Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Oil price is higher.
Stocks being dragged down as we look to what seems to be an escalating situation in the Middle East. After the US already conducted strikes against Iron yesterday in retaliation for the down to Apache helicopter over the straight Offoor News, President Trump saying that more attacks are on their way. This was the President in the Oval Office earlier today.
We hit them hard yesterday, and we're going to hit them again hard today. In case you missification, you don't turn on your television set, and we'll see what happens with the deal. We're really close to a deal, but they keep tapping us along.
They keep playing us for suckers.
Because you know what they dealt with some very stupid presidents.
Tapping us along. As the President made clear untruth social that the regime is simply taking too much time in negotiations. And this is where we start our conversation with an important voice in foreign policy and in domestic politics. That would be Nicki Haley, the former ambassadors to the United Nations, former governor of South Carolina, share at Hudson Institute, founder of Stand for America, The Advocacy Group is wonderful to have you with this ambassador.
Thanks for interest today on Bloomberg.
What are your thoughts then about this active conversation right now? Is this the only recourse at the moment to gain more leverage to hasten an agreement with more strikes.
First of all, I think you have to look at you always have to look at what your adversary is thinking. For them, they're not looking to win, they're looking to survive. So there's a difference. What they think is if they can put enough political pressure on this administration, if they can put enough economic pressure on this administration, they think the US will cave to a weak deal. Iran has.
This is the same playbook Iran has always done. They stall, they start talking, they make you think you're going to get a deal, they throw cold water on it, and all the while they're sizing, they're re arming, they're getting ready for the next conflict. Iran was never going to do a deal. They are never going to get rid of their nuclear ambitions. That's their number one priority. Now they've actually found more leverage with the Strait of Hormuz, and so they don't want to go back to what
it was pre war. They now want to have sovereignty over the street. They want to make sure that they have the threat of nuclear ambition, and they're going to continue to do that. So I think Trump was right to strike yesterday, But the idea of a deal, that's just not in their cards. They one of the surprising things that's not talked about. They have excavated fifty of the sixty nine tunnels that hold missiles they're re arming. Now,
that's not enough. We've weakened Iran tremendously, but it shows you how they think.
Well, So, if Iran is never going to make a deal and the US is now obviously bogged down in the Middle East for some time in the absence of one, are we coming out on the losing side?
This ambassador. No, the only option is to win. Trump has to finish what he started, and the key is stop waiting for a deal, finish it. They're very weak. But what you have to do is go after their finances. What has not and what the administration should do is go after Russia and China. Russia right now is providing them drones. China says they want this hostility to end, Yet they are providing them man pads for air defense systems. They provided satellite imagery so that you can hit our
military bases. If you go after those two, they're providing money. If you go after those two, that's going to take away Aron's ability to help. The second thing is you do have to acknowledge car Island is where they get their revenues from, and at some point that's going to have to be addressed. But what they're doing is they're creating a distraction. You know what they've said is well, Israel is hitting Lebanon. No, Israel's hitting Hesbla, the terrorist
regime in Lebanon. The Lebanese people don't like Hesbalah. And so the key is Iran's going to keep making excuses, They're going to keep creating distractions. At the end of the day, they just want to survive. They just want to make it another day.
Well, you just said a lot, and we need to unpack that. So the United States seeses carg Island. That would involve troops, as we understand, in an operation that could bring some risk, but would have the point you're making a very direct impact on the economy in Iran. When you say go after China and Russia. Is that sanctions because we find repeatedly that sanctions don't change behavior with these two.
You have to truly hold them accountable. You have to make sure that they feel the pain. And a lot of that is a lot of the oil that China would buy from Iran, they wouldn't pay Iran directly. They do it through shadow accounts, through the UAE. You have to go to UAE and say, look, we're working well together. You can't keep helping China help Iran. All of these add the cereal things, those are the ones you go after.
The point is if you take your money away from Iran, they can't build nuclear production, they can't mine the straight they can't find Hesbala, Hamas and the Houthis. You know, right now Iran's talking about now starting to hit Israeli boats in the Red Sea. They're not stopping. Their intention is to keep being aggressive so that they can get what they want, which is sanction relief, to unfreeze the assets, and to try and get the country to see them as someone they need to be.
Dealt with well as if they heard you, ambassador, the US just announced sanctions on quote unquote clandestine banking in China linked to Iran sanctioning some Chinese in Hong Kong based individuals. So perhaps that would be a start to what you're getting at here. But I want to go back to something else you mentioned, that's Lebanon and Israel's
conduct there. Your point is well understood that it's Hezbela that they're targeting, but obviously there has been a lot of associated collateral damage, and I wonder if you view Israel now being actually a very complicating factor in the path forward, if Israel's desires and objectives are diverging from ours.
The US partnering with Israel and what they did to really bring around to its knees was so important and so helpful for the national security of the US, of Israel and of the West, so very important that that happened. Israel has to defend itself. But think just since the April ceasefire, what you've had is the Hesbela has struck northern Israel over two thousand times with rocket syndromees. What country would put up with that? What country would allow that?
So it's not that Israel was doing this, it's Hesbela. So Iran is trying to make this gray by saying, oh, they're hitting Lebanon. This is not the case. Lebanon is not the issue. It is Hesbela that's the issue. And you can't let this terrorist activity that is associated with a continue. And I think that the US and Israel are partners. I think that while Nettnahu and Trump may disagree at times, I think they agree on a lot
more than they disagree. And I think at the end of the day, they both have the same men goal and so I think that partnership stays strong.
It's amazing that we're having this conversation in June of twenty twenty six, remembering the no New Wars mantra that followed the Trump campaign throughout his reelection. There's amazing analysis from our colleagues at Bloomberg Economics have found since taking office last January, President Trump has greenlit at least fourteen four hundred and eighteen military strikes around the globe. I'm just curious, if you were sitting behind the Resolute desk, would you have started this war.
I think that Trump did the right thing. Iran was the weakest they had ever been. If Trump wouldn't have gotten involved, they just would have gone back to doing what they're doing. Keep in mind, you have to know that the ideology of that regime. In nineteen seventy nine, they called the US the Great Satan, and they said death to America. Believe adversaries when they say they want to kill you. I personally was targeted. There was a hitman that was actually paid money on US soil to
kill me. They are coming to America to kill Americans. This is a regime that finds that their Messiah is coming, and in the meantime, their struggles are supposed to be real, and they're supposed to cause chaos and brutality and murder in the process. You can't change an ideology like that. So they were going to rebuild, They were going to continue to cause harm. They were going to continue to put national security threats on Americans. Over one thousand Americans
have been injured and killed from Iran. We shouldn't even be allowing one. This had to happen. Now he just has to finish what he started.
So you see the national security justification for this particular excursion, as the President has called it. He also has suggested that once this Iron situation is over, whatever that is he may turn his sites to Cuba, and I wonder if you see that as as urgent what you would expect the US to do when it comes to Cuba and a regime that clearly is teetering on the brink.
In the US put in their national security strategy to make the Western hemisphere a priority. I think that you saw that with you know, extracting Maduro in Venezuela. The Venezuelans are going to see so much progress with that. That was something that needed to happen. They deserve freedom and they're going to get it. What you're seeing in Cuba is a little bit different because Cuba doesn't have a Delsi Rodriguez, a number two that can go and run things. Cuba doesn't have a machado ahead of an
opposition that can go forward. So I don't think that this administration is going to go militarily into Cuba. I think they're just going to put pressure through sanctions and weigh them down. You know, they already stopped the oil that was going from Venezuela to Cuba. They had Mexico pulled back on the oil that was going to Cuba, and now Cuba's feel the pain. They can only take so much pain. What they're going to want is sanctuarily.
They're going to want to get the Cuban economy going again, But unfortunately they're going to have to continue to deal with the people that are leading Cuba right now. That's not going to be anitial that's not going to be something that they can change.
Yeah, there have been questions about whether we could sustain action in two parts of the world militarily like this, because we have a massive build up in the Middle East that's standing by to do what you're suggesting, which is to finish the job. If in fact we went pedal to the metal and took the advice of Dickie Haley, how long.
Would it take stop negotiating with them? That's never going to happen. We've lost time. Go finish what you started. I think within a week to two weeks, is that right? They can long before the well a week to two weeks they could. It would take them the amount of time to extract the nuclear enrichment that they have. As far as island, you'll have to have special forces there to go and hold car Island is going to obviously
take a little bit longer. But this is one where they need to be focused and mission driven on go after the revenues that are going to Iran, and that's the only way to get rid of the regime. And then the Iranian people have no way to defend themselves. They've killed thousands of people in the streets and made examples of them. What's happened in the past is the US has actually helped countries so that the people can
rise up. That's the way that this is going to end, is when the people feel safe enough to rise up that they can go and take their country back. If the US were to.
Pursue the course of action you're describing, do you believe it would it would be prudent for the president to go to Congress first? Do you see that constitutional necessity that he is consistently denied as necessary.
I always think you need to go to Congress. One. You need the buy in of Congress, you need the buy in of the American people. You need to explain what you're doing, why you're doing it, and what you know. And yes, it's just good practice to go to Congress. With more. Administration has done a lot by executive order. The danger in that is the next administration. If it's not a Republican, all of that gets reversed, and then we're swinging the pendulum. That's not good for the American people.
Congress needs to step up. There are a lot of things Congress could be doing, but right now we're hearing a lot of talking and not a lot of action.
The political pendulum also swings as we watch the primary season unfold. And there was a state you know a lot about that was, of course voting yesterday in South Carolina.
The President's endorsements have been on the line quite a bit here more recently, and they paid off last evening, particularly in the race for governor and the primary for governor Pamela That curious your thoughts on this and what it looks to be the end of a couple of political careers, including Nancy Mace and someone who you endorsed and endorsed you back in Ralph Norman. What transpired last night and is it good for your party?
Well, I think, first of all, primaries are always good for our party. I think that it's very important that you have debate, that you have, you know, them touching as many hands as they can. I'm really getting their message out. So I think having a full primary was a great thing. You know, the press has been covering that Nancy Mace was a factor, and because of the Trump endorsement, she lost. She was never a factor in this race. She was always in fifth place. She was
never going anywhere. She knew that in South Carolina. Knew that. So you know she later bed she's now laying in it. That's what she's doing. Ralph Norman, who I respect and love, we go way back. He does what he says he's going to do. He's got real clarity. You know, certainly I wish she would have made it into the runoff, but you know he was always pushing, and then you had Evatt and Wilson in there, and so look, it's the power of the Trump endorsement. Evatt wouldn't have made
it in the runoff without the Trump endorsement. So his endorsement is strong. It does move the ball. And you know, we just have to make sure that who we elect in a primary is who we want to vote for in a general.
Well, and to that point, I wonder if you think the President is making the correct endorsement choices, even if we look beyond South Carolina to say somewhere like Texas, Texas, where Ken Paxton is now the one who is going to have to try to hold a Senate seat in Republican hands.
It's going to cost a lot more money for Republicans to hold that seat. I do think we'll hold the Texas seat, but it's just not Republicans. Look at Graham Platner in Maine. You know, it's amazing to me. You know, I always say it's important to understand that in a primary, you make your choice. In a general election, you're given the choice. You have to choose between the two. But in America, typically only fifteen percent of Americans vote in a primary. So what you're getting is the extreme of
both sides. So by the time most Americans go to vote, they're having to choose between two extremes. It's because we don't talk about primaries in high schools. Our kids don't know that they know to vote in November. They know to do that, and they do. But until we start talking about the importance of primaries, and until Americans see that that's actually the race that matters, you're going to have the Packston race. You're going to have the platiners.
You're going to have those that make us kind of uncomfortable. But you know, all in the name of getting a majority, let's get the right, good people in there so that we can start getting things done. But more than that, let's look at what's not getting done. You know, you look at the debt that America has right now. What is Congress done about that? So you want to talk about a war, but why aren't they talking about balancing a budget. You know, we're thirty nine trillion dollars in debt.
We're going to be forty trillion in the fall. That's unacceptable. That's like the US taking in five trillion a year and spending seven trillion a year. You know, now we're one hundred percent over GDP. The last two recessions, we had a buffer. If we have another recession, there will be no stimulus, there will be no tax breaks. You aren't to have a cushion to do anything with. That is something Congress can address now, and they've yet to do it. Social Security is going to run out in
six years. Every US candidate needs to be asked, what are you going to do about it? Because seventy five million Americans will be affected by that. You don't wait until that falls on us and do a quick band aid of a deal. It's something I talked about in the campaign, was reforming entitlements. You have to do that. In a few years, fifteen percent of our federal outlays are going to be interest. That's not okay.
Well, I'm just listening to you speak, ambassador, and I'm wondering if you plan to travel to campaign for candidates that you decide to support, whether it's in the South Carolina runoff or nationally, and what your plans are beyond this midterm cycle. We all remember when you said your time would come? Is it coming? And this next round?
First of all, I'm going to help any candidates that I can. You know, we have been helping Susan Collins raise money, plan on going to Maine and campaigning for her to doing that when we see a good candidate. I mean that race matters to us so much. And she's been such a remarkable senator, you know, it's it shouldn't go over seeing that she's never missed a vote, never missed a vote, and regardless of where her views are,
she's respected. She's a hard worker, she's come out of tough races, but we need to make sure she wins again. We can't take this for granted. So yes, I will be out there in elections helping Republicans. That's something I'm always going to do. In terms of my future, you know, I'm going to keep talking about the things that matter. I'm going to talk about foreign policy. I'm going to talk about the debt. I'm going to talk about the need for us to self correct. I think that's what
I can do. You know, I talk to a lot of business leaders now about how you manage business in you know, this world that we're in, and that's kind of where I am right now. You know, I'm not going to look forward. I'm not running in twenty twenty eight. That's not something that I'm interested in. But my voice is going to always be there. I think it's too important for us to stay silent in times like this.
Well, and as you talk about talking about foreign policy, something that you were vocal about in twenty twenty four, President Trump, is Joe alluded to earlier, was very much not running that kind of campaign, and yet he does seem to be running that kind of presidency, much more foreign policy oriented and I wonder if you expect that that trajectory is going to continue where that once again is back at the forefront of conversation.
Well, I think you can say no new wars, but the reality of Ukraine and Russia is there. Russia invaded a free country. That's something that we can't step away from. The reality of the threat from Iran on our national security. You can't walk away from that. So yes, in a campaign, you can say no new wars, but reality hits you in the face when you get to that leadership position and you have to make those decisions. And I think he's having to make those decisions now.
It's a pretty dangerous time that we're living in and talking through with you, ambassador, And there's a big question about who should be running the nation's intelligence apparatus. This is a big problem on Capitol Hill. FISA expires, it looks like on Friday, because lawmakers need more than Bill Pulty. They want a permanent name that the president might announce. He says he's working on one, but Poulty will be on the job later this month.
Are you comfortable with that? Well, I think Trump has made it clear that he's going to put a permanent person in there. That person needs to have experience we need. I mean, our intelligence is everything I can tell you from when I was at the United Nations. The profiles of our adversaries, Knowing what they're saying, knowing what they're doing, knowing the threats that face us are hugely important. It would be irresponsible for Congress not to renew FISA. I
can't stress enough how that keeps American safe. And regardless of what you think about Poulty, FISA needs to continue and Trump needs to put someone qualified in there that can make Congress feel like they can move forward. So of those things need to happen just quickly.
Is it also irresponsible to have someone, even an acting capacity, who's used non public mortgage data to go after perceived enemies of the president.
I think that what we want is transparency. Let us know who's serving us, what are they doing for us, Be transparent about it, and what's your end goal. I think that they're, you know, cabinet members who are doing a great job. I think there are other cabinet members who we may not know as much of what they're doing. Open it all up, let the American people see at the end of the day. Americans want to know that
government's working for them. They still don't trust government. They don't trust our agencies, they don't trust Congress, they don't trust selected officials. Americans deserve better. You know, they're paying higher and groceries hire and energy, hire and insurance. You know, all of these things. Kids can't afford their rent. If all of that's going to happen, it makes an American public more resentful, and it makes them more angry at why people aren't working for them. And my advice is, look,
we're gonna be okay, but do your part. Step up. Don't vote for somebody because they look good in a picture of a hold of baby. Well, you know, are they fighting for you? And if they're fighting for you, fight for them. But if they're not, it's time to turn the leaf and get someone else.
All Right, we'll leave it on that note. Ambassador, thank you so much for joining us. She's now chair at Hudson Institute and also a former Ambassador to the United Nations and former governor of South Carolina. Nikki Haley here with us on Bloomberg TV and radio. Thank you so much.