Speaker 1: Ye, Welcome to the Bloomberg Surveillance Podcast. I'm Tom Keane
Speaker 1: Jai Ley. We bring you insight from the best in economics, finance, investment,
Speaker 1: and international relations. Find Bloomberg Surveillance on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud,
Speaker 1: Bloomberg dot Com, and of course on the Bloomberg Now.
Speaker 1: We center on Iran as well, and we do that
Speaker 1: with Daniel tan Obauma p WC, who is outstanding on
Speaker 1: what nobody wants to talk about, including on might point
Speaker 1: out the President, which is actually, how do you do sanctions?
Speaker 1: Let's start with first principles, what do you actually do
Speaker 1: on sanctions? Like Mr manut Sin comes up with a
Speaker 1: twenty page document, how's it work? I think you've got
Speaker 1: to separate what the rhetoric out of the administration is
Speaker 1: versus the reality. What's the reality of the reality. In
Speaker 1: some instances of the sanctions that have come out, they
Speaker 1: have been focused and targeted on certain industries and sectors
Speaker 1: and really sought to achieve an objective, which is to
Speaker 1: force a change in behavior, to seize assets of bad people.
Speaker 1: At times we get that conflated with creating very lengthy
Speaker 1: lists of people who don't really have assets in the
Speaker 1: US who don't travel to the US and thus it
Speaker 1: gives the appearance of doing something without doing something. But
Speaker 1: is it a document out of Treasury? Is it a
Speaker 1: document out of a congressman that runs a committee. So
Speaker 1: it's typically the policy element of sanctions is driven out
Speaker 1: of the administration through State and the White House, State
Speaker 1: through the State Department, but the real nuts and bolts,
Speaker 1: the execution, the operationalization of sanctions comes through Treasury. You're
Speaker 1: actually seeing a bit of a power struggle play out
Speaker 1: in public because a number of things are talked about
Speaker 1: now by the State Department around enforcement and criminal prosecution.
Speaker 1: None of these things that agency has any remit over.
Speaker 1: Actually who does the Treasury Department the Justice Department over enforcement?
Speaker 1: So the question I have just more confusive. We started
Speaker 1: speaking to Mr. Well, I'm gonna go real simple here.
Speaker 1: Let's start just with a ran. My understanding was we
Speaker 1: had already the US government had already put sanctions on
Speaker 1: pretty much everything that mattered. What's what's left? I guess
Speaker 1: there's there's not a lot left. Um, Now, what could
Speaker 1: be left and what could be significant if we get
Speaker 1: to the major announcement is there's a concept called secondary
Speaker 1: sanctions and secondary sanctions forced a choice to foreign companies
Speaker 1: to choose between doing business with the US and doing
Speaker 1: business with Iran, but not both. Those powers were put
Speaker 1: in place in the Obama administration, used twice, but essentially,
Speaker 1: you can pick a country in any country, a company
Speaker 1: in any country in the world, and banned them from
Speaker 1: doing business in the US if you believe, if the
Speaker 1: US believes that they've been training with Iran the Obama
Speaker 1: administration after they were too smaller entities in Asia, banking
Speaker 1: entities that were found to be trading with Iran, supporting
Speaker 1: Iran's refinance of Germany, or that is the thing. They're
Speaker 1: not going after any significant entities. And even earlier in
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, there was a small Chinese bank on
Speaker 1: the border with North Korea that was designated under a
Speaker 1: different type of authority. Very small bank, but the administration
Speaker 1: took a victory lap for being tough on Chinese banks,
Speaker 1: even though no one had really heard of the bank
Speaker 1: that they designated in the first place. So, Daniel, as
Speaker 1: you go about your business talking to boards and C
Speaker 1: suite executives, what are what are executives doing in a
Speaker 1: context of our sanctions on are they are they not
Speaker 1: not on is it Iran or is it China. It's
Speaker 1: more agnostic than that. It's looking at all of the
Speaker 1: different areas where sanctions have been imposed. Where are we exposed.
Speaker 1: If your customers customers do business with some of these
Speaker 1: countries or companies in Iran or or in targeted areas,
Speaker 1: you can be held liable. So it's really trying to
Speaker 1: assess are we exposed anywhere in our company, because we
Speaker 1: could be a massive global company not directly do business
Speaker 1: with Iran, but indirectly through some of our customers, we
Speaker 1: can end up being caught to facilitate trade with Iran,
Speaker 1: which could put us in the penalty box with the
Speaker 1: U S. And then how do the other countries react
Speaker 1: to the United Kingdom with all their distractions, Germany with
Speaker 1: their distractions, and particularly France with a heritage to Persia.
Speaker 1: We're very unpopular on this right now. I mean the
Speaker 1: Iran Do they just say no, We're not gonna do it,
Speaker 1: or that's a bit of the problem. The Iran deal
Speaker 1: that was put in place in the Obama administration was
Speaker 1: the permanent five members of the UN Security Council that
Speaker 1: came together to form that deal with Iran. You now
Speaker 1: are seeing a unilateral approach to Iran and the way
Speaker 1: the US is acting, And actually there is an EU
Speaker 1: lead mechanism called INSTINCTS that was designed to provide financing
Speaker 1: for Iran related trade, permissible Iran related trade stuff, it's
Speaker 1: all humanitarian. The State Apartment over the last few weeks
Speaker 1: has began threatening that SPV with sanctions because it could
Speaker 1: be used to circumvent um u S sanctions, which really
Speaker 1: isn't the point. So there is a bit of a
Speaker 1: struggle right now to try and suss out any activity
Speaker 1: with Iran. The Europeans have been light in challenging the
Speaker 1: US on this. I think the one wild card to
Speaker 1: me with this being g twenty week is China. China
Speaker 1: still is trading significantly with Iran, and reports came out
Speaker 1: yesterday that their trading volumes have only gone down about
Speaker 1: a hundred million dollars in the month of May to
Speaker 1: about nine hundred million dollars in trade with Iran. To
Speaker 1: be clear, if we do new sanctions or enforce the
Speaker 1: present sanctions, are they the kind of materials and goods
Speaker 1: where China or another country just makeup they doll one
Speaker 1: eight hundred Tehran and say let's fix us now. Well,
Speaker 1: so China and Iran are still trading, that's still happening.
Speaker 1: The US knows this. But is the US willing to
Speaker 1: risk another dispute with China because of their support of Iran?
Speaker 1: I don't think that's really the case. They may pick
Speaker 1: a softer target within China to take credit for being
Speaker 1: hard on China. But I think right now that the
Speaker 1: question of these major sanctions that were talked about on Friday,
Speaker 1: or that said they were released on Friday, that yesterday,
Speaker 1: Now they're coming on Monday. It really is hard to
Speaker 1: tell what's major. But they're going to make a much
Speaker 1: bigger deal, most likely out of whatever it is than
Speaker 1: in reality. How effective had the sanctions been on Iran?
Speaker 1: How tough has it been in so look, Iran is
Speaker 1: used to being isolated, They're very good at being isolated.
Speaker 1: For the last forty or so years, they've been isolated
Speaker 1: from most of the Western economies. How much of an
Speaker 1: impact hasn't made. There's clearly been an attempt by the
Speaker 1: Trump administration to force the hardliners back in power from
Speaker 1: the moderates to justify the creation of a more legitimate
Speaker 1: enemy worthy of some of the rhetoric we've seen over
Speaker 1: the last few days visa v cocked and loaded. So
Speaker 1: the sanctions really, if you're trying to bring some of
Speaker 1: the negotiating table and you're pulling out of a deal
Speaker 1: that a number of parties negotiated and that no one
Speaker 1: has violated, how do you trust any Have you ever
Speaker 1: used in all your work is as a public employee
Speaker 1: of the United States of America, your different efforts travel
Speaker 1: lux now with p WC. Price Waterhouse Coopers, did you
Speaker 1: ever use the fraight locked and loaded, cocked and loaded,
Speaker 1: or cockton loaded. No, I have not used used. I've
Speaker 1: used other colorful rhetoric in the government, but not quite
Speaker 1: that Flower, Jim. I'm thank you so much always locked
Speaker 1: and loaded for a great discussion. Tom. We often talk
Speaker 1: about geopod politics and how and the impact on the market,
Speaker 1: and that's certainly a big issue. This is going to
Speaker 1: be a big issue this week as the G twenty
Speaker 1: meets later this week. It's always a big issue for
Speaker 1: economics and the markets, but now with the trade tensions
Speaker 1: between China and the US, even more so. Uh, We're
Speaker 1: very fortunate to have our next guest to help us
Speaker 1: kind of pass through this very lovely is that Peterson
Speaker 1: Institute Senior fellow, UH Syracuse University professor as well. She
Speaker 1: joins us on the phone from Syracuse. Mary, thanks so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. We do have the G twenty
Speaker 1: later this week. It appears at Presidents Trump and g
Speaker 1: will meet on the sidelines. Should we is the best
Speaker 1: if we just keep our expectations low here? Yea good morning.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a lot of spectacutor sports this week,
Speaker 1: aren't we. Um, Well, it's pretty hard to do. I
Speaker 1: think all of us are ready for an end to this,
Speaker 1: just to move on to more productive types of engagement
Speaker 1: between the two countries. So I think it's pretty hard
Speaker 1: to have our keep our expectations in check this week.
Speaker 1: So what do you think China wants here? I mean,
Speaker 1: they're gonna have an opportunity here to maybe move this
Speaker 1: discussion for what do you think China really wants at
Speaker 1: this stage? Well, China has all along wanted to seek
Speaker 1: some kind of negotiated in to this, UH and they
Speaker 1: also need to uh keep their head high. That is,
Speaker 1: they can't be seen as cow tewing to President Trump.
Speaker 1: So that's become more and more difficult as the threats
Speaker 1: of ratched ratcheted up. Now with this meeting here between
Speaker 1: the two leaders, there is a possibility that something can
Speaker 1: be done. We saw a hope of progress each time
Speaker 1: they've met, of course, uh, unfortunately that hasn't led to
Speaker 1: anything except escalating tariffs. So, UM, we're gonna hope for
Speaker 1: the best this week and UM hope that the magic
Speaker 1: of the two men meeting can bring us a little
Speaker 1: further along on this. Otherwise we're looking at some pretty
Speaker 1: that's pretty tough ride moving forward. How do you extrapolate forward?
Speaker 1: And this is my lead question for Dr Navarro, Professor
Speaker 1: Lovely here in forty minutes, Iran, we blinked, Ice, we blinked.
Speaker 1: If I say to you, the president will blink with
Speaker 1: G twenty, what does that actually mean? Do we know
Speaker 1: what blink means? Okay, I would add Mexico, we blink.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, I'm sorry, she's like efforting me forward to Navarro. Mexico.
Speaker 1: We blinked. So what what does blink mean that the
Speaker 1: G twenty? Mary, Well, you know, he could easily go
Speaker 1: back to things that were on the table months ago
Speaker 1: before there was so much uncertainty and angst driven to
Speaker 1: you know, American businessmen and women's hearts. Through this, he
Speaker 1: could go back to a package where we have significant
Speaker 1: purchases by the Chinese, you know me, not even more
Speaker 1: than we would have end up with us, certainly more
Speaker 1: than we have now. Um, he can look at some
Speaker 1: sort of shallow reforms, which I think is probably what's
Speaker 1: due given the length of these negotiations, which you know,
Speaker 1: by the standard of international trade agreements, have not been
Speaker 1: very long. Uh, And he could perhaps look back at
Speaker 1: some other types of reforms that she was willing to make.
Speaker 1: But I think most of these things would have been
Speaker 1: on the table in the past, so I think that
Speaker 1: would be uh, in some sense viewed as a blink
Speaker 1: by many folks. In fact, I think part of President
Speaker 1: Trump's problem is that it's hard for him to get
Speaker 1: a win here. Now. If he does reach an agreement,
Speaker 1: people will claim as a blink, and if he doesn't,
Speaker 1: we're going to see the impact on American businesses and
Speaker 1: American consumers. So it's it's a little it's a very
Speaker 1: fraught week firm I think, does the Hong Kong protests
Speaker 1: and all the dynamics of the past fourteen days does
Speaker 1: that affect Mr She's options? Well, it certainly makes um
Speaker 1: it's harder for him in some ways. Also because you know,
Speaker 1: we see that there is at least within Hong Kong
Speaker 1: very deep well uh of resentment almost of the increasing
Speaker 1: authoritarianism in the mainland, and if the economy slows even more,
Speaker 1: it's going to make it much more difficult for She
Speaker 1: moving forward, not justin on the political sphere, but also
Speaker 1: on the economic sphere, because people's you know, sense of
Speaker 1: well being, their morale as an important measure of how
Speaker 1: the economy will do. So, Mary, as President Trump sits
Speaker 1: down with President She, what do you think President Trump
Speaker 1: will view as a win or as a successful Friday
Speaker 1: Saturday coming up? Wow? Well, I've learned never never wise
Speaker 1: to predict what what President Trump thinks. However, clearly, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I would say from an ordinary sense, we
Speaker 1: would expect a win to be something that results in uh,
Speaker 1: you know, greater purchases for US agricultural exporters, uh, greater
Speaker 1: freedom for our American service providers, particularly business service providers
Speaker 1: in China UM and perhaps liberalization on some tariffs, certainly
Speaker 1: some liberalization in terms of FDI caps or ownership caps,
Speaker 1: but you know that's sort of normal. We're looking at
Speaker 1: politics here, so he may be looking for some gigantic
Speaker 1: uh sign that he has one, that he has somehow
Speaker 1: brought the Chinese to the table in a way that
Speaker 1: no one else could. And I think that's where the
Speaker 1: danger lies, because that's what the Chinese are not going
Speaker 1: to want to give him. Very lovely, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: greatly appreciate it. With the person of course, with Syracuse University,
Speaker 1: the Interview of the Day, Paul Swone and Tom Keane,
Speaker 1: with his Peter Kent Navarro, Amertus Professor, University of California
Speaker 1: at Irvine, and certainly within the White House, the President's
Speaker 1: chief guider on our discussion with China, our discussion on
Speaker 1: trade and manufacturing policy. Professor Navarro, you have been a
Speaker 1: good friend of the show. We've always gone from many
Speaker 1: different opinions. I want to begin with a moment we're
Speaker 1: in right now. After Iran and delay, after Mexico, and
Speaker 1: delay after Ice and delay over the weekend, why should
Speaker 1: my listeners worldwide think of anything except out of G
Speaker 1: twenty further delay with China. Well that's a great set
Speaker 1: up there. Um, Look, we're in the glide path. Now
Speaker 1: to Osaka, Well, who talks will resume UH, going into that,
Speaker 1: Let's see what happens. What the President has said was
Speaker 1: will either get a great and fair deal or we won't.
Speaker 1: I think what's important for your listeners to understand is
Speaker 1: what we're fighting for and what we're fighting about. There's
Speaker 1: basically seven problems structurally that we face with China. It's
Speaker 1: the cyber intrusions into our business networks, forced technology transfers
Speaker 1: a condition of market access, totally illegal under the w
Speaker 1: t O. We lose a couple of hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year alone in intellectual property seft. There's an ongoing
Speaker 1: problem with dumping a product, huge over capacity and stealing
Speaker 1: aluminum in UH China growing over capacity, and auto's robotics UH.
Speaker 1: Number five, we've got the history of currency manipulation. Number six,
Speaker 1: it's the state owned enterprises, which are basically the tip
Speaker 1: of the Chinese mercantilis spirit. And then of course the issues.
Speaker 1: So these are discussions we're having Tom And as you know,
Speaker 1: we had a hundred and fifty page plus agreement UM
Speaker 1: that we worked literally for over a year on and Okay,
Speaker 1: I want to go to the immediately, Professor Naval, you
Speaker 1: talk about a mercantilist China. Are we going after a
Speaker 1: mercantilist China by becoming a mercantilist America? No, I think, Uh.
Speaker 1: I think what's important for your listeners to get the
Speaker 1: big picture on is this. We are in an international
Speaker 1: trading system where the United States faces significantly higher caariffs
Speaker 1: around the world under the World Trade Organization if you
Speaker 1: know this, Tom, but under the most Favored Nation rules
Speaker 1: of the World Trade Organization, is perfectly legitimate for country
Speaker 1: uh to charge the United States significantly higher tariffs and
Speaker 1: on the products that we charged them, and it's it's endemic, uh.
Speaker 1: And what that does, really, this unreciprocal trade, it creates
Speaker 1: a large trade deficit over half a billion what I think,
Speaker 1: it's like almost a year we're approaching. But my point
Speaker 1: is this is like you you're asking me about mercantile
Speaker 1: is and whatever. We we have the lowest terrorists, lowest
Speaker 1: trade berries in the world, and as the President has said,
Speaker 1: we're being treated like a pe manage. Okay, I want
Speaker 1: to Peter, I want to get to where we are
Speaker 1: right now. I don't need a rehash what we've done
Speaker 1: for the last two years on TRIGG. You wrote about
Speaker 1: most Favored nation status in the Wall Street Journal a
Speaker 1: number of months ago, summer of last year, your colleague
Speaker 1: Emritus Professor sarez Villa at Irvine wrote a scathing note
Speaker 1: and he really got to the heart of the matter,
Speaker 1: which is the game theory of the moment. Professor suarez
Speaker 1: Vila talked about a global trading system that can impose countermeasures.
Speaker 1: Is China imposing countermeasures on what they perceive as the
Speaker 1: trade war you and President Trump are beginning. Tom, I
Speaker 1: don't want to really speculate on what China does or
Speaker 1: doesn't do. What we see as a chessboard here where
Speaker 1: a big thing that we need to do this summer
Speaker 1: is past the United States, Mexico, Canada agreement that that
Speaker 1: for US is high on the priority list because if
Speaker 1: we do that, we'll create half a million jobs, will
Speaker 1: get another point of g d P, will create seventy
Speaker 1: five thousand jobs in the auto sector. And that's that's
Speaker 1: something that Congress can do within a matter. Can you
Speaker 1: do that? By Lincoln? Okay? What we focus on, I mean,
Speaker 1: I understand you want to talk Peter, is no okay,
Speaker 1: but Peter, to be fair to you, you are not
Speaker 1: conflating trade policy with immigration. Polo. See, can we get
Speaker 1: a successful new NAFTA even as a president conflates that
Speaker 1: policy with the immigration. Absolutely. I think that the recent
Speaker 1: use of tariffs UH to get Mexico to significantly tightened
Speaker 1: their border security has brought these these nations closer to
Speaker 1: each other. We're working very well now with Mexico UH.
Speaker 1: And I think that that was an important thing. I
Speaker 1: remember that the tariffs have many different uses. In that case, UH,
Speaker 1: they were used to address the national security crisis. And
Speaker 1: when the President announced that, people went crazy, and then
Speaker 1: two days later they hailed it as a great victory,
Speaker 1: and that's what it is. So UM I think. I
Speaker 1: think that from an investors point of view, the important
Speaker 1: thing to see is that the US economy is rock solid.
Speaker 1: All of financial indicators are pointing bullish, and the terror
Speaker 1: of policies that we're using doctor working in different ways
Speaker 1: to help our economy and help restructure the international trade
Speaker 1: environment in a way which is more fair and therefore
Speaker 1: more expansive. And but as it relates dr virus relates
Speaker 1: to terrorists, what do you believe has been the impact
Speaker 1: on US consumers and US businesses zero. And that's that's
Speaker 1: shown in the data. And that's that's counterintuitive. I mean,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of people who were saying that
Speaker 1: we were going to have tremendous price inflation from from
Speaker 1: all of the terrorists we put in, whether it was
Speaker 1: aluminum steel or whether it was China, we've seen zero.
Speaker 1: Now in the case of China, it's very clear what's happened. Uh.
Speaker 1: They devalued their currency to take the bite out of
Speaker 1: the terrors. They've lowered their prices. We've seen them bearing
Speaker 1: the burden of the tariffs to lower exports, lower profits.
Speaker 1: The Chinese government itself, um is is burying that. But
Speaker 1: are those are those tariffs? Are those are paying nothing?
Speaker 1: There's no. You can't point to any inflation in this economy,
Speaker 1: which is why the others. The other piece out there,
Speaker 1: tom as you know, UH, is the federal reserve. I mean,
Speaker 1: a rate cut and passage of U S M c
Speaker 1: A would get us easily over Well, the President just
Speaker 1: tweeted out that we would see four or five percent.
Speaker 1: I believe he assumes real g d P. And I
Speaker 1: can't find many people that would agree with that ductor
Speaker 1: navi of so critical moment here with is the bluster
Speaker 1: and policy that we've been doing. And as someone mentioned
Speaker 1: brilliantly over the weekend, maybe it's talked loud and carry
Speaker 1: a small stick. What kind of stick does the president
Speaker 1: take to the G twenty meeting, tom As I said
Speaker 1: at the outset, we're on the glide path going in.
Speaker 1: Let's just see what happens. I think that uh the
Speaker 1: important thing here if you're an investor, just to see
Speaker 1: the chessboard. You got a strong economy, uh, and that
Speaker 1: will continue, and that's bullish for the markets. That's all
Speaker 1: that matters. We've had the tariffs in for over a year,
Speaker 1: tom and we've seen no negative impacts whatsoever on the
Speaker 1: US economy. In fact, the Q one we actually we
Speaker 1: came in a little over three percent growth rate, and
Speaker 1: the full point of that was due to our reduction
Speaker 1: in the trade deficit, primarily because of the China tariffs.
Speaker 1: So let's not let's not. I think if people want
Speaker 1: to get excited about things right now, they should get
Speaker 1: excited about passing the U S m c A agreement,
Speaker 1: because that's going to be the next leg up on
Speaker 1: our growth. That should get excited about the idea that
Speaker 1: the FED might lower interest rates as they should. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and let's let's just see what happens with China.
Speaker 1: We we won't what what would the administration consider a
Speaker 1: successful G twenty meeting as it relates to China? Uh?
Speaker 1: And speculate on that. Let's just see what happens. Well,
Speaker 1: this is the quiet period. Let's just go into Osaka.
Speaker 1: Let's see what happens. I'm happy to talk about other things,
Speaker 1: but let's just let's just see what happens. Is multilateral dead, sir?
Speaker 1: I mean, with all the books you've written, the anger
Speaker 1: over China over the years, is a multilateral America dead?
Speaker 1: The US Mexico Canada Agreement is my multilateral. It's three countries,
Speaker 1: um in I think the smartest, biggest trade deal in
Speaker 1: world history. And it's good for all three countries as
Speaker 1: well as American farmers, ranchers, manufacturers, and workers. So in
Speaker 1: that sense, multilateralism um isn't dead at all. And and
Speaker 1: so no, um, if you have multilateral Transpacific partnership, which
Speaker 1: is which would have torn apart of auto industry, that's dead.
Speaker 1: But the U S m c A is hopefully it'll
Speaker 1: be alive and well and and last for a long time.
Speaker 1: Peter Navarro, thank you so much. She has Assistant to
Speaker 1: the President, Director of Trade and Manufacturing Policy at the
Speaker 1: White House. That we greatly appreciate his time. Last week
Speaker 1: we were honored to speak with General McCrystal Admiral Strevidis,
Speaker 1: and we continue that forward now with another admiral. He
Speaker 1: has Admiral Sestak of Pennsylvania. But he's different than at Crystal.
Speaker 1: He's different than Stravidas. He's decided to run for president.
Speaker 1: He is, I believe, by count candidate uh for a
Speaker 1: very crowded Democratic Party field. Admiral, we are thrilled to
Speaker 1: have you with us. As a former congressman, you know
Speaker 1: the landscape. Well, why do the Democrats need a candidate
Speaker 1: to come up the process of defeating President Trump? Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me aboard. I honestly do believe what
Speaker 1: America's most want is someone who is actually accountable to them,
Speaker 1: to them, above self, above party, above any special interest.
Speaker 1: That's what they most want. Look, they're looking for a
Speaker 1: president and also believe or they need a president who
Speaker 1: has a depth of global experience to restore America's leadership
Speaker 1: in the world, and that's what protects our American dream
Speaker 1: at home. And we're walking away from the world. We're
Speaker 1: retreating from the world and telling her whosed allies left behind?
Speaker 1: It's a rap. And finally, I think they really do
Speaker 1: need someone who can be trusted as I was in
Speaker 1: my two to one almost Republican district reelected without spending
Speaker 1: a dime on a campaign. Who's that would be trusted
Speaker 1: even when we disagree to restructing policies that are too
Speaker 1: often inequable. That's what they want. I really want to
Speaker 1: be there for account ability. Okay, we all know Connor
Speaker 1: Lamb and what he did southwest of Pittsburgh as well.
Speaker 1: How are you going to get liberals, progressive social Democrats,
Speaker 1: democratic socialists to swing over to a moderate Scoop Jackson
Speaker 1: Democrat like you? How does that work? Well, you know
Speaker 1: you hit it on the head. I want to actually
Speaker 1: represent all Americans, all Americans, and so when I someone
Speaker 1: when I was a congressman, disagreed with me on choice,
Speaker 1: I invited them in despite the harsh letters that were
Speaker 1: often written written on that issue. And you had to care,
Speaker 1: you had being at eight o'clock in the morning on
Speaker 1: a Saturday, and sixty showed up to voice their opinion.
Speaker 1: But you can't find me ever going back to them
Speaker 1: in a harsh term, but listening and saying what my
Speaker 1: opinion is. The next time, forty showed up. The next
Speaker 1: time twenty the Key Party patriots asked after my tenth
Speaker 1: town Carol Town Hall to have a picture with me.
Speaker 1: Why I'm going to do it is what a good
Speaker 1: captain does on a ship. He goes down the mystics
Speaker 1: and listens and hawks, but he states what he believes in.
Speaker 1: Am I going to do it by spending my time
Speaker 1: living in Iowa? Sure? I am? Just like I walked
Speaker 1: for one or twenty two miles across Pennsylvania. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: did that this week. I walked for in twenty two
Speaker 1: miles this weekend. Let me bring in my colleague Paul
Speaker 1: Sweeney please. And then I got a bridge for sale
Speaker 1: in Arizona. Let me bring in my colleague Paul Sweeney
Speaker 1: right now with presidential candidate. So add it's just a question,
Speaker 1: first of all, just on timing here. It is a
Speaker 1: very crowded field, as we all know. Are you concerned
Speaker 1: that you're coming in too late here? I mean even
Speaker 1: the debates are are starting. So first it's just all
Speaker 1: be too little, too late here, Uh, Paul, you play
Speaker 1: with the cards you're dealt with. I had my daughter
Speaker 1: I bring cancer for which is where I stopped being
Speaker 1: an independent to take and took after she was recovered,
Speaker 1: became a Democrat to run healthcare, which is I Similarly,
Speaker 1: the cancer came back and over the last year we
Speaker 1: dealt with it. And frankly I got dealt a good
Speaker 1: set of cards because her health care doctors who saved
Speaker 1: her last time one came out of retirement to the
Speaker 1: brain operation. We're now in a safe harbor, and so
Speaker 1: it's a good desk step card. She's safe. And so
Speaker 1: this is the only time I could get in. But
Speaker 1: you know what, she gave me a sign that said
Speaker 1: life is not about avoiding the storm. It's about learning
Speaker 1: to dance in the rain. And so, yeah, it's a
Speaker 1: little tougher right now, but you know the message I have,
Speaker 1: having stood up at times to my own party, in
Speaker 1: that walk across Pennsylvania where I was told to stop
Speaker 1: walking just fundraies. But I told her the man who
Speaker 1: called me the senator, about the Republican who called out
Speaker 1: as I walked through a small town ad Maamma a Republican.
Speaker 1: But I love what you're doing that I actually want
Speaker 1: to go to the people. And actually I mean this
Speaker 1: not that they have to know me, that I have
Speaker 1: to show them I know them and what they need.
Speaker 1: And so no, I think it's okay because of what
Speaker 1: happened to my daughter that I'm very fortunate with deca
Speaker 1: cards I'm dealt with with her. Right, Well, good news there,
Speaker 1: Admiral Um. What I mean, obviously, what I the key
Speaker 1: issues that has to be done initially by all candidates
Speaker 1: is to try to differentiate themselves. How do you do that? Well,
Speaker 1: I think I bring something just because I've been blessed
Speaker 1: by this nation to invest in me. That's fairly unique.
Speaker 1: You actually have a presidential Kennedy who has a breath
Speaker 1: in depth of understanding of the world, who has come
Speaker 1: to understand issues of our military that militaries can stop
Speaker 1: a problem, but they can never fix a problem. And
Speaker 1: so Democrats and Republicans alike voted for that reckless war
Speaker 1: for example in Iraq. Never understood either the complexity of
Speaker 1: the world nor did they understand the issue that I said,
Speaker 1: And so we Unleashia gains Sonny soon he gets Shia.
Speaker 1: And here's the issue. Very few understand that. And second,
Speaker 1: no one has ever been going to be held accountable
Speaker 1: for voting for that. More so, I bring accountability which
Speaker 1: is unique, and I bring a breath of understanding why
Speaker 1: our American dream is only protected by restoring leadership to
Speaker 1: the world. The Democrat out of Pennsylvania, he is running
Speaker 1: for president. He has a former admiral of the U. S.
Speaker 1: Navy emial cystic. You commanded the Samuel B. Roberts to
Speaker 1: all sorts of acclaim uh floating around the Atlantic. You
Speaker 1: did that with a repaired Samuel B. Roberts, which I
Speaker 1: believe was hit by a mine five or six years
Speaker 1: before off of Iran. You know about what our navies
Speaker 1: at risk in Iran right now. Stravitas was scathing in
Speaker 1: his interview with US last week. Describe as a Navy
Speaker 1: guy what the President did last week with the um
Speaker 1: not hysterics, but the sequence of events on Iran. Well,
Speaker 1: let me talk to that directly, with the beginning of
Speaker 1: the wrong action in that sequence, breaking America's word on
Speaker 1: the deal of the Nia Nuclear Accord. When Iran kept
Speaker 1: theirs is unforgivable, and that's why we're here today. We'll
Speaker 1: step back. Our navy can't even survive in the Persian
Speaker 1: Golf we are. Sonar doesn't work, and there's nineteen many
Speaker 1: submarines there. We operate in two areas there with the
Speaker 1: Carriage Battle Group, go back and forth, back and forth
Speaker 1: the launch plans. So if we have to strike, I
Speaker 1: know I've been there. We will have to remove ourselves
Speaker 1: from the Persian Golf and do strikes from Afar. And
Speaker 1: this is not Iraq. It would take us weeks or
Speaker 1: months if we ever have them get their nuclear infrastructure
Speaker 1: back buried under three feet of rock to destroy it,
Speaker 1: as they could rain missiles, hundreds of them down on
Speaker 1: Israel and our regional basis. Remember what I said about Iraq.
Speaker 1: Militaries can sup the problem. Militaries don't fix it. Our
Speaker 1: diplomatic effort to rid them for a year as of
Speaker 1: most at the minimum of a nuclear capability, gave America
Speaker 1: security and safety. And what the administration did by walking
Speaker 1: away and breaking our words, admiral of our security, how
Speaker 1: much does this nation? Miss? General Madis at Pentagon? Add
Speaker 1: General Maddis, who I worked for when I ran the
Speaker 1: Navy's three fifty billion dollar warfare programs, that he was
Speaker 1: the Marine equivalent. We were fortunate to have that man
Speaker 1: that's accountable and his words of wisdom there where, he
Speaker 1: also spoke about staying in Iranian accord sorely missed and
Speaker 1: we should be great grateful for his service and if
Speaker 1: I could, I'm sorry, Well, we're gonna run out of time.
Speaker 1: Let's do this, Admiral Saystic. We look forward to speaking
Speaker 1: to you in our New York studios or in Washington
Speaker 1: as you may in the coming weeks. Joe Sastek is
Speaker 1: from Pennsylvania. He has decided, as a former congressman today
Speaker 1: to run for president of the United States. We greatly
Speaker 1: appreciate his time. Thanks for listening to the Bloomberg Surveillance podcast.
Speaker 1: Subscribe and listen to interviews on Apple Podcasts, SoundCloud, or
Speaker 1: whichever of podcast platform you prefer. I'm on Twitter at
Speaker 1: Tom Keene before the podcast. You can always catch us worldwide.
Speaker 1: I'm Bloomberg Radio.