization for
Speaker 3: a military strike, knowing that the Pentagon has been formulating
Speaker 3: plans for a response to the deadly attacks on US
Speaker 3: troops in Jordan just days ago. There was some insight
Speaker 3: brought by the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, his first
Speaker 3: time standing in front of cameras since coming back from
Speaker 3: the hospital after a lengthy stay of course surgery for
Speaker 3: prostate cancer, and he likely made more news talking about
Speaker 3: the way that was handled than anything else. Lloyd Austin
Speaker 3: again holding forth with reporters, and we want to bring
Speaker 3: in Nick Watdams, who of course runs our national security
Speaker 3: team here at Bloomberg. It's good to see you. Next,
Speaker 3: the impact of this news conference on his tenure, He
Speaker 3: says he was not prepared to resign, but he apologized
Speaker 3: to the American people and to the President of the
Speaker 3: United States. Did he just put this behind him?
Speaker 4: I think he has now put this very much to bed.
Speaker 4: It was an interesting press conference because everybody had really
Speaker 4: been waiting for sort of proof of life, if you will,
Speaker 4: him coming out and just saying, listen, I screwed up.
Speaker 4: I mean, it was so obvious what happened here. He went,
Speaker 4: he was hospitalized, he had prostate cancer surgery. He didn't
Speaker 4: tell the president about that. He was then hospitalized for complications,
Speaker 4: didn't tell anybody about that for five days, and then
Speaker 4: he was hospitalized for two weeks.
Speaker 1: This is a big deal.
Speaker 4: I mean, if you if you had a subordinate in
Speaker 4: the military who hid from his superiors that he was
Speaker 4: being hospitalized for he was in the ICU, you'd get
Speaker 4: fired for that. And he was actually asked that very question,
Speaker 4: you know, and what would your response be? And his response,
Speaker 4: I mean, he was in full groveling mode. Basically, Listen,
Speaker 4: I screwed up. I apologize directly the president, but he
Speaker 4: had no intention of resigning, and then, as you mentioned,
Speaker 4: you've got all the potential for strikes against Iran, Syria, Iraq.
Speaker 4: So it was a clever pivot in a way because
Speaker 4: he's saying, listen, I screwed up. But by the way,
Speaker 4: look at all this really important stuff that we have
Speaker 4: to do right now. Yes, and he's signaling he's very
Speaker 4: much going to be in control of that response.
Speaker 3: Interesting opportunity, I guess, to address the news at hand
Speaker 3: and also maybe try to get around what was a
Speaker 3: bit of a scandal, if we can call it that,
Speaker 3: certainly a controversy surrounding the secretary in terms of what
Speaker 3: we learned very little about apparently imminent strikes against Iranian proxies,
Speaker 3: if not Iran itself. The strike will be multi tiered,
Speaker 3: he said, echoing what we've heard from John Kirby so
Speaker 3: far right.
Speaker 4: So, I think what you're seeing as this administration signaling
Speaker 4: we may get action imminently, but it's not going to
Speaker 4: be the last of it. We're still trying to, frankly,
Speaker 4: sort of puzzle through this strategy because they are essentially
Speaker 4: telegraphing to Iran and all these groups over there that
Speaker 4: this is coming, and so why is that. You know,
Speaker 4: there has been a suggestion out there that it's part
Speaker 4: of some sort of back channeling with Iran, but you know,
Speaker 4: it is an interesting strategy, he said. You know, the
Speaker 4: enemy is not prone to taking one and done sort
Speaker 4: of actions, and neither am I and I also have
Speaker 4: a lot My guns are a lot more powerful than
Speaker 4: theirs are, basically, so he's he's sort of suggesting, Look,
Speaker 4: this is coming, and what you see in the next
Speaker 4: days is not going to be the last word on
Speaker 4: this from President Biden.
Speaker 3: Are we surprised he wasn't announcing a strike. Do you
Speaker 3: have any sense of timeline what you're hearing?
Speaker 4: Well, you know, generally speaking, when they do these strikes,
Speaker 4: they tend to do them at night in the target area,
Speaker 4: so that's evening our time. At least, that's what happened
Speaker 4: when they struck Yemen, when they struck the Huthis and Yemen,
Speaker 4: So you would anticipate that it would happen in the
Speaker 4: night time. I mean, everybody is just on high alert.
Speaker 4: We had some indications that it would happen last night
Speaker 4: that didn't pan out. But I think what they're signaling
Speaker 4: very clearly is there will be some sort of strikes.
Speaker 4: There's a CBS News report today saying in Iraq and Syria,
Speaker 4: Iranian assets in Iraq and Syria very unlikely that they
Speaker 4: would do strikes on Iran itself for fear of provoking
Speaker 4: that wider war they say they want to avoid.
Speaker 3: I know your team is mawfy busy right now. I
Speaker 3: appreciate you're coming to talk to us here. As always,
Speaker 3: Nick watams with us here on Bloomberg, who runs our
Speaker 3: national security coverage here in Bloomberg's Washington bureau. More on
Speaker 3: the CBS News report that Nick mentions, because this is
Speaker 3: the most information that we've seen so far where officials
Speaker 3: are confirming, as I read to the news organization, that
Speaker 3: plans have been approved for a series of strikes over
Speaker 3: a number of days against targets. Remember this multi tiered
Speaker 3: approach the secretary was talking about. They include Iranian personnel
Speaker 3: and facilities inside Iraq and Syria. This, of course, following
Speaker 3: the attacks over the weekend in Jordan that claimed the
Speaker 3: lives of three US troops. We had the voice now
Speaker 3: of Holly Dagris of the Atlantic Council runs the Middle
Speaker 3: East Programs program, where she is a Senior Fellow and
Speaker 3: It's great to see you, Holly. Welcome to the table
Speaker 3: for being with us today on Bloomberg. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: your thoughts you watched the Secretary today at the Pentagon.
Speaker 3: Did we learn enough on an official level about what's
Speaker 3: happening here? And how come I'm reading battle plans in
Speaker 3: CBS News.
Speaker 5: I mean, I think there was more focus on the
Speaker 5: secretary's health. If there sure was, then there was actually
Speaker 5: on the recent events.
Speaker 3: Is that the real purpose of this news conference?
Speaker 6: Then?
Speaker 5: I felt like it was so given that that was
Speaker 5: most of where the conversation was was addressing that and
Speaker 5: the status of his administration at the Pentagon. But unpacking
Speaker 5: a bit of what you said about the CBS CBS
Speaker 5: News report, I think there's a lot of frustration. Why
Speaker 5: is this so publicized that the United States wants to
Speaker 5: hit back these Iran Bakshia militias in Iraq and Syria
Speaker 5: and so publicly and even talking about weather being an issue.
Speaker 5: And I think that the frustration is, well, not just
Speaker 5: is this so public, but the fact that we're also
Speaker 5: hearing reports that IRGC top advisors in Syria are actually
Speaker 5: leading the country.
Speaker 3: Are we telegraphing plans for a reason. Is there a
Speaker 3: strategy behind this or is they're just news leaking out
Speaker 3: of the Pentagon.
Speaker 5: That is a very interesting question you asked. I think
Speaker 5: definitely we have to remember that the worry is this
Speaker 5: becoming an escalation that could potentially lead to an all
Speaker 5: out war since the October seventh attack by Homas, the
Speaker 5: terrorist group, and so I think you're getting a mix
Speaker 5: of both that this is deterrens. Hey, this is what
Speaker 5: we're going to do, do not escalate. And you're also
Speaker 5: hearing from Kataya Hesbala, the Iran Bakshia militia that has
Speaker 5: been more or less as responsible for the killing of
Speaker 5: three US servitus members in northeastern Syria, saying well, we're
Speaker 5: going to reduce our presence. We're not going to be
Speaker 5: attacking US forces in the region. So I think it's
Speaker 5: a two way messaging going on right now.
Speaker 3: We've heard that this was the Islamic Resistance in Iraq
Speaker 3: responsible for the attack in Jordan, at least according to
Speaker 3: reports here. Give us a sense you're an expert on
Speaker 3: these so called proxy groups. What are these relationships like?
Speaker 3: Are these wholly owned subsidiaries, are they loosely connected to Tehran.
Speaker 3: How does this work? How does this network happen?
Speaker 5: So the Islamic Resistance of Iraq is a new umbrella group,
Speaker 5: but it essentially is made up of Iran Bakshia militias
Speaker 5: that we've known prior, including Kataiyaphusbola. These groups are trained
Speaker 5: and armed by Iran, they get their money. They do
Speaker 5: have their own agency to an extent. So whether Iran
Speaker 5: gave that exact order to kill three US service members
Speaker 5: is unclear, but.
Speaker 3: The president those says they supplied the weapons. We can
Speaker 3: take that as a point.
Speaker 5: Of fact absolutely, And that's where I was saying, that
Speaker 5: they do train and arm them. So I think by
Speaker 5: proxy it is in the hands of the Islamic Republic
Speaker 5: that they had a role in this, I think, Well,
Speaker 5: not that I think, but the fact is that their
Speaker 5: modus operandi is that they want US forces out of
Speaker 5: the region and they want the destruction of Israel. And
Speaker 5: so this attack on Sunday was part of that calculation
Speaker 5: that if they pushed the United States enough on several fronts,
Speaker 5: which is attacking our troops and bases, that will withdraw
Speaker 5: from the region.
Speaker 3: This was seen as a win to try to get
Speaker 3: the US to retaliate. From their view, are they in
Speaker 3: constant communication with their organizers, if I can use that
Speaker 3: term in a on or do these groups savertise and
Speaker 3: act on their own once they're trained and armed.
Speaker 5: Well, they definitely have visits from the irgcro Force commander
Speaker 5: and they do interact with Tehran. They're part of something
Speaker 5: even wider called the Resistance Access, which is Iran's proxies
Speaker 5: in the region. So whether it's the hooth He Rebels
Speaker 5: and yemen Lebanese Hasbolah Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and
Speaker 5: the Gaza Strip and of course the Shia militias in
Speaker 5: Iraq and in Syria, so and of course the Basha
Speaker 5: Ala sad Rashim and Syra. They are all part of
Speaker 5: this big entity. And so they are getting some directive
Speaker 5: from Tehran to an extent because they're all on the
Speaker 5: same page with their m.
Speaker 3: You just rattled off a half dozen groups that some
Speaker 3: of our listeners and viewers maybe have never heard of.
Speaker 3: How many are there?
Speaker 5: And so I would have to sit there and count,
Speaker 5: but there are that many, Yeah, because even under the
Speaker 5: Islamic Resistance of Iraq, they're smaller Shia and so there's
Speaker 5: at least half a dozen there at least.
Speaker 3: You mentioned the Asad regime. To what extent do they
Speaker 3: play into this, Well.
Speaker 5: The Asad regime, of course, they didn't have an exact
Speaker 5: role here. But what's important to note is that our
Speaker 5: forces or troops are in Syria because of the fight
Speaker 5: against ISIS, and there's been a lot of push from
Speaker 5: these players that the US withdraw its forces, and I
Speaker 5: think that would be seen as a win. But my
Speaker 5: sense is that the Biden administration will probably double down
Speaker 5: on US troops in the region, even though there's been
Speaker 5: push for obviously for them to leave.
Speaker 3: You're hearing battle plans where we started our conversation here.
Speaker 3: If this is in fact the course that we take,
Speaker 3: and I guess this could take days or weeks, but
Speaker 3: going after Iranian personnel and facilities inside Iraq and Syria
Speaker 3: as opposed to Iran itself, what's the response to our retaliation?
Speaker 5: Well, this is a shadow war. It's been a shadow
Speaker 5: war for forty five years.
Speaker 3: This is to stay that way.
Speaker 5: Really, It really depends, I think the fact that we've
Speaker 5: openly and obviously decided we weren't going to actually go
Speaker 5: in and attack Iran on Irani and soil, whether it
Speaker 5: be its nuclear program, its defense facilities, or the IERGC itself.
Speaker 5: I think that's telling that it won't escalate for the
Speaker 5: time being, but I think it's always worth noting that
Speaker 5: miscalculations happen and there's always room for escalation, especially in
Speaker 5: the context of the regional tension. Since October seventh.
Speaker 3: You mentioned the nuclear program, how likely it might be
Speaker 3: a cyber attack or something that would be non traditional.
Speaker 3: We've seen this happen before.
Speaker 5: Yes, Actually, I thought in my initial assessment among attacking
Speaker 5: Iran Bakshia militias in Iraq and Syria and the ERGC itself,
Speaker 5: that we would actually see cyber attacks in additional US
Speaker 5: sanctions on IRGC affiliated entities.
Speaker 3: To what extent could we set them back with a
Speaker 3: cyber attack? Wouldn't that be actually much more costly for
Speaker 3: the Iranians than going after proxies in other countries.
Speaker 5: It can it will delay their nuclear program, but not
Speaker 5: just cyber attacks, but actual other instances. We saw allegedly
Speaker 5: Mussade being behind some sabotage of times over the years
Speaker 5: and have slowed down Uron's nuclear program. But unfortunately, what
Speaker 5: it also did push it more underground, so that meant
Speaker 5: it would be harder to actually penetrate if there were
Speaker 5: an attack on Iranian facilities.
Speaker 3: We're talking with Ali Dagris of the Atlantic Council about
Speaker 3: what might come next here, as we heard from the
Speaker 3: Secretary of Defense a bit earlier today, a multi tiered strike.
Speaker 3: It could start, according to our national security team, as
Speaker 3: soon as tonight. We're told this is not going to
Speaker 3: be shocked in AWE that you're going to read about
Speaker 3: some strikes. Maybe you'll see grainy video from from a
Speaker 3: surveillance drone. Is that what you expect? Or do we
Speaker 3: want to shake up these players?
Speaker 5: That's a great question. I think that they want to
Speaker 5: send a harder response than usual because we have a
Speaker 5: history of already doing such actions in the region, and
Speaker 5: it's an Iraq and series, so I think they want
Speaker 5: to send a wider messages him around. But will it
Speaker 5: deter Irani and proxies in the region. I would say, now,
Speaker 5: so this tip.
Speaker 3: For tat continues, then do you worry about any domestic
Speaker 3: terrorism or kind of ancillary damage that could come from
Speaker 3: this in.
Speaker 5: The United States?
Speaker 7: Yeah?
Speaker 5: No, I don't think that this would trickle back to
Speaker 5: the United States. I think it will just stay in
Speaker 5: the region.
Speaker 3: A direct attack on Iran would be a different story, wouldn't.
Speaker 5: There that I can say? That would be a much
Speaker 5: more complicated story.
Speaker 3: How about that? I bet you're pretty busy right now,
Speaker 3: and I appreciate your coming in to spend some time
Speaker 3: with us and share insights from the Atlantic Council's Middle
Speaker 3: East programs. Senior Fellow Holly Dagris great to stay in
Speaker 3: touch with us here on Bloomberg because this is a
Speaker 3: story that we're going to keep a close beat on
Speaker 3: here throughout the day and of course the weeks ahead.
Speaker 3: It's not going to end anytime soon as we try
Speaker 3: to assemble the pieces here on a story that brings
Speaker 3: us halfway around the world. With news today from the Pentagon,
Speaker 3: our thanks again to Nick Watdams. Coming up next, we're
Speaker 3: going to turn to the campaign trail and insights from
Speaker 3: Mohammed Unis, the editor in chief at Gallup. He's with
Speaker 3: us in studio.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken
Speaker 1: just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enroid
Speaker 1: Oro with the Bloomberg Business ad. You can also listen
Speaker 1: live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station.
Speaker 1: Just say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: Thanks for being with us year on Bloomberg, Balance of Power,
Speaker 3: on the radio, on the satellite, and on YouTube. I'm
Speaker 3: Joe Matthew in Washington with new numbers on the campaign
Speaker 3: trail today. We'll start with South Carolina only because we've
Speaker 3: been waiting weeks since the fifth of January for a
Speaker 3: new reading on this What was the Emerson poll? Today?
Speaker 3: Washington Post Monmouth University finds not good news for Nicki Haley.
Speaker 3: The numbers have barely budged, and this sample was taken
Speaker 3: after Iowa and New Hampshire. Nicki Haley thirty two percent
Speaker 3: in her home state, Donald Trump fifty eight percent at home,
Speaker 3: which she calls sweet home, South Carolina, with three weeks
Speaker 3: to go here, a pocket full of money but no
Speaker 3: real path. According to most of the experts that we're
Speaker 3: talking with, it's a big question about what happens if
Speaker 3: she cannot win her home state. Donald Trump leading among women,
Speaker 3: among men, and among all age groups in this poll.
Speaker 3: More where this came from. On the other side of
Speaker 3: the campaign, of course, Joe Biden is running for reelection
Speaker 3: here with a real problem when it comes to the
Speaker 3: economy connecting the dots. Although we have seen some improvement here,
Speaker 3: but my goodness, third year job approval average looks second
Speaker 3: worst according to new numbers from Gallup. And I'm glad
Speaker 3: to say we're joined by Gallup's editor in chief, Mohammed Unis,
Speaker 3: with us at the table here. It's great to see Mohammad.
Speaker 3: Thanks for coming over. Oh, it is great to be here.
Speaker 3: This is this is just not good for Joe Biden
Speaker 3: as he's looking at now, immigration top the economy in
Speaker 3: terms of most urgent issues for voters. He's losing on
Speaker 3: both absolutely.
Speaker 7: And you know, I'll start let's start with the economy.
Speaker 7: You know, I love to say the economy in presidential
Speaker 7: election choices for the American public, it's not just king,
Speaker 7: it's King, Queen and bishop.
Speaker 3: The economy is everything. Yeah, when you look.
Speaker 7: Back historically into all of the modern era presidents, how
Speaker 7: people felt about the economy, in addition to approval ratings
Speaker 7: were the most important thing, not only in how they voted,
Speaker 7: but also in what they said they cared about when
Speaker 7: they came to vote. So right now, that's actually a
Speaker 7: relatively positive point for President Biden in our economic confidence
Speaker 7: and next we ask monthly how Americans do about the
Speaker 7: economy today and how it's doing into the future. It's
Speaker 7: been the second consecutive month of improvement for him, so
Speaker 7: it's still negative twenty six out of time, and he's
Speaker 7: got time. And of course, as you all know here
Speaker 7: at Bloomberg, the economy can really change for period period.
Speaker 7: A big part of President Trump's story was how COVID
Speaker 7: wiped out the economy now and it became very very
Speaker 7: much a different pathway to him seeking reelection. In January
Speaker 7: of twenty twenty two, he had a fifty percent approval rating.
Speaker 7: It was he was doing really well because people felt
Speaker 7: really good about the economy despite the politics.
Speaker 3: You look at thirty nine point eight percent job approval,
Speaker 3: you're referring to history that teaches us that in re
Speaker 3: election cycle were underwater. How much time does he have
Speaker 3: to pull this above fifty percent? Is that where he
Speaker 3: needs to be to keep his job?
Speaker 7: And let me just correct, President Trump was not at
Speaker 7: fifty percent approval. He was at fifty percent of people
Speaker 7: that said he should be re elected.
Speaker 3: Got it. So at that.
Speaker 7: Point in his presidency, he was doing really well President Biden. Today,
Speaker 7: thirty eight percent of Americans say he should be elected.
Speaker 7: We looked at his three year average his approval on
Speaker 7: the three averages.
Speaker 3: Thirty nine point eight.
Speaker 7: He's behind every single president except Jimmy Carter at this
Speaker 7: point in their presidency. So just to give you a
Speaker 7: sense of how far behind he is. That being said,
Speaker 7: a lot of those presidents led in times that were
Speaker 7: far less partisan than today.
Speaker 3: Okay, And it's really.
Speaker 7: Hard for either a Republican or a Democrat to get
Speaker 7: people from the other side to approve of the job
Speaker 7: they're doing. And this dates back to President Obama. It's
Speaker 7: not a Trump era dynamic.
Speaker 3: We'll talk to me more about that, because I don't
Speaker 3: know how you do your job anymore. When people are
Speaker 3: having fun trying to mislead pollsters, when samples are being
Speaker 3: challenged by cell phones, no landlines anymore, we don't always
Speaker 3: know who we're talking to, it seems, depending on the poll.
Speaker 3: And I'll let you speak for Gallup. But this job's
Speaker 3: not getting easier as we go forward.
Speaker 7: It's absolutely not. But one of the things that is
Speaker 7: actually amazing and hasn't changed is that with a really
Speaker 7: good RDD national sample get a really accurate measure of
Speaker 7: how the country is feeling.
Speaker 3: We were talking a little bit about state.
Speaker 7: Poles a second ago, and it's important to understand that
Speaker 7: with a state pole, it's a far more challenging to
Speaker 7: really get a representative sample. The other thing, I think, Joe,
Speaker 7: just as your listeners and viewers start consuming more political
Speaker 7: news about the election, the notion of aggregating polls is
Speaker 7: really useful and fun to deal with. It's very useful
Speaker 7: in the financial world. Of course, with indicies, it's not
Speaker 7: a great or accurate way to assess where the public
Speaker 7: is on an issue because a lot of those poles
Speaker 7: are gathered with different methodologies. Online polls are great for
Speaker 7: certain purposes, they've proven to not be so great for
Speaker 7: national assessments of the political testing waters. Our methodologists have
Speaker 7: worked year in and year out to really test these
Speaker 7: tools because essentially all of these methods are really tools,
Speaker 7: and they're very useful. But it's about what's the right
Speaker 7: tool to fix or you know, the right squeaky wheel. Yeah,
Speaker 7: and with national politics, it's about having a really good
Speaker 7: national phone poll.
Speaker 3: How many people do you need to call to get
Speaker 3: a single valid response, what's that racial that's a great question.
Speaker 7: So our polls tend to run around about one thousand respondents.
Speaker 3: Okay, sure.
Speaker 7: The hard part is only about six to seven percent
Speaker 7: of people actually complete the polls, so you need to
Speaker 7: call far more people. Fascinatingly, though, with the proper statistical
Speaker 7: methods and waiting and all of that, you're able to
Speaker 7: actually get a very accurate sample or read on the
Speaker 7: public even with that low level of a response rate.
Speaker 7: The other I think misnomer is that that response rate
Speaker 7: continues to drop dramatic. Actually it's held pretty flat now
Speaker 7: for a long time.
Speaker 3: Okay.
Speaker 7: So we have a series of ways that we actually,
Speaker 7: you know, test our own accuracy. We stopped forecasting elections
Speaker 7: back in Romney Obama, but we absolutely test to see
Speaker 7: how people would have responded to that question and what
Speaker 7: the actual popular vote turnout is. We do that every election,
Speaker 7: and it's been remarkable how accurate it is. And it's
Speaker 7: no secret if you are a member of the of APOR,
Speaker 7: kind of the association of public opinion researchers in the US.
Speaker 3: A lot of this is.
Speaker 7: Debated, written about in peer review journals. So for those
Speaker 7: of us in this space, it always I think baffles
Speaker 7: us to note how the public is having a conversation
Speaker 7: about the polls. You can't trust them about that. Yeah,
Speaker 7: it depends on the poll. It really does depend on
Speaker 7: the pole.
Speaker 3: Well, it certainly doesn't. We really do try to talk
Speaker 3: about methodology when we report these numbers. But this is
Speaker 3: a fascinating peak behind the curtain with the editor in chief.
Speaker 3: You're at Gallup. We're in a primary season. We saw
Speaker 3: in Iowa and New Hampshire that immigration was far and
Speaker 3: beyond the number one issue for Republican voters. What's that
Speaker 3: going to look like when we get to the general
Speaker 3: It's only going to grow.
Speaker 7: Immigration is the.
Speaker 3: So it's not just the economy stupid for the balance
Speaker 3: of this campaign.
Speaker 8: It's not.
Speaker 1: So.
Speaker 7: It's a matter of so. Life is multidimensional, right, and
Speaker 7: so is voting. So the way we ask the question
Speaker 7: is what is the number one issue that's the most
Speaker 7: important for you? That's always the economy, It always pans out,
Speaker 7: But we also ask a lot of other questions. One
Speaker 7: of the questions we ask every month is what's the
Speaker 7: most important problem facing America.
Speaker 3: You could say your.
Speaker 7: Favorite serial name, or you could mention a policy issue.
Speaker 7: The number one issue for Republicans is immigration. I think
Speaker 7: it's one of the most underreported stories in our times today.
Speaker 7: And it's not just Republicans, you know, considerable like twelve
Speaker 7: plus percent of people at the national level a saying
Speaker 7: immigration as the situation at the border worsens, which I
Speaker 7: think from your reporting and others, it seems like it
Speaker 7: it continues to do that. It is absolutely going to
Speaker 7: be a major topic, particularly among the Republican Party. It also,
Speaker 7: if you'll permit me, we've perfectly ties into the most
Speaker 7: important issue for Republicans generally. And we did a thirty
Speaker 7: year analysis of what are the issues that where there's
Speaker 7: the most partisan divide on in America. The number one
Speaker 7: issue is the power of big government, and you can
Speaker 7: see how the issue of controlling the border ties fees
Speaker 7: right into that concept philosophical.
Speaker 3: So many controversies in Washington right now, Really, do we've
Speaker 3: got a deal? We're told the verge of a deal
Speaker 3: in the Senate that's dead on arrival. In the House,
Speaker 3: Donald Trump says, no deal. It looks like this could
Speaker 3: be crashing into the rocks here. What does that do
Speaker 3: to congressional approval ratings? Didn't you look at this not
Speaker 3: that long ago, what are they at twelve percent er?
Speaker 3: I mean, this is.
Speaker 7: Desperately absolutely a good month for congressional approval ratings is
Speaker 7: for it to not be in the single difference, which
Speaker 7: is it's funny, but it's also kind of scary and sad.
Speaker 3: It really is. That being said.
Speaker 7: That being said, so will you re elect Joe Biden?
Speaker 7: We also ask will you realize do you think that
Speaker 7: most members of Congress should be re elected?
Speaker 3: In that same po crue to form, this is just
Speaker 3: a few more few.
Speaker 7: Days ago, yep, twenty four percent of Americans say that
Speaker 7: most members of Congress should be re elected. But and
Speaker 7: a really important dimension to this is when you ask
Speaker 7: them about their member of it's overwhelming, right, it's like
Speaker 7: a nearly six and ten, and that's just.
Speaker 3: Don't mess with my guy exactly. And that goes for
Speaker 3: the economy as well. We've seen in some polling right
Speaker 3: where people are feeling better about their local economy. The
Speaker 3: question is when you connect the dots there on a national.
Speaker 7: Level, yes, and the big issue there is inflation. So
Speaker 7: even though that ECI number has improved. What we also
Speaker 7: found in the same poll, sixty three percent of Americans
Speaker 7: are still saying that price increases are causing them financial hardship.
Speaker 7: That actually has now plateaued since this whole inflation thing began,
Speaker 7: what was it two years ago now, So that hasn't improved.
Speaker 7: You know, you report a lot on the Federal Reserve
Speaker 7: and the real interest rate.
Speaker 3: We talk inflation every day.
Speaker 7: Of course, absolutely, I've learned most of what I know
Speaker 7: from their reporting, but from the public's perspective, it's still
Speaker 7: just as bad. It hasn't improved at all.
Speaker 3: Because they're looking at prices from before COVID, and we're
Speaker 3: talking about just slowing the rate of inflation, not actually
Speaker 3: turning the clock back. And you wonder if that ends
Speaker 3: up happening in the next year, you're going to be
Speaker 3: walking in here with much better No, I can only
Speaker 3: assume for Joe Biden, but we'll find out together with
Speaker 3: Mohammed Yunis love talking to you. Thanks for coming in.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern.
Speaker 2: On Appocarplay and then Rounoro with the Bloomberg Business app
Speaker 2: Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch
Speaker 2: us live on YouTube.
Speaker 3: Live from the nation's capital. Kaylee lines is off today
Speaker 3: as we dissect news from the Pentagon in a late
Speaker 3: scheduled news conference happened late this morning with not a
Speaker 3: lot of notice. Lloyd Austin in front of reporters, standing
Speaker 3: for the first time since his visit to Walter reed.
Speaker 3: Of course, he had an extended hospital stay of following
Speaker 3: complications that were tied to prostate cancer surgery. He did
Speaker 3: apologize for that. He apologized to the President and to
Speaker 3: the American people for the lack of communication surrounding his stay.
Speaker 3: But he also spoke to what was anticipated to be
Speaker 3: an announcement It wasn't really so much of retaliatory following
Speaker 3: the deadly attack on US forces over the weekend in Jordan.
Speaker 3: He did promise multi tiered strikes, and we've heard this
Speaker 3: line before from the Pentagon and from John Kirby at
Speaker 3: the White House at the time of our choosing. But
Speaker 3: there is reporting more deliberately from CBS News today that
Speaker 3: plans have in fact been approved for a series of
Speaker 3: strikes over a number of days against targets i e.
Speaker 3: Multi tiered, as the jargon indicates, they would include Iranian
Speaker 3: personnel and facilities inside Iraq. And Syria, not to be
Speaker 3: confused with Iran itself. And that's where we start our
Speaker 3: conversation with Michael Allen, Managing director partner Beacon Global Strategies.
Speaker 3: Has had a long career in national security, including time
Speaker 3: in the National Security Apparatus in the White House two
Speaker 3: thousand and seven through nine. It's great to see you, Michael,
Speaker 3: Thanks for being here. Thank you for We're going to
Speaker 3: see military action tonight.
Speaker 6: I think it's tonight or tomorrow night as I understand it.
Speaker 6: It's weather dependent. But I think it's time for the
Speaker 6: United States to go ahead and take the strikes. The
Speaker 6: clock is ticking. They took a hit at us, of course,
Speaker 6: over the weekend, and I think it's part of re
Speaker 6: establishing deterrence against Iran that we're able to swiftly try
Speaker 6: anyway to put them back in their place. I'm a
Speaker 6: little worried that we've telegraphed the punch so much that
Speaker 6: a lot of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard figures have gone
Speaker 6: back home by now.
Speaker 3: What do you make of that? Was this leaked on purpose?
Speaker 3: Is there some telegraphing going on here? Ers the Pentagon
Speaker 3: talking in a way that it shouldn't be.
Speaker 8: I think they are telegraphing.
Speaker 6: They did it against the Houthy strike, They've done it previously.
Speaker 8: I think in their minds.
Speaker 6: They believe it's a way to de escalate the crisis,
Speaker 6: but is something But to me, what they need to
Speaker 6: be doing is trying to re establish deterrence, which would say,
Speaker 6: let's do something swiftly and overwhelming, not to cause a war,
Speaker 6: but to cause a change in the calculus of the
Speaker 6: Iranian leaders to where they say to themselves, you know what,
Speaker 6: the United States isn't messing around anymore. If I'm on
Speaker 6: the receiving end from European powers or whomever of a warning, Hey,
Speaker 6: at a SHOT's coming. We don't want to hit your people,
Speaker 6: maybe just your equipment. I'm thinking to myself, Okay, I'll
Speaker 6: batten down the hatches tonight, but right back at you tomorrow.
Speaker 3: So why not strike Iran directly? Why not sink the
Speaker 3: Iranian navy?
Speaker 6: Yes, so, I think that would be a disproportionate response.
Speaker 6: I'm a sort of in favor of a disproportionate response
Speaker 6: to re establish the turns. Maybe not inside of Iran proper.
Speaker 6: Maybe we saved that for a later because I think
Speaker 6: it would be incredibly escalatory if we hit inside of Iran,
Speaker 6: especially when we've got so much else going.
Speaker 8: I mean, I'm not unalterably opposed to it.
Speaker 6: I would want to understand what the targets were, and
Speaker 6: perhaps if they were IRGC intelligence facilities, it would remind
Speaker 6: me more of President Reagan hitting the intelligence services in Libya,
Speaker 6: and I would get more comfortable with it.
Speaker 8: But yeah, they need to.
Speaker 6: Lean forward a little bit. I think the thesis of
Speaker 6: the administration is overcaution. They're overcautious and what arms they
Speaker 6: give to the Ukrainians and they're being too over cautious
Speaker 6: when we talk about the Iranians.
Speaker 3: So with what we know, if it is in fact
Speaker 3: striking targets within Iraq and Syria, are these air strikes,
Speaker 3: are they cruise missiles? What would be the menu of
Speaker 3: options here the Pentagon's looking at.
Speaker 8: I think all of the above.
Speaker 6: Certainly a few cruise missiles, but I think they will
Speaker 6: definitely put some F sixteen's and other munitions.
Speaker 3: Type in launched from allies in the Middle East. We
Speaker 3: have plenty of bases, plenty of places over there. Cutter,
Speaker 3: I think we have cutter. We've got even places in
Speaker 3: the UAE and would we be then drawing them into this.
Speaker 6: I think we would have to get their permission in
Speaker 6: order to take off from those bases and make sure
Speaker 6: they're okay with it. I think they would be okay
Speaker 6: with it. But speaking of permission, I mean it's if
Speaker 6: we hit inside Iraq, generally we're supposed to at least
Speaker 6: talk to the Iraqi government about I don't think we
Speaker 6: did a few weeks ago, which is part of the
Speaker 6: reason why the Iraqi government wants us to move out.
Speaker 8: Or we're beginning discussions on how to move out the troops.
Speaker 6: But that has a big That'll be an interesting story tonight.
Speaker 6: Did we hit inside of Iraq and did we get
Speaker 6: permission or.
Speaker 8: Did we just do it?
Speaker 3: With that said, talk to me about this place, Tower
Speaker 3: twenty two. It's in a critical location, essentially the intersection
Speaker 3: of all three countries that's Rock and Syria and Iran.
Speaker 3: That wasn't by accident. That's what it happened there was it.
Speaker 8: It wasn't by accident.
Speaker 6: I think they thought that this would be a less
Speaker 6: protected facility because we the United States, probably saw Jordan
Speaker 6: as a safer place to be, certainly compared to Syria,
Speaker 6: which is just generally.
Speaker 8: Lawless and dangerous.
Speaker 6: But you know, this is where I wish the president,
Speaker 6: not as a Republican or a Democrat, but would I iterate,
Speaker 6: what is the national interest? Why do we have these
Speaker 6: troops in Syria in the first place? And the reason
Speaker 6: is it's ISIS and the rise of terrorism. We don't
Speaker 6: want them to come back and be able to re
Speaker 6: establish such a power to be able to hit us
Speaker 6: back in the United States.
Speaker 8: Again.
Speaker 6: Tower twenty three was there to help support that mission
Speaker 6: inside of Syria. So I hope tonight if the President
Speaker 6: addresses the nation around the time that the strikes are launched,
Speaker 6: he'll make it clear to everybody that, hey, this is
Speaker 6: part of a US counter terrorism mission.
Speaker 8: We aren't there just for fun.
Speaker 3: Yes, so this should be coupled with the presidential address.
Speaker 3: In your view, I think so hearing that would happen.
Speaker 3: I had not.
Speaker 8: I think it should happen. I don't think the.
Speaker 3: Oval Office as a venue very often. Does this justify it?
Speaker 8: I think it does.
Speaker 6: I think this is a significant escalation by Iran when
Speaker 6: they've killed three soldiers. I think he has to lay
Speaker 6: out our strategy again. You know, I worked for President Bush,
Speaker 6: but I think even Democrats appreciated it in the second
Speaker 6: term when he would go out and explain the Iraq policy,
Speaker 6: even if they didn't agree with it. You have a
Speaker 6: duty to tell the American peace pople.
Speaker 8: And hope Biden does that tonight.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's interesting. He's going to be flying around the
Speaker 3: country here a little bit, but he would be back
Speaker 3: in time to address the American people, and it does
Speaker 3: seem like it would be a time to follow up
Speaker 3: on his address about Ukraine and Israel. It's another dangerous
Speaker 3: world speech for this president.
Speaker 8: We have a lot going on.
Speaker 6: I know we're all eager to, you know, as we say,
Speaker 6: pivot to China because they are the big threat over
Speaker 6: the next generation. But we keep getting pulled back in,
Speaker 6: to use the phrase from the Godfather, into the Middle
Speaker 6: East and of course into Europe. World wars start in Europe,
Speaker 6: which is why we need to do a better job
Speaker 6: and get over our misgivings about funding the Ukrainians. But
Speaker 6: we also need to be more serious about trying to
Speaker 6: put Iran in a box. Doesn't have to mean war,
Speaker 6: but they need to know that we have a backbone
Speaker 6: here so that they'll slow down on their nuclear program
Speaker 6: and slow down on their proxy terrorist warfare in the region.
Speaker 3: The Islamic Resis distance in Iraq is said to be
Speaker 3: responsible for the attack in Jordan. There are at least
Speaker 3: a half dozen proxy groups we're talking about here. You
Speaker 3: suggested that we need to do something to make a point.
Speaker 3: Can you make a point by going after the legs
Speaker 3: of the octopus here or not the head?
Speaker 8: I don't think so.
Speaker 6: So I think among the strikes tonight, I'm fine with
Speaker 6: all these proxies, and I do believe that we need to,
Speaker 6: as some people unfortunately call it, mow the grass a
Speaker 6: little bit, degrade their capabilities. But I think you've got
Speaker 6: to have an eye in front of one of these strikes.
Speaker 6: And for me, that's the IRGC, that is the terrorist sponsor.
Speaker 6: They're the ones that deal externally from Iran and sponsor
Speaker 6: Hamas Hasbalah, the Huthi and of course all of these
Speaker 6: popular mobilization fronts that are in Iraq, and those are
Speaker 6: the people we need to go after. And they need
Speaker 6: to understand that the United States is can hit them
Speaker 6: and that we're serious about doing it.
Speaker 3: And then the next day the Houthis attack on other ship.
Speaker 6: We have to keep staying in the fight there there.
Speaker 6: I'm more comfortable with a longer term campaign that just
Speaker 6: degrades equipment in Yemen. Sorry, yes, absolutely in Yemen, because
Speaker 6: I do believe that if we don't try to keep
Speaker 6: the international waterways open, no one else is.
Speaker 8: And even if we.
Speaker 6: May not have a direct a ship that's going directly
Speaker 6: because they're going up the Suez Canal, I think nonetheless
Speaker 6: that's the role of the United States for now.
Speaker 3: All the while we've got a hot war in Gaza.
Speaker 3: A Prime minister doesn't seem to want to take advice
Speaker 3: from the United States right now. They've begun, at least
Speaker 3: acknowledge now that they've begun flooding the tunnels beneath Gaza
Speaker 3: Hamasa's tunnels with seawater, and we're getting an eye roll
Speaker 3: here on talk of a peace deal. You made the
Speaker 3: point we're spending a lot of plates right now. The
Speaker 3: Secretary of State said, this is a dangerous moment for
Speaker 3: the Middle East. Are we focused enough on what's actually
Speaker 3: happening inside Israel in Gaza while we try to deal
Speaker 3: with the rest of the region.
Speaker 6: I wish we would give a little bit more time
Speaker 6: to the Israelis to finish the job in Gaza. I
Speaker 6: understand that things are controversial. I understand that it's been
Speaker 6: an unfortunate civilian loss of life, but they've just gone
Speaker 6: through their equivalent of nine to eleven. We would not
Speaker 6: have listened to people telling us that we can't go
Speaker 6: after al Qaeda in Afghanistan or wherever the case may be.
Speaker 6: I think honestly they need another month or so before
Speaker 6: they shift over to a over the horizon counter terrorism
Speaker 6: special raid type of situation. You're right, BB is not
Speaker 6: listening to Joe Biden. But I think Joe Biden also
Speaker 6: needs to understand a little bit where they are.
Speaker 3: You served as majority staff director of the House Permanent
Speaker 3: Select Committee on Intelligence. You've been on both sides of
Speaker 3: Pennsylvania Avenue. The President's asking for help, the supplemental budget
Speaker 3: request for Israel, for Ukraine, for Taiwan. It's been bogged
Speaker 3: down into a border debate. Is that how this ends?
Speaker 3: Or will there be a new approach from the Lindsey
Speaker 3: Grahams of the world and some of the others to
Speaker 3: get a stand alone funding bill for Ukraine as well
Speaker 3: as Israel.
Speaker 6: I'm glad you mentioned that because I think that's what
Speaker 6: Senator McConnell has been signaling for about a week, which
Speaker 6: is that. Yeah, it was the border language that was
Speaker 6: going to pull Ukraine funding across the goal line. Now
Speaker 6: I think it's a better chance that the border language
Speaker 6: would delay the Ukraine funding. If I'm the leader in
Speaker 6: the Senate Schumer and McConnell, I just go ahead and
Speaker 6: try and throw it over to the House. Yeah, and
Speaker 6: on the wild there's some unforeseeable event that I can't
Speaker 6: come up with right now that might happen in a
Speaker 6: month or two. Maybe Russia does something dramatic, maybe pressure increases,
Speaker 6: but then the House of Representatives then feels the pressure
Speaker 6: to go ahead and let it through.
Speaker 8: I would put the pressure on them and go.
Speaker 6: Ahead and pass it. It needs to get out of
Speaker 6: the Senate. Something big needs to happen. We've let it
Speaker 6: sit there too long, and that's why everything has been delayed.
Speaker 3: You've spent a career in national security. Does it make
Speaker 3: you nervous when focused is trained so heavily on one
Speaker 3: part of the world, Knowing that of Vladimir Putin or
Speaker 3: someone else, Kim Jong un could really take advantage of
Speaker 3: a moment like.
Speaker 6: This, It does, you know, Kim jong un. It's good
Speaker 6: that you mentioned North Korea. Almost no one talks about it.
Speaker 6: He has gotten more aggressive of late. He sort of
Speaker 6: changed the defense doctrine that how he looks at the
Speaker 6: world not so much. Hey, I'm just going to try
Speaker 6: to get along peacefully with South Korea, but I want
Speaker 6: to reunite the peninsula.
Speaker 8: It's not that he's going to do it, but he's.
Speaker 6: Building capabilities everywhere, and honestly, we here in Washington don't
Speaker 6: have a great idea or a great new policy to
Speaker 6: roll out how to deal with them. It needs to
Speaker 6: be managed. Maybe more sanctions, maybe more deterrence. But they're
Speaker 6: problems everywhere, and we have got a lot that we
Speaker 6: need to follow and do well on and execute so
Speaker 6: that our national interests are protected.
Speaker 3: With the Ukraine that's running out of money, even if
Speaker 3: we get this together, maybe to your point, there is
Speaker 3: a new effort and a stand had alone piece of
Speaker 3: legislation that funds our allies in Kiev. Vladimir Putin has
Speaker 3: got to be seeing an opportunity right now. What's going
Speaker 3: to happen next? What concerns you the most?
Speaker 6: What concerns me the most is that Vladimir Putin is
Speaker 6: going to get this entire year to reconstitute his military.
Speaker 6: We've already seen plenty of articles about how they've been
Speaker 6: able to stay afloat through more manpower that they've basically
Speaker 6: kidnapped off the streets and shipped over to Ukraine, but
Speaker 6: also their capability, their defense manufacturing is starting to go
Speaker 6: back up again. So I think we're giving putin the
Speaker 6: whole year if we don't pass anything to let him
Speaker 6: rebuild and retrench and re establish his force so that
Speaker 6: he might be able to move westward again next year.
Speaker 6: So that's why another reason why we need to get
Speaker 6: this Ukrainian funding done as soon as possible.
Speaker 3: Are you surprised that the White House, with the help
Speaker 3: of Mitch McConnell, has not succeeded in making the argument
Speaker 3: the national security argument for the United States When we
Speaker 3: talk about Ukraine, you hear not another dollar for Ukraine.
Speaker 3: Our borders before their borders is kind of the refrain
Speaker 3: from the Freedom Caucus types. Despite deliberate messaging, classified briefings,
Speaker 3: they don't seem to be breaking through.
Speaker 6: I am surprised because I think we're losing our way.
Speaker 6: I don't know if it's populism, I don't know what
Speaker 6: it is, but we all know here in the age
Speaker 6: of geopolitical competition, that Russia is our number two adversary.
Speaker 6: And if anybody in the national security community had been
Speaker 6: approached three years ago and said, if you want to
Speaker 6: pay two point five percent of your annual defense budget
Speaker 6: and we will degrade the Russian army by a year
Speaker 6: two or more and force them to bring out tanks
Speaker 6: that were from World War Two, would.
Speaker 8: You take that deal?
Speaker 6: You absolutely, they'd be like, I don't even know why
Speaker 6: you're asking such a ridiculous question, But of course we
Speaker 6: should do that, not because we have just some ancient
Speaker 6: beef with the Russians and the old Soviet but because
Speaker 6: it's in our national interest. And I wish the President
Speaker 6: would step forward and articulate national interest reasons why we
Speaker 6: need to stand tall.
Speaker 3: Michael Allen, a great conversation. Thank you for being with
Speaker 3: us a voice of experience when it comes to national
Speaker 3: security that we wanted to bring to you here on Bloomberg.
Speaker 3: Thanks for joining today and stay in touch. Thanks for
Speaker 3: listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to
Speaker 3: subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify, or wherever
Speaker 3: you get your podcasts, and you can find us live
Speaker 3: every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern at Bloomberg
Speaker 3: dot com.