Speaker 1: Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keene Jay Lee.
Speaker 1: We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course, on the Bloomberg. We
Speaker 1: begin with our top story, tensions escalating in the Middle
Speaker 1: East after President Donald Trump ordered an air strike in
Speaker 1: a rack, killing one of the rand's most powerful generals.
Speaker 1: The U. S. Defense Department writing in a statement, at
Speaker 1: the direction of the President, the U. S. Military has
Speaker 1: taken decisive defensive action to protect US personnel abroad by
Speaker 1: killing Cassem Sulimani, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard
Speaker 1: Corps Coud's Force, a US designated foreign terrorist organization around
Speaker 1: supreme leader swiftly responding, writing the following a severe retaliation
Speaker 1: awaits murderers who have the blood of Sulimani and that
Speaker 1: of other martyrs on their wicked hands from last night's incident.
Speaker 1: We are pleased to join us by Nick Wadhams, Bloomberg
Speaker 1: State Department reporter. He joins us on the phone. Nick,
Speaker 1: my first question is decisive action from this administration action?
Speaker 1: The President George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not
Speaker 1: take Why is this administration chosen to do so? Well?
Speaker 1: I'm President Donald Trump has always said that he would
Speaker 1: do what was necessary and respond with the greatest force
Speaker 1: possible and the most report force required to protect what
Speaker 1: he sees as US interests. The big question that's being
Speaker 1: asked right now sort of in the national security community,
Speaker 1: is whether he's thought out the consequences. So there's no
Speaker 1: doubt among the United States officials. The Customs Suermaney was
Speaker 1: a bad guy. He had UM according to the State Department,
Speaker 1: was involved or responsible for the deaths of some six
Speaker 1: U S troops in Iraq um And so the question
Speaker 1: now is what is the off ramp? Like Pompeo tweeted
Speaker 1: this morning, the UM, the U S is still interested
Speaker 1: in de escalation, but no one really knows where we go.
Speaker 1: Nick Wadams, is so important that we lead with you
Speaker 1: in this hour because of your experience not only with
Speaker 1: Secretary State Pompeo, but also with Secretary Tillerson. This is
Speaker 1: an original administration with original responses. How different is this
Speaker 1: moment with a unique Trump administration and this Pentagon versus
Speaker 1: a more traditional administration and a Pentagon. Well, it's a
Speaker 1: great question, because this is how they've shown they do
Speaker 1: everything when it comes to foreign policy. I mean, remember
Speaker 1: a couple of years ago it just seemed unfathomable that
Speaker 1: President Trump would meet the leader of North Korea and
Speaker 1: then suddenly there they were shaking hands in Singapore. This
Speaker 1: is a This is a president who puts a lot
Speaker 1: of stock in his own ability to achieve deals. And uh, yeah,
Speaker 1: but Nick, he's not going to do the art of
Speaker 1: Nicki's not I don't mean to interrupt, Nick, but you're
Speaker 1: the pro with this. How do you do an art
Speaker 1: of the deal with a nation, a people who's, from
Speaker 1: what I can tell, war hero has just been murdered.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's how they perceive it in Kerman to
Speaker 1: bridge in Tehran, Isn't it right? And that is the
Speaker 1: central flaw of the argument and the big question going forward. Uh.
Speaker 1: The US claims that this was a defensive action and
Speaker 1: that uh, it's still interested in de escalation. But obviously,
Speaker 1: as you guys mentioned, the response from Iran right now
Speaker 1: is there is absolutely no interest. And that's been the
Speaker 1: problem bedeviling Donald Trump for the last two years. He
Speaker 1: got out of the Iron nuclear deal, and then he
Speaker 1: said he wanted a deal without preconditions. That Run so
Speaker 1: far has had absolutely no willingness to play ball. So
Speaker 1: it looks like the president's strategy so far toward I
Speaker 1: RUN is not working. Well, let's talk about the strategy
Speaker 1: in the broader region. Two events over the last twelve
Speaker 1: months that stand out for me the attack on Saudi
Speaker 1: oil facilities back in September the United States, the Trump
Speaker 1: administration chose to do nothing. Then we had the Trump
Speaker 1: administration pulling out of Syria, Russia moved in the United
Speaker 1: States chose to do essentially nothing. Nick, what was the
Speaker 1: red line that has been crossed in the last week
Speaker 1: that has made the United States push forward with decisive action? Well,
Speaker 1: the administration has always said that attacks on US troops, uh,
Speaker 1: would be something that was the red line, that that
Speaker 1: would provoke what Secretary Pompeo called a decisive response. Uh.
Speaker 1: You saw that a few days ago when the US
Speaker 1: killed two militia members. UM. And then obviously today we're
Speaker 1: seeing the true limits of what the administration means by
Speaker 1: a decisive response. UM. You know, the big question also
Speaker 1: is whether they felt provoked into this action because of
Speaker 1: the criticism that the administration faced over the fact that
Speaker 1: it really hadn't done something. And of course President Trump's
Speaker 1: defenders will say, well, look, we're not the one We're
Speaker 1: not the ones who are instigating here. This is a
Speaker 1: response to sustained aggression by the Iranian forces and something
Speaker 1: that they deserved and frankly had come. Nick aadums, thank
Speaker 1: you so much, greatly appreciated with the news. With true
Speaker 1: expertise on are the U. S. State Department, Johanna Kristell
Speaker 1: bring in our next guess. Emrita send Edward Morrisset's City
Speaker 1: Group publishes moments ago and he says this news of
Speaker 1: a rock ship push oil price is higher. He says
Speaker 1: obviously through seventy barrel, but very importantly at Morris, with
Speaker 1: his knowledge of oil and also Saudi and the geopolitics
Speaker 1: of the Middle East, suggests later in two thousand twenty,
Speaker 1: there would be mitigating factors to drive oil lower. We
Speaker 1: turn to the old market. Now we do that with
Speaker 1: Embrita send chief oil analysts, Energy aspects. I'm really fantastic
Speaker 1: to have you with us. Tremendously difficult to put a
Speaker 1: price on geopolitical risk. We go back to September where
Speaker 1: drones were used to attack Saudi Aramco facility. September four,
Speaker 1: Oil closed exactly where it was the Friday before the attacks.
Speaker 1: By the end of the month, many people looking at
Speaker 1: this situation and wondering at what point does this move
Speaker 1: begin to fade and ready to How different is this
Speaker 1: situation that we wake up to this Friday morning. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I think that's exactly the question to ask. But
Speaker 1: the difference is, um, the red line was breached, which
Speaker 1: is attack on the US personal and US facilities, and
Speaker 1: I think that's why there was an attack, right whereas
Speaker 1: with the attack in Saudi Arabia it was made very
Speaker 1: clear that the US is not going to get involved.
Speaker 1: Um And I think that's where the differences. But also
Speaker 1: remember we haven't seen that kind of a movie. Was
Speaker 1: like a ten dollar move under the Southy. This has
Speaker 1: been more of a three to four percent move. The
Speaker 1: markets already tied. The The issue in many ways is
Speaker 1: that this is going to get It's going to get
Speaker 1: paid out over a long period of time. Iran isn't reckless,
Speaker 1: They're not going to come back tomorrow, and it's not
Speaker 1: gonna be retaliation just yet, right it is going to
Speaker 1: get played out over time, and the risk is of
Speaker 1: victarian violence in Iraq, and then it becomes a question
Speaker 1: of do you start getting uh production affected in the region.
Speaker 1: You've already seen foreign workers being evacuated. I in US,
Speaker 1: foreign workers are being evacuated. What does it mean for
Speaker 1: long term production in the country. UM, you know, say,
Speaker 1: let's who we disagree on whether the market is tight
Speaker 1: or not. Would you really be short oil over here? No?
Speaker 1: I think that's where Uh. That's kind of the very
Speaker 1: the clear difference. Also because this is coming out of
Speaker 1: time when the Saudis have clearly said that they will
Speaker 1: be supporting the floor at sixty and so they've card
Speaker 1: production even more so, it's it's quite a different backdrop
Speaker 1: and taking you've touched on Iran's response. They say they
Speaker 1: will respond, let's talk about it in greater detail. The
Speaker 1: pressure within a RAND to respond will be sky higher.
Speaker 1: As Tom points out, this particular general incredibly popular in
Speaker 1: the country. The question is how. The question is where
Speaker 1: do you see them frustrating oil infrastructure, delivery channels the
Speaker 1: straight of Homer's do you see that happening in the
Speaker 1: coming months. I think they'll absolutely keep all their options open.
Speaker 1: But if the red line, which again in some ways
Speaker 1: you know the the Iranians had been poking to see
Speaker 1: where the redline was for the US. It wasn't the
Speaker 1: drone strike, it wasn't really a huge attack on one
Speaker 1: of its allies, but it was very much on direct
Speaker 1: US personnel. If they know that's the red line, they
Speaker 1: probably are not going to go for anything similar there again, right,
Speaker 1: But yes, attacks on other countries oil and gas facilities
Speaker 1: or on the straits of foremost on shipping, which we've
Speaker 1: already seen by the way, over the course of the
Speaker 1: last year, absolutely very possible. But again I keep coming
Speaker 1: back to Iraq. I think there's going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of pressure UH on Iraq and particularly kind of
Speaker 1: to push out the pro US forces from Iraq. I think, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: Iraq could just become the battleground and the Gubolito. We've
Speaker 1: heard that from others. Emridson, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: your cute analysis this morning, and she was brilliant earlier
Speaker 1: on the distinction of the heavy crude of Iran and
Speaker 1: how that folds it the Asian consumption of oil. Secretary
Speaker 1: Pompeio speaking to Fox News saying it Running and Leadership
Speaker 1: understands the president will take action. The US needed to
Speaker 1: take action to restore a deterrence. The president says the
Speaker 1: Solemnani strike decision was necessary. This according to Secretary Pompeio
Speaker 1: just moments ago on Fox News that second headline, Tom,
Speaker 1: the United States needed to take action to restore a deterrence.
Speaker 1: You raise your group and in the last twenty four
Speaker 1: hours saying the following, Running and leaders can no longer
Speaker 1: assume that Trump is a paper tiger who will not
Speaker 1: take decisive and risky military action. This is key, many excuses,
Speaker 1: many reasons across the President's desk in the last twelve
Speaker 1: months to confront Iran. He hasn't taken the opportunity. Many
Speaker 1: people out there today may suggest he had a little choice.
Speaker 1: I guess. On the phone. Mark Champion Bloomberg, senior reporter
Speaker 1: for international affairs in London, joined us on the phone
Speaker 1: right now. Mark talked to me about that the need
Speaker 1: to restore a deterrence the president, who was increasingly being
Speaker 1: viewed as a paper tiger. Your thoughts on that issue, Yes,
Speaker 1: I think it is the critical issue because you know,
Speaker 1: here are the alternatives. One is that what happened recently
Speaker 1: in Iran. And remember that it was Iranian bank militias
Speaker 1: in Iraq that attacked the US base and killed US contractor.
Speaker 1: And then it was militia's again Iranian bank that attacked
Speaker 1: the US embassy um in response to U s retaliation
Speaker 1: which had killed some of their members. So that was
Speaker 1: the background. So the question here is either what the
Speaker 1: US was trying to do and that those events provided
Speaker 1: the trigger for it was to restore belief that it
Speaker 1: was willing to take military action in addition to the
Speaker 1: maximum pressure economic UM policy that it has had in
Speaker 1: trying to pressure the Iranian economy, or one or both
Speaker 1: sides actually want a war UM. And you know, I
Speaker 1: think that's correct. The analysis correct is that they don't
Speaker 1: want a war. Neither side wants a war, but the
Speaker 1: US wanted to draw a line where many of its
Speaker 1: allies in the region, Saudi and so on for some
Speaker 1: time have been saying the US was not drawing a line.
Speaker 1: Mark You've got such expertise on the depth of these
Speaker 1: ancient debates frame or triangulate the United States Iranian battle
Speaker 1: going back the nine for some of US, with the
Speaker 1: Shiai Sunni battle which goes back centuries and centuries, which
Speaker 1: is more important to Tehran. Uh, you know, one would
Speaker 1: it's it's a it's a tough question to pose in
Speaker 1: that sense. UM. You know, the obviously there is these
Speaker 1: are two parallel narratives. You're absolutely right, UM. And the
Speaker 1: you know, the Iranian relationship to the US UM is
Speaker 1: very has been very dominant ever since nineteen seventy nine. UM.
Speaker 1: And uh, you know, it is no coincidence that the
Speaker 1: US has been a close ally of Iran's, the Iranian
Speaker 1: regime's main sunny rivals in the region. So the two
Speaker 1: things become very intertwined. UM. And it's kind of hard
Speaker 1: to pick them apart. You know, just to take an
Speaker 1: example right now here, you have the Iranian regime UM
Speaker 1: trying to decide how it will respond to the US
Speaker 1: in a US action. But among the options that it
Speaker 1: has there are, you know, not just lobbying a ballistic
Speaker 1: missile at one of the American bases in the region,
Speaker 1: which is something that the you know, the the Iranian
Speaker 1: officials have said they can do, UM, but much more
Speaker 1: likely is that they use some of their militias in
Speaker 1: order to attack the interests of the US and it's
Speaker 1: allies in the region, the militias that have been working
Speaker 1: with them in Syria, in Yemen, in Afghanistan, and which
Speaker 1: Hassim Sonimney was absolutely instrumental in both putting together and
Speaker 1: using what Markus you point out. At the epicenter of
Speaker 1: the effort to push a sphere of influence in the
Speaker 1: region for the Shia it's from Iran was Kasan Sulimani.
Speaker 1: That doesn't end with his death, though, does it, Mark
Speaker 1: And I just wonder what the next steps the Iranians
Speaker 1: will take to maintain that sphere of influence in the region.
Speaker 1: Many people will remember just a week ago we had
Speaker 1: naval exercises in the Gulf of a Mom between Russia,
Speaker 1: China and Iran. What happens with some of these key
Speaker 1: allies of Iran, Yes, um, So, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: you're you're absolutely right, because son of Money dies, that
Speaker 1: does not mean that everything that he's built suddenly goes away.
Speaker 1: It doesn't, and those remain the primary tools that are
Speaker 1: available to the Iranian regime as they decided on what
Speaker 1: to do. And then the secondary which is also an
Speaker 1: absolutely key question. You know that you know a couple
Speaker 1: of people have already said, you know, this is a
Speaker 1: bit reminiscent. This assassination of such an iconic figure in
Speaker 1: Iran is a bit reminiscent of what happened in nineteen
Speaker 1: fourteen with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, the Austrian Prince,
Speaker 1: and that of course began, um the World War One.
Speaker 1: But the difference is the question there is, so what
Speaker 1: do the other great powers do? Um? And that goes
Speaker 1: directly to your question, what about Russia and China um?
Speaker 1: And you know, obviously we don't we don't know exactly
Speaker 1: the answer. But my very strong uh, you know, guests
Speaker 1: would be or that this is not the same as
Speaker 1: nineteen fourteen. Neither the US nor Iran actually wants a war,
Speaker 1: and neither China nor Russia would be willing to go
Speaker 1: to war with the US in you know, on Iran's behalf,
Speaker 1: so completely different. Is usually must expand the conversation with
Speaker 1: Mark Champion, and I'm sure we'll do that in the
Speaker 1: coming hours. Thinking is a bloomberg opinion of in Londard
Speaker 1: Senior Middle East corresponded. What we'd like to do is
Speaker 1: spend the entire half hour rather with James Travidez. He's
Speaker 1: the dean, former dean, I should say of the Fletcher
Speaker 1: School at Tufts University. I can say he's former Supreme
Speaker 1: Commander for NATO, but John Farrell, that doesn't matter because
Speaker 1: what he really is is a former combat veteran on
Speaker 1: destroyers and on fleets as well. A Mustavides thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. I want you to speak
Speaker 1: to the people listening to our show coast to coast
Speaker 1: who have family in the military. These people are out
Speaker 1: on platforms, they're in the Army, the Navy, the Marines
Speaker 1: at all. At what risk is our military this morning? Well,
Speaker 1: as usual, Tom, there's good news and bad news here.
Speaker 1: I'll start with the obvious bad news, which is that
Speaker 1: we have assassinated a leading Iranian political figure and there
Speaker 1: will be repercussion. So Iran is going to lash out
Speaker 1: and that will put our troops at risk and to
Speaker 1: some degree, their family. Here's the good news, Tom, our
Speaker 1: military is ready for this. Iran does not have the
Speaker 1: element of surprise here. At every base around the world.
Speaker 1: Security is increasing. We're moving missile defense systems in place.
Speaker 1: We're ready, but it is going to be a very
Speaker 1: challenging time ahead. So my my word for all of
Speaker 1: our military families, especially and certainly our troops were deployed
Speaker 1: and they know this is be ready because Iran will respond.
Speaker 1: What is so important here, and I go back to
Speaker 1: the Sheffield and the Argentinean War, is there's all these
Speaker 1: big plans and all of this work of big budgets
Speaker 1: and a pentagon in that and in it can be
Speaker 1: you know, one exo can be one excess at missile
Speaker 1: uh which was the feeling done? And that's the nakedness,
Speaker 1: if you will, of the American public. How do we
Speaker 1: defend at the Persian Gulf gap? How do we defend
Speaker 1: on a geography where Iran could respond? We've got to
Speaker 1: take a three sixty view here, Tom. In other words,
Speaker 1: there's no silver bullet. No one missile defense system is
Speaker 1: going to save you. No one intelligence capability is going
Speaker 1: to give you perfect knowledge. No one defensive system against
Speaker 1: an incoming torpedo in the water is going to be perfect.
Speaker 1: But if you put all of those elements together, you've
Speaker 1: got a very good chance of defending yourself. And this
Speaker 1: is both at sea and ashore and in the air.
Speaker 1: And again we're quite capable of this. I think we
Speaker 1: can handle just about anything Iran throws out. Tom let
Speaker 1: me tell you one thing I worry about the most.
Speaker 1: It's cyber and cyber security. Here, I think our level
Speaker 1: of preparation is not as high relative to all the
Speaker 1: obvious kinetic military effects that Iran could launch against us.
Speaker 1: So for all who are involved in the cyber world today,
Speaker 1: heads up, they will use cyber against US. Admiral Jonathan here,
Speaker 1: let's explore that just a couple of steps further. Some
Speaker 1: of the American press, in fact, the international press, may
Speaker 1: wish to paint Iran as some kind of reckless rogue state.
Speaker 1: They're incredibly calculating foreign policy is wealth thought out. And
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering if you can take us into the
Speaker 1: mind of the government with within Iran right now, the
Speaker 1: Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the thoughts, the process they'll be going
Speaker 1: through to calculate their next step, their response. Indeed, let's
Speaker 1: look at what Iran's options are, and so in the
Speaker 1: Iranian equivalent of the Pentagon this evening, it is evening
Speaker 1: there they will be looking at attacking our troops in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan and Western Afghanistan. They will look at perhaps going
Speaker 1: after that embassy in Baghdad again, although I think it's
Speaker 1: unlikely because it's now well defended. Still look got strikes
Speaker 1: against Israel. They will look at cyber attacks against the
Speaker 1: US mainland as well as our command and control overseas.
Speaker 1: And lastly, I think they'll look very seriously at the
Speaker 1: Persian Gulf at raritime options. Well, I'm gonna get the
Speaker 1: map out here, and this is something folks, I'm as
Speaker 1: weak on our goldar Montevalis helped me so much with
Speaker 1: a fabric of the large geography of Iran atmalstvenis your
Speaker 1: expert at this. There's Tehran in four or five miles south.
Speaker 1: There's Kerman k e R m a n. We've seen
Speaker 1: that image this morning of the people of Kerman silently
Speaker 1: in the streets, standing in mourning. And then if you
Speaker 1: go three hundred miles directly south, you get to your
Speaker 1: Persian Golf. It's distant from Tehran, but it's not, is it?
Speaker 1: It is not? And of course the Iranian military has
Speaker 1: very significant basis book inside the Persian Gulf. And then
Speaker 1: you go through the straight up cor moves into the
Speaker 1: North Indian Ocean tom as you can see on your map,
Speaker 1: and that is where the most significant of the Iranian
Speaker 1: naval bases are and by the way, Iran, China and
Speaker 1: Russia have just concluded a two week naval exercise in
Speaker 1: the Northern Indian Ocean, so the Iranian fleet is preparing
Speaker 1: to move to see. I think we will see a
Speaker 1: potential response from them. What I know, Jonas again and
Speaker 1: here again James Tavitis with us, and we'll be with
Speaker 1: us through much of his half. Our amials Trevitas. When
Speaker 1: you say the Iranian fleet, what is that? It's um
Speaker 1: not remotely capable in the way that the U. S
Speaker 1: Fleet is. Tom, But I'll tell you three things that
Speaker 1: are pretty good at They have diesel submarines which are
Speaker 1: very quiet and capable of operating in the relatively shallow
Speaker 1: waters of the Persian Gulf in the North Indian Ocean. Secondly,
Speaker 1: they have small craft that they can deploy high numbers
Speaker 1: in what are called swarm attacks. Uh. They have rocket
Speaker 1: fired missiles on them, and you can send twenty of
Speaker 1: them to attack a big navy destroyer and that can
Speaker 1: be a problem. Third finally, Tom, they have very capable
Speaker 1: cruise missiles which they can launch both from at sea
Speaker 1: and from their naval platforms. So they're certainly not the U. S. Navy.
Speaker 1: They're not ten feet tall, but they can inflict real
Speaker 1: damage on a US warship. We ought to be very
Speaker 1: concerned about that. As the next few days unfolds, Adam,
Speaker 1: you mentioned the wall games taken place in the Gulf
Speaker 1: of a Mon in the last week between Russia, China
Speaker 1: and Iran. What do you expect the response of Russian
Speaker 1: Shota to be in the coming days. They will undoubtedly
Speaker 1: condemn this attack. They'll portray it as an assassination of
Speaker 1: a political figure. They'll ignore the fact that Sulamani was
Speaker 1: not only the Machiavelli, the cardinal richelieu of violence in
Speaker 1: this Iranian hierarchy, but that he was also personally involved.
Speaker 1: He literally has blood on his hands. They'll ignore all that,
Speaker 1: and they'll portray this as a rogue US military operation.
Speaker 1: I will say, um, we are to recognize that Sulimani
Speaker 1: was deadly and evil and taking his peace off the
Speaker 1: chessboard is tactically a good thing. What we have yet
Speaker 1: to do is lay out a strategy to deal with
Speaker 1: the after effects and the longer term issues here. Well,
Speaker 1: let's talk about that. The opportunity to take down General
Speaker 1: Slimani existed in the president of the presidency of George W. Bush,
Speaker 1: the presidency of Barack Obama as well. Those opportunities weren't taken.
Speaker 1: Admiral why not because of the sense that that would
Speaker 1: escalate a direct military confrontation between the US and Iran.
Speaker 1: So that begs the question why now, and my guests
Speaker 1: is that within the White House the calculus was made
Speaker 1: that at this moment they have overwhelming evidence that Sulimani
Speaker 1: was behind the rocket attacks that killed Contractor a couple
Speaker 1: of days ago, that he was behind the attacks on
Speaker 1: our embassy. He became a target of opportunity. His level
Speaker 1: of threat and level of violence has only increased since
Speaker 1: the days of both Bush and Obama. I think those
Speaker 1: three things came together and the administration, as the words
Speaker 1: go in top Gun had a shot Maverick and they
Speaker 1: took it. So you can argue with whether or not
Speaker 1: that is pouring gasoline on a smoldering fire. I think
Speaker 1: it is. On the other hand, tactically we are ahead
Speaker 1: for taking out Sulimani. Comgically, we still have work to do.
Speaker 1: I've been talking to Admirals tor Vetus about the military
Speaker 1: impacts of the killing of this general of Iran, and
Speaker 1: it has been absolutely brilliant, particularly admalster Vitus's comments on
Speaker 1: what the Iranian navy can do at the Gulf of
Speaker 1: Her Moves. Now let us turn to Washington, and I
Speaker 1: will say, deans to be this's formerly with a Fletcher
Speaker 1: School at Touch University. This is occurring within the most
Speaker 1: polarized Washington of our lifetimes. How does that change the
Speaker 1: Washington debate that we are so polarized in our modern politics. Unfortunately, Tom,
Speaker 1: there's no good news here. Let's face it. We're about
Speaker 1: to see an impeachment trial, we have an election in
Speaker 1: eleven months. It's the most uh, as you say polarized,
Speaker 1: I would say highly charged environment I can remember in
Speaker 1: my lifetime, my adult lifetime. So the unfortunate part about
Speaker 1: it is that we used to have a philosophy that
Speaker 1: foreign policy makes sure that there's bipartisanship at the water's edge.
Speaker 1: That's not what we're seeing today. And I think you're
Speaker 1: going to see both Republicans and Democrats on divergent paths
Speaker 1: as we look at what we need to do going
Speaker 1: forward with Iran. And that's a mistake because we have
Speaker 1: to pull together as a team here, inter agency working together,
Speaker 1: and indeed the branches of government working together, and must
Speaker 1: Vida's one final question if I made this morning, is
Speaker 1: the State Department any semblance of the State Department you
Speaker 1: have studied through your career or is it essentially a
Speaker 1: state department run out of the White House. I would
Speaker 1: say in this administration, the moves of foreign policy are
Speaker 1: not strategic. As you know, Tom, We think back to
Speaker 1: George Kennon and the Policy Planning staff, the creation of
Speaker 1: the strategy of containment that came out of the State
Speaker 1: Department into the inter agency. Today it's driven by the
Speaker 1: National Security Council staff. We have a relatively new National
Speaker 1: Security Advisor, Robert O'Brien UH, and we have a Secretary
Speaker 1: of State in Mike Pompeo UH, who is a very
Speaker 1: good tactical thinker, but hasn't created the long term strategy
Speaker 1: that would like to see. So yes, this is being
Speaker 1: driven largely by diplomacy of tweets. Think of it as
Speaker 1: shots of espresso into the system day after day, hour
Speaker 1: after hour, and that is not a good way to
Speaker 1: run foreign policy. I will do out today a full
Speaker 1: court press on the authorship of James David is this
Speaker 1: important new book chapter by chapter on the admirals of
Speaker 1: the Navy, including Mr Rickover, and I will of course
Speaker 1: mention his wonderful the Leader's Bookshelf Apple James Dravidas. Rather
Speaker 1: with us this morning, Team Surveillance has done just such
Speaker 1: a wonderful job today to get perspective from military, from
Speaker 1: those of international relations, and indeed from finance on these
Speaker 1: in Baghdad and the silence we see in the streets
Speaker 1: of Carmont to Bruce in Tehran, in Iran, and of
Speaker 1: course the responses in Washington. We do that now in
Speaker 1: some that now with a Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt Uh
Speaker 1: is with the Army. He is formally serving with the
Speaker 1: State Department as well, and we're thrilled he could join us.
Speaker 1: I should mention as unusual he is expert in finance
Speaker 1: with his c f A as well. General kimm It,
Speaker 1: I have to rip up the script, Uh this morning
Speaker 1: with you, and I want to take you from the
Speaker 1: staffing and strategy you are claimed for back to Fort Sill, Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: and that is a United States Army Field Artillery school.
Speaker 1: How does our military with traditional events as you were
Speaker 1: once a field artillery officer. How do we dovetail that
Speaker 1: military into the new military that needs to defend against
Speaker 1: unique Iranian strategies. Well, first of all, uh, this is
Speaker 1: not the same army that my father was in nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty four at Fort Sill when I was born. That
Speaker 1: was a very heavy, conventional army that relied on tanks, artillery, airplanes.
Speaker 1: We do have those same capabilities these days, and if
Speaker 1: we have a conflict with Iraq, we will certainly use
Speaker 1: some of those capabilities, but that's not the way that
Speaker 1: iron will fight us, and will fight us an unconventional manner,
Speaker 1: and that's something that our unconventional forces have become premier
Speaker 1: experts in the world on. You take a look at
Speaker 1: the special forces, which were virtually nothing in nineteen fifty
Speaker 1: four two now the capabilities that they can bring to
Speaker 1: the battlefield. They're also going to fight us, not only
Speaker 1: unconventionally with troops. They'll also use drones, will also use missiles,
Speaker 1: will also use other kind of capabilities targeted assassinations. Um,
Speaker 1: we've been training for decades on these types of conflicts.
Speaker 1: Were not perfect at it, but we're pretty damn good
Speaker 1: at it within all this, and as Atmos Dravides told
Speaker 1: us a bit ago, there is a new warfare that
Speaker 1: James Dravidz talks about, which is cyber war. As well.
Speaker 1: You're again a tune as an expert on this, explain
Speaker 1: exactly how Iran commits cyber war against the people of
Speaker 1: the United States. Well, first of all, let me clarify
Speaker 1: I am no longer in the army. I am right, yes,
Speaker 1: of course. And second I would say Jimmy Stebritez has
Speaker 1: exactly right. If you took a look at take a
Speaker 1: look at the types of war in the shadows that
Speaker 1: is going on right now on the Internet. Probably the
Speaker 1: best example of that is when a combined effort went
Speaker 1: after the stuck snet capability, used the stuck s net
Speaker 1: to stop the Iranian capability, the centrifuge capability. That we
Speaker 1: have that capability, they have that capability. Of course, what
Speaker 1: they will try to do is attack some of our
Speaker 1: critical infrastructure. And the important thing is they may have
Speaker 1: an offensive capability. The important thing is how good is
Speaker 1: our defensive capability. Um, They've got Tavern, we've got Silicon Valley,
Speaker 1: They've got a bunch of ir GC guys running around
Speaker 1: screaming depth to America. We have a bunch of millennials
Speaker 1: sitting in cubicles out in Silicon Valley, and I think
Speaker 1: we've got the better deal on that. I think we'll
Speaker 1: be able to extend against anything they try to throw
Speaker 1: at us. And the time that we've got left, we
Speaker 1: can go back to your father, who had a nodding
Speaker 1: acquaintance with the machinery of the Senate. A few years back,
Speaker 1: it was a less polarized Senate. How does General Kimmitt,
Speaker 1: how do you perceive a deeply polarized Washington And is
Speaker 1: that a deterrence to the Pentagon. Well, it's not a
Speaker 1: deterrence to the Pentagon. It's certainly, in some ways an
Speaker 1: impediment to the Thank you better said we we would
Speaker 1: like to see a bipartisan Congress, even if bipartisan decisions
Speaker 1: are not necessarily what the Pentagon believes in. But there's
Speaker 1: this fist fight that's going on up there where you've
Speaker 1: got one side of the aisle screaming at the other
Speaker 1: side of the aisl It doesn't do for the Pentagon
Speaker 1: what we needed to be doing, making bipartisan decisions for
Speaker 1: the best interests of the United States of America, and
Speaker 1: that's what we could use right now. Well, it's what
Speaker 1: we could use right now, and certainly what the Pentagon requests.
Speaker 1: And some would say, whether a Republican or Democrat, that
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is original, Is it a factor that
Speaker 1: that's such a different administration method versus previous Republican and
Speaker 1: Democrat administrations. Um, there is. There are two sides of
Speaker 1: that coin. On one side of the coin, one would
Speaker 1: argue that the conventional way of doing diplomatic relations negotiations
Speaker 1: that we've seen for years and years and places such
Speaker 1: as North Korea haven't worked. And as President Obama once said,
Speaker 1: when you've been doing the same thing for fifty years
Speaker 1: and it doesn't work, and try something new. This president
Speaker 1: is certainly trying something new, particularly in the areas of
Speaker 1: foreign policy. UM. He is taking a risk with this
Speaker 1: action that he took over the past twenty four hours.
Speaker 1: I certainly hope his advisers and the Pentagon are prepared
Speaker 1: for the inevitable backlash that we're going to see. Whether
Speaker 1: it will lead to the end to the forty year
Speaker 1: conflict that we've had with Iran is yet to be seen. UM.
Speaker 1: But that's what we pay presidents to do. Well, I
Speaker 1: guess it's all Germaine. But what is so important here?
Speaker 1: And Mark kemmed again, you have the synthesis of this
Speaker 1: with in Washington is somewhat the cliche getting everyone on
Speaker 1: the same page. We have a state department that's certainly original.
Speaker 1: I think Secretary of State Pompeio would even admit that
Speaker 1: the Pentagon is a pentagon. And then we god, as
Speaker 1: you mentioned, the fractured politics. Do you have any sense
Speaker 1: that these events of the last twenty four hours will
Speaker 1: get people on the same page. Oh, I don't think so,
Speaker 1: if for no other reason than it's an election year. However,
Speaker 1: if it if it elevates to the point where we
Speaker 1: have some pretty bleak scenarios where we have outcomes such
Speaker 1: as large number of American troops killed, embassies being attacked,
Speaker 1: that may rally everyone to a common effort. But I
Speaker 1: think as long as we are seeing the conflict and
Speaker 1: the crisis at at a moderate level, I think you're
Speaker 1: going to see both sides of the out come out
Speaker 1: with different press statements. Um none of them completely self serving,
Speaker 1: but none of them completely with the interests of the
Speaker 1: United States. In mind, General Kimmon, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: greatly appreciated. Mark Kimmont, of course retired Brigadier General of
Speaker 1: the United States Army, his service also at the State Department.
Speaker 1: We greatly appreciate it. We've talked to James Tavitaz this morning.
Speaker 1: We've talked to Mark Kimmon, of course, with our expertise
Speaker 1: in the Pentagon and with a certain authority. Here is
Speaker 1: Margaret Brennan, you of course know her from facin Nation
Speaker 1: on CBS, and we'll talk a minute about this Sunday show,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure she's blowing up and destroying right now
Speaker 1: and rebuilding. But Margaret, I really thought of you about
Speaker 1: your tour of duty covering State for CBS. We heard
Speaker 1: Secretary Pompeo on Fox News today on CNN. I'm sure
Speaker 1: he'll do a walk through with CBS at some point.
Speaker 1: How different is the State Department now versus the State
Speaker 1: Department of a few years ago or of two thousand
Speaker 1: and eleven on the killing of Osama in Laudon, Oh,
Speaker 1: Completely different? I mean, the silence was deafening last night.
Speaker 1: Many State Department officials, uh WEAD policymakers for the Middle
Speaker 1: East were in the dark about this um. And this
Speaker 1: is the kind of assassination of a leader that is
Speaker 1: sort of a step above taking out a Ben Lawden
Speaker 1: or bag Daddy in terms of actually challenging a state
Speaker 1: and having a war footing. So this is incredible, and
Speaker 1: UH Secretary Pompeo this morning is making these oblique, kind
Speaker 1: of mysterious references to UH imminent threats to the U S.
Speaker 1: And we just don't have any explanation yet. Well, you
Speaker 1: go right to the heart of the matter. And I'm
Speaker 1: going to frame as Paul Sweeney as I did earlier.
Speaker 1: I was with Nora Robini on the stage at the
Speaker 1: Milk and Institute, and the clearest memory of the taxicab
Speaker 1: right from l A X Margaret with an Ethiopian cab
Speaker 1: driver in tears over to the Beverly Hills whatever I mean,
Speaker 1: that was such an important moment for America, the killing
Speaker 1: of Osama bin Laden. And you're suggesting this is actually
Speaker 1: a larger event. Well, I do not mean in any
Speaker 1: way to lessen nine eleven by any stretch of the imagination.
Speaker 1: But what really has the national security implications long term
Speaker 1: for the United States were the dominoes that fell after
Speaker 1: Bin Lauden. That was or after Bin Lads attack on
Speaker 1: the United States, rather than the assassination of him. It
Speaker 1: was the war in Iraq, it was the war in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: It was the US actions that were triggered by the
Speaker 1: event itself, rather than a decade later, the targeting and
Speaker 1: killing of a terrorist leader. Cosum Sulamani was considered an
Speaker 1: enemy of the United States. He has blood on his
Speaker 1: hands of at least six hundred US servicemen, thousands of
Speaker 1: Middle East uh nations on his hands. But he was
Speaker 1: also a red hand man to the Supreme leader of Iran.
Speaker 1: This is like targeting the Vice President CIA director in
Speaker 1: the United States. This is an act of war Um,
Speaker 1: and this is a dramatic escalation, and a dramatic escalation
Speaker 1: after Iran has been rationing up tensions incredibly over the
Speaker 1: past two and a half years at the direction of Sulamani,
Speaker 1: after the US pulled out of that around nuclear deal
Speaker 1: UH the sanctions the Trump administration is piled on have
Speaker 1: not stopped Iran from meddling. It did not stop Sulamani.
Speaker 1: Assassinating him takes out the leader. Does it kill the organization? No, Margaret,
Speaker 1: I know it's very very early hours for this story,
Speaker 1: just having broken overnight. But within the belt Way, are
Speaker 1: you getting any sense of kind of what the folks
Speaker 1: in Washington believe the next steps will be, expectations for
Speaker 1: some type of retaliation? I guess well, yes, I mean,
Speaker 1: there are obviously a lot of people going to horset
Speaker 1: case scenarios there. And I do not want to be
Speaker 1: hyperbolic here, but we are seeing, you know, messages of
Speaker 1: increased security from mayors across the country about the U
Speaker 1: s homeland. We are seeing you a worst case scenarios
Speaker 1: being drawn up by US allies who are concerned that
Speaker 1: Iran may ditch what remains of that nuclear deal that
Speaker 1: it has with the world powers that President Trump pulled
Speaker 1: out of but still has been in place. Does this
Speaker 1: make Iran decide to go forward? Right? There is a
Speaker 1: lot of um back of the envelope sort of risk
Speaker 1: assessment here, and that is why it is so incredible
Speaker 1: really that Trump administration hasn't explained what comes next, and
Speaker 1: they are saying this is to deescalate. Most allies and
Speaker 1: adversaries are saying this is escalatory, Margaret, Instead of asking
Speaker 1: who your guests are in fac the Nation, because I'm
Speaker 1: sure you're working on a new show right now. What
Speaker 1: is your number one questions Sunday morning, whether it's a
Speaker 1: politician or someone from the military, etcetera. What's your number
Speaker 1: one face the Nation question Sunday? How does this end?
Speaker 1: Is America safer? I agree? Is America's safer? That's one
Speaker 1: of been one of our themes today. Margaret Brennan, thank
Speaker 1: you so much, of course, with fac Nation can see
Speaker 1: it on CBS Sunday morning. You can hear facin Nation
Speaker 1: with Margaret Brennan. I'm Bloomberg Radio Sunday afternoon two pm
Speaker 1: in New York, Washington, d C. And now Bloomberg one
Speaker 1: or six one Boston New Report Facin Nation this Sunday
Speaker 1: at two. I'm Bloomberg Radio. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bloomberg Surveillance podcast. Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: or whichever podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keane before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio.