You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon Eastern on.
Applecarplay and then Roudoto with the Bloomberg Business App.
Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Welcome to the Thursday edition of Bloomberg's Balance of Power. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington, where we start today with our focus on the Pentagon. A late scheduled news conference by the Secretary of State had a lot of folks thinking we were going to hear about an authorization for a military strike, knowing that the Pentagon has been formulating plans for a response to the deadly attacks on US
troops in Jordan just days ago. There was some insight brought by the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin, his first time standing in front of cameras since coming back from the hospital after a lengthy stay of course surgery for prostate cancer, and he likely made more news talking about the way that was handled than anything else. Lloyd Austin again holding forth with reporters, and we want to bring in Nick Watdams, who of course runs our national security
team here at Bloomberg. It's good to see you. Next, the impact of this news conference on his tenure, He says he was not prepared to resign, but he apologized to the American people and to the President of the United States. Did he just put this behind him?
I think he has now put this very much to bed. It was an interesting press conference because everybody had really been waiting for sort of proof of life, if you will, him coming out and just saying, listen, I screwed up. I mean, it was so obvious what happened here. He went, he was hospitalized, he had prostate cancer surgery. He didn't
tell the president about that. He was then hospitalized for complications, didn't tell anybody about that for five days, and then he was hospitalized for two weeks.
This is a big deal.
I mean, if you if you had a subordinate in the military who hid from his superiors that he was being hospitalized for he was in the ICU, you'd get fired for that. And he was actually asked that very question, you know, and what would your response be? And his response, I mean, he was in full groveling mode. Basically, Listen,
I screwed up. I apologize directly the president, but he had no intention of resigning, and then, as you mentioned, you've got all the potential for strikes against Iran, Syria, Iraq. So it was a clever pivot in a way because he's saying, listen, I screwed up. But by the way, look at all this really important stuff that we have to do right now. Yes, and he's signaling he's very much going to be in control of that response.
Interesting opportunity, I guess, to address the news at hand and also maybe try to get around what was a bit of a scandal, if we can call it that, certainly a controversy surrounding the secretary in terms of what we learned very little about apparently imminent strikes against Iranian proxies, if not Iran itself. The strike will be multi tiered, he said, echoing what we've heard from John Kirby so far right.
So, I think what you're seeing as this administration signaling we may get action imminently, but it's not going to be the last of it. We're still trying to, frankly, sort of puzzle through this strategy because they are essentially telegraphing to Iran and all these groups over there that this is coming, and so why is that. You know, there has been a suggestion out there that it's part of some sort of back channeling with Iran, but you know,
it is an interesting strategy, he said. You know, the enemy is not prone to taking one and done sort of actions, and neither am I and I also have a lot My guns are a lot more powerful than theirs are, basically, so he's he's sort of suggesting, Look, this is coming, and what you see in the next days is not going to be the last word on this from President Biden.
Are we surprised he wasn't announcing a strike. Do you have any sense of timeline what you're hearing?
Well, you know, generally speaking, when they do these strikes, they tend to do them at night in the target area, so that's evening our time. At least, that's what happened when they struck Yemen, when they struck the Huthis and Yemen, So you would anticipate that it would happen in the night time. I mean, everybody is just on high alert. We had some indications that it would happen last night
that didn't pan out. But I think what they're signaling very clearly is there will be some sort of strikes. There's a CBS News report today saying in Iraq and Syria, Iranian assets in Iraq and Syria very unlikely that they would do strikes on Iran itself for fear of provoking that wider war they say they want to avoid.
I know your team is mawfy busy right now. I appreciate you're coming to talk to us here. As always, Nick watams with us here on Bloomberg, who runs our national security coverage here in Bloomberg's Washington bureau. More on the CBS News report that Nick mentions, because this is the most information that we've seen so far where officials are confirming, as I read to the news organization, that plans have been approved for a series of strikes over
a number of days against targets. Remember this multi tiered approach the secretary was talking about. They include Iranian personnel and facilities inside Iraq and Syria. This, of course, following the attacks over the weekend in Jordan that claimed the lives of three US troops. We had the voice now of Holly Dagris of the Atlantic Council runs the Middle East Programs program, where she is a Senior Fellow and It's great to see you, Holly. Welcome to the table
for being with us today on Bloomberg. I'm not sure your thoughts you watched the Secretary today at the Pentagon. Did we learn enough on an official level about what's happening here? And how come I'm reading battle plans in CBS News.
I mean, I think there was more focus on the secretary's health. If there sure was, then there was actually on the recent events.
Is that the real purpose of this news conference?
Then?
I felt like it was so given that that was most of where the conversation was was addressing that and the status of his administration at the Pentagon. But unpacking a bit of what you said about the CBS CBS News report, I think there's a lot of frustration. Why is this so publicized that the United States wants to hit back these Iran Bakshia militias in Iraq and Syria and so publicly and even talking about weather being an issue.
And I think that the frustration is, well, not just is this so public, but the fact that we're also hearing reports that IRGC top advisors in Syria are actually leading the country.
Are we telegraphing plans for a reason. Is there a strategy behind this or is they're just news leaking out of the Pentagon.
That is a very interesting question you asked. I think definitely we have to remember that the worry is this becoming an escalation that could potentially lead to an all out war since the October seventh attack by Homas, the terrorist group, and so I think you're getting a mix of both that this is deterrens. Hey, this is what
we're going to do, do not escalate. And you're also hearing from Kataya Hesbala, the Iran Bakshia militia that has been more or less as responsible for the killing of three US servitus members in northeastern Syria, saying well, we're going to reduce our presence. We're not going to be attacking US forces in the region. So I think it's a two way messaging going on right now.
We've heard that this was the Islamic Resistance in Iraq responsible for the attack in Jordan, at least according to reports here. Give us a sense you're an expert on these so called proxy groups. What are these relationships like? Are these wholly owned subsidiaries, are they loosely connected to Tehran. How does this work? How does this network happen?
So the Islamic Resistance of Iraq is a new umbrella group, but it essentially is made up of Iran Bakshia militias that we've known prior, including Kataiyaphusbola. These groups are trained and armed by Iran, they get their money. They do have their own agency to an extent. So whether Iran gave that exact order to kill three US service members is unclear, but.
The president those says they supplied the weapons. We can take that as a point.
Of fact absolutely, And that's where I was saying, that they do train and arm them. So I think by proxy it is in the hands of the Islamic Republic that they had a role in this, I think, Well, not that I think, but the fact is that their modus operandi is that they want US forces out of
the region and they want the destruction of Israel. And so this attack on Sunday was part of that calculation that if they pushed the United States enough on several fronts, which is attacking our troops and bases, that will withdraw from the region.
This was seen as a win to try to get the US to retaliate. From their view, are they in constant communication with their organizers, if I can use that term in a on or do these groups savertise and act on their own once they're trained and armed.
Well, they definitely have visits from the irgcro Force commander and they do interact with Tehran. They're part of something even wider called the Resistance Access, which is Iran's proxies in the region. So whether it's the hooth He Rebels and yemen Lebanese Hasbolah Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the Gaza Strip and of course the Shia militias in Iraq and in Syria, so and of course the Basha Ala sad Rashim and Syra. They are all part of
this big entity. And so they are getting some directive from Tehran to an extent because they're all on the same page with their m.
You just rattled off a half dozen groups that some of our listeners and viewers maybe have never heard of. How many are there?
And so I would have to sit there and count, but there are that many, Yeah, because even under the Islamic Resistance of Iraq, they're smaller Shia and so there's at least half a dozen there at least.
You mentioned the Asad regime. To what extent do they play into this, Well.
The Asad regime, of course, they didn't have an exact role here. But what's important to note is that our forces or troops are in Syria because of the fight against ISIS, and there's been a lot of push from these players that the US withdraw its forces, and I think that would be seen as a win. But my sense is that the Biden administration will probably double down on US troops in the region, even though there's been push for obviously for them to leave.
You're hearing battle plans where we started our conversation here. If this is in fact the course that we take, and I guess this could take days or weeks, but going after Iranian personnel and facilities inside Iraq and Syria as opposed to Iran itself, what's the response to our retaliation?
Well, this is a shadow war. It's been a shadow war for forty five years.
This is to stay that way.
Really, It really depends, I think the fact that we've openly and obviously decided we weren't going to actually go in and attack Iran on Irani and soil, whether it be its nuclear program, its defense facilities, or the IERGC itself. I think that's telling that it won't escalate for the time being, but I think it's always worth noting that miscalculations happen and there's always room for escalation, especially in the context of the regional tension. Since October seventh.
You mentioned the nuclear program, how likely it might be a cyber attack or something that would be non traditional. We've seen this happen before.
Yes, Actually, I thought in my initial assessment among attacking Iran Bakshia militias in Iraq and Syria and the ERGC itself, that we would actually see cyber attacks in additional US sanctions on IRGC affiliated entities.
To what extent could we set them back with a cyber attack? Wouldn't that be actually much more costly for the Iranians than going after proxies in other countries.
It can it will delay their nuclear program, but not just cyber attacks, but actual other instances. We saw allegedly Mussade being behind some sabotage of times over the years and have slowed down Uron's nuclear program. But unfortunately, what it also did push it more underground, so that meant it would be harder to actually penetrate if there were an attack on Iranian facilities.
We're talking with Ali Dagris of the Atlantic Council about what might come next here, as we heard from the Secretary of Defense a bit earlier today, a multi tiered strike. It could start, according to our national security team, as soon as tonight. We're told this is not going to be shocked in AWE that you're going to read about some strikes. Maybe you'll see grainy video from from a surveillance drone. Is that what you expect? Or do we want to shake up these players?
That's a great question. I think that they want to send a harder response than usual because we have a history of already doing such actions in the region, and it's an Iraq and series, so I think they want to send a wider messages him around. But will it deter Irani and proxies in the region. I would say, now, so this tip.
For tat continues, then do you worry about any domestic terrorism or kind of ancillary damage that could come from this in.
The United States?
Yeah?
No, I don't think that this would trickle back to the United States. I think it will just stay in the region.
A direct attack on Iran would be a different story, wouldn't.
There that I can say? That would be a much more complicated story.
How about that? I bet you're pretty busy right now, and I appreciate your coming in to spend some time with us and share insights from the Atlantic Council's Middle East programs. Senior Fellow Holly Dagris great to stay in touch with us here on Bloomberg because this is a story that we're going to keep a close beat on here throughout the day and of course the weeks ahead. It's not going to end anytime soon as we try to assemble the pieces here on a story that brings
us halfway around the world. With news today from the Pentagon, our thanks again to Nick Watdams. Coming up next, we're going to turn to the campaign trail and insights from Mohammed Unis, the editor in chief at Gallup. He's with us in studio.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast Ken just Live weekdays at noon Eastern on Applecarplay and enroid 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.
Thanks for being with us year on Bloomberg, Balance of Power, on the radio, on the satellite, and on YouTube. I'm Joe Matthew in Washington with new numbers on the campaign trail today. We'll start with South Carolina only because we've been waiting weeks since the fifth of January for a new reading on this What was the Emerson poll? Today? Washington Post Monmouth University finds not good news for Nicki Haley. The numbers have barely budged, and this sample was taken
after Iowa and New Hampshire. Nicki Haley thirty two percent in her home state, Donald Trump fifty eight percent at home, which she calls sweet home, South Carolina, with three weeks to go here, a pocket full of money but no real path. According to most of the experts that we're talking with, it's a big question about what happens if she cannot win her home state. Donald Trump leading among women, among men, and among all age groups in this poll.
More where this came from. On the other side of the campaign, of course, Joe Biden is running for reelection here with a real problem when it comes to the economy connecting the dots. Although we have seen some improvement here, but my goodness, third year job approval average looks second worst according to new numbers from Gallup. And I'm glad to say we're joined by Gallup's editor in chief, Mohammed Unis, with us at the table here. It's great to see Mohammad.
Thanks for coming over. Oh, it is great to be here. This is this is just not good for Joe Biden as he's looking at now, immigration top the economy in terms of most urgent issues for voters. He's losing on both absolutely.
And you know, I'll start let's start with the economy. You know, I love to say the economy in presidential election choices for the American public, it's not just king, it's King, Queen and bishop.
The economy is everything. Yeah, when you look.
Back historically into all of the modern era presidents, how people felt about the economy, in addition to approval ratings were the most important thing, not only in how they voted, but also in what they said they cared about when they came to vote. So right now, that's actually a relatively positive point for President Biden in our economic confidence and next we ask monthly how Americans do about the
economy today and how it's doing into the future. It's been the second consecutive month of improvement for him, so it's still negative twenty six out of time, and he's got time. And of course, as you all know here at Bloomberg, the economy can really change for period period. A big part of President Trump's story was how COVID wiped out the economy now and it became very very
much a different pathway to him seeking reelection. In January of twenty twenty two, he had a fifty percent approval rating. It was he was doing really well because people felt really good about the economy despite the politics.
You look at thirty nine point eight percent job approval, you're referring to history that teaches us that in re election cycle were underwater. How much time does he have to pull this above fifty percent? Is that where he needs to be to keep his job?
And let me just correct, President Trump was not at fifty percent approval. He was at fifty percent of people that said he should be re elected.
Got it. So at that.
Point in his presidency, he was doing really well President Biden. Today, thirty eight percent of Americans say he should be elected. We looked at his three year average his approval on the three averages.
Thirty nine point eight.
He's behind every single president except Jimmy Carter at this point in their presidency. So just to give you a sense of how far behind he is. That being said, a lot of those presidents led in times that were far less partisan than today.
Okay, And it's really.
Hard for either a Republican or a Democrat to get people from the other side to approve of the job they're doing. And this dates back to President Obama. It's not a Trump era dynamic.
We'll talk to me more about that, because I don't know how you do your job anymore. When people are having fun trying to mislead pollsters, when samples are being challenged by cell phones, no landlines anymore, we don't always know who we're talking to, it seems, depending on the poll. And I'll let you speak for Gallup. But this job's not getting easier as we go forward.
It's absolutely not. But one of the things that is actually amazing and hasn't changed is that with a really good RDD national sample get a really accurate measure of how the country is feeling.
We were talking a little bit about state.
Poles a second ago, and it's important to understand that with a state pole, it's a far more challenging to really get a representative sample. The other thing, I think, Joe, just as your listeners and viewers start consuming more political news about the election, the notion of aggregating polls is really useful and fun to deal with. It's very useful
in the financial world. Of course, with indicies, it's not a great or accurate way to assess where the public is on an issue because a lot of those poles are gathered with different methodologies. Online polls are great for certain purposes, they've proven to not be so great for national assessments of the political testing waters. Our methodologists have worked year in and year out to really test these tools because essentially all of these methods are really tools,
and they're very useful. But it's about what's the right tool to fix or you know, the right squeaky wheel. Yeah, and with national politics, it's about having a really good national phone poll.
How many people do you need to call to get a single valid response, what's that racial that's a great question.
So our polls tend to run around about one thousand respondents.
Okay, sure.
The hard part is only about six to seven percent of people actually complete the polls, so you need to call far more people. Fascinatingly, though, with the proper statistical methods and waiting and all of that, you're able to actually get a very accurate sample or read on the public even with that low level of a response rate. The other I think misnomer is that that response rate continues to drop dramatic. Actually it's held pretty flat now for a long time.
Okay.
So we have a series of ways that we actually, you know, test our own accuracy. We stopped forecasting elections back in Romney Obama, but we absolutely test to see how people would have responded to that question and what the actual popular vote turnout is. We do that every election, and it's been remarkable how accurate it is. And it's no secret if you are a member of the of APOR, kind of the association of public opinion researchers in the US.
A lot of this is.
Debated, written about in peer review journals. So for those of us in this space, it always I think baffles us to note how the public is having a conversation about the polls. You can't trust them about that. Yeah, it depends on the poll. It really does depend on the pole.
Well, it certainly doesn't. We really do try to talk about methodology when we report these numbers. But this is a fascinating peak behind the curtain with the editor in chief. You're at Gallup. We're in a primary season. We saw in Iowa and New Hampshire that immigration was far and beyond the number one issue for Republican voters. What's that going to look like when we get to the general It's only going to grow.
Immigration is the.
So it's not just the economy stupid for the balance of this campaign.
It's not.
So.
It's a matter of so. Life is multidimensional, right, and so is voting. So the way we ask the question is what is the number one issue that's the most important for you? That's always the economy, It always pans out, But we also ask a lot of other questions. One of the questions we ask every month is what's the most important problem facing America.
You could say your.
Favorite serial name, or you could mention a policy issue. The number one issue for Republicans is immigration. I think it's one of the most underreported stories in our times today. And it's not just Republicans, you know, considerable like twelve plus percent of people at the national level a saying immigration as the situation at the border worsens, which I think from your reporting and others, it seems like it it continues to do that. It is absolutely going to
be a major topic, particularly among the Republican Party. It also, if you'll permit me, we've perfectly ties into the most important issue for Republicans generally. And we did a thirty year analysis of what are the issues that where there's the most partisan divide on in America. The number one issue is the power of big government, and you can see how the issue of controlling the border ties fees right into that concept philosophical.
So many controversies in Washington right now, Really, do we've got a deal? We're told the verge of a deal in the Senate that's dead on arrival. In the House, Donald Trump says, no deal. It looks like this could be crashing into the rocks here. What does that do to congressional approval ratings? Didn't you look at this not that long ago, what are they at twelve percent er? I mean, this is.
Desperately absolutely a good month for congressional approval ratings is for it to not be in the single difference, which is it's funny, but it's also kind of scary and sad.
It really is. That being said.
That being said, so will you re elect Joe Biden? We also ask will you realize do you think that most members of Congress should be re elected?
In that same po crue to form, this is just a few more few.
Days ago, yep, twenty four percent of Americans say that most members of Congress should be re elected. But and a really important dimension to this is when you ask them about their member of it's overwhelming, right, it's like a nearly six and ten, and that's just.
Don't mess with my guy exactly. And that goes for the economy as well. We've seen in some polling right where people are feeling better about their local economy. The question is when you connect the dots there on a national.
Level, yes, and the big issue there is inflation. So even though that ECI number has improved. What we also found in the same poll, sixty three percent of Americans are still saying that price increases are causing them financial hardship. That actually has now plateaued since this whole inflation thing began, what was it two years ago now, So that hasn't improved. You know, you report a lot on the Federal Reserve and the real interest rate.
We talk inflation every day.
Of course, absolutely, I've learned most of what I know from their reporting, but from the public's perspective, it's still just as bad. It hasn't improved at all.
Because they're looking at prices from before COVID, and we're talking about just slowing the rate of inflation, not actually turning the clock back. And you wonder if that ends up happening in the next year, you're going to be walking in here with much better No, I can only assume for Joe Biden, but we'll find out together with Mohammed Yunis love talking to you. Thanks for coming in.
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch Just Live weekdays at noon Eastern.
On Appocarplay and then Rounoro with the Bloomberg Business app Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts, or watch us live on YouTube.
Live from the nation's capital. Kaylee lines is off today as we dissect news from the Pentagon in a late scheduled news conference happened late this morning with not a lot of notice. Lloyd Austin in front of reporters, standing for the first time since his visit to Walter reed. Of course, he had an extended hospital stay of following complications that were tied to prostate cancer surgery. He did
apologize for that. He apologized to the President and to the American people for the lack of communication surrounding his stay. But he also spoke to what was anticipated to be an announcement It wasn't really so much of retaliatory following the deadly attack on US forces over the weekend in Jordan. He did promise multi tiered strikes, and we've heard this line before from the Pentagon and from John Kirby at
the White House at the time of our choosing. But there is reporting more deliberately from CBS News today that plans have in fact been approved for a series of strikes over a number of days against targets i e. Multi tiered, as the jargon indicates, they would include Iranian personnel and facilities inside Iraq. And Syria, not to be confused with Iran itself. And that's where we start our conversation with Michael Allen, Managing director partner Beacon Global Strategies.
Has had a long career in national security, including time in the National Security Apparatus in the White House two thousand and seven through nine. It's great to see you, Michael, Thanks for being here. Thank you for We're going to see military action tonight.
I think it's tonight or tomorrow night as I understand it. It's weather dependent. But I think it's time for the United States to go ahead and take the strikes. The clock is ticking. They took a hit at us, of course, over the weekend, and I think it's part of re establishing deterrence against Iran that we're able to swiftly try
anyway to put them back in their place. I'm a little worried that we've telegraphed the punch so much that a lot of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard figures have gone back home by now.
What do you make of that? Was this leaked on purpose? Is there some telegraphing going on here? Ers the Pentagon talking in a way that it shouldn't be.
I think they are telegraphing.
They did it against the Houthy strike, They've done it previously.
I think in their minds.
They believe it's a way to de escalate the crisis, but is something But to me, what they need to be doing is trying to re establish deterrence, which would say, let's do something swiftly and overwhelming, not to cause a war, but to cause a change in the calculus of the Iranian leaders to where they say to themselves, you know what, the United States isn't messing around anymore. If I'm on the receiving end from European powers or whomever of a warning, Hey,
at a SHOT's coming. We don't want to hit your people, maybe just your equipment. I'm thinking to myself, Okay, I'll batten down the hatches tonight, but right back at you tomorrow.
So why not strike Iran directly? Why not sink the Iranian navy?
Yes, so, I think that would be a disproportionate response. I'm a sort of in favor of a disproportionate response to re establish the turns. Maybe not inside of Iran proper. Maybe we saved that for a later because I think it would be incredibly escalatory if we hit inside of Iran, especially when we've got so much else going.
I mean, I'm not unalterably opposed to it.
I would want to understand what the targets were, and perhaps if they were IRGC intelligence facilities, it would remind me more of President Reagan hitting the intelligence services in Libya, and I would get more comfortable with it.
But yeah, they need to.
Lean forward a little bit. I think the thesis of the administration is overcaution. They're overcautious and what arms they give to the Ukrainians and they're being too over cautious when we talk about the Iranians.
So with what we know, if it is in fact striking targets within Iraq and Syria, are these air strikes, are they cruise missiles? What would be the menu of options here the Pentagon's looking at.
I think all of the above.
Certainly a few cruise missiles, but I think they will definitely put some F sixteen's and other munitions.
Type in launched from allies in the Middle East. We have plenty of bases, plenty of places over there. Cutter, I think we have cutter. We've got even places in the UAE and would we be then drawing them into this.
I think we would have to get their permission in order to take off from those bases and make sure they're okay with it. I think they would be okay with it. But speaking of permission, I mean it's if we hit inside Iraq, generally we're supposed to at least talk to the Iraqi government about I don't think we did a few weeks ago, which is part of the reason why the Iraqi government wants us to move out.
Or we're beginning discussions on how to move out the troops.
But that has a big That'll be an interesting story tonight. Did we hit inside of Iraq and did we get permission or.
Did we just do it?
With that said, talk to me about this place, Tower twenty two. It's in a critical location, essentially the intersection of all three countries that's Rock and Syria and Iran. That wasn't by accident. That's what it happened there was it.
It wasn't by accident.
I think they thought that this would be a less protected facility because we the United States, probably saw Jordan as a safer place to be, certainly compared to Syria, which is just generally.
Lawless and dangerous.
But you know, this is where I wish the president, not as a Republican or a Democrat, but would I iterate, what is the national interest? Why do we have these troops in Syria in the first place? And the reason is it's ISIS and the rise of terrorism. We don't want them to come back and be able to re establish such a power to be able to hit us back in the United States.
Again.
Tower twenty three was there to help support that mission inside of Syria. So I hope tonight if the President addresses the nation around the time that the strikes are launched, he'll make it clear to everybody that, hey, this is part of a US counter terrorism mission.
We aren't there just for fun.
Yes, so this should be coupled with the presidential address. In your view, I think so hearing that would happen. I had not.
I think it should happen. I don't think the.
Oval Office as a venue very often. Does this justify it?
I think it does.
I think this is a significant escalation by Iran when they've killed three soldiers. I think he has to lay out our strategy again. You know, I worked for President Bush, but I think even Democrats appreciated it in the second term when he would go out and explain the Iraq policy, even if they didn't agree with it. You have a duty to tell the American peace pople.
And hope Biden does that tonight.
Yeah, it's interesting. He's going to be flying around the country here a little bit, but he would be back in time to address the American people, and it does seem like it would be a time to follow up on his address about Ukraine and Israel. It's another dangerous world speech for this president.
We have a lot going on.
I know we're all eager to, you know, as we say, pivot to China because they are the big threat over the next generation. But we keep getting pulled back in, to use the phrase from the Godfather, into the Middle East and of course into Europe. World wars start in Europe, which is why we need to do a better job and get over our misgivings about funding the Ukrainians. But we also need to be more serious about trying to
put Iran in a box. Doesn't have to mean war, but they need to know that we have a backbone here so that they'll slow down on their nuclear program and slow down on their proxy terrorist warfare in the region.
The Islamic Resis distance in Iraq is said to be responsible for the attack in Jordan. There are at least a half dozen proxy groups we're talking about here. You suggested that we need to do something to make a point. Can you make a point by going after the legs of the octopus here or not the head?
I don't think so.
So I think among the strikes tonight, I'm fine with all these proxies, and I do believe that we need to, as some people unfortunately call it, mow the grass a little bit, degrade their capabilities. But I think you've got to have an eye in front of one of these strikes. And for me, that's the IRGC, that is the terrorist sponsor.
They're the ones that deal externally from Iran and sponsor Hamas Hasbalah, the Huthi and of course all of these popular mobilization fronts that are in Iraq, and those are the people we need to go after. And they need to understand that the United States is can hit them and that we're serious about doing it.
And then the next day the Houthis attack on other ship.
We have to keep staying in the fight there there. I'm more comfortable with a longer term campaign that just degrades equipment in Yemen. Sorry, yes, absolutely in Yemen, because I do believe that if we don't try to keep the international waterways open, no one else is.
And even if we.
May not have a direct a ship that's going directly because they're going up the Suez Canal, I think nonetheless that's the role of the United States for now.
All the while we've got a hot war in Gaza. A Prime minister doesn't seem to want to take advice from the United States right now. They've begun, at least acknowledge now that they've begun flooding the tunnels beneath Gaza Hamasa's tunnels with seawater, and we're getting an eye roll here on talk of a peace deal. You made the point we're spending a lot of plates right now. The Secretary of State said, this is a dangerous moment for
the Middle East. Are we focused enough on what's actually happening inside Israel in Gaza while we try to deal with the rest of the region.
I wish we would give a little bit more time to the Israelis to finish the job in Gaza. I understand that things are controversial. I understand that it's been an unfortunate civilian loss of life, but they've just gone through their equivalent of nine to eleven. We would not have listened to people telling us that we can't go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan or wherever the case may be. I think honestly they need another month or so before they shift over to a over the horizon counter terrorism
special raid type of situation. You're right, BB is not listening to Joe Biden. But I think Joe Biden also needs to understand a little bit where they are.
You served as majority staff director of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. You've been on both sides of Pennsylvania Avenue. The President's asking for help, the supplemental budget request for Israel, for Ukraine, for Taiwan. It's been bogged down into a border debate. Is that how this ends? Or will there be a new approach from the Lindsey Grahams of the world and some of the others to get a stand alone funding bill for Ukraine as well as Israel.
I'm glad you mentioned that because I think that's what Senator McConnell has been signaling for about a week, which is that. Yeah, it was the border language that was going to pull Ukraine funding across the goal line. Now I think it's a better chance that the border language would delay the Ukraine funding. If I'm the leader in the Senate Schumer and McConnell, I just go ahead and
try and throw it over to the House. Yeah, and on the wild there's some unforeseeable event that I can't come up with right now that might happen in a month or two. Maybe Russia does something dramatic, maybe pressure increases, but then the House of Representatives then feels the pressure to go ahead and let it through.
I would put the pressure on them and go.
Ahead and pass it. It needs to get out of the Senate. Something big needs to happen. We've let it sit there too long, and that's why everything has been delayed.
You've spent a career in national security. Does it make you nervous when focused is trained so heavily on one part of the world, Knowing that of Vladimir Putin or someone else, Kim Jong un could really take advantage of a moment like.
This, It does, you know, Kim jong un. It's good that you mentioned North Korea. Almost no one talks about it. He has gotten more aggressive of late. He sort of changed the defense doctrine that how he looks at the world not so much. Hey, I'm just going to try to get along peacefully with South Korea, but I want to reunite the peninsula.
It's not that he's going to do it, but he's.
Building capabilities everywhere, and honestly, we here in Washington don't have a great idea or a great new policy to roll out how to deal with them. It needs to be managed. Maybe more sanctions, maybe more deterrence. But they're problems everywhere, and we have got a lot that we need to follow and do well on and execute so that our national interests are protected.
With the Ukraine that's running out of money, even if we get this together, maybe to your point, there is a new effort and a stand had alone piece of legislation that funds our allies in Kiev. Vladimir Putin has got to be seeing an opportunity right now. What's going to happen next? What concerns you the most?
What concerns me the most is that Vladimir Putin is going to get this entire year to reconstitute his military. We've already seen plenty of articles about how they've been able to stay afloat through more manpower that they've basically kidnapped off the streets and shipped over to Ukraine, but also their capability, their defense manufacturing is starting to go
back up again. So I think we're giving putin the whole year if we don't pass anything to let him rebuild and retrench and re establish his force so that he might be able to move westward again next year. So that's why another reason why we need to get this Ukrainian funding done as soon as possible.
Are you surprised that the White House, with the help of Mitch McConnell, has not succeeded in making the argument the national security argument for the United States When we talk about Ukraine, you hear not another dollar for Ukraine. Our borders before their borders is kind of the refrain from the Freedom Caucus types. Despite deliberate messaging, classified briefings, they don't seem to be breaking through.
I am surprised because I think we're losing our way. I don't know if it's populism, I don't know what it is, but we all know here in the age of geopolitical competition, that Russia is our number two adversary.
And if anybody in the national security community had been approached three years ago and said, if you want to pay two point five percent of your annual defense budget and we will degrade the Russian army by a year two or more and force them to bring out tanks that were from World War Two, would.
You take that deal?
You absolutely, they'd be like, I don't even know why you're asking such a ridiculous question, But of course we should do that, not because we have just some ancient beef with the Russians and the old Soviet but because it's in our national interest. And I wish the President would step forward and articulate national interest reasons why we need to stand tall.
Michael Allen, a great conversation. Thank you for being with us a voice of experience when it comes to national security that we wanted to bring to you here on Bloomberg. Thanks for joining today and stay in touch. 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 noontime Eastern at Bloomberg dot com.