Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business at Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
We have a lot to talk about. Yes, I am Joe Matthew back with you and I did miss you. Thanks for being with us here on the radio, on the satellite, and on YouTube. Where you can find us
right now, go to YouTube search Bloomberg Global News. You'll find our live stream and we invite you into the studio here as we try to get a sense of next steps in Israel, whether a ceasefire is actually at hand, whether a ground invasion of Rafa, a true invasion is actually at hand as well, with President Biden making news remembering the red line that he invoked echoes of Barack Obama in Syria, said the invade of Rafa would be it.
And now that we're seeing the initial stages of such an invasion, or what appear to be at least the President making news on CNN after the withdrawal. We knew this already. The withholding I should say, of a shipment that included nearly two thousand, two thousand pounds bombs. The President's saying that he will continue to withhold shipments of offensive weaponry. Listen to how he put it on CNN.
If they go into Rafa, I'm not applying the weapons that have been used historically to deal with RAFA, to deal with the cities, to deal with that problem. We're going to continue to make sure because you're less secure in terms of iron dome and their ability to respond to attacks. But I've made it clear to BB in the Work Cabinet they're not going to get our support if in fact they're going these population.
Centers, population centers like Rafa. As we bring Jordan Fabian into the conversation now, Bloomberg White House correspondent with whom we have spoken quite a bit about the tensions involved here and the domestic pressure that the president is facing from his left, Jordan, it's good to see you. These shipments, to be clear, before we talk about the politics involved, are separate from the supplemental request that was just passed in the House.
Yeah, this is all very complicated, but we're actually talking about one shipment of heavy bombs that's been put on pause, it hasn't been canceled. Now they're looking at some other weapons system that's been under review for a long time that would essentially allow Israel to make some of their dumb bombs into smart bombs, like some guided guided munitions.
But none of this has to do with the supplemental and administration officials have made it clear, and we heard President Biden say it, They're going to continue to supply Iron Dome. You're going to continue to supply you know, tanks, arm ammunitionent like some very important other things.
And so.
View this more as a warning shot rather than the final decision.
Sure, now, this is part of an existing agreement right in which we are sending military aid to Israel. You mentioned that there could be another and that's kind of where the President was making news here. It's not only these five hundred and two thousand pound bombs, but to your point, the direct attack munitions that would smarten up
dumb bombs. Are we on a kind of retainer essentially with Israel, where we're providing weapons on the regular, and this just happens to bump into a political problem absolutely.
I mean, the US has long been the biggest defense supplier for israel I. Mean, this has been the case for decades, and so that's why this pause got so much attention, that this relationship could possibly be disrupted because of this tension between President Biden and Prime Minister net and Yahoo and their differences over war plans for RAFA.
Well, it's interesting, it's important that we clear that up, and I appreciate that because the reaction that we're here from the Speaker of the House and from some of his rank and file would make you think that the President was rescinding the supplemental budget that we're spending plan that is now law. It will not interrupt the flow of defensive weaponry. But Joe Biden's got some pretty difficult decisions to make here.
So does Benjamin net Yaho.
Are we looking at a breakdown in our relationship potentially over RAFA.
It certainly moved closer to that, at least for the Biden Net and Yahoo relationships. It's been strained for a long time over this war. And you know, going back to the Obama administration when net Nyahoo is such an outspoken critic of the ira nuclear deal, and so this has been years in the making. And now we're at this breaking point, and so you have this is the part of the reason why Biden is pushing so hard for a ceasefire deal. He doesn't want it to get
to that point. He's been studiously trying to avoid a breakdown. He doesn't want that to happen. It would be it would cost him a lot domestically, it would dramatically alter US foreign policy, and so he's been trying to talk them off the ledge here. And the question is whether they can get to some sort of deal that averts a full scale invasion of Rafa.
Well, let's talk about that before we get into the military side of this.
With Kelly Griico.
It's not lost on us that William Burns, the CIA director, has made his way to Israel. We know that there are parties to negotiate in Cairo. Where does this stand right now, because we were told that this had fallen apart.
Yeah, it's all a bit of a mystery. There's still talks ongoing. John Kirby, the White House spokesperson, actually just said that CIA director Burns, who's been deeply involved in those talks, is actually leaving Cairo. He said that was a previously scheduled departure and that this is not a sign that the talks are breaking down. But obviously without the presence of a senior US official there, it doesn't necessarily suggest there's an imminent deal on the table here.
So we're still in a bit of a holding pattern. There's been a lot of fog of war surrounding these talks, and we're all trying to decipher what direction this is going to go in.
Yeah, it's about It was two weeks ago we were told be any hour, and the time is tiken here. Thanks for the insights helping us delainy between these two different spending plans. Jordan Fabian, Great to see you, Bloomberg White House correspondent, as we try to keep you honest here on where the money is coming from and where it's going, and more specifically about what Israel needs right now with the US have withheld even if it was on the promise of later delivery these two thousand pound
bombs if we believe that Israel needed them. Our first question for Kelly Griico, Stimpson Center senior fellow with the Reimagining US Grant Strategy program. Kelly's been very helpful with helping us understand the strategy and the hardware on the ground here, and it's good to.
Have you back on Bloomberg.
Kelly, can you answer that question, if we believed Israel needed this weaponry right now for its own security, would we not have delivered it?
You know?
I think that's that's a good question. I think the evidence suggests that if we thought it was needed for the security, we would have delivered it, given that, we are continuing to provide them other defensive systems, including things for air defense. But these are really more about whether Israel's going to conduct a major offensive operation into Rafa, and we have real concerns about that.
Well, give us a sense of what these weapons would be used for. And we're talking about two different shipments. To be fair, Kelly, there were eighteen hundred two thousand pound bombs and seventeen hundred five hundred pound bombs that the president decided to withhold. I realized there's another potential ship in here involving joint direct attack munitions. We can talk about those, but what are these heavy bombs actually do beyond flattening buildings and neighborhoods.
What would they be needed for?
Yes, so, This is a very large bomb. It's one of the largest in the US arsenal and in particular, this kind of munition is something that could be used,
for example, to try to destroy tunnels. We know Hamas of course has a lot of tunnels throughout the Gaza strip, and so this is really the condimmunition you would use to try to collapse those tunnels by launching a bomb if you know the location, and trying to destroy it, because it creates a very large crater about sixteen feet by fifty feet on average.
Wow.
Wow, it's interesting because the IDF is known for precision. Kelly and I wonder to what extent precision is possible. You certainly get a different answer when you talk to Israeli officials about this, whether it's possible to be precise as Hamas gathers itself intertwines itself with civilian populations.
Yes, I mean, I think this is a really a fair question to ask, you know, I think one of the realities is that in Gaza it's very densely packed with people, and so in that kind of environment, and particularly Rafa, where a lot of you know, one point five million people are now concentrated, it no matter how precise you try to be, you're going to probably have
significant collateral damage. Collateral damage. But I think one of the things that the administration has highlighted is that, particularly with these kinds of bombs, that they would like to see that the IDEAF moves towards using something that is more precise, that maybe doesn't have the same kind of blast radius as these kind of larger weapons.
As we spend time with Kelly Grico, I have to ask Kelly about the Arms Export Control Act because at the beginning of this whole process, when there were first questions about conditions being tied to weapons, and this may have come up with Ukraine as well, we were told by lawmakers that there are already conditions in any agreement under which the US is sending weapons to a foreign ally.
Is this pause legal, knowing the way the Arms Export Control Act works, and aren't those conditions all in place?
Yes, I mean, I think, I think my sense is that this is legal.
This is not unprecedented either, particularly within the US Israel relationship. Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty two actually imposed a six year ban on cluster munitions being provided to Israel after there was evidence suggesting that they had used cluster munitions in their invasion of Lebanon in areas where there were civilians.
So there is precedent for this. I mean, part of the reason that we, you know, provide weapons to allies and partners is because we have shared interest, but it's also because it provides some leverage, and so this is really a choice by the administration to use that leverage at this moment.
Interesting, do you think that leverage results in any different course of action by the IDF? We understand operations have been limited to areas near Ratha's border with Egypt. What do you think we're about to see?
Yeah, this is challenging.
You know, right now we have a three way game of chick and going on with Israel sort of using this the threat of the raw operation to try to get Hamas to agree to this the you know, temporary ceasepire that it would like, not a permanent one that Hamas wants, And we are now playing a game of chicken with the Israelis about not conducting a massive operation in Gaza. We do know that Israel, according to anonymous
administration officials, had sufficient munitions to conduct that operation. So the real cost would be long term if this would cause a major breach in the relationship, and that you know, we won't know until I think the cabin Israelly cabinet really makes that decision.
It's really fascinating as you refer to Ronald Reagan Kelly, and I wonder if Joe Biden might invoke that name in his own rationale. Here the next shipment, by the way, that which is being reviewed by the administration, we're told six five hundred joint direct attack Musicians munitions would convert free fall dumb bombs into decision guided weapons. It would make the dumb bomb smart. Doesn't that actually save potentially civilian lives?
Well, in this situation it does. It's less helpful than it might be in other contacts because even though yeah, it helps them to target in on with these with this this kit helps the dumb bomb basically to target go towards a target, a very specific target, and to navigate there. But because you're in this very concentrated, dense civilian population, it doesn't really make that much of a difference in this urban environment.
Got it.
Kelly Grico specializes in asymmetric warfare and the type of weaponry that we're talking about going into Israel. Can you give me a sense more specifically, Kelly, about the way Israel is going to manage Rafa here. It looks like they're trying to start at least around the edges, as we just discussed, along the border with Egypt. But if they want to actually extricate Hamas, how long could this take?
You know, I think the answer to that is that the goal is still really to defeat Hamas, destroy Hamas. I mean, we're talking years, you know, all of the evidence is so far that they have not been very successful with that. It's as we've learned over twenty years,
it's very hard to destroy a terrorist organization. So the reality is that I think Israel really needs to think about what their goal is moving forward and thinking about how to best achieve that, maybe scaling back the objective from destroying a terrorist organization, because that's just so exceedingly difficult.
Yeah, last time you were with us, Kelly, we were asking you about the temporary peer that the US military has been building to bring aid into Gaza and to the extent that it may become a target. How are you feeling about it now?
Yeah, you know, I remain concerned about it in terms of you know, being targeted. You know the Peer has been completed, but because of weather conditions they haven't been able to move in into place. And certainly you know there's a great need for the Peer and to help with humanitarian relief. But again it remains you know, a target, certainly the Peer itself and you know us personnel that are operating nearby.
Kelly, it's great to have you back as always, Kelly Grico with us from the Stemson Center and a fascinating look inside the rationale here by the administration. What could be a turning point to Kelly's point in our relationship if continued shipments are withheld, We're going to have to feel this out together and we'll have a lot more reporting for you.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Apple.
Car Play and then Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business Ad.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just say Alexa Play Bloomberg.
We want to get a little bit more perspective on these developments now, and joining us is Carmeil arbit of the Atlantic Council, where she is a Senior Fellow for Middle East Programs and on resident Senior Fellow that is Karmil. Always great to have you here. On balance of power, there are so many different things we could ask you in terms of the implications of this decision from the Biden administration. Surely there are political consequences domestically, geopolitical consequences
potentially as well. What does this actually change in terms of not just the US Israel relationship but also the way Israel is likely to conduct itself.
Now, this is the highest friction point between Israel and the Biden administration that we have seen throughout the course of the war, but really in the entirety of the Biden administration, I think that the impact that it will have is still unclear, both in terms of whether or not this will be a temporary bold on weapons or whether or not the administration is going to turn around
and release them. But ultimately, what we're seeing is that the domestic population and domestic voices in both countries, both the strong far right in Israel and the left in the US, are pulling these leaders apart, and that friction is really coming to the fore Carmeil.
I know you're not a weapons expert necessarily, but to the extent that we're looking at this messaging from the administration withholding, for instance, these two thousand pound bombs, what would they have been needed for? I guess another way of asking that is, would Joe Biden have withheld the shipment if they were in fact considered critical weaponry necessary for Israel to secure itself.
What the US has done in its rhetoric is it has differentiated defensive munitions from offensive ones, where it's saying that it will continue to support Israel and Iron Dome and other things that it uses to defend itself from Hamask. But in many cases, Israel is using this type of
bombs and weaponry to go after Halas's terrorist infrastructure. So they may be offensively going after that type of military equipment, and so from an Israeli perspective, there's no differentiation from a US perspective, there's a very clear differentiation in terms of how these are used. And of course, something like
a two thousand pound bomb has huge reverberating effects. It would be much less targeted in terms of what it takes out once dropped into a civilian center like Gaza or in this case Rafa, where there are more than a million people of home, only about eighty thousand have evacuated.
Well, it's important, Carmeille, that you kind of make this distinction between defense and offense, because we have seen this before in this conflict, especially when Iran did that unprecedented strike attempting to get into Israeli territory with a barrage of drones and missiles. The US did step up for Israel's defense, helping shoot those down, but made it very clear that if Israel were to retaliate in an offensive way, the US wanted nothing to do with an offensive operation.
Just on the subject though, of Iran, what does this decision from the Biden administration likely mean for Iran or its proxies like Kamas. Does this embolden them in some way?
Yeah.
Israel and its supporters have been very quick to point out that not only is this emboldening Hamas in the context of negotiations where Israel has tried to use Rafach as a leveraging tool to push Haamas closer to israel Ces fire position, but it also sends a message to Hezbola and to Iran that there is a wedge between the United States and Israel, and of course US support for Israel has been critical in Israel's ability to respond to any of those actors, and so this could send
a very troubling message to Auran that the US is not necessarily behind Israel in these moments. Something to look for is that this week the Biden administration was supposed to certify whether or not Israel had been in violation of international international humanitarian law in its operation in Gaza as a condition put forward by the Senate to release additional arms. They missed the deadline for that certification. They've
said it was not for political reasons. If for any reason the United States fails to offer that certification, we could see what is happening now become much more extreme.
Well, so let's just get to the bottom of this here, because we're hearing a lot of confusing rhetoric in Washington about the president's language about his decision to withhold these shipments.
Speaker of the.
House went so far as to accuse him of having a senior moment, suggesting that he was somehow confused about the supplemental that had just passed Congress. Is this Carmeil a shift in policy or is this public diplomacy from the White House.
Look, it's too early to tell, because what we're seeing right now is that the US is delaying but hasn't totally stopped these shipments. And we're also seeing that they are reviewing and looking at what is going to happen in Rapha to determine whether or not they would fold back other artillery or other things like that. So it's a little bit early to say. But what you do here and see is that there had been a sweeping bipartisan support for continued support to Israel from Congress and
the administration starting to take a step back. Whether or not it's going to just be rhetoric in this moment, or we'll have real reverberating effects for the war yet to be seen.
Well, when we think about the war and its future, Carmel, as Joe and Ian were just discussing a moment ago, there were ongoing still our attempts to reach a ceasefire agreement, though the two sides want very different things. Wants this to be permanent, Israel does not. Is that more or less likely now than it was yesterday?
I think as we see all the negotiating parties are departing in real time. We are certainly further away from a ceasefire agreement than we had been, maybe even a couple of days ago. That being said, there will continue to be negotiations and it will continue to be ultimately in the interests of both parties to pursue an end to this conflict. I think the real question is when. For Hamas, they're looking for an end to conflict now that won't require them to release the hostages and won't
require them to see power For the Israelis. They're looking for the complete military distruction and removal for power from Us, and they still have not achieved it. And so whether or not they're able to come to a temporary ceasefire agreement or permanent ceasefire agreement is going to be a question of timing.
I'm curious your thoughts in our remaining moment here on the role that William Burns may or may not be playing in this From Cairo to Israel. Did he speak with the Israelis about Rafa?
Yeah?
So the Israelis have generally felt that Bill Burns has been a strong supporter and an critical partner in these negotiations. But Bill Burns, of course is a part of this administration, and so it's very likely that the Biden administration has gotten fed up with the Israeli government and some of
its internal politics. It also laid out a very clear red line about now the Israelis still need to decide how pinpoint of an operation they're going to carry out in raf Off versus a much larger scale operation that they are being pressured to take on from their right. Bill Burns is playing an indispensable role in these negotiations, and I expect you will.
Continue to well.
It's fascinating following his movements because it gives us a sense of when something is about to happen. Krmeil Arbit of the Atlantic Council, Karmel. Great to have you back with us.
If you're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast, catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on Epocarplay.
And then Rounoto with the Bloomberg Business app.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Alongside Kaylee Lines. I am Joe Matthew compelled by the math today, which always gets a little bit dangerous but the numbers don't lie, Kaylee. In the effort to oust the Speaker of the House yesterday, this is Marjorie Taylor Green's motion to vacate the MTV by MTG. One ninety six House Republicans voted to table the motion. One hundred and sixty three Democrats did too. You couldn't have done
it without them. But eleven Republicans voted to oust the Speaker of the House, Kayley, That's more than many expected, and it makes us all wonder if we're done with this now as we prepare to bring in Brian Style from Capitol Hill, or if this is going to become part of the new reality where we keep going through this over and over again.
Well, we weren't sure we were going to go through this when it became clear that Democrats were going to save Mike Johnson if proved necessary. The conversation we were having before five pm yesterday was this is an effort on the part of Marjorie Taylor Green that is dead. And then she surprised us all on the House floor actually making this move. So what exactly happened here, and perhaps more importantly, what is going to happen as a consequence,
Congressman Brian Style, the Republican from Wisconsin, is with us now. So, Congressman, I'm not sure how surprised you were by the move of your colleague last night. Certainly we were taken aback. What should happen now to Marjorie Taylor Green and her role within the House of Representatives.
This has been a challenging Congress and a narrow majority, and there's a small subset of individuals that would rather throw the House into chaos that allow us to get the work done. Eleven Republicans and a handful of far progressive leftists joined together to throw the House into chaos. At the end of the day, we were able to table the motion with overwhelming numbers. And why because I think on the whole, Mike Johnson has actually done a
very admirable job and incredibly difficult circumstances. Time and again, you hear people saying that we're not gonna be able to get it done in the House of Representatives.
Yet we've done it time and again.
Whether or not that's the debt ceiling, whether or not that's passing the appropriations bills that spends less this year than last year on everything other than veterans in defense, or whether or not that's moving through other key items like the Defense supplemental and making sure that we're standing with our ally Israel, and so. Speaker Johnson has done
an admirable job. It's frustrating that we continue to have a small subset of members that would rather see us thrown into chaos than focused in on the biggest issues.
I'm going to ask you about a couple of those congressmen, but I wonder if you're compelled by what Donald Trump is saying publicly about Mike Johnson. We're trying to figure out what he meant. With a majority of one, he writes, shortly growing to three or four, we are not in a position of voting on a motion to vacate. At some point, he writes, we may very well be. Do you know what point he's talking about.
I'll let the President's speak for himself. He's got a large pr team.
My view here is that what we need to be is focused in between now and the election of persuading American people why we're the party that needs to remain in charge of the House of Representative has been a large part. We need to grow our majority We obviously have a small set of members who are interested in
the chaos and in the dysfunction. Many of us would rather get on with the work of the American people on absolutely essential bills, in particular addressing the reckless spending and the broken border that we continue to see plag Americans.
Well, certainly there are a lot of issues that are in focused domestically, Congressman, but also issues and focus geopolitically. Of course, we've seen the Biden administration pausing a shipment of offensive large bombs to Israel over concerns of the way in which they may be used in a full scale invasion of rafa I know that you have put out a statement to you are not pleased with this decision from the administration, But there is precedent for this, Sir.
This has been done by both Democratic and Republican administrations in the past. What exactly is the problem here?
I think the President made the wrong move in trying to prevent that shipment of weapons that are authorized by the United State's House representatives, the Senate, and the President himself for being able to be distributed, in particular at a period of time where we're all concerned about civilians getting in the way. Precision missiles from the United States actually allow the military and Israel to target terrorists from
Hamas and protect innocent civilian life. So the action by the President is actually a step in the complete wrong direction. We should be making sure that the resources we provided through the Defense Supplemental to Israel are delivered and allow Israel to complete this war, successfully, get the hostages returned, and defeat the terrorist group Hamas.
These weapons, though, the two thousand pound bombs and the five hundred pound bombs, Congressmen were separate from the supplemental that was passing the president's sign.
Correct.
He did make the point in this interview on CNN that we would continue to fulfill replenishing the Iron Dome and so forth. That's what that legislation called for, right.
But broadly speaking, it's the overall funding that is the United States and support of Israel for them to complete the termination of Hamas is a functioning operation and terrorist organization in Gaza, and so when we see these funds going to Israel, is to protect civilians in Israel, but also the opportunity to make sure that we're allowing the Israeli military to have the highest technology in the most functional sophisticated weaponry to be able to target terrorists in
Gaza and be able to protect civilians. This is literally the exact opposite of what the President should be doing. We should be working to get Hamasas surrender and have them release the hostages, and applying pressure by removing their military capability allows Israel to do just that.
Congressman, I'm wondering is you're hearkening back to a supplemental package that again included defensive weapons for Israel, primarily in addition to aid for other allies, including Ukraine. There is policy in existence in the weapons that we are sending to Ukraine. The US is not supportive of, say, Ukraine offensively striking in Russian terar tery, for example, there are guardrails around. Why are these two conflicts different?
In your mind, the President has some grounds to provide those types of guardrails in his position as commander in chief. I'm critiquing him in the decision that he is making because I think it is the wrong decision and not in the best interests in the United States of America. These conflicts are different. In the most critical way that they are is a terrorist group Hamas went and captured innocent Israeli civilians, including American civilians, and continues to hold
them captive today in Gaza. So the support for Israel is to allow them to simply defend themselves, but also the necessary offensive capabilities to end the terrorist group Hamas and get their civilians returned. That's in contrast with what's playing out in Ukraine.
Yeah, well, let me just turn that around for a moment, Congressman, because I find this to be a really compelling conversation. Should we consider providing Ukraine with offensive weaponry because Russia came into Ukraine much the way Hamas came into Israel. They certainly don't see it differently.
Well, the United States has provided obviously offensive weaponry to Ukraine. The question is whether or not that weaponry should be utilized outside the country. We all want to make sure that this conflict does not continue to involve more countries than it currently does. We don't want to escalate the situation.
I'm of the view that making sure that the Ukrainian military has the weapons that they need to be able to defend their country, to allow their men and women on the frontline to be able to fight back against an unjust and unprovoked invasion from Russia is appropriate, but I think there are reasonable steps we need to make sure that we're not unnecessarily increasing the conflict in Ukraine.
Congressman, given your role on the Financial Services Committee, I want to ask you about another matter here at home. We just got the announcement from the Senate Banking Committee that the financial regulators, including Michael Barr of the FED and Marty Gruenberg of the FDIC, will be testified before the committee next week. This is after that scathing third party independent report into a toxic workplace culture at the
FDIC was released earlier this week. Many of your colleagues on the committee have called for the resignation of the chair as a result. But is that the way to fix this problem, sir? Or something else needed?
When you have this level of cultural rot that's occurring at the FDIC, as indicated by the most recent report that comes out, it's absolutely necessary that mister Gruenberg resign. He's going to come before us maybe on Wednesday, if he doesn't resign before, and have to answer a series of very difficult questions. This report makes it very clear the cultural rot at the FDIC goes far down through
the management chain. It's clear they need new management at the FDIC, and I'm concerned that the people protecting him are interested because he has a seat at the table as it relates to bank regulation in particular bank capital standards, as we're exploring Basel three endgame.
So what's going to happen following this hearing?
Well, ultimately I think he should resign today.
If he fails to do that, I think this hearing will flush out for the American people that he should resign. If he's not, he should ultimately be removed. But this hearing will flush out for a lot of the American people that didn't take the time to read the report yet, just how terrible the cultural rot is at the FDIIC.
It's quite a statement.
Congressman, It's good to see you. Thanks for being generous with your time as always. Brian Style, the Republican from Wisconsin, with us here on Balance of Power on Bloomberg TV and radio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast can just live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and then.
Roud Oro with the Bloomberg Business Ad.
You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station, Just Say Alexa play Bloomberg eleven thirty.
Speaker Mike Johnson, fresh off the vote that saw him survive his attempt at Ouster with the help of Democrats, thinks Joe Biden is having a senior moment when it comes to Israel. We just spent a lot of time at the beginning of the broadcast talking about these weapons that have been withheld paused is the word summer using or delayed in shipment to Israel because of what appears
to be the imminent invasion of Rafa. The President holding an interview on CNN last evening in which he made clear that additional weapons would be withheld if the invasion took place. Mike Johnson would like to know what happened.
Quote.
I went straight to the White House. I said, somebody's got to have to explain this to me, because it's very different than what I was told. I'll just interrupt myself here and remind you of the conversation we had earlier this hour with Jordan Fabien. This was not part of the supplemental package that was just passed by Congress and signed by the President, those were defensive missiles to replenish the Eye Dome defensive weapons systems for the most part,
along with some other things. Mike Johnson goes on to say, they said, this has nothing to do with the supplemental package that you all passed. So this statement by the President tonight, I just want to I hope I believe he's off script. I don't think that's something that staff told him to say unquote. We've seen many rank and file Republicans criticize the President in interviews and in written
statements since this happened. We'll talk with one Republican member next hour in Brian's style, But I'd love to know what the panel thinks about this. Some think it's in about face something. It's consistent with what the President has been saying about the war in Gaza. Rick Davis and Genie Shanzano, of course Bloomberg Politics contributors make up our signature panel, and it's great to see both of you here. Genie, is this more in line with what progressive Democrats want
to hear from Joe Biden? Is this a new message or has he been consistent about the killing of civilians in Gaza?
Yeah, I mean, there is nothing he's going to say that is going to appease the left, and certainly not this, And that's one of the really difficult positions he finds himself in. I mean, I was struck by a Palestinian pro Palestinian and the protests that were going on and both sides were screaming f Joe Biden. I mean, that's the position he is in. So no, this is not going to appease them. I do think it is consistent with the red line he has been trying to draw
in terms of going into Rafa. It's, you know, very little impact on the ground at this point. We know that because the Israeli military has said that they've been downplaying this. They have what they need to go in in the Rafa. But it is the President sending a message to Netanyahu in the war Cabinet saying I said, don't do this, and he is keeping with that. But politically this is a loser for Joe Biden and it will be. But he's president, so he's got to make these tough decisions.
So now he's upsetting people on both sides. Right, rick progressives were already angry, they were already protesting the policy in Israel. Now he's making israel Hawks angry, including Republicans in the case of the Speaker, of confusing the supplemental with the stuff that's been withdrawn. Here is the president making life more difficult politically here domestically.
Yeah, I think politically for sure. I think in politics the one clear message you always try to give to campaigns is focus on your friends. Your enemies are never going to really vote for you, right. I mean, the idea that if someone dislikes Joe Biden somehow he's going to change their mind and they're going to vote for
him is a high risk political strategy. And so I think this falls into the classic I came to the dance with Israel, and I'm leaving the dance with Israel, and I just don't understand the political I'm not speaking to the geopolitical nature of this, just the domestic US politics of saying I'm going to be a stalwart supporter of Israel, which is how he started this entire process, and now to be doing backflips, being tied up like
a pretzel by the left of his party. I think he's going to come out of this with no friends, and that is a bad political strategy.
Well, he did say, Rick, we are going to continue to make Israel, make sure Israel is secure in terms of Iron Dome, referring to the supplemental and their ability to respond to attacks, remembering the extent to which the US cooperated with Israel and the UK and others to fend off the attacks from Iran. Rick, are we going to be in a situation with Israel that feels more like Ukraine where we're providing defensive but not offensive weapons.
Yeah.
Look, I mean it's a conundrum for Biden because that's the easy out. Sure, we'll let Israel defend it self, but we're not doing anything to help them with the existential threat they have on their border from Hamas and Hesbala in Iran. I mean, like, so the idea that this administration is telling Israel hunker down, guys, for the
rest of your existence. It's okay to have these terrorist organizations trying to attack you every day, morning, noon, and night, and you can do nothing offensively to cure that problem. But we'll give you as many missiles as it takes to keep their bombs from killing Israelis. It makes absolutely no strategic sense whatsoever. And that has not been the
historic policy of the United States. And so I'm attributing this similar to what some of our Republican friends are doing is saying it's kind of like saying that there's no such thing as strategic ambiguity in Taiwan. In this case, the White House has at least figured out not to constantly correct their own president. But we hope that this is not a policy.
Well Speaker calls it a senior moment Genie. What Joe Biden did say to CNN quote, We're not walking away from Israel's security, We're walking away from Israel's ability to wage war in those areas, referring to these dense population centers like Rafa. Is it possible for him to walk this line or is Rick right?
You know, it is possible for him to walk this line. And I think we have to be clear. It is one thing to talk about the impact on US politics, that is, he's not going to appease anybody, as I was saying earlier with this strategy, But in terms of foreign policy, absolutely, you know, we have seen this time
and time again. Republican presidents have made this case. Go back to Ronald Reagan, the reality is that no nation, and the US included, gives aid to another country that has absolutely no strings attached and is in violation of our values and what is we define as our interests. Now, I understand that people can see his policy is not in our interest. But from Joe Biden's perspective, this is what he is dealing with. And you know, you just look. I mean, look at what Cindy McCain was saying over
the weekend. Northern Gaza in a full blown crisis in terms of the food. They just do not have access. Thirty five thousand people did two thirds of those women and children. So you know, Joe Biden absolutely can make the case, just like he has with Ukraine. And by the way, wasn't Republicans who were saying on Ukraine we need to have oversight. There can't be a blank check. And I don't think we can describe walking this as walking away from Israel. Fourteen billion dollars went to Israel
last month. He is committed to that and he can and will so. Domestically it's not a political winner for him, certainly, but from a foreign policy perspective, there is a different question. When you're talking about what is in the United States best interest. And I would also add this, I'm sorry, Joe, I know I'm going along. What is the end game
for Israel here? Many people think this is not in Israel's best interest because the idea that you're going to wipe out Hamas as you just had that great conversation with Kelly, very very tough to do, almost never done. And so if that's the endgame, that doesn't suit either the US or Israel.
Well, you're bringing up the issue of humanitarian aid, which is awfully important. It's something that we were lucky to talk with Cindy McCain about at the World Food Program. We're hearing from the World Health Organization today, Rick, and the situation is dire. They're talking about famine and the statement from the WHO. Without more aid flowing into Gaza, we cannot sustain our life saving support to hospitals.
They're running out of gas.
So what extent can the US affect this now that we've got this bridge up, and does that have a political effect on the ground in Israel in Gaza.
Well, just to be totally clear, Sidney mccainnon is not blaming the Israelis for the lack of support going in. They have been supportive and opened.
Up the gates.
When her trucks go into Gaza full of food, they are kidnapped and held hostage by Hamas and if not outright robbed to where they take hundreds of trucks a day resteer the food to their purposes. They at that point the World Food Program and other aid agencies don't have a clue where Hamas is taking it, and then they mysteriously return the trucks so that they can get another rate on those same So one of the things
we have to really understand. I completely disagree with whether or not a democracy like Israel in and amongst a bunch of terrorist organizations is in the US national interest. It is, and we've never micro micro managed their security situation. We've always been supported, which is why we don't have conditions on a We should not be telling the Israelis
how to fight their fights. The bottom line is that when you do some ship food into Israel or in this case gasoline, let's say, Hamas interdicts that and they use it in order to fight these Raelis. And so unless you level set what is actually happening on the ground there, you're really never going to solve any of these problems until at which point in time the war ends, and that's when you have basically got either a surrender or the extinction of Hamas. Those are the terms under
which we are all operating. Israel now has control of the Rapagate. That's the first time we don't have Hamas in charge of determining what food comes in and out of the Rapagate. That is a very big positive. The US has now built the pier that will soon be operational, and that will be the first time that we have
the coast that is controlled by Hamas. And so I think that yes, there are enormous problems associated with this, but we have to really understand who the problem maker is, and the problem maker to getting food and gasoline to the people of of Palsen is Hummas. It's very limited control that Israel has to the point of which they are the ones being able to support the humanitarian needs. So I just want to level set that because I
think we're hearing a lot of disinformation. Other than in Genie, I would have blamed it on the Chinese.
Well, I want to make sure everyone has a chance to make their points here. Genie Shanzino, Rick Davis. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcasts. 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 noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.