Speaker 1: Shah aside is attending the Arab League summit in Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: Su Al Asad is back on the international seat.
Speaker 2: Sure Alasad has been welcomed back to an Arab League
Speaker 2: summit in Saudi Arabia today.
Speaker 3: On the big take, Syria is back in the Arab League.
Speaker 3: So what does it mean for the rest of the world.
Speaker 3: I'm Roslin Mathieson in for wes Kasova.
Speaker 2: This morning, President Obama called on Assad to step aside
Speaker 2: and announced the strongest set of sanctions to date targeting
Speaker 2: the Syrian government.
Speaker 3: That was US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton back in
Speaker 3: twenty eleven, declaring that the Syrian president Basha al Assad
Speaker 3: must go for the brutal attacks he carried out on
Speaker 3: his own people. Fast forward though to twenty twenty three,
Speaker 3: and Asad is still very much in charge. Not only that,
Speaker 3: but he's got a seat back at the Tabe the
Speaker 3: region with the Arab League. So what happened? I'm joined
Speaker 3: now by Daniel Flatley, Bloomberg's national security reporter in Washington, DC,
Speaker 3: and Sylvia Westall, who's Bloomberg's managing editor for Economy and
Speaker 3: Government in Dubai. Sylvia. I'd like to start with you
Speaker 3: on this, and I guess the first question really is why,
Speaker 3: after all this time did the Arab League make that
Speaker 3: decision to readmit assad, what or who really was sort
Speaker 3: of the driver behind that decision.
Speaker 2: The way in which the Arab League described it is
Speaker 2: that they wanted Syria to start participating in meetings and
Speaker 2: they felt that this was a good way to help
Speaker 2: resolve the crisis that came from the war in Syria,
Speaker 2: and they wanted to talk about the flight of refugees
Speaker 2: for neighboring countries, drugs smuggling across the region. So that's
Speaker 2: the kind of official reason why they did this after
Speaker 2: more than a decade. But why really they did this. Well,
Speaker 2: you've got Saudi Arabia as hosting the meeting, and the
Speaker 2: uae AN ally of Saudi Arabia behind the scenes has
Speaker 2: been really pushing for Syria to be reinstated to the
Speaker 2: Arab League. So the big Gulf countries have been pushing
Speaker 2: for this, and they've both been trying to clear up
Speaker 2: their backyards in recent years. They've been reaching out to
Speaker 2: regional actors, they've been making kind of friends with old foes,
Speaker 2: and it's part of a sort of shift in foreign
Speaker 2: policy that we've seen in the region, and so pretty
Speaker 2: much the UA was pushing this quite strongly for a while,
Speaker 2: and it looks like it sort of convinced Saudi Arabia
Speaker 2: to come on board and explain why this would be beneficial.
Speaker 2: I mean, the UA generally is worried about Iranian influence
Speaker 2: in the region, and so the way that the UA
Speaker 2: was sort of arguing this to other Arab countries was
Speaker 2: that we need to bring Syria back into the Arab fold.
Speaker 2: We need it to be reinstated, as you know, an
Speaker 2: Arab country that we deal with, Otherwise we allow it
Speaker 2: to become a country, an Arab country which is heavily
Speaker 2: influenced by Iran and Russia. So that was the way
Speaker 2: that the uas have argued to Arab countries to do this.
Speaker 2: But I think overall it was about diplomatic pragmatism and
Speaker 2: this sort of shift towards countries in the Middle East,
Speaker 2: trying to set a kind of foreign per se that's
Speaker 2: quite independent, interesting and pragmatic.
Speaker 3: But in a ways doul view is it sort of
Speaker 3: more symbolic also than anything else. What does the Arab
Speaker 3: League actually do?
Speaker 2: The Arab League is The main diplomatic body that comprises
Speaker 2: Arab states is this twenty two nation block. It was
Speaker 2: established more than eighty years ago and it really wields
Speaker 2: little kind of political heft on the world stage. It's
Speaker 2: not a major decision making body, but it does reflect
Speaker 2: the Arab view. So this measure carries important symbolic weight.
Speaker 2: And I think back when the Arab League decided to
Speaker 2: suspend Syria's membership in twenty eleven. One of the reasons
Speaker 2: the Arab League gave was that Syria hadn't adhered to
Speaker 2: a peace initiative that the Arab League came up with
Speaker 2: a few months before. When the Arab League suspended Syria,
Speaker 2: they said that Syria had failed to end the bloodshed
Speaker 2: caused by the government crackdowns, because at that time it
Speaker 2: wasn't a war, it was more of an uprising that
Speaker 2: the government had really cracked down on. You've got the
Speaker 2: example elsewhere in the Middle East, Arab countries taken kind
Speaker 2: of more muscular stance when it comes to conflicts such
Speaker 2: as in Yemen. Very different, but you actually had countries
Speaker 2: getting involved militarily. But with Syria, wasn't that this was
Speaker 2: kind of the biggest diplomatic step it could take, and
Speaker 2: the military side was left to countries like Iran, Russia
Speaker 2: and so on, and to an uprising that morphed into
Speaker 2: a war.
Speaker 3: And we will rewind back, i think, in a little
Speaker 3: bit to talk about again the origins of this conflict
Speaker 3: and also where it is now, where does this war lie?
Speaker 3: But I wanted to bring in Daniel and ask you
Speaker 3: about the US here, because it wasn't just the Arab
Speaker 3: League that was watching this closely and reacting. We had
Speaker 3: the US government from twenty eleven onwards saying essentially that
Speaker 3: Asad needed to go. Can you talk a little bit
Speaker 3: about the relationship between the US and Syria and the
Speaker 3: evolvement of the US more broadly in this kind of
Speaker 3: international campaign that we saw evolve against Asad.
Speaker 1: The US has certainly put a tremendous amount of economic
Speaker 1: pressure on Syria over the last dozen or so years
Speaker 1: since twenty eleven, as you mentioned, and it's done that
Speaker 1: in concert with the EU, the UK and some of
Speaker 1: its other allies. This is a good illustration of a
Speaker 1: sort of full throated, targeted sanctions campaign that didn't necessarily work.
Speaker 1: If your goal is to remove someone from power or
Speaker 1: to achieve some measure of regime change. Obviously that hasn't happened,
Speaker 1: and the events of the last month or so have
Speaker 1: shown that if you can withstand the pressure long enough,
Speaker 1: you can be in some sense of the word successful
Speaker 1: and be welcomed back into some of these multilateral institutions.
Speaker 1: So I think it's sort of a failure to a
Speaker 1: certain extent of the sanctions policy. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: this is sort of the paradox of sanctions, and also
Speaker 1: one of the weak points is that it doesn't necessarily
Speaker 1: always work when you're trying to achieve these sorts of
Speaker 1: political ends. It can exert a tremendous amount of economic pressure,
Speaker 1: and certainly it's made life more challenging for the ruling
Speaker 1: regime in Syria with ASAD, but also for the people there,
Speaker 1: and it's forced USAD to turn to Russia and Iran
Speaker 1: for support. But it really hasn't achieved that political end
Speaker 1: of removing him from power. So it's a good illustration
Speaker 1: of some of the limits of those tools.
Speaker 3: Well, that was the striking thing. Really. You had a
Speaker 3: US president saying out loud that a leader or another
Speaker 3: country needed to go, and he said it more than once.
Speaker 3: As did others in his administration.
Speaker 4: It is absolutely imperative for the international community to rally
Speaker 4: and send a clear message to President assad that it
Speaker 4: is time for a transition, It is time for that
Speaker 4: regime to move on, and it is time to stop
Speaker 4: the killing of Syrian citizens by their own government.
Speaker 3: But what was the US interest in Syria? Why did
Speaker 3: they get so involved? Was it countering terrorism? Islamic terrorism
Speaker 3: in the region. Was it economic? Was it sort of
Speaker 3: the knock on geopolitical effects in the Middle East? What
Speaker 3: drew the US in so significantly to this issue.
Speaker 1: I think it was a number of things. Really. I
Speaker 1: think that the stated objective was countering terrorism, and certainly
Speaker 1: during the height of the counter ISIS campaign, Syria was
Speaker 1: an important country and important area of operations for the
Speaker 1: US military. I think that more broadly, the US has
Speaker 1: tried to remain engaged in the region beyond its traditional partners,
Speaker 1: and I think it also wanted to play a role
Speaker 1: in trying to tamp down what senior officials may have
Speaker 1: viewed as the potential spread of a humanitarian disaster. I mean,
Speaker 1: Syria has actually been labeled a state sponsor of terrorism
Speaker 1: since the late seventies by the US. So the US
Speaker 1: has had a long standing interest in the region, and
Speaker 1: I think part of their policy there was to try
Speaker 1: to keep a lid on it, so to speak. And
Speaker 1: also there was the proxy fights and wars going on
Speaker 1: where the US was trying to counter to a certain
Speaker 1: extent Russia, although they were nominally cooperating on some of
Speaker 1: the counter asis stuff, and also the Iranian influence in
Speaker 1: the region.
Speaker 3: Since then, the US has called on other leaders to
Speaker 3: go including the Russian president Vladimir Putin for his war
Speaker 3: in Ukraine, but also the US. At the time Dan
Speaker 3: laid out some pretty clear red lines on Syria.
Speaker 4: We have been very clear to the outside regime but
Speaker 4: also to other players on the ground that a red
Speaker 4: line for US is we start seeing a whole bunch
Speaker 4: of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would
Speaker 4: change my calculus, that would change my equation.
Speaker 3: And yet there's widespread evidence that he did use them
Speaker 3: against his own people. Is it a mistake for the
Speaker 3: US to be laying out red lines that other countries
Speaker 3: simply blow right through.
Speaker 1: Part of the problem with making those types of promises,
Speaker 1: laying out those red lines is that you have to
Speaker 1: follow up with force and that has become a real
Speaker 1: issue for the US, a country that's not in the
Speaker 1: mood to get involved in foreign entanglements at this point
Speaker 1: in time. So I think that you know, to the
Speaker 1: extent that it's a mistake or not, I may leave
Speaker 1: that for the policy makers to determine, but it certainly
Speaker 1: makes it a lot harder to back away from those
Speaker 1: red lines or to exercise some measure of strategic control,
Speaker 1: because if you're calling for President Putin to be removed
Speaker 1: from power or assad in Syria, you may run into
Speaker 1: some issues there when that doesn't happen. And so I
Speaker 1: think that going forward you may see policymakers be a
Speaker 1: little bit more circumspect in how they talk about these things.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you also want to lay out
Speaker 1: some clear directives and lines, and these are political statements
Speaker 1: as much as they are military statements or sort of
Speaker 1: declarations of policies. It's kind of hard, I think, for
Speaker 1: politicians to resist making strong statements on those points.
Speaker 3: When you think about twenty eleven, in the time, of course,
Speaker 3: the US caught in a protracted conflict in Iraq with
Speaker 3: sort of mixed results and similarly bogged down arguably in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: Did this impact the perception of the US as a
Speaker 3: powerbroken not just in the Middle East but globally at
Speaker 3: the time.
Speaker 1: It's hard to argue that it didn't, although there have
Speaker 1: been a number of things that have happened since then
Speaker 1: that arguably have had a bigger impact, including the withdrawal
Speaker 1: from Afghanistan by the US in twenty twenty one. It's
Speaker 1: been a certainly a mixed results situation for the last
Speaker 1: twenty years of US involvement in the Middle East. It's
Speaker 1: hard to argue anything else, and I think that what
Speaker 1: it shows to a great extent is that, with the
Speaker 1: exception of what's happening right now in Ukraine, the US
Speaker 1: has really turned away from a lot of these entanglements
Speaker 1: abroad or tried to, although it's you know, it's hard
Speaker 1: to argue that the US hasn't continued a lot of
Speaker 1: posturing and a lot of preplacement of forces in many
Speaker 1: countries around the world. I think part of what we're
Speaker 1: seeing here is the changing polarity of the world, going
Speaker 1: from perhaps a unipolar power arrangement with the US at
Speaker 1: the top, to something that's a little bit more multipolar,
Speaker 1: with China exerting an outsize influence in the Pacific region,
Speaker 1: and then Saudi Arabia really playing a big role in
Speaker 1: the Middle East, perhaps bigger than the US would like
Speaker 1: or had anticipated.
Speaker 3: Coming up the international efforts to contain usade, and what
Speaker 3: if any road lies ahead for peace in Syria. Let's
Speaker 3: just discuss a little bit the countries who've been on
Speaker 3: the other side, particularly helping ARSA's government to buy until
Speaker 3: at least recently military equipment, Russia's sending military equipment to Syria,
Speaker 3: other countries as well. Who's been on the other side
Speaker 3: of the coin in terms of either economic or military
Speaker 3: support for Syria.
Speaker 1: I could say, certainly Russia has been supplying Syria with
Speaker 1: weapons and arms and munitions. Iran has provided a lot
Speaker 1: of material support as well, And I think that you
Speaker 1: sort of have now, of course, the political support of
Speaker 1: the Arab League and of Saudi Arabia and sort of
Speaker 1: it giving a sad way back into this community. So
Speaker 1: I think all of those things have made it, I
Speaker 1: guess I should say, have made it more difficult for
Speaker 1: the US and the sanctioning coalition to really have an impact.
Speaker 2: If we sort of loop back to the Arab League decision,
Speaker 2: this sort of mainly symbolic decision. I mean, it kind
Speaker 2: of disregards US reservations. The US spoke out very strongly
Speaker 2: against Assyria being reinstated to the Arab League, and at
Speaker 2: least here in the region, the senses that it really
Speaker 2: reflects the US waning influence on the Middle East more broadly,
Speaker 2: and this sort of growing willingness of US allies to
Speaker 2: forge their own alliances and political path It's something that
Speaker 2: might reflect for US policy in other places too, So
Speaker 2: I think that's quite interesting, and I think it obviously
Speaker 2: was a win for Iran in Russia. Russia back this
Speaker 2: plan the Arab League. You know, they've obviously supported Assads militarily,
Speaker 2: but they would need regional help to rehabilitate him diplomatically
Speaker 2: and eventually help rebuild this country. So that's sort of
Speaker 2: where I think the thinking is. Perhaps for Russia in particular,
Speaker 2: it's got this other war that it's fighting in Ukraine,
Speaker 2: and Syria is still actually sucking up quite a bit
Speaker 2: of its military space and time. Russia controls the skies
Speaker 2: in parts of Syria, it's you know, involved in border
Speaker 2: crossings and so on. So I guess for Russia, it
Speaker 2: was seen as something that perhaps was distracting from its
Speaker 2: main conflict, and bringing in the Arab League, bringing in
Speaker 2: wealthy Arab countries to this problem would help perhaps move
Speaker 2: things forward or at least further down the lines, secure
Speaker 2: diplomatic rehabilitation for Assad and also money to reconstruct the
Speaker 2: country at some point, but obviously sanctions make that difficult.
Speaker 2: That's something that there is discussions about the reconstructions of Syria.
Speaker 2: How can money get in of there's sanctions and how
Speaker 2: all these countries navigate that.
Speaker 3: One particular actor has been Saudi Arabia, And I wanted
Speaker 3: to ask you Sylvia because they do share Arab identities
Speaker 3: and yet they're quite different.
Speaker 2: Yes, So I guess you know the question when sada
Speaker 2: Aba hosted this summer and hosted Assad in May on
Speaker 2: the same day as Ukrainian presidents Lensky, what was really
Speaker 2: in it for Saudi Arabia? Why did they do this?
Speaker 2: So I think one way to explain it is that
Speaker 2: Saudi Arabia is keen to be seen as an important
Speaker 2: economic and police call leader under Muhamma bin Salman. It's
Speaker 2: wanting to play the role of conflict mediator and it's
Speaker 2: important for the crown prints to make sure that regional
Speaker 2: problems don't hold back his plans to transform his economy.
Speaker 2: So that was the reasoning behind negotiations or discussions with Iran,
Speaker 2: because they're worried about Iran derailing its plans. But also
Speaker 2: that comes into Syria. So I think it's a again
Speaker 2: this tying up of loose ends. And I think also
Speaker 2: it's important to think about how Russia is one of
Speaker 2: the main backers of the Syrian government, and Russia's an
Speaker 2: important country for Saudi Arabia to cooperate with on energy.
Speaker 2: They're both in the OPEC plus A lines, so I
Speaker 2: think there was this sort of balancing of different needs
Speaker 2: and that sort of pragmatism. So I think it was
Speaker 2: more about that than about kind of deep ties that
Speaker 2: they have with Syria. It's more about pragmatism on foreign policy.
Speaker 3: In the moment, I wanted to ask about the state
Speaker 3: of the war right now in Syria, because of course,
Speaker 3: over a decade in it seems like the global attention
Speaker 3: has shifted, and no doubt also heavily focused on Russia's
Speaker 3: invasion of Ukraine, but there's still a conflict going on
Speaker 3: in Syria. Things are not resolved. Even with Assad's readmission
Speaker 3: to the Arab League and the sense that he's back
Speaker 3: at the table. What is the status of things in
Speaker 3: Syria right now? Are there peace talks going on?
Speaker 2: So there is a pro going on broken by the
Speaker 2: United Nations, that's been going on for a while. It
Speaker 2: hasn't been getting very far. There is a sort of
Speaker 2: map for talks for a representative government for the way
Speaker 2: in which Syria would be governed, but that's really sort
Speaker 2: of trundling along in the background, and there hasn't been
Speaker 2: much progress on that front. On the ground, you've basically
Speaker 2: got Syria divided into three areas of control. So you
Speaker 2: have the government controlling the capital Damascus and the main
Speaker 2: cities in the country, and then there areas that are
Speaker 2: under control of the PYD and the YPG, so these
Speaker 2: are sort of Kurdish political and military forces. That's in
Speaker 2: the north. And then you have the Idlib breed in
Speaker 2: which borders also the Turkish border, and that's controlled by
Speaker 2: opposition forces, the sort of grouping different groups, and that's
Speaker 2: the area that in particular the US has been concerned
Speaker 2: about because of Islamic extreamists operating in that area. That's
Speaker 2: sort of where we are on the ground, and different
Speaker 2: countries involved in the conflict back different solutions going forward,
Speaker 2: whether it's to kind of keep the status quo or
Speaker 2: have one controlling all, whether that means the military or
Speaker 2: on the ground or local administrations, and that's sort of
Speaker 2: where the talks are right now about what that would
Speaker 2: look like.
Speaker 3: And speaking of another country, of course, with a vested
Speaker 3: interest in what's happening in Syria, We've talked a little
Speaker 3: bit about China, but I'm curious, Daniel, your perspective on this.
Speaker 3: What's the role of China in all of this, and
Speaker 3: how much the countries like the US need to factor
Speaker 3: in the activities of China when it comes to Syria
Speaker 3: and beyond in the region.
Speaker 1: It's a great question, And I was just sort of
Speaker 1: thinking about this listening to Sylvia that a lot of
Speaker 1: times the US will view these very difficult conflicts through
Speaker 1: a US lens and sort of fail to see the
Speaker 1: regional and the local complications. And I think that China
Speaker 1: has been sort of sitting back to a certain extent
Speaker 1: as the US and others have gotten more heavily in
Speaker 1: terms of sanctions and even in some cases some military
Speaker 1: involvement in Syria, but certainly China is an important partner
Speaker 1: for Saudi Arabia. It's an important partner for a lot
Speaker 1: of wealthy countries in the Middle East as they build
Speaker 1: out their infrastructure and seek to diversify their portfolios beyond energy,
Speaker 1: and I think that the US does feel concerned about
Speaker 1: that to a certain extent because traditionally, especially in the
Speaker 1: case of Saudi Arabia, the US has been heavily involved
Speaker 1: economically with that country in particular, but many of the countries,
Speaker 1: the Gulf States in the Middle East, the US, despite
Speaker 1: the OPEC plus decision last year where Saudi cut oil
Speaker 1: production and some of the other things that the US
Speaker 1: has not liked in terms of what Saudi Arabia has done,
Speaker 1: the US is still very much interested in being in
Speaker 1: business with Saudi Arabia, and that goes kind of both ways.
Speaker 1: I think Saudi Arabia is probably feeling with regard to
Speaker 1: the US that hey, we're no longer a client state.
Speaker 1: We're wielding our own economic power here in this region,
Speaker 1: and if you want to come and play in our backyard,
Speaker 1: you need to do it on our terms. And so
Speaker 1: I think that that is kind of an illustration of
Speaker 1: how both the US and China dynamic has changed a
Speaker 1: lot of what's going on around the world.
Speaker 3: After the break. What are the geopolitical implications of Syria's
Speaker 3: readmission for the region and powers feather Afield Silva wanted
Speaker 3: to ask you about the recent visit of the Ukrainian
Speaker 3: President Vladimir Zelenski, where he stopped off at the Arab
Speaker 3: League meeting on his way to the Group of Seven
Speaker 3: summit in Japan. It was an interesting dynamic, the idea
Speaker 3: of him being there at the same table in a
Speaker 3: way as the Syrian president USAD and I wondered your
Speaker 3: impressions of that meeting and what did he get out
Speaker 3: of this visit if anything, and what about the Arab
Speaker 3: countries on the flip side.
Speaker 2: Yes, it was an interesting grouping of people and quite
Speaker 2: an odd scene where you had actually Zelenski in this
Speaker 2: SA kind of ceremonial hall addressing Arab leaders, including Assad
Speaker 2: who've just been welcome back in I guess you know.
Speaker 2: Zelensky has been touring different countries to try and continue
Speaker 2: to highlight what's happening in Ukraine, to look for support,
Speaker 2: whether it's diplomatic or military or political. So on his side,
Speaker 2: I guess maybe in the back of his mind is
Speaker 2: the idea that when it comes to reconstruction again, these
Speaker 2: wealthy Gulf countries in particular might be involved in that.
Speaker 2: I think it's also perhaps looking at the ways in
Speaker 2: which countries aligned. So I think there's a shared concern
Speaker 2: in the region with Ukraine in terms of grain supply
Speaker 2: and supply of grains to the market. In the Arab world,
Speaker 2: you have Egypt, which is the world's biggest wheat importer,
Speaker 2: and countries in the region have been very concerned about
Speaker 2: how a Egypt's economy has been affected by Russia's invasion
Speaker 2: of Ukraine and on the impact of higher grain costs.
Speaker 2: So I think there's perhaps a shared topic for discussion
Speaker 2: in terms of the flow of grain to global markets
Speaker 2: and what role perhaps in the future, or at least
Speaker 2: in discussion, the Middle East could play in that. But
Speaker 2: it was quite an awkward meeting because you've got Asad
Speaker 2: who's backed by Russia in the rim with Zelenski, and
Speaker 2: I thought that was an interesting dynamic In terms of
Speaker 2: Sauly Arabia, it was again, as I said previously, just
Speaker 2: about Saudi Arabia being able to host to world leaders
Speaker 2: two men of war, if you like, very different wars
Speaker 2: in very different ways, but it brought them together in
Speaker 2: the same room to discuss conflict and ways out of conflict.
Speaker 3: And as you say, two men at war, very different wars.
Speaker 3: But it does feel as though what's happening now in
Speaker 3: Ukraine really has a knock on effect with Syria also
Speaker 3: in the ways that you've talked about Sylvia, but also Daniel,
Speaker 3: there's a question in a way of Europe in all
Speaker 3: of this, because Europe has faced waves of refugees from
Speaker 3: Syria that have come through Turkey. There were fears, obviously
Speaker 3: with the recent earthquake there'd be another exodus from Syria
Speaker 3: and in terms of the outlook for Syria itself, can
Speaker 3: you coat with another wave of refugees from that area
Speaker 3: given they're taking in so many refugees from Ukraine at
Speaker 3: the same time, do you see a risk that the
Speaker 3: mood sort of hardens on Syria as part of this
Speaker 3: again just as time goes on.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that there's an interesting dynamic going on
Speaker 1: here across the region, both in Europe and in the
Speaker 1: Middle East, where you do have these ongoing humanitarian crises,
Speaker 1: and they do put stress and strain on the political
Speaker 1: systems of even some of the more developed countries. And
Speaker 1: I think that there could be an adverse reaction to
Speaker 1: the continued flow of refugees across borders. But I think
Speaker 1: one of the things to keep in mind with all
Speaker 1: of this is that each situation is somewhat different. And
Speaker 1: when we were talking about sanctions, one thing that came
Speaker 1: to mind is you mentioned Turkey, and you mentioned some
Speaker 1: of these other countries and the impact of refugee flows
Speaker 1: and sanctions and all of these economic measures on them.
Speaker 1: And I think that if the lesson potentially for Asad
Speaker 1: that if you just hang on long enough, you can
Speaker 1: make it through this economic onslaught. I think it's a
Speaker 1: little bit of a different calculation For Iran. The question
Speaker 1: of as to whether Iran will remain isolated is kind
Speaker 1: of open. The administration has sort of made some overtures there,
Speaker 1: and what ultimately happens with Syria, I think will be
Speaker 1: determined by a lot of what Sylvia had mentioned earlier.
Speaker 1: These complicated situation, a humanitarian crisis complicated by a natural disaster,
Speaker 1: and a lot of complicated set of interests, and at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, the US may find itself
Speaker 1: moving away from some of the red lines that it
Speaker 1: imposed earlier, simply because there may be no other solution
Speaker 1: than to seek some sort of multilateral agreement in a
Speaker 1: way to resolve some of these crises. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that things are going to get certainly more
Speaker 1: complicated rather than less complicated as time goes on. But
Speaker 1: certainly some interesting develops over the last month or so.
Speaker 3: Daniel, Do you see there could be any change in
Speaker 3: the strategy of the US government depending on who wins
Speaker 3: the twenty twenty four presidential election. Obviously, at this stage
Speaker 3: we're potentially looking at a rerun between the current president
Speaker 3: Joe Biden and the former president Donald Trump. Would you
Speaker 3: imagine that policy on SIRI could change as a result
Speaker 3: of that.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think certainly if Biden wins, things will
Speaker 1: remain largely the same. I would anticipate it could be
Speaker 1: some changes at the margins a rematch between Biden and
Speaker 1: Trump if Trump were to win. It's hard to say.
Speaker 1: When Trump was in office in twenty eighteen, there were
Speaker 1: some airstrikes in Syria that he had ordered, and so
Speaker 1: to a large extent, I think it depends on who
Speaker 1: his advisors are. And just to sort of throw a
Speaker 1: wrench into the works here, let's say that it's a
Speaker 1: Biden DeSantis matchup, and if ron DeSantis, another Republican front runner,
Speaker 1: were to get into office, that could be a completely
Speaker 1: different scenario, because he's made some comments on Ukraine and
Speaker 1: other areas of the world that are a bit different
Speaker 1: from both of them. It's an open question, but I
Speaker 1: think that the general tenor of the policy will not
Speaker 1: change all that much, simply because once sanctions are in place,
Speaker 1: they're very hard to remove, and I think that that
Speaker 1: will be politically difficult no matter who's president.
Speaker 3: Daniel and Sylvia, thank you very much for your time.
Speaker 3: Thank you thanks for listening to us here at The
Speaker 3: Big Take, a daily podcast from Bloomberg and iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 3: more shows from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 3: or wherever you listen, and we'd love to hear from you.
Speaker 3: Email us questions or comments to Big Take at Bloomberg
Speaker 3: dot net. Our supervising producer is Vicky Bergolina, Our senior
Speaker 3: producer is Katherine Fink. Frederica Romniello is our producer. Our
Speaker 3: associate producer is zaann Absidiki. Hilda Garcia is our engineer.
Speaker 3: Original music by Leo Sidrin. I'm Roslin mathieson in today
Speaker 3: for wes Kusova. We'll be back tomorrow with another big take,
Speaker 3: Do Do bo b