Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then
Speaker 1: roun Oto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Speaker 2: Good to see you.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the Tuesday edition of Bloomberg's Balance of Power.
Speaker 3: I'm Joe Matthew in Washington, where we have news the
Speaker 3: President leaving the bubble today on his way to Florida
Speaker 3: to raise money and making news, saying that he holds
Speaker 3: Iran responsible in the recent deadly attack on US troops
Speaker 3: in Jordan. Of course, people for the last forty eight
Speaker 3: hours have been asking what will the response be. He says,
Speaker 3: Iran is responsible quote in the sense they're supplying the
Speaker 3: weapons unquote. To sort of unpack what he may have
Speaker 3: meant by that, we're parsing words at this point. Before
Speaker 3: we talk to Michael Knights, we bring in Jordan Fabian
Speaker 3: from Bloomberg's White House Team. Jordan, it's good to see you.
Speaker 3: Every word matters in a tense situation like this. Much
Speaker 3: has been said about the options facing the president. He
Speaker 3: also went so far as to indicate as Bloomberg is
Speaker 3: now reporting that he's made up his mind.
Speaker 2: Do we have any sense of what it is?
Speaker 4: Well, Joe, it appears there's going to be some retaliation militarily,
Speaker 4: whether that is against Iran itself or a proxy group,
Speaker 4: whether they're targeting personnel or weapons, as Joe Biden mentioned
Speaker 4: in that gaggle, remains to be seen. And these are
Speaker 4: the tough questions that he has to make in deciding
Speaker 4: how the US will respond, because of course there are
Speaker 4: major consequences whatever way he decides.
Speaker 3: I wonder if he intended to say that. Maybe that
Speaker 3: was all by design, but it sure seemed like the
Speaker 3: administration spent the weekend and Monday going out of its
Speaker 3: way to say, we do not want a wider war Jordan.
Speaker 3: We're not seeking war or a military conflict with Iran.
Speaker 3: But when you say something like that in the driveway
Speaker 3: makes you wonder.
Speaker 4: Right, So that would suggest, I mean, and he did
Speaker 4: repeat that too, then he does not want a wider war.
Speaker 4: Or this morning right after he said that he holds
Speaker 4: Iran responsible, so that would point to something more limited,
Speaker 4: something more like a check the box strike like they've
Speaker 4: done against the Huthis over their shipping attacks. But there's
Speaker 4: a domestic audience as well. Republicans some Democrats want to
Speaker 4: see a very forceful response because three Americans died in
Speaker 4: that attack in Jordan. So will that satisfy the domestic
Speaker 4: audience As he heads into a.
Speaker 3: Reelection, that becomes the question, of course the language we're
Speaker 3: hearing from Republicans and even some Democrats. But look at
Speaker 3: the Armed Services Chair in the House, Mike Rogers. Biden's
Speaker 3: fear of escalation has morphed into a doctrine of appeasement.
Speaker 3: That is not a narrative that the president can withstand
Speaker 3: on the campaign trail.
Speaker 4: No, his foreign policy has really come under attack. There's
Speaker 4: a sense that Republicans are trying to put out there
Speaker 4: that the world is on fire under Joe Biden's watch,
Speaker 4: pointing to the Israel Hamas War, the warren Ukraine, and
Speaker 4: now these attacks on Americans. So he needs to show strength,
Speaker 4: and that's why he might need to do something a
Speaker 4: little more than just a token response here.
Speaker 3: I'm sure you can speak to the line he's trying
Speaker 3: to walk here, though, he's got progressives on the left
Speaker 3: who are ready to bail on him because they think
Speaker 3: he's being too supportive of Israel, and he's got critics
Speaker 3: on the right, like I'm saying here, and even on
Speaker 3: both sides of the Aisle who think he needs to
Speaker 3: do more when it comes to Iran. It is kind
Speaker 3: of the definition of a no win.
Speaker 1: It is.
Speaker 4: But I will point out Shoe that that is how
Speaker 4: he won in twenty twenty was kind of pushing away
Speaker 4: the extremes in both parties and presenting himself as this
Speaker 4: reasonable candidate. So if he is in that position where
Speaker 4: the right and the left are angry at each other,
Speaker 4: he can kind of try to thread the needle that way.
Speaker 4: But at the same time, look, the polls show that
Speaker 4: voters are deeply skeptical of his leadership on the world stage.
Speaker 4: So he needs to, you know, at least would like
Speaker 4: to have the Israel Hamas war wind out, these hostilities
Speaker 4: against American forces, stop.
Speaker 3: Spending time with Jordan. Fabian Bloomberg, White House correspondent. As
Speaker 3: President Biden heads out of town, he's on his way
Speaker 3: to Florida. As I mentioned, fundraisers in Jupiter and Miami,
Speaker 3: tickets going for as much as two hundred and fifty
Speaker 3: thousand dollars. Jordan, will he get an earfull on any
Speaker 3: of these issues at some of these. He's been interrupted
Speaker 3: at so many events recently. I wonder if this is
Speaker 3: part of a fundraiser or a choreograph fundraiser that's happening
Speaker 3: outside of town.
Speaker 4: A lot of propouse city and protesters have disrupted him.
Speaker 4: As you mentioned, Joe, it happens a little less at
Speaker 4: the fundraisers. Those are a little tougher to get into
Speaker 4: the crowds. There aren't necessarily sharing the same views as
Speaker 4: those supporters. You can actually might get an earful from
Speaker 4: the other side of the sort of the republican arguments
Speaker 4: that he made, which is, you know, he needs to
Speaker 4: do more to support Israel. He shouldn't be questioning the
Speaker 4: Israeli government at a time of war, so you might
Speaker 4: hear from the other side.
Speaker 2: At this event in South Florida.
Speaker 3: We heard from the Secretary of State Anthony Blinken talking
Speaker 3: about a possible response, and again, while Bloomberg is reporting
Speaker 3: that the president has made up his mind, we don't
Speaker 3: know what that decision is. The line from the secretary
Speaker 3: a response could quote be multi leveled, come in stages,
Speaker 3: and be sustained over time, as opposed to Jordan's some
Speaker 3: shockun awe bombing campaign that happens later on tonight. This
Speaker 3: may not feel like the response that some people get.
Speaker 3: This could come to the Secretary's point in stages.
Speaker 4: That's right, and I would look to the response against
Speaker 4: the who Thi's as a possible model, which is there
Speaker 4: have been multiple air strikes. They are trying to target
Speaker 4: their weapons depots so that they don't have the capacity
Speaker 4: to keep hitting shipping channels. You could see something like
Speaker 4: that against possible areas where Iran strones are being stored.
Speaker 3: Sure the reporting today, by the way, that this may
Speaker 3: have been prompted. This attack may have been allowed because
Speaker 3: of confusion. They thought an American drone was coming back
Speaker 3: to base, but apparently it was the one from this
Speaker 3: Iranian proxy. If we had any confirmation on that.
Speaker 4: Not that I've seen, Joe, but obviously that would be
Speaker 4: a concerning intelligence failure. If true, it's a whole new
Speaker 4: fog of war on the age of drones. It's remarkable, Jordan,
Speaker 4: thank you for coming in. We rely on Jordan Fabian
Speaker 4: on this program so often. Bloomberg White House correspondent with
Speaker 4: the line from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue here
Speaker 4: as we add Michael Knights to the conversation. I've been
Speaker 4: looking forward to this the Washington Institute, Jill and Jay Bernstein,
Speaker 4: fellow specializing in the military and a real expert here
Speaker 4: on the region and the players. Michael, it's great to
Speaker 4: have you back on Bloomberg. We're talking so loosely about
Speaker 4: Iranian proxies. I wonder if we can be more specific
Speaker 4: before I ask you questions about what's coming next. The
Speaker 4: Whuthis have been on the front page. Obviously, people are
Speaker 4: familiar with Hesbollah and Hamas. Are these the three primary
Speaker 4: groups we're talking about or are there more?
Speaker 5: Well? In some ways, the mass is a bit of
Speaker 5: a newcomer, you know, because they're a Palestinian movement from
Speaker 5: Sunni Islamic community, whereas most of Iran's proxies come from
Speaker 5: the Shi'a Islamic community, and they would include Lebanie says Bulla,
Speaker 5: the first and earliest the Iraqi Shia militias who fought
Speaker 5: on Iran's side during the Iran Iraq War for those
Speaker 5: listeners who can remember the eighties. And then finally the
Speaker 5: newest member of that access of resistance, the Huthis down
Speaker 5: in Yemen, who kind of form a southern hbulla like
Speaker 5: the southern pincer of a kind of a crab claw
Speaker 5: that the Iranians have got around Israel and the Eastern
Speaker 5: Mediterranean and the Red Sea.
Speaker 3: So what do you make then, of what we're hearing
Speaker 3: from the White House, the President telling reporters that Iran
Speaker 3: is responsible for supplying the weapons in this attack that
Speaker 3: took place in Jordan, and that he's made up his mind.
Speaker 3: Do you have a sense, based on what you've seen
Speaker 3: already from the Bidendministration what might be about to happen.
Speaker 5: I think what's about to happen is that we're probably
Speaker 5: going to strike inside Iran for the first time since
Speaker 5: the nineteen eighty hostage rescue.
Speaker 2: I'll come.
Speaker 5: And that's, you know, the reason being that essentially we've
Speaker 5: run out of options, We've run out of runs on
Speaker 5: the escalation ladder. We're trying to convince the Iranians and
Speaker 5: their proxies to stop mounting attacks that could kill us
Speaker 5: in Iraq and Syria and to stop attacking global shipping
Speaker 5: in the Red Sea through the Hoothies, and they're simply
Speaker 5: not responding. So that tells us that you can't just
Speaker 5: keep attacking the tentacles of the octopus. You've got to
Speaker 5: attack the head of the octopus the way the Israelis
Speaker 5: describe Iran's network, and I think that's coming next.
Speaker 2: How do you do that and not prompt a wider war?
Speaker 3: The Biden administration has been so careful to try to
Speaker 3: not escalate things. Wouldn't that define escalation?
Speaker 5: Well, it does. But this is what happens when you
Speaker 5: run out of road in your existing escalation management strategies.
Speaker 5: I mean, essentially Iran and Iran and the US have
Speaker 5: both been what we call escalating to de escalate, and
Speaker 5: both of their strategies have not been working. So essentially,
Speaker 5: you know, we've got two failed de escalation strategies hitting
Speaker 5: head on, like two trains hitting each other. And for
Speaker 5: US now Iran, doing something in Iran is the next step.
Speaker 5: But of course, if you did something very lightweight in Iran,
Speaker 5: if you just pecked away at a particular base in
Speaker 5: the middle of nowhere, revolutionary God training base, if you
Speaker 5: went for some radars on the coast, what you're doing
Speaker 5: there is that you are breaking the seal on the
Speaker 5: Iranian homeland. You're saying, we're ready to do this from
Speaker 5: now on. We haven't done it for the first forty
Speaker 5: plus years of the Islamic Revolution's life in Iran, but
Speaker 5: we're doing it now, and we are only going to
Speaker 5: do it a little bit at the start. But next
Speaker 5: time it might be worse. That could have the shock
Speaker 5: effect required to make the Iranians back down their proxies,
Speaker 5: or it might require something even stronger.
Speaker 3: What would be the Iranian response to an attack on
Speaker 3: Tehran ran directly on Iranian soil.
Speaker 5: If we hit something on Iranian soil, even if it
Speaker 5: doesn't really hurt very much, they're going to have to
Speaker 5: hit us back at one of our regional bases, probably
Speaker 5: our Sad in Iraq, which is where they hit us
Speaker 5: after we killed the castm. Solomoni, their senior general in
Speaker 5: the region in January of twenty twenty. You know, they
Speaker 5: hit us back in Alas Sad, and even though we
Speaker 5: didn't suffer and he killed that day, you know, they
Speaker 5: rung the bells pretty badly through traumatic brain injuries, you know,
Speaker 5: well over one hundred troops. So they're going to do
Speaker 5: something like that. If we hit them very hard in Iran,
Speaker 5: they might do something a bit more aggressive.
Speaker 3: Even that's just official action from Iran and the Revolutionary Guard,
Speaker 3: what would become of Iran's proxies, not to mention, just
Speaker 3: lone wolf terrorists who would love a reason to strike
Speaker 3: at the US.
Speaker 5: It's interesting to note that when we hit Kassum Solomoni
Speaker 5: in twenty twenty under the Trump administration, which was about
Speaker 5: the most painful thing we could have done to them, honestly,
Speaker 5: they didn't get their proxies to hit us back. Immediately.
Speaker 5: They basically said to all of those guys, hold, we'll
Speaker 5: do it ourselves. This is our business, our avenge to
Speaker 5: get and we can do it precisely in a way
Speaker 5: that probably the Americans won't respond to.
Speaker 6: And that was true.
Speaker 5: Trump came out and said, fees fair, we hit them,
Speaker 5: they hit us. Is over, and so it may well
Speaker 5: be that that will be their response another time. The
Speaker 5: problem for the Biden ministry is we want this cycle
Speaker 5: to stop, and ideally we wanted to stop before the
Speaker 5: Gaza war ends, which might happen in February or March,
Speaker 5: or it might take a lot longer. And so we're
Speaker 5: trying to work out what's the cold splash of water
Speaker 5: to the face that's going to make the Iranians find
Speaker 5: a safe, face saving way to just turn this off,
Speaker 5: and we're not sure if it's going to work or
Speaker 5: if it's going to make things work.
Speaker 3: Wow, well, clearly the stakes could not be higher here.
Speaker 3: You might have heard me reference Anthony Blincoln. He said
Speaker 3: something else yesterday. I would argue, said the Secretary of State,
Speaker 3: We've not seen a situation as dangerous as the when
Speaker 3: we are facing now across the region since at least
Speaker 3: nineteen seventy three, and arguably even before that.
Speaker 2: Would you agree with that statement?
Speaker 5: Yeah, I would agree. And you know, it's hard not
Speaker 5: to look at a lot of the policies of the
Speaker 5: last ten years and you know, fifteen years and say
Speaker 5: this was really a problem of our own making, honestly,
Speaker 5: because we failed to stop these kind of threats before
Speaker 5: they evolved to become so significant a networked.
Speaker 3: Well, it makes you wonder what future policy is going
Speaker 3: to mean with the two possible presidents. Let's say that
Speaker 3: this is a Trump Biden campaign, what would this mean, Well,
Speaker 3: the Trump administration less than a year from now.
Speaker 5: Well, we know that Republicans are amongst the leading voices
Speaker 5: who want to move to mainland Iran and begin to
Speaker 5: affect the head of the octopus, not just the tentacles,
Speaker 5: so we could say they're more likely to do that
Speaker 5: in the future. I'll say one thing though, you know,
Speaker 5: the last three years, if you look at the failure
Speaker 5: to try and rebuild the nuclear deal and then you
Speaker 5: look at the increasingly militarized competition with it between the
Speaker 5: US and Iran since the goals of war began, there's
Speaker 5: no putting Humpty Dumpty back together. It's very hard to
Speaker 5: imagine any administration, Democrat or Republican having faith in the
Speaker 5: idea of a significant de escalation with Iran. Instead, what
Speaker 5: we're looking at is more of a containment strategy as
Speaker 5: we had with let's say the Soviet Union open ended
Speaker 5: or North Korea. It's an open ended, containment mechanic strategy
Speaker 5: against a near nuclear adversary.
Speaker 3: Think we'll see some action in the next twenty four hours.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm surprised we haven't seen it already, But I
Speaker 5: think that demonstrates the Biden administration is not willing to
Speaker 5: just hit the targets it can fined, which is those
Speaker 5: in Iran. It's looking to hit the targets it wants
Speaker 5: to hit instead, which are probably some leaders who they're
Speaker 5: waiting for them to pop up in Iraq or Syria
Speaker 5: so they can take a whack at them there.
Speaker 3: Think of that when you see the headlines. Michael, it's
Speaker 3: good to see you, and I appreciate you're joining us.
Speaker 3: Michael Knights with us from the Washington Institute for Near
Speaker 3: East Policy. Getting things rolling here.
Speaker 1: Listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken just
Speaker 1: live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then Rodoo
Speaker 1: with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live
Speaker 1: on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just
Speaker 1: Say Alexa Play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker 3: Welcome to Bloomberg Balance of Power, Kaylee. The President has
Speaker 3: just touched down in Florida. There were some questions about
Speaker 3: whether he should have stuck with the schedule today knowing
Speaker 3: that there could be a response coming against Iran or
Speaker 3: its proxies as soon as tonight.
Speaker 7: Yeah, we don't actually know the timing. We don't even
Speaker 7: know what that response ultimately will entail. We just know
Speaker 7: that he has made a decision about what the response
Speaker 7: will be. And actually Admiral John Kirby, the spokesperson for
Speaker 7: the NSC was briefing reporters on the plane to Florida
Speaker 7: and said it will be a tiered response. So this
Speaker 7: isn't necessarily just something flies, you know, tonight or in
Speaker 7: whatever day the administration chooses, but we could see multiple
Speaker 7: steps to this retaliatory process.
Speaker 2: There we say a laddered response. We spoke with Michael Knights.
Speaker 3: A little bit earlier on Bloomberg Radio Kayley, and this
Speaker 3: is someone who knows Iran's proxies as well as anyone.
Speaker 3: He predicted here on Bloomberg Live that we're done with escalation,
Speaker 3: there's nowhere further to escalate, and that the US he believes,
Speaker 3: will strike Iran directly, and he thinks it could happen
Speaker 3: as soon as tonight. That's a pretty incredible prediction to
Speaker 3: consider what the response to that might be. And I
Speaker 3: wonder if we might see the president where's the Oval
Speaker 3: Office address at a moment.
Speaker 7: Like this, Well, if we indeed see a strike like that,
Speaker 7: then surely he would have to address it in some form.
Speaker 7: It's interesting, though, that he would characterize that as not
Speaker 7: an escalation when we haven't actually had that's a direct
Speaker 7: strike on Iranian territory in decades so if we did
Speaker 7: it this time around, that certainly would, at least from
Speaker 7: a lot of the conversations I've had, bring this conflict
Speaker 7: to a much different level than it is right now,
Speaker 7: when basically the US to this point is only engaged
Speaker 7: with Iranian proxies.
Speaker 3: Sure, exactly, it would be remarkable, and to his point,
Speaker 3: it would draw a response. I wonder Hugar Shamali's thoughts
Speaker 3: on this, the former director for Syria and Lebanon at
Speaker 3: the National Security Council, founder of Greenwich Media Strategiesguard. It's
Speaker 3: good to see you, Thanks for coming back to talk
Speaker 3: to us. What's your thought on this? What should be
Speaker 3: the response from the administration?
Speaker 8: Well, there are three levels of options that the administration
Speaker 8: could pursue. And by the way, I'd add, when I
Speaker 8: was at the White House, one of the things that
Speaker 8: was very common is that the Defense Department lives to
Speaker 8: do contingency planning, so they have plans for all sorts
Speaker 8: of scenarios of this kind, and they likely had something
Speaker 8: in the can. They had options that were laid out
Speaker 8: pros and cons of those options. And the thing that
Speaker 8: the Biden administration has to achieve here is to send
Speaker 8: a message to put an end to all this aggression
Speaker 8: coming from these Iran back to militant groups, while not
Speaker 8: escalating things into a full scale war, and also protecting
Speaker 8: the rest of our troops and US presence across the region.
Speaker 8: We have twenty five hundred troops in Iraq, nine hundred
Speaker 8: in Syria, and we have a number of bases across
Speaker 8: the Gulf and elsewhere, and that is not including our
Speaker 8: US embassies diplomatic personnel. So there's a lot here, a
Speaker 8: lot of fine line he has to walk. Now in
Speaker 8: terms of the options, he could go very tough and
Speaker 8: very tough. I would put that that would include any
Speaker 8: kind of strike or action within Iran's borders. That would
Speaker 8: be something like weapons depots, airports, perhaps leadership, the Islamic
Speaker 8: Revolutionary Guard Corps, stations, things of this kind. Then you
Speaker 8: have a second tier, if you will, something like Iranian
Speaker 8: presence across the region instead of targeting Iran within the borders,
Speaker 8: meaning sinking its worship in the Red Sea or other
Speaker 8: vessels in the Gulf, things of that kind. And then
Speaker 8: at the lowest level, I would put a heightened attacks,
Speaker 8: perhaps simultaneous attacks against those Iran backed militant groups in
Speaker 8: Iraq and Syria. But the administration has really already done that.
Speaker 8: And by the way, if they only do that, Iran
Speaker 8: won't care about those kinds of strikes. So it needs
Speaker 8: to be a level above Yeah.
Speaker 7: Well yeah, at the end of the day, Higar, isn't
Speaker 7: this what Iran will care about, because it's not just
Speaker 7: about retaliating for the attacks we have already seen. Keeping
Speaker 7: in mind that sure, this was the first deadly one
Speaker 7: that occurred in Jordan a few days ago, but we've
Speaker 7: seen more than one hundred and fifty against the US
Speaker 7: troops in the region since October seventh. It's also trying
Speaker 7: to deter make sure that future attacks don't happen at all.
Speaker 7: How can you actually deter Iran and its proxies if
Speaker 7: you don't go after Iran itself.
Speaker 8: Well yes, I mean you make a point at the
Speaker 8: end that's very valid. You have to go after Iran
Speaker 8: in some way, shape or form, whether it's related to
Speaker 8: its leadership or to its money, and I mean, these
Speaker 8: are the things they care about the most, and also
Speaker 8: its reputation, how it looks, how it looks publicly. They
Speaker 8: need to see a message that indicates to them that
Speaker 8: the US is not afraid. These dictators and thugs don't
Speaker 8: understand the language of democracies. It's not the same. So
Speaker 8: we shouldn't in my opinion, we shouldn't be afraid to
Speaker 8: strike Iran, but we shouldn't be afraid or Iranian targets
Speaker 8: in the region because that's the only thing they understand
Speaker 8: in order for them to the United States seriously to
Speaker 8: know that if they dare respond to that, that the
Speaker 8: US has no fear in escalating further. And so those
Speaker 8: are the kinds of targets that you could see. They
Speaker 8: could also pursue other announcements like saying that the nuclear
Speaker 8: deals off the table, for example, but they are going
Speaker 8: to have to hit Iran. One last point I would
Speaker 8: say on this is that while Iran may not be
Speaker 8: behind every single execution of these attacks from these Iran
Speaker 8: backed groups, these iron backed groups across the region wouldn't
Speaker 8: exist if it weren't for them. They fund them, arm them,
Speaker 8: train them, they give them technical assistance and intelligence. And
Speaker 8: also on the flip side, Iran has that building to
Speaker 8: tell them to cut it out. So that's why the
Speaker 8: message has to be at Iran.
Speaker 3: Okay, So how about with all of that said Haigar,
Speaker 3: how about all of the above. What odds would you
Speaker 3: put on in all of the above response to make
Speaker 3: a point from this administration.
Speaker 8: If I had to place it, bet, I would say
Speaker 8: that their response would probably fall somewhere in the second tier.
Speaker 8: But you know it could listen, it could it could
Speaker 8: go either way. Second tier meaning and certainly an Iranian target,
Speaker 8: an Iranian high profile target. There are Iranian leaders of
Speaker 8: the IRDBC who are based in the Middle East. They
Speaker 8: have vessels and diplomatic embassies, and they have IRGC offices
Speaker 8: and and bases inside the Middle East. Those are not
Speaker 8: the same as Iran back to middleitant groups across the
Speaker 8: Middle East. So that's where I would expect an action
Speaker 8: to take place. And as Secretary of Blincoln has said,
Speaker 8: we expect this to be long term. And as you said,
Speaker 8: it'll be tears, that's normal. It's not going to be
Speaker 8: just tonight or tomorrow, whenever this happens this week. There
Speaker 8: will be multiple, multiple steps. And the point the reason
Speaker 8: the administration's conveying that message is to say it's not
Speaker 8: just going to be this. There is more to come,
Speaker 8: and we're going to keep you on your toes wondering
Speaker 8: what will be the next step.
Speaker 7: And of course this is a decision that the President
Speaker 7: is making or already has made, we're just waiting to
Speaker 7: see execute it on But can the US really make
Speaker 7: this kind of call in iolation when a lot of
Speaker 7: the strikes that has been carrying out against Iranian proxies
Speaker 7: have been done in concert with the United Kingdom. Obviously,
Speaker 7: there's the wider maritime task force in the Red Sea,
Speaker 7: and the consideration as well of Arab allies like Saudi Arabia,
Speaker 7: who have been very reluctant to further provoke Iran proxies
Speaker 7: like the Houthis in particular because of the attacks they
Speaker 7: have seen from those groups. How does the US need
Speaker 7: to think about the wider picture here in the other
Speaker 7: countries at play?
Speaker 8: Will I find the Middle Eastern leaders, all of them,
Speaker 8: including the Saudis, have been very weak, in my opinion,
Speaker 8: in pushing back on how Iran has messaged their views
Speaker 8: since October seven, how the Houthis have been behaving. The
Speaker 8: Houthis in particular, the Saudis themselves waged a nine year
Speaker 8: brutal war against the Huthis, so for them to say
Speaker 8: for them to come off as weak as they've been,
Speaker 8: I find to be quite a disappointment. And listen, they
Speaker 8: have their own interests. Of course, they're trying to manage
Speaker 8: their own public opinion while still while still advancing their
Speaker 8: national security and economic interests. I can see where they're
Speaker 8: coming from. But the US, when it comes to a
Speaker 8: situation like this, this is an instance of self defense
Speaker 8: and the way the US views it and the White
Speaker 8: House views it, and this is by the way, why
Speaker 8: the US doesn't why the White House won't need congressional
Speaker 8: approval either, is because not only was this an act
Speaker 8: of self defense, but whatever the response is is specifically
Speaker 8: meant to eliminate the threat posed to US presence in
Speaker 8: the region. Which is why President Biden can take this
Speaker 8: decision as commander in chief without consulting Congress, maybe consulting,
Speaker 8: but not waiting for congressional approval. And also he is
Speaker 8: not likely to consult other Arab allies because it could leak.
Speaker 8: And I am sure you've seen the administration has been
Speaker 8: deliberately very vague on who even conducted the drone attack
Speaker 8: in Jordan, which Iran backed group? Where was it? But
Speaker 8: we don't know if it was Iraq or Syria, and
Speaker 8: that's by design because they don't want anybody to be
Speaker 8: on guard. They don't want that militant group to have
Speaker 8: their missile missile defenses up or anything of that kind.
Speaker 8: It's the element of surprise is critical. And so if
Speaker 8: they consult anybody, it would I would assume it would
Speaker 8: only be the UK or anything anybody in what's called
Speaker 8: the Five Eyes, which is the group of five English
Speaker 8: speaking countries who are who share intelligence.
Speaker 3: You talk about the modeling that you would have been
Speaker 3: doing at the National Security Council in your time working
Speaker 3: for the Obama administration reguards what extent is proportionality modeled.
Speaker 3: We keep hearing that, you know, we can't do this forever,
Speaker 3: responding to every drone attack with a million dollar cruise missile.
Speaker 3: How do we how do we manage this new age
Speaker 3: of warfare?
Speaker 8: Yeah, I mean, the proportionality is an important one because
Speaker 8: and it's very important to the United States, the U S. Government.
Speaker 8: We assess proportionality very carefully and and that comes for
Speaker 8: any any war. And I believe, by the way, for example,
Speaker 8: proportionality has to do with deeming how big a threat,
Speaker 8: how large is the threat, how significant is it to
Speaker 8: the national security of the United States. It's foreign policy,
Speaker 8: it's economy. And when something is deemed a significant threat,
Speaker 8: then that's what determines whether or not you go after
Speaker 8: that threat, what the collateral damage might be, and how
Speaker 8: you go after that threat. And there are threats that
Speaker 8: sometimes the US doesn't go after because perhaps the collateral
Speaker 8: damage is too big for a threat that is not
Speaker 8: actually that significant. Something like this is very significant, right,
Speaker 8: killing US soldiers, something that results in killing US soldiers
Speaker 8: is significant. Now. I've heard some say that there have
Speaker 8: been one hundred and sixty five attacks since October seven
Speaker 8: from these are Ron backed groups, and that this was
Speaker 8: one hundred and sixty fourth and that they just got
Speaker 8: lucky on their end. And I don't mean to use
Speaker 8: the term lucky on us. It's actually it's devastating, but
Speaker 8: on their end. And that might be the case, but regardless,
Speaker 8: it's a red line. We knew that with this situation
Speaker 8: and help precarious, it would be that this could be
Speaker 8: there's a risk of something like this happening. And so
Speaker 8: when it comes to proportionality and you have US soldiers
Speaker 8: who've been killed and you're facing that threat, the proportionality
Speaker 8: is going to be assessed. There is no threat, they're
Speaker 8: not going to go after. The only thing that they're
Speaker 8: going to make sure of is that there isn't a massive,
Speaker 8: massive civilian death.
Speaker 7: Well, speaking of civilian casualties, Hagar, that of course is
Speaker 7: very much in focus when it comes to the root
Speaker 7: cause of a lot of this escalation and the way
Speaker 7: we have seen things intensify in the Middle East, which
Speaker 7: is the ongoing war between Israel and Hamas, and we
Speaker 7: know that happening in Paris in recent days. Conversations still
Speaker 7: ongoing are talks to try to reach a ceasefire agreement
Speaker 7: in exchange for the release of hostages that are still
Speaker 7: being called held in Gaza, stopping hostilities for at least
Speaker 7: some period of time, especially considering the Huthis say that
Speaker 7: they are acting in support of Hamas of Iranian proxies.
Speaker 7: If we could see an agreement like that, could that
Speaker 7: help ease not just what's happening between Israel and Humas,
Speaker 7: but what is happening more whyly in the region.
Speaker 8: I'm so glad you asked this question, because I think
Speaker 8: there's a lot of misunderstanding about the connection between the
Speaker 8: aggression pursued by these Iran backed Milton groups and what's
Speaker 8: happening in Israel Gaza. So obviously what happened, what's happening
Speaker 8: in Israel Gaza, and what's happened since then and since
Speaker 8: October seven, has resulted in a massive increase in these
Speaker 8: attacks that we're seeing from these Iran backed groups. Militants
Speaker 8: behootis all of them, but their claim that they're doing
Speaker 8: it to fight for the Palestinian mission or cause, or
Speaker 8: that they're doing it to protest against the war and
Speaker 8: to protect Palestinians is a lie. The reason they do
Speaker 8: this is in part because whenever any time there's instability
Speaker 8: in the region wherever, whatever it might be, they use
Speaker 8: it as an opportunity to create more trouble. And the
Speaker 8: reason they do that is not only because they're troublemakers
Speaker 8: and they like to do that, but because it's how
Speaker 8: they gain legitimacy and variety, and reeling in a big
Speaker 8: fish like goading the United States into a war for
Speaker 8: them is massive. It would allow them to fundraise further,
Speaker 8: to recruit further, to get more notoriety publicly, to be
Speaker 8: back on the map, to have a ron look at
Speaker 8: them like the Darling you know, and so that is
Speaker 8: why they pursue this type of behavior, and it's why
Speaker 8: they don't really care about going the United States into
Speaker 8: a war because they have nothing to lose. They don't
Speaker 8: it's not about whether or not they'd win, they'd obviously lose.
Speaker 8: It's about putting them on the map. And so when
Speaker 8: you have if you have an agreement in Paris, and
Speaker 8: by the way, I'm hopeful that they'll get to some
Speaker 8: kind of agreement, though I don't expect it to result
Speaker 8: in a permanencyas fire. I would expect these attacks to
Speaker 8: continue without a strong response from the United States. Like
Speaker 8: if that response is not strong enough, then I would
Speaker 8: see these kind of you know, low level attacks continuing.
Speaker 8: And that's likely because there won't be a permanent ceasefire.
Speaker 8: But even if you had a permanent ceasefire, we've seen
Speaker 8: these attacks for the last few years. It's just been
Speaker 8: at a lower level. They just always heighten when there's
Speaker 8: something that goes wrong, when it talks between the US
Speaker 8: and Iran fall or when things happen in Syria. I mean,
Speaker 8: they always they.
Speaker 7: Go up and down, all right, Hagar Shimali, thank you
Speaker 7: so much as always for joining us. We always appreciate
Speaker 7: your insight on these topics. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 7: And Joe, it's important to hear from the likes of Hagars.
Speaker 7: I've heard recently in just the last twenty four hours
Speaker 7: or so, this idea that the Huthis may cool things
Speaker 7: off if there is indeed a ceasefire with Hamas. But
Speaker 7: maybe the line is not actually that direct, and these
Speaker 7: proxies have other incentives here.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: You wonder about the political incentive here domestically as well.
Speaker 3: President Biden being criticized by both sides of the island.
Speaker 3: He needs to flex to show to Hagar's point that
Speaker 3: the administration is not afraid.
Speaker 7: Yeah, a lot of people trying to paint his administration
Speaker 7: as weak on Iran. So it'll be interesting to see
Speaker 7: how this moves forward.
Speaker 2: Yet, that's for sure. We'll have a lot more ahead
Speaker 2: on Balance of Power. This is Bloomberg.
Speaker 1: You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch
Speaker 1: us live weekdays at noon Eastern on AMO car Play
Speaker 1: and then Broudoto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on
Speaker 1: demand wherever you get your podcasts. I'll watch us live
Speaker 1: on YouTube.
Speaker 3: As we consider the news today on the campaign trail,
Speaker 3: Kaylee lines, this is a big one for Nicki Haley.
Speaker 2: This is the big meeting with.
Speaker 3: The whales, the big donors, yep, who will likely give
Speaker 3: her a chance to continue campaigning here in the weeks ahead,
Speaker 3: knowing that money is so important to staying alive. But
Speaker 3: I'll tell you what, the folks at IPSOS, the polling firm,
Speaker 3: are already moving on to the general election.
Speaker 2: Sounding like a lot of Americans.
Speaker 7: Right now, Yeah, just not Nicki Haley. She's talking about
Speaker 7: the establishment who wants to call this thing done and
Speaker 7: dusted already. She is not willing to do that. We'll
Speaker 7: see if these donors, big names well known to our
Speaker 7: television and radio audiences, Stan Druck and Miller, Kenlyn gone right,
Speaker 7: all these kind of wall streets, if they continue to
Speaker 7: keep financially backing her as long as they want, real
Speaker 7: reason why she can't stay in the race. But to
Speaker 7: your point, Joe, it's looking like it may it could
Speaker 7: be good money going after bad at this point if
Speaker 7: she can't start winning states, picking up more delegates, and
Speaker 7: actually pose a real challenge to Trump to secure the nomination.
Speaker 3: Reinforces this idea that it's not about winning a bunch
Speaker 3: of early states. It's about collecting delegates just enough to
Speaker 3: hang on and maybe be there.
Speaker 2: If something should happen to Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: But at IPSOS, they're running numbers today on the general
Speaker 3: election campaign, and you know, we have to talk to
Speaker 3: Cliff Young when they come out with something that's making news. Here,
Speaker 3: Public Affairs President at IPSOS US Cliff, it's good to
Speaker 3: see you. Welcome. The headline says it all here. The
Speaker 3: twenty twenty four US presidential election outcome is highly uncertain.
Speaker 3: It takes a lot to cast out this far. We're
Speaker 3: told not to pay too much attention to hypothetical national polls,
Speaker 3: So what do you get in that here?
Speaker 6: So basically we're not just looking at polls.
Speaker 9: This is a look at a series of models that
Speaker 9: we use at episodes, both in the United States and
Speaker 9: around the world. This is our first cut at the
Speaker 9: election from a forecasting perspective. Obviously things can change, But
Speaker 9: when we say it's highly uncertain, we're not talking about
Speaker 9: distance from the election and perl distance how far out
Speaker 9: it is, because it's always uncertain. What we're really talking
Speaker 9: about is we have an uncertain economy that will really
Speaker 9: define the election for Biden or for Trump. And what
Speaker 9: we do more specifically is sort of detail those sorts
Speaker 9: of things that any sort of analyst should be looking
Speaker 9: at as the election season unfolds.
Speaker 8: Well.
Speaker 7: On the subject of the economy, you point out how
Speaker 7: public opinion is typically a lagging indicator on the economy.
Speaker 7: That's something we talk about a lot here at Bloomberg
Speaker 7: TV and radio. This idea that the economic data is
Speaker 7: looking pretty good, inflation's coming down, the labor market is
Speaker 7: still in there, and yet President Biden has really poor
Speaker 7: approval numbers on his handling of the economy. When does
Speaker 7: that lag actually kick in and potentially start helping him more.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's a great question, and I would say that
Speaker 9: with if it were related to unemployment, we would have
Speaker 9: a better idea. It's about three to five months. With inflation,
Speaker 9: we've had so little experience with inflation the United States,
Speaker 9: we're not quite sure what the lag is. What I
Speaker 9: would say is the killer quarter. The quarter you should
Speaker 9: look at is the second quarter. If the numbers have
Speaker 9: not caught up by then, for Biden from an economic perspective,
Speaker 9: he should have problems looking forward. So at ipsis we're
Speaker 9: really looking at that second second quarter. Our expectation is
Speaker 9: that things will improve. We don't know how much they
Speaker 9: will them.
Speaker 3: You refer to temporal fuzziness that your models suffer from.
Speaker 3: I guess like all of us at this point here, Cliff,
Speaker 3: you mentioned the economy its ability to change, creating a
Speaker 3: real fluid situation for us as we head into this
Speaker 3: election cycle, this election year. You also refer to the
Speaker 3: potential for black swan events, and we certainly saw that
Speaker 3: in the last election. That would have been something impossible
Speaker 3: to poll around, and that's what we became what became
Speaker 3: known as COVID nineteen.
Speaker 9: Yeah, exactly, black swan events. We can set those aside
Speaker 9: because we just don't know right. We'll know it when
Speaker 9: they're here, but we don't have them at this point,
Speaker 9: and so let's set them aside. What we're really looking
Speaker 9: at is the effect of the economy on the main
Speaker 9: issue today. The main issue is the economy, and Trump
Speaker 9: by far outpaces Biden on that issue. That's Biden's achilles heel,
Speaker 9: the economy. But with an improving economy, our expectation is
Speaker 9: that we'll have other issues come to the four Immigration, crime,
Speaker 9: saving democracy. We're not quite sure which ones, and so
Speaker 9: we'll be tracking them very consistently over time and ipsos.
Speaker 9: But that's the key issue, or the key analytical point
Speaker 9: all of us should be looking at.
Speaker 6: What is the main issue?
Speaker 9: What is that thing that Americans are really worried about
Speaker 9: because they'll vote on that issue from November.
Speaker 8: Well, on the.
Speaker 7: Subject of these issues, and you actually have a great
Speaker 7: chart kind of laying out the different models you are
Speaker 7: looking at in which ones favor the incumbent president Biden
Speaker 7: or Trump. And one of them is the idea that
Speaker 7: if the economy and the inflation is the main problem,
Speaker 7: that is strong Trump in terms of modeling. Yet, we
Speaker 7: have been having a lot of conversations in recent weeks
Speaker 7: and we saw this in New Hampshire and Iowa that
Speaker 7: perhaps even more so than the economy, it's the border
Speaker 7: that is weighing on the minds of voters. Are you
Speaker 7: seeing that reflected in your pulling? And how would that
Speaker 7: change perhaps the Leeds Trump versus Leans Biden.
Speaker 9: Yeah, so the economy obviously favors Trump. Immigration favors Trump
Speaker 9: as well. Right now now at this point, immigration is
Speaker 9: a Republican issue. It's something that mobilizes the Republican base,
Speaker 9: though Democrats are worried about it, it's a Republican issue.
Speaker 9: If it becomes the primary issue after the economy, Biden
Speaker 9: will have problems because Trump dominates that issue.
Speaker 3: Boy, what can we expect from IPSOS on this? Now
Speaker 3: that you've schooled us a bit here.
Speaker 2: On the method? How often are you going to update
Speaker 2: these going through the year.
Speaker 9: Yeah, we're not gonna the models will be updating about
Speaker 9: every two months or so.
Speaker 6: We don't want to, you know, overdo it.
Speaker 9: But what we will be updating much more consistently are
Speaker 9: those main issues, the evolution of what people are worried about, because.
Speaker 6: In our mind, that will define the election.
Speaker 9: Will it be a Biden issue, an issue that favors Biden,
Speaker 9: will be a tr Trump issue, one that favors him.
Speaker 9: We don't know still, and so we'll be very closely
Speaker 9: following those specific questions over time.
Speaker 7: And just finally, Cliff, because you are just talking about
Speaker 7: Biden and Trump, is Nicki Haley not even really a
Speaker 7: factor you need to be considering anymore?
Speaker 9: Well, I would say the following. Trump dominates the Republican base.
Speaker 9: He is their champion. It's more than you know relative
Speaker 9: to Nikki Haley. It's it's more than than the majority.
Speaker 9: That's not to say she doesn't have some chance. I mean,
Speaker 9: we have to be honest with ourselves. Something could happen,
Speaker 9: but I think it's highly unlikely that she's able to
Speaker 9: sort of.
Speaker 6: Turn the tide.
Speaker 9: I mean, ultimately, if you just look at the polls today,
Speaker 9: every single national pole on the primaries has Trump in
Speaker 9: the lead, and most of the polls at the state level.
Speaker 9: Once again, things can change. It's possible. We should never
Speaker 9: count anyone out, but I think it's highly unlikely that
Speaker 9: she'll be the nominique.
Speaker 7: All Right, Cliff Young joining us from IPSOS, thank you
Speaker 7: so much for your time. We always appreciate it. And Joe,
Speaker 7: of course, Bloomberg will have a poll of our own,
Speaker 7: the poll of swing states that we've been running consistently
Speaker 7: for the last few months. The latest comes out tomorrow.
Speaker 3: It's also not been good news for Joe Biden, specifically
Speaker 3: in the states that we'll decide the next election. Kaylee's
Speaker 3: thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make
Speaker 3: sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify,
Speaker 3: or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find
Speaker 3: US Live every weekday from Washington, DC at noontime Eastern
Speaker 3: at bloomberg dot com.