Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then Proud Auto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
On What is this second day of April, which means we're almost five months from the last time something like today happened, where President Biden and Chinese President Xijhin Ping talked one on one. Of course, the last time they did this was back in November at their summit in
person in San Francisco. Today it was just a telephone conversation, and we just got the readout from the White House, the White House statement saying that Biden and she had a candid and constructive discussion, discussed AI risks efforts on climate change, raised concerns over China support for Russia, and raised issues with unfair tree policies as well in this call. But let's get more details now. Ian Marlow covers national security and diplomacy for US here at Bloomberg in Washington.
He is joining me now in studio. Ian, great to see you as always. What else do we know went down this morning on this phone call.
Yeah, I think one of the key things that's changed. I mean, there's been a sort of laundry list of things that they discussed. Counter narcotics stuff related to the fentinyl crisis in the US, which is one thing AI regulation,
which is something they've talked about before. One of the new things though, that they discussed was was Chinese support for Russia's economy at a time where Russia's obviously in Ukraine and that war has been dragging on and the Russian economy has been more resilient than Western observers hoped
for when they initially slapped sanctions on. So that was one thing that was brought up that I think is maybe a little bit different from when we had that conversation back in California, you know, a few months ago now. And so that's something that's obviously a huge thing that US officials are concerned about Chinese to Russia at this time.
Well, and it's one thing to raise those concerns, to talk about them, but to what extent ian is this talking for the sake of talking, Because they promised back in November that they were going to talk more, communicate more or is real progress made on calls like this.
Yeah, so I think there's always a lot of work that goes into these leader level calls and summits, and you've seen a sort of a gradual parade of these visits. I was on the first Blink and Secretary of Saint Anthony BLINKLN trip to China back in June, which sort of set off this you know, rolling procession of all these cabinet secretaries going back and forth. But really, you know, we've seen a little bit of agreement on you know, agreement to keep talking. We've seen agreement to keep talking
on fentanyl. We've seen agreement to keep talking between the two militaries, but there hasn't really been too much concrete progress when it comes to say, China dialing back in the South China. See, that was one of the things they talked about on this call, you know, with tensions between the China and the Philippines have risen lately, and so none of these issues are solved. It's just I think they feel like they should be talking rather than
not talking. And you know, before that trip back in June and before all these these different summits, we were in a much different place, a much more tense place, And I think US officials are confident to some extent that they've gotten to a better place, but none of the fundamentals have changed, and I think we have to be realistic about that, and I think there's always the potential for something new, a sort of you know, spy balloon two point zero, to upset the apple cart to
some degree on this, well.
It's a fair point. It seems that in a lot lately within the US China relationship, it's one step forward, two steps back because there's a spy balloon or someone calls someone a dictator, or that kind of thing. You talked about the rolling Cabinet secretary visits you of course were with Blinkin back in June. He is expected to go back to China in the coming weeks, and Treasury Secretary Janney Yellen is actually expected to make a trip
of her own this week. I would imagine they're going to reiterate a lot of the themes that we heard were on this call today.
Yeah, exactly. I think, you know, with Yellen, it's a lot of macroeconomic stability and sort of Chinese US cooperation on the on the global economy. With with Blincoln's travels, he sort of brings up the sort of laundry list of things that China doesn't always want raised Taiwan, human rights, detained Americans in China, so his visits tend to be a little bit more tense. But again, we were at a point where basically the Chinese and USI's were sort
of reading talking points to each other. And I think that there's been enough dialogue over the past you know, six to twelve months that I feel I think that US officials feel they're in a slightly better spot where they're slightly beyond reading talking points. They can try and make some progress on these issues, even if fundamental differences
are going to be there. You know, it's it's a weird relationship to sort of grapple with because you know, fundamentally their competitors, you know, the US and China, but you they want to be in a situation where they at least don't have something throwing the relationship you know, up and down every couple of months, which is where we were sort of around the time Pelosi visited, you know, to Taiwan.
Yeah, yeah, very good point. You talk about how the US has to handle a relationship with a competitor carefully. With adversaries certainly, but so too with allies certainly. Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln has had his hands full, not just with issues like China, but Israel as well. He was on the call yesterday alongside Jake Sullivan, the National Security Advisor, with their Israeli counterparts to talk about RAFA. We know that they have also agreed to continue those
conversations moving forward. But does the US feel like it's making tangible progress and influencing the decisions of the Israeli government when it comes to their military operation in Gaza.
Yeah, it sometimes seems like the US Israel relationship is more tense than the US China relationship to some extent. And again, like whereas you have fundamental competition on the US's side, you have this sort of close partnership that's been you know, decades and decades old, and this war has just, you know, really turned all these things over in the US Israel relationship. You know, the US is
under domestic pressure. Net Yahoo is under pressure of his own from the right, you know, to take a harder line on Gaza, on Hamas and all these things, and so you have this really toxic situation where there's rise and casualties in Gaza. No one thinks Israel shouldn't be
doing anything about what happened on October seventh. But you end up with this situation now where the US has been calling on Israel to take it easy when it comes to the conflict, try and wind the conflict down, try and strike a deal that will free the hostages and get a ceasefire, and Israel just doesn't seem to be listening. You get all these different situations where the US sort of leans a little bit but doesn't want to put too much pressure on Israel and send the
wrong message to Hamas. And so you know, I was on Blinken's trip to Israel just the other week, and the day we got there, Israel's right when government announced that they were seizing new land in the West Bank. And so this is something that sort of happens time and time again. You've got signaling on both sides, You've got domestic political priorities on both sides. Both sides need to seem like they're doing something about the situation, but
they're at odds. And I think the US is confronting a situation where they really don't have that much leverage over Israel. They're giving aid, I feel I think they don't feel like they can condition that aid and pull it back, like the military equipment that they keep sending to Israel, some of which is years and you know, years in the making and won't be delivered till well after this war is over, and the rest of it.
But it's a tense situation, and I think this meeting, the fact that it was canceled initially, the in person meeting was canceled and it was held virtually They're meant to be holding an in person meeting, you know, in the coming weeks. That's not a great sign of coordination between two close allies. I think it's showing you the tension that's underneath.
That at the moment.
All Right, Ian Marlow Bloomberg, senior reporter covering diplomacy and National Security. Thank you so much for giving us the latest today, and now we want to take a look at how markets should be looking at all of these different geopolitical situations. Joining me now, I'm pleased to say, Terry Haynes, founder over at Pangaea Policy. So Terry certainly there is no shortage of things to discuss on the geopolitical front. But I would first like to get your
opinion on the US China relationship. She and Biden are talking. They did so today for the first time since November. Should should investors take any solace in that communication or is there just too much tension in this relationship still to not be hedging that kind of geopolitical risk.
Well, from my view, Kaylee, I think what ends up happening here is that markets will tend to be kind of over buoyed by this stuff. It's always good that the leaders are talking. Everybody remembers the old Churchill line that jaw jaw talk talk is better than war war. But beyond that, I wouldn't read too much into it. Frankly, it sounds from the White House like there's a laundry list and a litany of the familiar concerns. So you know they're talking. That's good. There's advantages for chi to
be talking. He's now put on a happier face with the United States business leaders, and it's somewhat recently, so it's somewhat to his advantage to do that. It's also Biden's in Biden's best interest to be and to look like publicly the engaged leader bringing up major United States concerns. Beyond that, I'd point out a couple of things. One is that there continues to be concerns about China's economy, and that's at least part of the reason why Secretary
Yellen is engaging with the Chinese government on that. And
also there's an awful lot going on. When the White House name checks support for Russia, you can be sure that one of the things that's happening underneath that particular surface is checking back and forth with the Chinese on the next Western moves, which not only include potential United States aid for Ukraine, but the idea that the United States is going to the NATO and the G seven are going to create funds and other sorts of vehicles
to support Ukraine in the overall monetary system. So the United States will want that to be well understood as well. So there's a lot of things going on here underneath the surface. Frankly, I think to asswage tensions as much as anything else.
Well, Terry, I'm glad you raised the issue of aid to Ukraine, because obviously we heard from how Speaker Mike Johnson over this past weekend talking about the idea that that actually could be on the floor in the form he envisions it, which potentially could include it being alone rather than outright aid, potentially taking frozen Russian assets to help fund Ukraine's war effort. Is this going to happen? Is this something that could actually pass the House, the
Senate and get a signature from President Biden? Where would you put the odds?
Well, Speaker Johnson is an optimist, but then if you're in the Speaker's chair, you should be. Your job is in part to kind of move the House as an institution forward, and he's trying to do that, and that's fundamentally what he's trying to do. I think what you've seen in the last twenty four to forty eight hours is kind of typical Washington blowback on the Speaker's proposals. But what he means to do by this, frankly, is start a serious dialogue in the House that ends to
some sort of conclusion. And if he can't get aid in the traditional sense, he's going to talk about loans, He's going to talk about seizing assets and using them from Russian oligarchs and the like. He's going to use everything he can in order to show forward movement on Ukraine AID and Ukraine support. I think that's all to the good in a geopolitical sense because it shows really where I think the the pendulum has been on the Ukraine for some time, which is kind of more supportive
of Ukraine, more optimistic. But he's got a long way to go, and if he gets something through the House by the end of April, I'd give him sixty sixty five percent today on that. But that's optimistic, and he's going to have to be talking to the Senate all along. So USAID for Ukraine you're looking at probably late April, early May at the earliest. But beyond that, you've also got these international vehicles that have been discussed much in recent days and reported on by Bloomberg as well well.
Terry.
There also is the question for Mike Johnson, even if he's optimistic about his ability to actually get the AID on the floor and pass, should he be optimistic about being able to keep the gavel in hand after that? Considering there is this motion to vacate from Marjorie Taylor Green that she has threatened to act on if he does this exact thing, put Ukraine eight.
On the floor.
And that's a fair point. I think Johnson's playing a pretty complicated game for markets. By the way, I don't uh. The first thing I'd say is, I don't think it matters a whole lot who the who the House speaker is. Uh uh. The spending bills have been done for the year. There will be more can kicking for the next fiscal year starting in late September early October. So uh, you know, the main the main business of this Congress is finished.
Number one. Number two. He's playing kind of an inside game with with Green and a few others appointing Green to the uh to the impeachment prosecutors for majorcas for example in the Senate. So uh so there's that. And finally, uh, you know, this kind of little purest caucus that's been be doubling Republican speakers for the last year and a half, uh is not united on this one. And you've got somebody like Matt Gates, who was McCarthy's nemesis, uh so
far in Johnson's corner on this. So uh, you know, I tend to think it's a it's an active threat, but it's not a live bomb at this point for Johnson.
All right, Terry Haynes of Pangea Policy. Always great to have you here on Bloomberg. Thank you so much for joining us. He of course is the founder of Pangea Policy, talking there about the idea that Congress basically has done its work. We finally got appropriations bills passed about halfway
through the fiscal year. There are these questions remaining about supplemental funding not just for allies like Ukraine, Israel, even Taiwan, but also potentially supplemental funding requests that could come in very short order from the White House to repair and rebuild the key bridge in Baltimore it's collapse, I would remind everyone was one week ago today in the work to clear that channel, get Baltimore Port reopened, and then of course open up that vital conduit with a road
once again to connect I six ninety five is only just beginning, so we'll follow that story in others. As always here on Bloomberg.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power p Kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud Oto with the Bloomberg business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station Just Say Alexa playing Bloomberg eleven.
Thirty broadcasting to you live, of course from Washington, where we have to point out we are approaching the six month mark of the war between Israel and Tomas. It's left thousands of Palestinians dead in Gaza and hundreds of thousands more on the brink of potential famine. In one organization attempting to address those needs of those that are Hungary, has lost seven members of its organization and an Israeli airstrike. This is part of the statement that we've gotten from
World Central Kitchen. It reads, World Central Kitchen is devastated to confirm seven members of our team have been killed in an IDF strike in Gaza. The team was traveling in a deconflicted zone and two armored cars branded with the World Central Kitchen logo. It goes on to say, despite coordinating movement with the IDF, the convoy was hit as it was leaving the warehouse where the team had unloaded more than one hundred tons of humanitarian food aid
brought to Gaza on the maritime route. The statement goes on to say the seven killed were from Australia, Poland, the UK, a dual citizen of the US and Canada, and Palestine, and World Central Kitchen has now paused its operations in the region as a result. The IDF says it is carrying out an in depth examination into the incident. And we also heard about this incident today from Secretary of State Anthony Blincoln.
Here was his reaction.
The victims of yesterday's strike join A record number of humanitarian workers have been killed in this particular conflict. These people are heroes. We've spoken directly to the Israeli government about this particular incident. We verged a swift, a thorough, an impartial investigation to understand exactly what happened.
Joining me now for more on this is Michael Knights. He is the Washington Institute Jill and j Bernstein fellow. Michael, always great to have you on the show, where sometimes we have to talk about pretty difficult things. We heard from Jose Andres, the well known chef and the founder of World Central Kitchen, who reacted to this news in a social media post in part saying the Israeli government
needs to stop this indiscriminate killing. It needs to stop restricting humanitarian aid, stop killing civilians and aid workers, and stop using food as a weapon. What if anything, Michael, do you expect will change about any of those behaviors on the part of Israel.
Israel has no interest in these kind of stories coming out on air. It obviously underlines their war effort against the match. It undermines their global reputation. So they're not doing these things on purpose. When it comes to, for instance, Clackfroomagey incident, so they'll try as hard as they can
not to do this self inflicted wound Again. When it comes to the food security inside gaza, they're already moving pretty fast to try and open up multiple access routes and try to reduce the risk of famine within the gaza.
Well, Michael, it's striking to me that we got the news of this air strike on the same day that we were getting news reports of the US preparing up to eighteen billion dollars in additional arm sales to Israel. Understanding how Israel's behavior may change is one thing, but what about the US. Is there a world in which things happened to a degree at which the US is no longer going to be able to condone all of Israel's behavior, no longer provide that kind of lethal aid, at least to the same.
Degree that seems unlikely.
The US and Israel are for better or worse, you know, depending on your view.
Tied it hit strategically.
You know, the US has in the past reduced the amount of offensive weapons that are sent to a country like Saudi Arabia, and that itself was a heavy diplomatic and industrial arts for US to stop providing weapons to people who have built their militaries around our weapons and who are close partners.
We did it, but it was only a temporary measure.
I think with Israel that's less likely because Israel's in the middle of when it sees as an existential war that it sees as it did not start and now it's trying to finish off.
So I don't think we're going to see much change there. I mean, you know, the reality is America.
You know, us of a US citizen, We've blown up a lot of weddings, a lot of funerals, a lot of other things, and we do not expect our security partners to turn their backs on us when we did that, they just expected us to do better in the future.
Point taking Michael, of course, as you talk about the war that Israel is still can aducting that they want to see through to the end, that likely will include an operation of some kind in Rafa, and we know that yesterday Israeli and US officials talked about potentially what
that operation could look like. We know the US has concerns, but we've heard from Prime Minister Benjamin net Yahoo in the last few days that he intends the plan is to move the more than one million Palestinian civilians that are in Rafa out, get them the humanitarian aid they need, then move in to attack the remaining Hamas battalions there. Can Israel actually pull that off?
Yeah, it's very likely that Israel is going to do a kind of clearance operation in the Rafa area.
What they could Philadelphia corridor along the Egyptian border where they want to destroy as many of the long term tunnels that link Egypt to Israel as possible to aid with a permanent defeat of Hamass and military organization.
The question is really down to the details now, So it's about.
When you any people out of Ruffa, do you do biometric scanning of them to ensure that there's no non terrorists amongst them, or indeed hostitutes being brought out amongst them being smuggled out. So we're really down into the weedy details of exactly how that should be done, and that will take a couple of months, but the Israelis are not in a hurry.
Well, in the meantime, it's worth noting that Israel hasn't just been focusing exclusively on hamas reportedly, they stroke struck directly Iran's embassy in Syria, killing eight more than a dozen members of Iranian military personnel, including reportedly two generals. Iran is now vowing revenge on Israel after blaming it for that strike. The Supreme Leader said, and this is a quote, Israel will be punished. We will make them
regret their crime. What could that look like, Michael, How concerned should we be about escalation here?
Well, this was a really heavy heat hit for the Iranians. You know, we had eleven killed. And amongst those with the three highest the most senior Iranian paramilitary officers their equivalent of the CIA.
Really the most three, the three iced senior.
Officers they have in the Syria Lebanon area were all killed along with their key staff officers. So for the Israelis this was a tremendous piece of targeting and struck a military attaches office off to the side of the Iranian embassy.
Now, the Iranians always say they're going to.
Hit back hard. Generally speaking, they don't. After the US or the Israelis kill one of their senior officers, they make sure that all the other outstations are well protected, They withdraw people who are vulnerable and might get hit next, they prepare their move and then at some point they'll probably go make an Israeli and consula plant somewhere, or they'll try to.
But they generally, again they don't rush it.
They wait until the moment is right for them, and then they usually strike back in a way that does not require the Israelis to then escalate even more.
But that's Iran specifically, Michael, What about actions its proxies could take, not just thinking of Hamasier, but Hezbolah for example.
Yeah, excellent point.
So the proxies when it comes to things that will draw a response against Iran directly, the proxies are very mindful of Iran's overall security. Hezbollah itself is very mindful of not doing anything that will draw the Israelis into a major ground forces incursion or invasion of southern Lebanon.
So these railers are calculating that all the proxies out there are doing as much as they can do, like the whu Thi's in the rest or the Iraqis or they are concerned about escalation to the extent where they will not react to this. That's why these runers keep pushing their luck with more and more devastating strikes on Iranian leadership figures inside Syria, Lebanon, and potentially other places.
So finally, Michael, in our final minute here, would you say that the odds of another front opening up in this war are higher or lower than they were yesterday before this news.
The high thing is now we have, you know, a sudden burst of emotion within the Iranian leadership, but not significantly higher. You know, the reality is if Israel goes into Leblon and probably going next year, and right now, the conflict is slowly de escalating and stretching out.
All right, Michael Nates, It's always great to have you here. On balance of power with your expertise. We really appreciate you joining us Michael Knights, of course, the Washington Institute, Jill and Jay Bernstein fellow as we keep an eye on what is happening in Israel and again the death of seven humanitarian aid workers working on behalf of World Central Kitchen, which has now paused its operations in the region. We will see what more we hear from the Israeli
investigation into the strike that killed them. We'll have much more on that story and others throughout the hour here on Balance of Power.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Appo CarPlay, and then roun Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
I'm a very happy Tuesday to you. A Tuesday, of course, which isn't just any Tuesday. It's also primary day in a handful of states, as I mentioned, Wisconsin included, as well as Rhode Island, New York in Connecticut. But there is the question of whether any of these Mary's actually matter much at all when Donald Trump and Joe Biden already have all but locked up the respective nominations for their parties. So what, if anything, could we actually learn
from the contest taking place today. Bloomberg's Nancy Cook, who covers national politics for US, is joining me here in our Washington studio. So, Nancy, are there any states today that could actually be interesting or is just nothing really that interesting? It is interesting as a relative term in the twenty twenty four presidential election cycle.
Well, I think what's interesting about the primaries today is just you know, obviously we know who both of the nominees are, but we can still look at sort of the level of support. It gives us a chance to look at the level of support for the candidates in these key states, and so to sort of get a sense of like how people are doing with all these different demographic groups who you know, they'll really need to
court ahead of the twenty twenty four elections. So I would put white suburban women in that category, Black voters, Hispanic voters. These are the groups that are really going to be up for grabs that both Trump and Biden are really going after.
Well, and there's the question of young voters too, which could be potentially problematic for Biden. Considering there is a movement in Wisconsin in particular, one of these key swing states, to vote uninstructed on the Democratic ballot instead of for him. This is a protest over the administration's policy of supporting Israel despite what's happening in Gadda. They want twenty thousand voters to vote uninstructed, roughly the margin of victory for
Biden over Trump in twenty twenty. How worried is the Biden campaign about that.
At this point?
I think the Biden campaign is stressed out about that. I think that there is real blowback for the way that Biden has been handling Israel. There is a real sense of outrage among young voters about how he is handling things with Gaza. And I think that there is a sense, you know, the election in November is going to be so close that even if you have people who don't necessarily if young voters don't necessarily vote for Trump but they just stay home, that alone could cost
Biden the election. And so these primaries and of what the turnout looks like is also very instructive for what both campaigns are up against.
Well, speaking of both campaigns, the other campaign, the Trump campaign is on the move. Today, he is in Wisconsin as well as in Michigan, making two stops to talk about the border in what are not exactly border states, at least certainly not southern border states. How significant is it that he's choosing these places to go and bringing this message.
Well, I think that the Trump campaign really sees immigration as one of the key things that they're going to talk about heading into twenty twenty four. We're seeing Democrats sort of use abortion in the same way. They see it as a major vulnerability for Biden, something that they feel like he hasn't been able to handle, sort of dealing with the southern border well, and people are really
outraged by it. Trump has also really been seizing on some of the crimes that have happened recently with undocumented immigrants and sort of using that as an example of this tough on crime, tough on immigration message, and I think that it's something that really continue to play up well.
Of course, these events today are some of only a handful that we've seen over the course of the last month.
Since Super Tuesday, when effectively the race became over for the Republican nomination, He's only had two events prior to today, Is this just a financial question, to the extent to which a campaign that is having a greater difficulty pulling in money from donors and having to shell out a lot for legal fees as well, is he going to be able to campaign to the same extent that President Biden is when he swung through a multitude of swing states since the State of the Union that same week.
Well, you have to remember that Trump faced a primary, and so he had to do a lot more traveling from January, February and March than Biden did when Biden was mostly dormant and at the White House, still being president but sort of not doing this raft of visits. And so I think the way that the Trump campaign views it is for the spring, I don't think that we're going to see him doing as many of these rallies.
You know, he's facing a lot of court cases. I think their strategy is, we don't want to spend a ton of money doing a bunch of rallies this spring. We want to save that money for the summer and fall, when it's going to matter more. They are at a financial disadvantage, as you said, compared to Biden, and I think that they really want to conserve that cash, and in the meantime, the Trump team has really been focused on trying to raise more money to match what the
Democrats have and also just reorganizing the RNs. He sort of taking this moment to now that he's the nominee, to kind of figure out how they want to move forward and what their strategy in the battleground states is going to be.
Yeah, and it's also worth noting that Trump does have the benefit of a lot of free earned media as well, who covers each and every appearance at courthouses in which he can kind of use it almost as a campaign stop. It's an ability to speak to voters about the wrongs that he feels have been done to him through the Department of Justice, to whatever degree of merit they may have. Nancy Cook, thank you so much. As always Bloomberg National
politics reporter joining me today, really appreciate it. And of course, as Nancy and I discussed that uninstructed vote effort in Wisconsin, that does come back to the administration's policy surrounding Israel, as there is an ongoing more between Israel and Hamas and some of the latest news we have received on that front came from World Central Kitchen. It's a humanitarian aid group working to get aid to those who need it,
the thousands of Hungary Palestinian civilians in Gaza. But they lost seven members of that group and an Israeli strike yesterday. In part the statement from World Central Kitchen reads that the seven killed were from Australia, Poland, the United Kingdom, a dual citizen of the US and Canada, and Palestine.
World Central Kitchen has paused operations in the region, and we heard from Jose Andres, who is the founder of World Central Kitchen and of course a famous chef as well, who said that the Israeli government needs to stop this indiscriminate killing. We also heard from the US Secretary of State Antony Blincoln about this earlier today. This is what he said.
The victims of yesterday's strike join a record number of humanitarian workers have been killed. In this particular comment, these people are heroes. We've spoken directly to the Israeli government about this particular incident. We've verged a swift, a thorough, an impartial investigation to understand exactly what happens.
Joining me now for more on this is James Jeffrey. He is Wilson Center, Chair of the Middle East Program and former US Ambassador to Iraq and Turkey Ambassador. Thank you so much for being here on Bloomberg Television and Radio. On the same day that we get news of seven AID workers being killed in an IDF strike, we also got news of potentially billions dollars in more arm sales
that the US could make to Israel. How much longer is this going to be a pattern of behavior, No matter what happens in Gaza, no matter who what happens to, the US is still standing behind the Israeli government.
Well, first of all, thank you for having me on. This is a terribly tough situation for the US government to be in because of three things. First, Israel is in an existential fight for the first time in fifty years, and this is a fight broadly throughout the region that the United States needs to have Israel and its other allies win against not just a mask but Iran in
the hood. He's closing down the Red Sea. Second, Israel needs to do much more immediately to enable the flow the flood of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, and take much more care what we call more restrictive combat rules of engagement to avoid new attacks on humanitarian workers or for that man, of civilians of any sort in this very
difficult fight. But the third point, which you didn't hear Blincoln say, is that for Israel to do this, and I advocate it should, we all have to take into concer iteration this will result in more Israeli soldiers killed in a longer battle. That is, we've seen this in the fight against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. When we tighten rules of engagement, we lost, not us, but the Iraqi and Syrian allies lost bomb of forces.
So we released them in twenty seventeen and ninet eighteen in Syria, and the New York Times is now looking into that.
Okay, So there could be a lot of loss all around, not just of civilian life, but potentially the lives of members of the Israeli military as well. To go back, Ambassador to your point about this being existential for Israel. Are we at a point now, six months into this conflict where this is also existential for the Palestinian people.
We're not just talking about tens of thousands killed, but potentially hundreds of thousands, if not in the millions of people who could face eminent Bamin if AID does not get in in a more expedient matter.
Absolutely, which is why Israel has been working in the United States and other countries have been working. The irony is that everybody has been doing somewhat better in the past few weeks. We still are very concerned about several hundred thousand people in North Gaza, but AID is getting into the south in a relatively reasonable flow, about two
hundred trucks a day. But nonetheless, the other thing you have to think of is, look, if Israel were to stop this water day as a UN seems to want, and leave Gaza, you would have two point four million people in the rubble ruled by what's left of Hamas, which would simply prepare for another attack on Israel. That's not a future for the Palestinian people too. This is a very difficult conundrum that President Biden faces, the Israeli face,
and we all face. It's not just like Russia stop fighting in Ukraine and go home and we'll all be happy. That's not the situation here, and often presented that way. There were really hard choices here. Yeah.
Well, and sir you mentioned the UN which, of course, the Security Council passed a resolution calling for a ceasefire just last week. The US did not veto that, It just abstained from the vote on the subject of a ceasefire. Though we did get a statement from the Israeli Prime Minister's office on behalf of Masad today that they sent an updated proposal in the hostage released and ceasefire talks
that are happening in Cairo. How optimistic are you that, if not a permanent ceasefire deal, but a temporary one can be reached in the near term.
Not very We have seen this movie now for two months. Israel, pressed by the United States, Egypt and Kutta, it keeps on coming up with new temporary ceasefire provisions. We endorse them. It goes to Hamas. Hamas is no. The reason is that Hamas looks at the international reaction to blenders like the Israeli attack on the World Central Kitchen and decides we consider it out. We can demand Israel just leaves and sooner or later the international community will support us.
And I fear that might be right. And that's not a good thing for anybody, for the Israelis and not for the people of guys.
Well, and of course there are other areas of the Middle East to consider here as well. After yesterday we got the news that Iran is blaming Israel for striking directly It's embassy in Syria, which they say killed two top generals as well as a number of other Iranian military personnel. Now Aron Supreme Leader is vowing revenge on Israel. He says, this is a quote. Israel will be punished.
We will make them regret their crime. How concerned, ambassador, are you in this moment about escalation not just between Israel and Hamas, which of course is an Iranian proxy, but Israel and Iran directly.
I certainly think the administration is concerned about escalation, But again, we are in a war because American forces, be it in the Red Sea, be it in Iraq, Syria and Jordan coming under fire in a firing back. At times, escalation is a concern, but there's also a concern of winning, not losing. Israel was struck repeatedly in the last two days by Iranian surrogate forces. Firing weapons made in Iran are given from Iran, including an Israeli base in Isla
in the south of the country. So Israel sees this as responded, it would be happy to stop shooting at southern Lebanon, to stop shooting at Syria, to stop shooting at Yemen. But they're the people who decided to stop shooting to the seventh of Octoba. That's the problem again. It always seems to come back to why did Israel do that? Why did Israel escalate? Why does Israel make mistakes? They didn't ask for this fight.
It's great to get your perspective on this, ambassador, and it's also worth noting, of course, you served as investador not just to a rock but Turkey as well, So in our final ninety seconds with you leaning on that expertise, we did see over this weekend to Airdiwan, the Turkish president and his party being dealt pretty significant blows in
municipal elections. How should we be thinking about what is happening domestically in Turkey and what effect, if any, that could have on the wider balance in the Middle East.
Well Erdiwan did well a year ago in the national elections where he got a new five year term as president, and what this shows is that if you have a good leader of the opposition, and that's effectively the candidate from mayor in Istambul, mister imam Olu, that the Turkish people are saying, Okay, we've voted for you, you've been in control for twenty years, but we're unhappy about the economy. We're unhappy about some of your political decisions, particularly the
restraint on rights and things like press freedom. So we want to your message. It doesn't mean the end of Dawe. He's still in a powerful position, but it means he has to be careful.
All right, Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us here on balance of power. Really great to get your perspective. That's James Jeffrey, former US Ambassador to both Rock and Turkey, now at the Wilson Centator where he is chair of the Middle East Program, joining us today on Bloomberg Television and Radio, where we have much more coming up, because it is not just Israel that we have to have our eye on in terms of geopolitics, but China as well.
After President Biden, US President Chiesian Ping or Chinese President Chieshin Ping rather spoke by phone today, the first time they've talked one on one since November. We'll have more on that later this hour, and we're going to talk about abortion rights in Florida next with our political panel.
Right here on Bloomberg, you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast kens just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then roud Oro with the Bloomberg Business App. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa, playing Bloomberg eleven.
Thirty live from Washington, d C. Where town is still a little bit quiet because a lot of people that are usually here, namely all the members of Congress aren't here right now. It is still recess or the district work period, whatever you want to call it, and many of them aren't even actually in their districts. A handful of them today are in Florida, including the House Democratic Leader Hakim Jeffries, who was partaking in a field hearing
to discuss the issues of reproductive freedom. This is just a day after Florida's Supreme Court held up the fifteen week abortion band signed by Governor Ron De Santis back in twenty twenty two, which now means a subsequent law which would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy will soon be able to go into effect. But that's not all Florida's Supreme Court ruled. They also ruled that a ballot initiative regarding reproductive rights and being enshrined in the
Constitution will be on the ballot in November. They are allowing that to go forward. So with more, let's assemble our political panel Janie Shanzeno Bloomberg Politics contributor, and Lisa Camuso Miller, former RNC communications director and host of the Friday Reporter podcast. So, Lisa, first to you, what did Florida Supreme Court just do to likely turnout in the state of Florida in November.
Well, Kayleie, they were busy yesterday for sure, And I think that what is interesting to me is that even if Donald Trump is successful in Florida, this decision yesterday is going to make it very difficult for him to
thread the needle on this issue. He has said in the past that he's very proud of the fact that the courts have done what they need to do in order to strengthen laws around a portion, but he's also said that he's not in favor of this six week ban that has just or will excuse me, in thirty days go into place, And so that means that this is really going to be a difficult place to message on an issue that already has been very nuanced for
the former president. It also gives a ton of leeway an opportunity for the Democratic ticket to really message about an issue that is absolutely definitely one that women and families are very adamant about one way or the other.
Yeah, your point is well taken, Lisa on this being more difficult perhaps for Donald Trump, who my producer James reminded this morning is a resident of Florida. He could potentially be one of the ones who has the ability to vote on this ballot initiative come November. But Genie Florida, Now, there have been murmurs this morning from some Democratic strategists could potentially be a different political landscape for Democrats and
for President Biden specifically because of the abortion factor. Could abortion being on the ballot actually put Florida in play, make it a swing state once again, or is it just too red for that to really be true.
Yeah, I think to myself that's a bit of wishful thinking on the part of Democrats, you know, Kaylee like about six months a year ago, we were hearing that from Democrats and they said, look at Florida may be up for grabs, but there is an enormous, an enormous advantage for Republicans, not only in registration. I think it's about eight hundred and fifty thousand more Republicans now in the state than Democrats. They also are so much better organized on the ground, and we've seen that play out
in the last couple election cycles. So I'm not sure it puts the state up for grabs. And of course, if that's to happen, Democrats would have to invest money, and we haven't seen evidence of that yet.
But I do think, you know, as we look.
Across the country, and we're seeing this in Nevada, Arizona, Michigan, when they're putting abortion on the ballot. One thing we know since the overturning of Rome is every time abortion or reproductive rights has been on the ballot, it has won. And so Democrats are hoping that by putting it on the ballot, even people in the moderate middle who support reproductive rights and who aren't as crazy about Joe Biden are not as sort of incentivized to get out for vote for it.
To vote for him.
May go out and vote for him because they're energized by this issue, and you know, it's that issue of getting their voter and their base out that's going to decide this election. So from that perspective, all across the country they're hoping that this helps them on the Democratic side.
Yeah, Genie, you bring up an excellent point about the pattern you've seen in the post Row era of what happened in the midterms and twenty twenty and what has happened in special elections or the like in states since then. Are Democrats, though over reliant on the idea of abortion being a galvanizing for Genie, considering that every month we get closer to the election, it's a month further from the actual Dobbs decision in the overturning of Row.
Yeah, and that's exactly why they are trying to make sure that these issues are on the ballot, to show that to your point, it's not just something that happened in the past that we can move on from, but
it's very much in your state. It's very much local and important to you, and these states may be threatening to restrict these rights and of course, to you know Lisa's point, Donald Trump has sort of been all over the map on the issue of reproductive rights, from you know, taking credit for overturning Row to talking about several weeks swings by which he might want to allow there to be abortioned. So it's not a good issue for him.
But you know, the Democrats hope that this is going to say not only turn out voters, but sort of get them to vote for Joe Biden. We also haven't seen a lot of evidence of that either, so we have to be careful about that. You know, it was in Florida in twenty twenty donald Trump won, but the state also approved the fifteen dollars minimum wage, which just tells you that voters in Florida and elsewhere they can split the baby just like anybody else. They can vote
for one thing and something else. So it's not always going to line up like I vote for this ballot measure and I support Joe Biden. They can also support Donald Trump under those circumstances.
Well, Lissa, obviously you have spoken about the difficulty Trump in particular has with this abortion issue, but he's not going to be the only one on the ballot in November. There will be all the down ballot races as well. People vying for congressional seats have Republicans written large figured out how they want to message abortion this election cycle. Given everything that Genie just said about how much Democrats are leading into this issue.
Oh no, I don't think anybody's agreed on anything on this issue a Cayley at all. But I do think though that there are a few things that will actually work in favor. I love how you made the point about Dobbs being every time we get closer to the election, we get further away from the decision. But over the course of time there have been all of these other actions and activities that have happened that continue to keep
the story alive. The issue of IVA, the issue of whether it should be six weeks, twelve weeks, eighteen weeks. Regardless of all of that, it is incredibly nuanced discussion and incredibly difficult for really any elected official, Republican or Democrat to talk about unless they are in favor of female of women's rights right, and so that makes it
very difficult. So it could be that Donald Trump would have one point of view and someone down ballot could have a very different point of view, so it could have an impact on one or another. I think, though, to Ginie's point, that this for the Democrats, as long as they don't overplay their hand, could very well be the one item and the one issue that does really
help with turnout. And that's the one thing that's we're going to continue to talk about between now and November about how important it is to keep people engaged in the conversation because as much as we hear that no one on either side is really thrilled about who the nominee is, that regardless of whoever it is, they are going to have to think the impetus is on them to keep people engaged and get them to the pole in order to support them in order to be successful
after election day in twenty four and so this issue very well could be that issue that drives turnout or keeps people home.
So this is the issue that Democrats seem to be relying on, at least at this point for that purpose. Lisa, it does seem that for Republicans that issue is the border, and perhaps we're seeing further evidence of that today when former President Trump is making campaign stops in Michigan and Wisconsin to talk specifically about the border. Is that ultimately the issue that this election is going to be won or lost on, Lisa, you.
Know, I'm not necessarily sure. I think both of these issues, along with every other issue that relate to the economy, will continue to be the issue that matter the most. Everyone wants to know who is the candidate that is going to help me help my family's bottom line and make sure that I can do everything that I need to do in my daily life through good economic policy, and that I think still remains to be the issue.
And that's why I think immigration continues to be the one that polls better, that keeps people more engaged, and is one that is absolutely still going to be very much part of the decision going into the voter booth
on November election Day in November. But the one thing, Kelly, I think we have to keep in mind too, is that Donald Trump is going to eat a little bit of the fact that he stood in the way of bipartisan border policy legislation in the House and the Senate, so that will definitely lay at his feet, and Republicans continue to try to thread the needle regardless they blame the president, the sitting president, President Biden, on just about everything.
I mean, they tried to make the issue where the key bridge went down in Baltimore about an immigration issue. So everyone's going to try to thread that needle every way they can. What's different, though, is that what we're going to need to see out of the mouths of these two candidates is how it is they're going to solve that issue and also deliver on the economy in a way that can make voters feel good about their candidacy and their presidency in twenty four.
All right, Lisa Camuso Miller, former RNC communications director and host of the Friday Reporter podcast, together with Genie Shanzeyo Bloomberg Politics contributor, Thank you both.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple car Play and then Proud Otto with the Bloomberg Business App. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Just about a mile or so down the road, President Biden in the White House today had a pretty important phone call. He spoke one on one for the first time with Chinese President chijin Ping, the first time that's happened since back in November when they had an in person summit in San Francisco and promised that they would talk more. Perhaps that's exactly why we saw this conversation
take place today. And according to the White House, which called their conversation candid and constructive, they talked about a lot of different things. AI risks efforts on climate change, the US raising concerns with China, support for Russia, issues
with unfair trade policies also discussed in this call. It's a lot of ground to cover, and I'm pleased to say we're going to do so now with Sarah Bianki, former Deputy US Trade Representative in this administration, now senior managing director and chief strategist of International political Affairs and Public Policy at evercore ISI. So Sarah, great to have you back, Ambassador, Thank you very much for being here. On balance of power, we know that Biden and she
had promised they would talk more. They talked more today. I just question what the real tangible outcome of such talks really are.
Well, I think it's important to keep the dialogue going. There are so many things at stake in this relationship for these countries on the issues you mentioned, from a climate to trade. There are some really difficult issues right now with China trade, particularly the administration's actions on electric vehicles coming in from China. But there's also some places
where there's hope for collaboration, such as climate. President Biden has known she for a very very long time, so I am actually encouraged to see that their touching base. Even as you said, there's not real tangible progress.
Well, and of course this doesn't just happen at this highest level between the two presidents. The cabinet officials have been making their way kind of in rotation to visit China in person as well. The Secretary of the Treasury, Janney Yellen, will be doing so later this week, talking about a lot of the economic and trade. As you talk about parts of this relationship, what is most imperative in terms of the economic relationship between these two largest economies in the world right now, Well.
I think a lot of what you're going to see Secretary Ellen talking about is the over capacity and production in China that is causing risks to the global and also some of the trade practices that we've seen. There's a lot of subsidization of particular industries in the Chinese economy. There's a lot of non market practices and policies. These are the kinds of things that are going to be on the agenda when Secretary Yellen it goes later this week.
Well, and just specifically on trade policy. Of course, we saw tariffs implemented during the prior administration, during the Trump administration, and that has not been reversed in this Biden administration. When we think about tariffs and kind of the idea of protectionism overall, is this really only likely to go in one direction from here, which is further protectionism?
Sarah Well, I think what you've tried to see the Biden administration try and do is to really focus on industries where they are particularly concerned semiconductors, AI, things with high technology risks. So you've seen a lot of new actions from the Biden administration on export controls. You have, as you mentioned, seeing terrorists are kept in place, and
that is one policy tool. But I think the Biden administration's notion of small yard high fences requires a whole range of tools, again, export controls, as well as investing in some of our own industries. Here in the United States.
Well, of course we're faced though with the question of whether we'll still be talking about a Biden administration come January twenty twenty five, or if we will once again
be talking about a Trump administration. And we have heard a lot from former President Trump presidential candidate Trump about what he would like to do in terms of China policy, talking about the prospect of potentially sixty percent plus tariffs on all Chinese goods, especially when the messaging from the US right now is intentionally that we are not decoupling, diversifying,
friend shoring, whatever you want to call it. Could the same be said about what might happen under a future Trump administration or of that level, essentially just an outright decoupling.
Well, President Trump has always been an air mirrored as tariffs as a major policy tool, and we very much expect that a second Trump administration would use this tool, not only as you mentioned with China where they're talking about particularly high numbers, but also a US allies, Europe, Mexico,
other places. This is something we saw in the first Trump administration and we're very have a lot of conviction that it is something we would continue to see sixty percent is a very very large number that would certainly have a vast economic inflationary proposals. You could do some of that without the Congress, so it is a real risk. My guess is that they would come down a bit from this number given the global economic implications, or at
least focus it on particular sectors. But we very much believe that a second Trump term would have a lot of care iff in many sectors and have some very important inflationary impacts to the economy.
Well many sectors, And essentially what you're saying could be many countries as well, not just adversaries like China, but potentially allies too. And on this idea of the way the US handles economically both allies and adversaries, we of course have gotten a lot of news within recent weeks about one ally in particular Japan and a Japanese company, Nipon Steele, which is trying to buy US steel the President, President Biden has come out against this deal. He's trying
to support the United steel Workers. Today, three US senators, including the chair of the Senate Banking Committee, Shared Brown, have penned a letter to President Biden calling specifically for the administration to be investigating Nipon's ties and business in China, and I just I wonder, Sarah, how we should be thinking about this, whether this is kind of a unique case or instead just an example of something more broadly happening here in regard to economic nationalism and US ownership
of US companies.
Well, I think it's an interesting uh. You know, President Biden has had a very very long standing relationship with the steel workers back from his Senate day. He's a very labor is a very important stakeholder to him. He understands those communities. Again, given the state he represented in
the region of the country. I think what you are seeing in both these candidates is a belief that we really do need to invest in the United States and invest here at home, and they have different approaches to getting at this goal. With Biden, you've seen the Inflation Reduction Act, You've seen the Chips Act, Infrastructure are really investing in in the United States and trying to get
honestly some foreign investment as well. The South Korea is one of the biggest investors out of the Inflation Reduction Act. With Trump, you see a bit more of tariffs and kind of trying to put a wall, if you will, around the United States. So very very different approaches, lots of debates about the effectiveness of each, but both these candidates do have one thread they're very much interested in building here in the US.
All right, Ambassador, thank you very much for joining us here on Balance of Power. Sarah Bianki of course, former deputy US Trade Representative and now at Evercore Isi very much straddling policy how financial markets should view it.
Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast.
Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already, at Apple, Spotify.
Or wherever you get your podcasts, and you can find us live every weekday from Washington, DC at newt Time Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.