Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, Radio News. Welcome to the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: This Weekend Podcast with David Gura, Christina Raffini, and Elisa Matteo.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us for today's selection of conversations from
Speaker 2: the show.
Speaker 3: You can listen to our favorite discussions right here on
Speaker 3: the podcast, but also make sure to join us live
Speaker 3: every Saturday and Sunday morning starting at seven am Easter.
Speaker 4: We're on Bloomberg Television, Radio and the Bloomberg Business app,
Speaker 4: bringing you unique takes and in depth interviews on news, politics, lifestyle,
Speaker 4: and culture.
Speaker 3: Over the course of these last two days, we've been
Speaker 3: reporting on these significant strikes on Iran, the fallout from
Speaker 3: them in the region and yes here in the United States,
Speaker 3: and again that latest headline crossing the Bloomberg terminal. Three
Speaker 3: service members killed in action, five have been wounded in
Speaker 3: On that note, I want to bring in Mark Warner,
Speaker 3: the Senator from Virginia, the ranking member of the Senate
Speaker 3: Intelligence Committee, whojoins us on this Sunday morning, and sir,
Speaker 3: I have to start there. We heard the President warn
Speaker 3: that this could be something that might happen as a
Speaker 3: result of these strikes. Your reaction to this news on
Speaker 3: this Sunday that there have been casualties as a result
Speaker 3: of these strikes.
Speaker 5: I'm heartbroken for the families.
Speaker 6: I know our military will always perform exquisitely. The President
Speaker 6: warned there would be these potential for casualties. This is
Speaker 6: but it begs the bigger question, why did the President
Speaker 6: choose to start this war?
Speaker 5: And what are its goals?
Speaker 6: I mean, a week ago we heard the administration talk
Speaker 6: about stopping Iran's nuclear program, which, by the way, the
Speaker 6: President claimed had been obliterated seven months ago. Then we
Speaker 6: heard the president's people talk about Iran's ballistic missile capability,
Speaker 6: ability to shoot missiles at our basis or into Israel,
Speaker 6: and now it's.
Speaker 5: Evolved into regime change.
Speaker 6: So what I know as a member of the Gang
Speaker 6: of Eight on the Intelligence Committee that there was no
Speaker 6: imminent threat to America.
Speaker 5: So what are his goals?
Speaker 6: He owes it to not only the families as those three,
Speaker 6: to cease service members, there will unfortunately probably be more.
Speaker 6: He needs to make the case when you start a
Speaker 6: war of choice, why it was so critical and is
Speaker 6: the goal Around's nuclear capability? Is it's the ballistic missiles,
Speaker 6: regime change, And let me acknowledge the fact that the
Speaker 6: Iranian leadership, the Supreme Leader's taken out.
Speaker 5: I mean that is good news. I mean, this regime
Speaker 5: is awful.
Speaker 6: But I can tell you from the intelligence standpoint, we
Speaker 6: don't have great visibility about who or what comes next.
Speaker 6: So there is a very high probability that you could
Speaker 6: have and more violent Iranian leadership come in and replace
Speaker 6: the current leaders. You could have somebody that's even more
Speaker 6: brutal to the Iranian people. And now that the president
Speaker 6: is called on the Iranian people to rise up, and
Speaker 6: if they do rise up and they are suddenly butchered
Speaker 6: by the Iranian regime, do we owe an obligation to
Speaker 6: go in on the ground and protect the Iranian people.
Speaker 6: This is why our system says before a president chooses
Speaker 6: to go to war, you got to get a declaration,
Speaker 6: You've got to get make the case of the American people.
Speaker 6: You've got to ask Congress. None of that took place
Speaker 6: as he chose to start this war Friday night.
Speaker 2: So snat ward two that point, I mean, we did
Speaker 2: hear the president use war in his speech, which is
Speaker 2: a power of Congress, not of the presidency. In your opinion,
Speaker 2: was this an illegal Act.
Speaker 5: I will allow others to debate legality.
Speaker 6: What I do know is that the Constitution is clear
Speaker 6: that when you go to war, the president has to
Speaker 6: come before Congress. We don't have We're not in a
Speaker 6: country where there is a single monarchical leader. We are
Speaker 6: a democracy with co equal branches of government, and the
Speaker 6: people's representatives, which are the House and the Senate, need
Speaker 6: to weigh in, particularly as we now have crossed the
Speaker 6: line into American casualties. And again, our history of wars
Speaker 6: in the Middle East, at least in the last fifty
Speaker 6: years is.
Speaker 5: Not great.
Speaker 6: And again the president promised his supporters that he wouldn't
Speaker 6: get into a bunch of wars. This president has taken
Speaker 6: eight different military actions in his second term, and ironically
Speaker 6: as well, just a quick point out that when the
Speaker 6: Iranian people rose up in early January and there were
Speaker 6: literally hundreds of thousands on the street, the president set
Speaker 6: at that point he might want to back those people,
Speaker 6: but he was unable to because the military assets that
Speaker 6: should have been in the region were part of the
Speaker 6: aircraft carry in particular, was off the coast of Venezuela
Speaker 6: on another one of his military forays, and the European
Speaker 6: allies that would normally be with US helping put pressure
Speaker 6: on the Iranian regime were appropriately focused on the President's
Speaker 6: I think crazy folly about trying to take over Greenland.
Speaker 6: So the idea that America is going into this conflict
Speaker 6: with potentially only Israel I know there are some indications
Speaker 6: of other nations flying, but it sure as heck not
Speaker 6: the coalition of the willing that could have been brought
Speaker 6: to bear if the President had made the case of
Speaker 6: why now and why this was inevitable.
Speaker 3: The now late Supreme Leader warned in the run up
Speaker 3: to all of this that if there were strikes, there
Speaker 3: would be a regional war that would develop. You were
Speaker 3: one of only a handful of lawmakers who have been
Speaker 3: briefed by this administration.
Speaker 5: You remember the so called Gang of Eight.
Speaker 3: He received a briefing, as we understand it, on Tuesday
Speaker 3: around the State of the Union from the Secretary of
Speaker 3: State Marco Rubio. I'm very curious how what you were
Speaker 3: briefed on forecasted what has come to pass here in
Speaker 3: the days that have followed from what we've seen here,
Speaker 3: the way that this is widened, the prospects of this
Speaker 3: lasting not just days, but maybe weeks or longer. Was
Speaker 3: something that the administration seemed to have weighed going into
Speaker 3: that briefing, that you had a few this and.
Speaker 2: Was that discussed in the briefing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I can't go into what was discussed in the briefing.
Speaker 6: I can't say that there were a series of options.
Speaker 6: At that point the President had not made a decision.
Speaker 5: I was Do you believe that, sir?
Speaker 2: Do you believe the President had really not made a
Speaker 2: decision at that point.
Speaker 6: I will accept the word of Secretary Rubio. I was
Speaker 6: recontacted on Friday, But the idea of what was driving
Speaker 6: this was it our timeline was at Israel's timeline. You know,
Speaker 6: I have a lot of questions about and there were
Speaker 6: clear questions raised by many about what happens the day after,
Speaker 6: the week after, the month after. I never got an
Speaker 6: answer to any of those questions, and quite honestly, I
Speaker 6: don't believe anyone, even in the administration knows the answer
Speaker 6: to what happens next. We do not have that great
Speaker 6: of visibility into Iran. This is again where the Israelis do.
Speaker 6: But this is where if we had not burned so
Speaker 6: many of our relationships with our European allies who do
Speaker 6: have a diplomatic presence in Tehran, more people in country,
Speaker 6: I think we might have had a better visibility about
Speaker 6: what the opposition looks like. It appears to me that
Speaker 6: the opposition, while widespread, is not organized in a classic sense.
Speaker 6: So I'm not sure the president says rise up and
Speaker 6: take over. I'm not sure who would rise The people
Speaker 6: might rise up, but where is the leadership that takeover
Speaker 6: when I think the more likely scenario may be that
Speaker 6: you even get further hardliners that are going to be
Speaker 6: even more brutal to the Iranian people and may then
Speaker 6: take their proxies all across the region and strike at
Speaker 6: American interest and just to go a.
Speaker 5: Little bit even further.
Speaker 6: You know, we have cash battel that the FBI distracted
Speaker 6: flying around the country. We have the Director of National Intelligence,
Speaker 6: Tolsey Gabbard, obsessed about reltigating.
Speaker 5: The twenty twenty elections.
Speaker 6: You know, what are we doing to make sure that
Speaker 6: Iranian proxies potentially in our country or people inspired by
Speaker 6: Iran or this war aren't going to take actions in
Speaker 6: the home land.
Speaker 5: I hope that was factored in as well.
Speaker 3: You bring up Venezuela, and I think a lot of
Speaker 3: people cautioned ust after that effort to remove the present
Speaker 3: getting Madurou out of Venezuela, that it was not a
Speaker 3: good analogy to look at what might happen in Iran.
Speaker 3: But there is the kind of similar sense of vacuum here,
Speaker 3: unwillingness of the administration, the Congress, the country to get
Speaker 3: involved on the ground in a place like that. We
Speaker 3: see how that's played out in Venezuela. Effectively, there's been
Speaker 3: a shuffle of leadership, but a lot of the structure
Speaker 3: remains in place. What do you make of the presidence
Speaker 3: entreaty to Iranians that they should kind of make this
Speaker 3: happen on their own. There have been these air strikes.
Speaker 3: What are going to be or what could be the
Speaker 3: forcing factors that do lead to some kind of leadership change.
Speaker 3: They're barring having US forces or others there to encourage
Speaker 3: that happening on the ground.
Speaker 5: Well, my fear is that the president.
Speaker 6: Because the military executed the Maduro operation so brilliantly and
Speaker 6: the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities was carried off extraordinarily, well,
Speaker 6: it obviously didn't obliterate their program since they were trying
Speaker 6: to reconstitute. But again it was done in a relatively
Speaker 6: painless way. My fear is that the President thought, well,
Speaker 6: that was easy, let me do this again in Iran.
Speaker 5: I think most of the intelligence.
Speaker 6: Would overwhelmingly say that will not be as easy.
Speaker 5: In Iran.
Speaker 6: There's not an organized opposition the way there was in Venezuela,
Speaker 6: the single strike against a single facility back in June,
Speaker 6: our bombers took off. But the idea of calling on
Speaker 6: the Iranian people to rise up, if they rise up
Speaker 6: and they are brutally murdered by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces,
Speaker 6: what obligations does America hold to those Iranians who are
Speaker 6: responding to the President's call.
Speaker 5: I don't think.
Speaker 6: I don't know the answer to that, and I think
Speaker 6: again it's incumbent upon the President to tell the American people.
Speaker 3: On this morning, we learned that three service members have
Speaker 3: been killed in action, five wounded. We have earstlive underline
Speaker 3: of the European Commission warning that the risk of further
Speaker 3: escalation is real. Great to spend some time here with
Speaker 3: the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark
Speaker 3: Warner of Virginia, Thank you very much for your time
Speaker 3: and for joining us on Bloomberg this weekend. Stay with
Speaker 3: us for more on Bloomberg this weekend. Right after this,
Speaker 3: where do you hear from a pair of lawmakers now
Speaker 3: members of the House of Representative.
Speaker 7: You might not know this.
Speaker 3: Christina born and raised in Colorado. I was born in Boulder.
Speaker 3: We were insistent we get somebody from the centennial state
Speaker 3: here as our guest this hour. Jason Crowe, of course,
Speaker 3: Democratic congressman from Aurora and its surrounding environs, joins us.
Speaker 3: Now he sits on the Armed Services and Intelligence committees.
Speaker 3: Congressman crow great to have you with us here on
Speaker 3: this Sunday morning. And I look at the statement that
Speaker 3: you issued after these strikes became public. You said, the
Speaker 3: administration owes Congress and Americans' answers. Have you gotten more
Speaker 3: here over these last few hours? And we've seen reports
Speaker 3: this morning if there's going to be a wider briefing
Speaker 3: of lawmakers, including members of your committees in the hour
Speaker 3: to come, can you confirm that? And what are you
Speaker 3: hoping to hear from this administration?
Speaker 8: Good to join fellow Colorado's and the answer is, we
Speaker 8: haven't got any answers. And that's a problem, a huge
Speaker 8: problem for me. This is about accountability. Right We spent
Speaker 8: over twenty years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We
Speaker 8: spent trillions of taxpayer dollars, thousands of American lives, tens
Speaker 8: of thousands of others who bear the visible and invisible
Speaker 8: scars and burdens of those wars. They ended poorly, and
Speaker 8: that's I think because we stopped debating it. We financed
Speaker 8: it with debt. There weren't votes, there wasn't an accountability loop,
Speaker 8: and that continues today. We started that same cycle again
Speaker 8: of conflict after conflict, without real debate and without a
Speaker 8: real decision by the American people about whether or not
Speaker 8: this is in their best interest. So we're going to
Speaker 8: keep on pushing the Department of Defense and the Administration
Speaker 8: for answers for engagement. My imediate question right now is
Speaker 8: what are we doing to protect our troops, the tens
Speaker 8: of thouss of Americans who are serving in that region,
Speaker 8: who are coming under tremendous assault by missiles and drones,
Speaker 8: and what are we doing to protect that force?
Speaker 2: Congress from the other what are we doing question? I've
Speaker 2: been getting a lot from folks in the last twenty
Speaker 2: four hours, is what is Congress doing? And I know
Speaker 2: there is an upcoming vote. I know Democrats are trying
Speaker 2: to move it forward on the War Powers Act. Even
Speaker 2: if that resolution is upheld, does Congress really realistically have
Speaker 2: the power to stop this particular president from doing whatever
Speaker 2: he wants to do militarily?
Speaker 8: We do have the power. The question is, as you
Speaker 8: point out, are you willing to take it right? We're
Speaker 8: going to force a vote on Wednesday so that people
Speaker 8: have to stand up and let their constituents know where
Speaker 8: they stand on this issue. You know, thumbs up, thumbs down, right,
Speaker 8: So we need to start taking a role, taking names,
Speaker 8: and that's the beginning of that accountability process that I
Speaker 8: was talking about. But Congress has all sorts of power
Speaker 8: if it is willing to use it appropriations, pulling money,
Speaker 8: pulling funding, putting guardrails on deployments. Congress actually can do
Speaker 8: all of those things. The problem is not whether or
Speaker 8: not it has the power. The problem has been in
Speaker 8: my time in Congress, it's unwillingness to use it, which
Speaker 8: is not just our responsibility, but it's actually our duty
Speaker 8: to do that, to take that power back and to
Speaker 8: put those guardrails in place. So in all of this,
Speaker 8: the question is not whether or not the Iranian regime
Speaker 8: was that it was a terror regime, it was awful.
Speaker 8: All of those things are true, right, This was a
Speaker 8: terrible rogue terrorists supporting regime, It killed American soldiers, destabilized
Speaker 8: the entire Middle Eastern region. All of those things are true.
Speaker 8: The question is whether or not this is the right response,
Speaker 8: whether or not we should be spending tens of billions
Speaker 8: of US dollars, whether or not regime change is something
Speaker 8: we should be engaged in, and whether it's going to
Speaker 8: actually turn out better for us in the end.
Speaker 3: Earlier this morning, we spoke with Eric Watson, our colleague
Speaker 3: wo covers the Capitol. In no doubt he's asked you
Speaker 3: some pressing questions over the course of your career or
Speaker 3: in Congress, and gazing into his crystal ball, he expressed
Speaker 3: some He suggested that perhaps this war resolution isn't going
Speaker 3: to pass, that Democrats are too divided on this issue.
Speaker 3: I'm curious, when you look at your caucus, do you
Speaker 3: think that it is going to be a piece of
Speaker 3: legislation that gets the wide majority supportive Democrats in the House.
Speaker 8: I do think we're going to get a lot of
Speaker 8: support for it. I even think some Republicans are going
Speaker 8: to vote for it. I don't think we're all that
Speaker 8: divided on this issue. And people have different views on
Speaker 8: regime change in Iran, but we are pretty united on
Speaker 8: this issue of Congress retaking its war powers. Right, Because
Speaker 8: regardless of what you think about any about any one
Speaker 8: particular instance Venezuela, Sudan, Iran, Ukraine, what remains true is
Speaker 8: that the American people, Americans really want there to be
Speaker 8: checks and guardrails put in place. They're very tired of
Speaker 8: no debate, no public discussion, no votes, no accountability on
Speaker 8: all these conflicts.
Speaker 5: Right.
Speaker 8: They actually want us to be thinking about what we're
Speaker 8: doing long term and whether or not it is in
Speaker 8: their core interest. Is it making groceries cheaper? Is it
Speaker 8: protecting them? Is it keeping their families safe? Is it
Speaker 8: reducing the cost of health care? Is it helping them
Speaker 8: afford homes? That is the discussion in the debate that
Speaker 8: has not been happening, and that has to happen, and
Speaker 8: that we're going to.
Speaker 2: Force to pivot to exactly what you were talking about.
Speaker 2: And that's because we do have a midterm coming up,
Speaker 2: and all politics are local. Do you think this is
Speaker 2: a liability for the president the longer this conflict continues,
Speaker 2: because even in his world there is division about this
Speaker 2: American expansion as in the Don Roa doctrine. Is this
Speaker 2: something that Democrats are going to hit hard against their
Speaker 2: Republican opponents come the midterms?
Speaker 8: Absolutely? You know, I don't Trump realize something on the
Speaker 8: campaign trail, something that I know deeply, and that is
Speaker 8: there is a lot of anger and resentment in working
Speaker 8: class America where I'm from, the people that I grew
Speaker 8: up with and the people that I served with and
Speaker 8: I fought with when I went to war in Iraq
Speaker 8: and Afghanistan three times times. People are angry with this
Speaker 8: lack of accountability by endless conflict and it not delivering
Speaker 8: for them. So he actually campaigned as an isolationist. He
Speaker 8: campaigned to end these wars and to end this constant
Speaker 8: cycle of conflict, and now that he's in power, he's
Speaker 8: just perpetuating the same thing. Right, seven countries bombed in
Speaker 8: the first year alone, tens of billions of dollars spent
Speaker 8: on these operations, where a lot of Americans are saying,
Speaker 8: what are we doing. What are we accomplishing here? What
Speaker 8: is the endgame?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 8: Because Iraq and Afghanistan, Afghanistan was the same thing. Right,
Speaker 8: we won. Here's an important point. We won every single
Speaker 8: battle in the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan. We didn't
Speaker 8: lose a single engagement, a single battle. We won all
Speaker 8: of them.
Speaker 6: Right.
Speaker 8: But we lost the wars in the end, right, It's
Speaker 8: because we didn't have a strategy, We didn't articulate what
Speaker 8: our interests were and what we were doing, and we
Speaker 8: didn't have an endgame. Right, And we're in the same
Speaker 8: situation here now again, and people are pretty fed up
Speaker 8: with it.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 8: I do believe this is going to blow back on
Speaker 8: the President, and we're going to see who's willing to
Speaker 8: stand up and try to end the cycle of madness
Speaker 8: versus those who are going to perpetuate it.
Speaker 3: Harkson Jason Crowe joining us on this Sunday head of
Speaker 3: that briefing he's scheduled to get from the Administration and
Speaker 3: that vote on war powers in the House later this
Speaker 3: week Wednesday.
Speaker 2: Stay with us for more on Bloomberg this weekend. Right
Speaker 2: after this, we're going to turn now to the Great
Speaker 2: State of Texas and Representative Mike McCall. He, of course,
Speaker 2: serves on the Foreign Affairs and Homeland Security Committees and
Speaker 2: is the Chairman Ameritus of Foreign Affairs. Congress than, thank
Speaker 2: you so much for joining us. I know you're having
Speaker 2: a busy day. I believe we are your inaugural zoom
Speaker 2: interview on television. We are very very grateful for that,
Speaker 2: and thank you to those who helped make this happen.
Speaker 2: But I didn't know if you could here, Congressman Crow
Speaker 2: his criticism towards the end, there is that in this
Speaker 2: campaign there's no strategy and there's no endgame. What is
Speaker 2: the president's strategy in Iran? Do you understand what it
Speaker 2: is and do you support it?
Speaker 7: Well, first, it's great to be on your inaugural Sunday show.
Speaker 7: Thank you. You know, I think, look, the presidents trying
Speaker 7: to negotiate, just like Maduro, the Iranians are very deceptive.
Speaker 7: They're not good faith negotiators. I believe in his mind
Speaker 7: he knew at the end of the day couldn't trust them,
Speaker 7: and he went.
Speaker 5: To Plan B.
Speaker 7: This was what was interesting to me is the targets.
Speaker 7: It was no longer about inviscerting the nuclear sites, but
Speaker 7: rather going into regime change. I mean to see the
Speaker 7: compound of the Isola just completely blown up. And we
Speaker 7: know that not only was he taken out of his
Speaker 7: top advisors and the IRGC, this was a significant event
Speaker 7: and I don't want to diminish the sort of greatness
Speaker 7: of this moment. Since in nineteen seventy nine, there's been
Speaker 7: a dark veil that descended across the Middle East, and
Speaker 7: that shroud has now been lifted and the people of
Speaker 7: Iran now have a chance for freedom and a chance
Speaker 7: to take back their country. And since nineteen seventy nine,
Speaker 7: we've seen what Iran has done as the largest state
Speaker 7: sponsor of terror. You know, they've had their proxies and
Speaker 7: it's not just Israel. Everybody talks all about Israel. They
Speaker 7: also send drones to kill Ukrainians. They also fuel China's
Speaker 7: imperial war war machine. And you know what's interesting, lastly,
Speaker 7: Christina is you know the typical allies here. They have
Speaker 7: completely turned off the Gold States from them. I mean,
Speaker 7: with this miscalculation of hitting not only our military bases
Speaker 7: but hotels in the Gulf States surrounding Iran. They are
Speaker 7: now aligned with the United States and Israel against Iran,
Speaker 7: and where is China and Russia? They're nowhere to be found.
Speaker 7: So I understand a veterans standpoint Iraq Afghanistan. I understand
Speaker 7: all that. The difference is Iran is all alone now
Speaker 7: and there's no one there to save them, and their
Speaker 7: leadership is completely decapitated such that there's no serious governance
Speaker 7: that can take place. I do think it's time for
Speaker 7: the people rise up. I think the big question for
Speaker 7: me is what do we have in place to help
Speaker 7: these people?
Speaker 5: Right?
Speaker 7: So, what is Israel doing?
Speaker 3: Let me go there if I could, because that's my
Speaker 3: question of the morning, which is the government maybe out?
Speaker 3: You have this vacuum. How does the US encourage that
Speaker 3: to happen here without boots on the ground, which I think,
Speaker 3: dare I say you and others in the Congress are
Speaker 3: probably reluctant to have be the case going forward here?
Speaker 3: How does the US and Israel encourage the growth of
Speaker 3: a new administration, new government in Iran? Barring that?
Speaker 7: That's a great question. I think it is the question
Speaker 7: of the hour. I think we got us in trouble
Speaker 7: in Iraq. If I can go back to Iraq, in Afghanistan,
Speaker 7: we had a chance to kill Ben Laanen early on,
Speaker 7: and we missed him. Here we did, we killed the Ayatola.
Speaker 7: He has gone. Our presence there voked to the Jahadas.
Speaker 7: So it was our boots on the ground in Iraq
Speaker 7: and Afghanistian that drew like a magnet. The jahadis to us,
Speaker 7: We're not going to see that in this case. And
Speaker 7: I have to think that Israel is probably the one
Speaker 7: in the best position to effectuate, you know, help with
Speaker 7: not only communications but weapons and leadership, and those are
Speaker 7: the three elements I talk about a lot. I don't
Speaker 7: know who the next leader of Iran's going to be.
Speaker 7: I don't see weapons right now, but that's possible. In
Speaker 7: the communications, we got to get star Link in there.
Speaker 7: I know they were trying to, but Iran was taking
Speaker 7: out those you know, those terminals. I think that's going
Speaker 7: to be a big change when Starling gets back up
Speaker 7: and they can communicate amongst themselves.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 7: I remember the last strike in the day or the
Speaker 7: ten day War or whatever it was that, you know,
Speaker 7: I was surprised at what the presence of the assets
Speaker 7: Israel had on the ground in Ron to take out
Speaker 7: these targets. Yeah, and I think everyone in the intelligence
Speaker 7: community was equally surprised by the presence they had. So
Speaker 7: I do think Israel's probably in the better position. If
Speaker 7: it does need boots on the ground, certainly Israel's better.
Speaker 7: I don't see this present putting American boots on the ground.
Speaker 5: Chustin.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you, there's been some reporting that
Speaker 2: members of Congress are going to be getting some briefings,
Speaker 2: maybe as soon as today or tomorrow. I'm wondering if
Speaker 2: there's anything you can say about that. What briefings are
Speaker 2: information you've received from the White House so far. And
Speaker 2: then I also want to ask you about this War
Speaker 2: Powers resolution that some of your colleagues are trying to
Speaker 2: send to the floor, and whether or not you're supported.
Speaker 7: Sure, so a couple of things, More Powers Act has
Speaker 7: been invoked. This was a military the use of our
Speaker 7: military in the foreign land in a strike situation. So
Speaker 7: that prong has been fulfilled. Therefore, within forty eight hours
Speaker 7: of notification has to come to the Congress notifying us
Speaker 7: of the circumstances, the legal justification, and the extent and
Speaker 7: duration of the conflict. If the conflict exceeds sixty days,
Speaker 7: it needs authorization from Congress. Now Congress can do that
Speaker 7: prior typically it has not in the past. We do
Speaker 7: have briefings scheduled this week that will be classified briefings
Speaker 7: in what's called the skiff, that's a classified briefing space.
Speaker 2: Information will you be looking for in those briefings? What
Speaker 2: questions do you have for the administration?
Speaker 7: I think for me next steps? Look, this was once again,
Speaker 7: like Venezuela, a masterful military executed plan, flawless, no Americans
Speaker 7: that were killed. What I'm looking for is what's the
Speaker 7: overall objective moving forward. It's clearly not just taking out
Speaker 7: military sites now it's about regime change, and I would
Speaker 7: like to know what objectives are in hand and what
Speaker 7: is what are the next steps in place? And how
Speaker 7: long we're all all involvement take place? If I can say,
Speaker 7: as Chairman of Foreign Affairs Committee, I was trying to
Speaker 7: update these old aumfs from the two thousand and one. Yeah,
Speaker 7: Jason Crow is part of the thing. The sticking point,
Speaker 7: Christina was I couldn't get the left or the right
Speaker 7: to agree to add Iran and their proxies on to
Speaker 7: the two.
Speaker 5: Thousand Conerson, we got to go.
Speaker 2: I'm so sorry, thank you so much for taking time
Speaker 2: with us. We really appreciate it.
Speaker 4: Stay with us for more on Bloomberg this weekend. Right
Speaker 4: after this, we're talking.
Speaker 3: A lot about politics, yes here in the US, the
Speaker 3: fallout from these strikes over the weekend, of politics in
Speaker 3: the region in Iran as well. And I want to
Speaker 3: bring in to Garshimali, formerly of the US Mission to
Speaker 3: the UN, now affiliated with the Atlantic Council and with
Speaker 3: Columbia University. She's here on set with us along with
Speaker 3: Joe Matthew, the anchor of Balance of Power on Jeff Mason,
Speaker 3: our White House correspondent here at Bloomberg News regard, let me.
Speaker 5: Turn to you.
Speaker 3: We've talked a lot about the vacuum that's erupting here,
Speaker 3: the Supreme Leader killed in these attacks and what might
Speaker 3: happen next. The President of the United States encouraging Iranians
Speaker 3: to step up and take advantage of this opportunity. How
Speaker 3: are you watching and thinking through what's happening on the
Speaker 3: ground now and what's going to film inn to perhaps
Speaker 3: lead to some major changes here and iron going forward.
Speaker 9: Sure, well, there are three things that I'd be looking for.
Speaker 9: So first, is one for greater protests and are those
Speaker 9: protests are going to They're going to grow. We've seen
Speaker 9: a lot of Iranians celebrating in the streets. You've also
Speaker 9: seen some Iranians going at the US embassy and protesting
Speaker 9: the other way. But when when it comes to Iran,
Speaker 9: it's hard to know when they express support for the regime,
Speaker 9: if they're paid, if they're scared, or if you know
Speaker 9: how genuine it is. So one thing we'll be looking
Speaker 9: for is protests, celebrations, how big those become. Another thing
Speaker 9: I'd be looking for is the direction of the IRGC.
Speaker 5: So we're hearing some stories.
Speaker 9: And I don't want to over emphasize these, but small
Speaker 9: stories of low level defections, folks that won't fire on
Speaker 9: people and such. When you have that, it's showing cracks
Speaker 9: and fissures in the IRGC. You want to see more
Speaker 9: of that to indicate that the regime is going to fall,
Speaker 9: because a dictator is only as strong as the military
Speaker 9: is loyal. Now there is no real dictator. There is
Speaker 9: a new named newly named Ayatola. But that said, there's
Speaker 9: the leadership has been decapitated. As Representative McCall said, so
Speaker 9: hard to see what that really, what really happens there
Speaker 9: so IRGC and then the third and this is a
Speaker 9: really important one that I don't think receives enough attention
Speaker 9: except on Bloomberg, which is the economic situation which has
Speaker 9: been done yeah, super higher in Iran. In October, one
Speaker 9: of their biggest banks, Bank Ayande Bank, collapsed. It's the
Speaker 9: regime absorbed it into Bank Melli, a state run one
Speaker 9: of the biggest lenders in Iran. They printed Rial's inflation skyrocketed.
Speaker 9: That is what precipitated the protests. And there are about
Speaker 9: five other banks that are about to face very similar situations.
Speaker 9: So when you have an implosion like that, it means
Speaker 9: the regime doesn't have an economic leg to stand on.
Speaker 2: I want to ask you what we know about popular
Speaker 2: sentiment in Iran. It's obviously not a place that we're
Speaker 2: going to be getting very accurate or even possible pulling.
Speaker 2: So we have these two camps, if you're mentioning, we
Speaker 2: have people inside Iran who are hemmed in by not
Speaker 2: being able to speak out openly in the regime. At
Speaker 2: the moment, internet and phones I've been cut. I was
Speaker 2: talking to a friend. She hasn't talked to her family
Speaker 2: in twenty four hours. She doesn't know if they're in
Speaker 2: the city. You just know if they're outside of the city.
Speaker 2: And you have this very vocal XPAC community, many of
Speaker 2: them in the including the Shaw's son, who has been
Speaker 2: making videos and would very much like to sweep back
Speaker 2: into power. Is that at all a possibility? Is there
Speaker 2: a third player in addition to folks inside the regime
Speaker 2: who would be naming themselves the new leader, former Shaw's son.
Speaker 2: Is there a third player in there or is that yet.
Speaker 5: To be determined?
Speaker 6: Now?
Speaker 9: This yet to be to be determined. I would say
Speaker 9: so the Shaw's son, I would I'm personally loath to
Speaker 9: endorse any one person, and in particular the we're for endorsements, right,
Speaker 9: or the son of a former monarch too, right exactly.
Speaker 2: I mean, this was not a flawless regime, and there
Speaker 2: seems to be a little retrofitting of history going on
Speaker 2: among his supporters, right.
Speaker 9: And I could see that, you know. And I met
Speaker 9: him actually at the Munich Security Conference, and he's very
Speaker 9: well spoken, very smart. He's been in the United States
Speaker 9: since he was literally seventeen years old.
Speaker 5: And he seems to have a.
Speaker 9: Great vision for how things could unfold now. So, but
Speaker 9: I can't speak to I don't know if the majority
Speaker 9: of the Iranian people support him. We do know that
Speaker 9: he has some support, He has very strong support outside.
Speaker 9: He does have some support inside. But that said, he
Speaker 9: has talked about anyway that he would if if he
Speaker 9: were the one to try and install a constitutional monarchy
Speaker 9: and bring in democratic reforms, that he would bring in
Speaker 9: a very diverse group, you know, representing the diverse elements
Speaker 9: of Iran. So there's hope there. He has met with
Speaker 9: the White House several times, but there also you can
Speaker 9: see very loath to endorse any one person, in particular
Speaker 9: Jeff Mason.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you about what the president wants to
Speaker 3: see happen here. I'm going to go out on a
Speaker 3: limb and bet that he's been scrolling through social media
Speaker 3: as we all haven't seen these videos pop up of
Speaker 3: dubious legitimacy. Who knows if they're real or not. We
Speaker 3: have verified all of them, some of the protests and
Speaker 3: celebrations that Gar's talking about just a moment to go.
Speaker 3: What does he want exactly? What does he want this
Speaker 3: to lead to in Iran?
Speaker 10: I don't have the answer to that, because I'm not
Speaker 10: sure that he does I'm going to say, does he
Speaker 10: have the answers exactly? I think that. I mean, it's
Speaker 10: a good question. He indicated in one of the interviews
Speaker 10: that he did that the US could sort of sweep in,
Speaker 10: or the US could wait and watch how things happen
Speaker 10: and come back back again in three years. I think
Speaker 10: he said if Iran were to pursue nuclear weapons again.
Speaker 10: So I think it's an ambiguous answer. I think it's
Speaker 10: also interesting to compare what happened now and around versus
Speaker 10: what the US did in Venezuela, taking out the leader
Speaker 10: and then really having what seemed so far to be
Speaker 10: a pretty decent relationship with his successor, despite the fact
Speaker 10: that they went in and took out Maduro, which of
Speaker 10: course the Maduro regime and the government there was not
Speaker 10: happy about. So big contrast there, but also big question
Speaker 10: marks in terms of what does happen next and what
Speaker 10: implications does that have for the country, for the region,
Speaker 10: and for the President Trump.
Speaker 2: Jim Matthew, We had John Bolton on the show yesterday
Speaker 2: and he said, this is the most consequential decision of
Speaker 2: President Trump's presidency.
Speaker 5: Do you agree with that?
Speaker 11: Well, yes, we'll see how that goes in the next
Speaker 11: couple of weeks. I mean, I guess there could be
Speaker 11: a Venezuela version of this, but that seems to be
Speaker 11: pretty unlikely, even if everybody packed.
Speaker 5: Up their toys and went home.
Speaker 11: Right now, Remember the president a couple of weeks ago
Speaker 11: is really interesting following the capture of Maduro and the
Speaker 11: questions about, well, why Delsi Rodriguez and he pointed the
Speaker 11: debathification of Iraq. This is something I'd love to know
Speaker 11: who it was he was talking to the night before
Speaker 11: when that was implanted in his brain, because that was
Speaker 11: the approach there, and I wonder how that will inform
Speaker 11: what's about to happen next in Tehran?
Speaker 2: Can you explain that to those of us who may
Speaker 2: not be completely familiar with the debatification?
Speaker 5: Is the argument there that they did it wrong?
Speaker 11: And this is tu one was Yes, by removing everybody
Speaker 11: that made our situation in Iraq worse. Why don't we
Speaker 11: keep the people who are there who have institutional knowledge
Speaker 11: and maybe we can have a relationship with them. But
Speaker 11: to duplicate that in Iran might be frankly impossible.
Speaker 3: Kart, Let me draw on your past experience at the
Speaker 3: UN at the US mission to the UN, and we
Speaker 3: did see the Iranians call for a meeting of the
Speaker 3: Security Council yesterday that came to pass. We heard from
Speaker 3: Mike Waltz, the current US Ambassador to the UN, making
Speaker 3: the case they're in that body for what's happened here.
Speaker 3: How do you think about the role of foreign leaders
Speaker 3: and international diplomats at this moment in time, as all
Speaker 3: this unfolding, and our focus is so squarely on because
Speaker 3: of the immediate danger of it, the strikes that we're
Speaker 3: seeing taking place yesterday and continuing today.
Speaker 9: Well, but David, you're asking me at a unique moment, because,
Speaker 9: on one hand, I feel we've never seen the UN
Speaker 9: be more feckless. The Iranian ambassador went to the Unsecuity
Speaker 9: Council blatantly lied through his teeth as they as the
Speaker 9: regime often does. You saw the Secretary of General Antonio
Speaker 9: Gutirez take a few hours. It took him a few
Speaker 9: hours to come out and condemn these strikes, whereas it
Speaker 9: took him over a week to come out and condemn
Speaker 9: the regimes of mass force against their own people. And
Speaker 9: so they're not exactly looking very credible at the moment.
Speaker 9: You also had as soon as these strikes started, you
Speaker 9: had European leaders that came out obviously against this, and
Speaker 9: they've been largely ignored, ignored and even made fun of,
Speaker 9: certainly on the internet, but by the administration as well.
Speaker 9: And so what you're seeing there that's really all a
Speaker 9: symptom of a larger situation of this, where is the
Speaker 9: international world order going? It's you know, and I don't
Speaker 9: want to get too nerdy here, but those rules are
Speaker 9: not being respected by anybody, and so that's crumbling. You're
Speaker 9: seeing leaders try and want to exercise some kind of
Speaker 9: influence and frustrated that they can't. And so a lot
Speaker 9: of these examples of Venezuela, Iran, you're seeing the United
Speaker 9: States taking matters into their own hands because that system
Speaker 9: is not working. And so when you see these other
Speaker 9: more middle powers, if you can call them, they are
Speaker 9: feeling irrelevant, and so they're trying and what you might
Speaker 9: see is that they later might unite and carry forward
Speaker 9: other practices of the international world order, But in the
Speaker 9: meantime it's not going to weigh heavily. Where I would
Speaker 9: keep my eye on as the golf, because the regime
Speaker 9: is making a huge mistake is super dumb strategy to
Speaker 9: be striking countries in the golf, countries that actually implored
Speaker 9: the United States not to pursue strikes, and that's only
Speaker 9: going to pivot the golf even further to double down
Speaker 9: on the United States.
Speaker 2: First of all, this is a safe space for nerdy,
Speaker 2: so never apologize for that. But I think you do
Speaker 2: make a good point, and that's about the international world order,
Speaker 2: something that has almost been President Trump's nemesis for as
Speaker 2: long as he's been in office, and now we see
Speaker 2: him trying to build almost a parallel structure to the
Speaker 2: United Nations with this peace or that bord of peace.
Speaker 2: Thank you, it's so basically can't.
Speaker 11: Remember the name of it, Jeff.
Speaker 2: But the odd thing about this is at the same
Speaker 2: time he abhors some of these multilateral uizations organizations. We've
Speaker 2: seen the US POL out of the World Health Organization.
Speaker 2: He almost never has anything nice to say about the
Speaker 2: United Nations. Why does the president still seem to want
Speaker 2: some form of legitimacy from the international community, things like
Speaker 2: the Nobel Peace Prize, a good speaking slot, a seat
Speaker 2: at the table.
Speaker 5: Talk to us about that balance?
Speaker 10: Well, I mean, President Trump is someone going back to
Speaker 10: his real estate days in New York, who likes to
Speaker 10: have validation, and I think that that applies to whether
Speaker 10: he's working on his business career working in his political career.
Speaker 10: That said, the sort of jekylin Hyde aspect of that
Speaker 10: is he's not someone who waits for permission. He is
Speaker 10: somebody who is absolutely taking control of the international order
Speaker 10: and reframing the United States and the world in his vision.
Speaker 10: And that is exemplified by this attack. It's exemplified by
Speaker 10: how he's dealt with tariffs in terms of the economic
Speaker 10: world order. It's exemplified by how he's dealing with universities,
Speaker 10: law firms, the media on a domestic side in the
Speaker 10: United States. So he does all of that, but you're
Speaker 10: not wrong that he also wants to be padded on
Speaker 10: the back. And that's just kind of his mo shoe.
Speaker 2: We got about a minuteleft.
Speaker 11: Yeah, It's just it's an ironic sort of split screen
Speaker 11: that he talks about how many wars he has stopped
Speaker 11: when you've got Congressman Crow on the year counting how
Speaker 11: many countries he has shot lest So I'm not sure
Speaker 11: that many people are keeping score in that regard, but
Speaker 11: it is pretty remarkable. The extent to which hemispheric influence
Speaker 11: and now I guess worldwide influence is awfully important to
Speaker 11: this president who came into office elected on three big things. Right,
Speaker 11: the economy, affordability has got an issue. There, immigration where
Speaker 11: we're running into issues, and I'll remind everybody that we
Speaker 11: have a partial government shut down still underway.
Speaker 5: And then it was no New Wars.
Speaker 3: Joe, of course, the acropouns power here on Bloomberg Television
Speaker 3: and Radio. Jeff Mason, our White House correspondent with us
Speaker 3: here in New York this weekend, which is a treat
Speaker 3: at Garshmolly, thank you very much for coming in. She's
Speaker 3: affiliated with the Atlanta Council with Columbia University. Of course,
Speaker 3: before that was at the US Mission to the United Nations.
Speaker 2: Thanks for joining us on today's Bloomberg This Weekend podcast.
Speaker 2: Don't forget to tune in live for the show every
Speaker 2: Saturday and Sunday morning, starting at seven am Eastern.
Speaker 3: We're on Bloomberg Television, Radio and the Bloomberg Business App,
Speaker 3: bringing you unique takes and in depth interviews on news, politics,
Speaker 3: lifestyle and culture.