Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio News. Welcome to the Bloomberg This Weekend podcast with David Gura, Christina Raffini, and Lisa Matteo.
Thanks for joining us for today's selection of conversations from the show.
You can listen to our favorite discussions right here on the podcast, but also make sure to join us live every Saturday and Sunday morning starting at seven am Easter.
We're on Bloomberg Television, Radio and the Bloomberg Business App, bringing you unique takes and in depth interviews on news, politics, lifestyle and culture.
We are going to talk about energy.
Oil prices above ninety dollars a barrel that's up about thirty six percent in a week.
Gas prices three dollars.
Forty five cents a gallon that is up about forty five cents in a week.
Daniel, You're been writing in The Financial Times on Friday of this week in an opinion piece titled is the Nightmare Scenario.
For Global Energy? Here I'll read a little bit from it.
Current oil prices in the nineties are far from the worst case scenario, but right now the world is looking at the biggest disruption in oil production in history, as well as a resounding shock to global gas markets. The key question for global energy, he writes, is the duration of this explosive war. Dan jorg And the Pultzer Price winning author of the prize the Epicquest for Oil, Money and Power, author of the New Map Energy, Climate, and the Clash of Nations, joins us now here on set,
New York. He's the vice chairman of S and P Global. Dan, great to have you thank with us.
Thank you so much. Although we did say in the break you are dressed a little better than us here on the weekend.
It's a lovely time overdressed well. Correct that.
Next time, I want to start with just a broad question about the gravity of this moment. You get to it in that piece in the ft. How do you look at this in the broad sweep of history, the moment that we're in right now, and the potential for this being a conflict that doesn't last a matter of days or weeks, as the President initially said, but bu indeed drags on longer than that.
It is at least it points to the possibility of the nightmare scenario that has really been there for half a century, ever since Iran erupted in revolution and set off an oil shock at the end of the nineteen seventies. So, but this is at the scale that we're seeing now, there's nothing comparable to it.
And what does that mean when you say the nightmare scenario, Well, at least that out for us, And what should we be expecting or fear.
I guess a nightmare scenario would be a war that goes on long time, a disruption that goes out on a long time. Prices really skyrocketing in ninety is high, but it's not skyrocketing with major impacts on financial markets, and ultimately the world economy plummeting into a recession that is more or less this nightmare scenario. That's not where that's not where we are, and this would have to go on longer and also have to see considerable damage of the infrastructure in the.
Region, which concerns you more when it comes to possible runian outcomes, a more conservative regime that is less likely to collaborate or cooperate with other world's economic indicators, or a total power vacuum. And can you talk about what the difference would be to the oil global oil markets and production.
Well, it's you know, it's hard to imagine a totally chaotic Iran. Nobody's in control, and there are ethnic divisions
in the country that would tie it apart. But I think there is a question of imagining what kind of organization would rule the country other than what it has today, and would it give up would it give up its revolutionary zeal, its antagonism to the West, its effort to dominate its region, and go back to being what might be called a normal country and a country that's focused on economic growth and development and doesn't running short of water as it is right now.
When you look at the news overnight that the UAE's cutting back production, Kuwait's cutting back production. We see the changes that Saudi Arabia's making, shifting more of its oil through pipelines and not through the straight uformies. What does that tell you the way that these countries are reacting to this, about the trajectory of it going forward.
In a way.
If you may not remember during COVID, when all the storage was filled up because the market demand plummeted, people didn't know what to do with oil, and in.
Fact it's stotting on the negative, right, Yeah, oil.
Prices went negative.
That's kind of not a full analogy, but that's where they are right now.
They can't put this.
You have a very complicated, integrated system that goes from pumping oil, processing it, getting into tankers, shipping it to markets, and that system isn't working now. It's bottled up and so that there's no place to put the oil and you run out of Basically, the countries are running out of storage and the only thing to do then is cut back production.
I also want to ask you about that bottled up and the bottleneck in the Strait of hor Moves.
We've got some sound from the President. We want to play you.
What about the strain of Horror Moves. There's no traffic really going through a round.
That's you know, the ship's choices. But we haven't cleaned out. We've wiped out their navy. The navy is now at the bottom of the sea. So that's the choice. This is an excurageon we figured to oil prices. We go up, which say, will they'll also come down? They'll come down very fast. What I've gotten rid of a major cancer by the faces of the earth.
The President has been trying to encourage the shipping to continue, saying the US will help ensure. The US could even escort some armadas of ships as they go through. Is that realistic? And if you were a producer, would you take that risk with your assets?
I think it is a very big risk.
Obviously, people still have insurance, but it's now war rates, so it's gone way up. And of course the administration is said that they will ensure ships if they can't get commercial insurance. But the risk is that a lot of the Iranian navy has been destroyed, but there's still drones,
and there's still explosive speedboats that could fast boats. Yeah, that would put a tanker at risk, and so you have to be very bold and at least as I understand that the escorts, they're not ready to do that yet because the naval ships are focused on the war and protecting US battleships. I mean, we did have in nineteen eighty seven, the US provided escorts to Kuwaiti tankers, but there weren't any drones.
Then I look back on the last week and there was that moment when the Treasury Sectory went on a rival network. He was on CNBC and he floated the possibility of the administration doing more and investors.
Responded positively to that. As vague as the comment was, I did he did he define more? Did he more?
No, there is a generalized lack of definition, I think on many fronts here. But that gets to my question, which is Christina asks about there being kind of escorts, naval escorts, perhaps additional insurance that's backed up or provided by the US government. When you look at kind of the panoply of policy options that could be presented by this administration, what would make the most difference to industry at this point in time, what was actually marching uncertainty?
What would actually help?
But what would be the end of the attacks? I mean that would be it. It's very simple. And we know that that the air war is aimed at the missile launchers, trying to knock them out one by one they open up and get them. They're in these missile cities that Iran has. So I think it's trying to get Iran to a position where it's simply is toothless.
That's the objective.
And the President has talked about unconditional surrendered, not sure what that means.
Or less definition there as well.
And remember the Iran it's a divided leadership and as well as a decimated leadership.
We're waiting this morning to see if they have chosen a new leader, but unclear. You know, it won't be the same power center that COMMANI had.
I mean, he had been at it for a long time. I'm curious how you see the price where you see the price going from here? So it's been an incredibly fast move, as you point out in your pieces, we've seen over the course of the week, and you know, we're talking about the prospects of one hundred dollars barrel last weekend. Where do you see the price going from here?
And I think there's a question a lot of people have on their minds, which is what is the lag between that happening we see even more manifested pump higher gas prices.
Well, I think that you know, there are all sorts of predictions out there. You hear people saying, you know, it's over one hundred or one hundred and fifty. I mean, I think these are notional ideas that clearly all the pressures are for the price to go up. You have lost twenty percent of world oil, you've lost twenty percent of energy, and as a result of that, markets you're going to get people bidding for supplies. We see tankers that we're going to carry energy to Europe now being
diverted to Asia. So you know, everything points to higher prices. Where the limit is really depends upon event. And why I say what's most important thing is duration. Does this go on a week? Does this go on a month? And that has different consequences.
As you look at this conflict and the economic story part of this, as we talk about it, as we've all talked about it, what are people missing? What is the most important thing that you think people are overlooking in this conflict and how it's impacting the economies.
Well, to me, one thing is that we do have resilience. We're not in the position we would have been a decade or two ago. Because the US is now the world's largest oil producer. That gives security that we didn't have before. You have production going up elsewhere. You have candidate four million barrels a day. Brazil is four million barrels a day, which is four times by the way
Venezuela is currently produced. Just so, there are alternatives and their strategic stocks which were created in the nineteen seventies in response to the threat of the disruption of supply coming from the Gulf. So you have all of those factors at work. You also have the Saudi have an East West network that can move oil to the Red Sea, So it isn't those are things that need to be kept in mind even as we look at an unprecedented situation.
You bring upose strategic reservis there's one in the US.
Of course, the President has talked a couple of times about the prospects of drawing that down. What is the calculus the president must use in a moment like this to decide. That's of course used by President Biden as the war began in Ukraine. What should the present be thinking about when it comes to whether or not to the plan.
This is a much more serious disruption of oil than the ones that President Biden responded to.
We also saw it used at.
Various times on the eve of certain presidential elections when gasoline prices go up. As we know, gasoline prices are the most sensitive prices in the country, particularly sensitive in an election year. So I think that it will be a judgment that this you need to send it into the market to reassure the markets. I remember that on the eve of the Gulf War nineteen ninety one, they released the strategic reserves and the price, instead of going
up as people thought, went down. So I think I would expect and it's not only the US, but you have all these other Ia countries and China has built up huge reserves that those will be used.
I think we want to talk more about China, We want to talk more about Russia. We want to talk more about several things, which is why we're keeping you captive here in our green room, and we will be back with you shortly after we cover a few other things.
Yes, great to have with us here on Zet.
Dan Jerg advice chairman of vest in p Global again the author of the prize the Epiquest for Oil, Money and Power. Of course that book the winner the Pulitzer Prize. Most recently author of the New Map Energy, Climate and the Clash of Nations.
Yes, thank you for making me feel slightly smart, Dan, I really appreciate it.
Stay with us for more on Bloomberg this weekend. Right after this.
Prim mins from that. Yeah, who spoke yesterday in Israel.
Quote a little bit from what he had to say to how today well organized plan with many surprises and suggested there are many more objectives, which he declined to list during that speech. On Saturday, I want to turn out to former Ambassador tom Nydes He was the US ambassador to Israel from twenty twenty one to twenty twenty
three and joins us on this Sunday morning. Ambassador, thank you very much for the time, and I want to start with a broad question, and that is, as we approach the second week of this war, how clear to you are the strategic objectives for Israel in this conflict.
Well, first of all, thank you for having this early morning. I think God I got the clock straight. I got you and me both.
This is a big concern for everyone. Ambassador. We're very proud of you.
Yeah, let me listen.
You know, one thing I've learned in my career here is foreign policy is very complicated. A lot of things can be true. At the same time, there's no question that all of us understand that Iran as a wicked regime what they have done in the last you know, multiple decades, But certainly it's proven by what's happened here in the last couple of weeks. Not only have they killed you know, thousands of sounds of their own people
who were protesting. But then they decided, which they've always done, is turned the guns on Israel, which we have known for and done seeing and witness for a long period of time, both through their proxies between Hamas and Hezbollah and the UTIs.
They made a strategic decision.
To there some of their allies in the Middle East, including Sairabia, Koway Cutter, the UEE that totally changed it in amics here. So one one for sure is that this is very complicated, and certainly, certainly for my person, I have no tears loss for uh the Supreme Leader. The other issue I think is obviously what you've been talking about on the air a lot, is what the
endgame is. And I think you know when when the Prime Minister and the President talk about regime change, you know, I've been around this for a long time, and I was involved in Afghanistan and in Iraq and Libya. Last time I checked, there is in Jeffersony democracies in those countries. So this is really complicated, guys, and we're going to have to all watch this play out in the next couple of weeks.
I want to ask you about that relationship between the Prime Minister and the president and how much influence Benjamin now who has over President Trump. We've got a statement from the Iranian Foreign minister saying that who was duped into conflict? He says, they, meaning the American people, have ended up with an administration that Netanyahu, after decades of failed attempts, finally managed to dupe into fighting Israel's war.
What's your take on that and how influential do you think Israel was in convincing Washington to make this decision.
Well, first of all, I don't think I'm going to be suggesting that the Iranian spokesperson actually knows what he's talking about.
I think there's a couple of things.
First of all, no one regards if you love Israel, don't believe that what Iran has been doing to Israel through its proxies. Look what they did with Kamas, Look what they did with Kama, with Hesblad, Look what they did their own people. So the idea that somehow people have been duped into up realizing that Iran as a bad actor is ridiculous.
You know, I do I think that.
You know, when I worked for President Biden, we supported Israel when the Iranians attacked Israel for the first time. You know, I supported them in defense but also offensively as well well. So I don't think anyone's necessarily called pushing Donald Trump around. I think that's somewhat absurd. I do think it is important to step back, and I understand two things. One is we have to understand what the objectives of this is. How do we determine what
success is. I'm not sure success is necessarily quote regime change, but one will have to debate that. And I do believe Congress has a role here, guys. I think it's important for us to understand that, and I think that we'll be debated for a long period of time the role of Congress as relates to this particular war.
You bring up Hesbal, and I want to ask you about Lebanon, because we've seen Israel's attacks now kind of venture into Lebanon more and more. And I'm going to play a little bit of sound here from Israel's Defense minister, Israel cats on what they're doing there in Lebanon.
Let's take a listen what you have to say in.
The government of Lebanon and Lebanon will pay a eavy price if destroyed Lebanon, nime cossme they will also ruin it. And again, investor, you see this kind of renewed focus on Lebanon and Israel claiming there's no sort of territorial claim to Lebanon. What do you make of the way that this war is moving again into that country, not just in Iran, but into Lebanon as well.
I don't know if you've been to Israel, and I'm sure some of you guys on this on the certain viewers who are watching us. You know, Lebanon shares a border with Israel, as you know, and it's right in the northern border. It's a huge risk and certainly has Blah has shown to be a terrible actor again a proxy of the Iranians. And I think you know we've seen, you know, it's eight months ago and a lot of
intense fighting to diminish has Bla. You have a leader now in Lebanon who the President of the United States has met with. I think ultimately this is going to be continued to be a huge area of friction. Israel believes it has Blah has not been destroyed. It certainly hasn't been dismantled, they've been weakened, and certainly there's the state sponsor of their terrorism, which is Iran, has been weakened.
But it's a huge threat to Israel, and so listen I I for one, have been big advocate of obviously strengthening the President of Lebanon to attempt to try to make these ob sectarian things come together. But it's hugely problematic for the Israelis and certainly those Israelis who are living in the northern part of the country.
I want to shift a little bit and ask you, because you weren't ambassador, because you're in the State Department, your perspective on the consular part of this. There has been a lot of criticism that the US did not properly warn Americans in the region, its allies in the region, and did not have a plan even if you needed to keep that as a close hold, not to telegraph the attacks. There didn't seem to be a fast rollout
plan to evacuate Americans out of the region. You know, we had that one authorized departure for Tel Aviv, but I didn't see them for other places and other places around the region. Kutar Uae Bahrain have all been hit really hard. We've got Americans who are trying to get out. The State Department now has organized charters. But what is your response to that initial response from the State's Apartment and whether they should have done more or better to get folks out faster.
Listener, you know, I can't to sit around and second, guest, I was a Deputy Secretary of State and I was ambassador Israel. I don't think that there's people at the State Department that are reluctantly trying to communicate with people. I think it's complicated. You're in a military operation. Happens, it happens quickly, as you know, the rules are very
quickly quick. If once the State Department UH says to the embassy staff that they should depart, they then have to make sure that any American who wants to leave, so it can't be adopt.
That notice has to be public for that reason.
Yeah.
There, I think they'll be. They'll be.
Yeah, they'll be. The people will step back. I think there again. I'm not here to be, you know, being trying to be overly critical because it's really really complicated. The men and women who work at the Stage Department, the career. People want to do the right thing. They tried to getting charters in. It is not simple to do, especially when the airspace is complicated. So I just I think everyone needs to again. I believe me, I have
been stuck there when the rockets. It's really scary. I mean, the Emirates and the Saudi's and the Kuwaitis and the Katari's are seeing something that they've probably in most of these people's lives, have never witnessed. Listen sadly, you know, I've I've been talking to my friends every day who are sitting in bunkers four or five, eight, ten times a day in Israel. I don't think it's because they're used to it.
They like it.
So I think the region is getting a little bit of feeling sadly what Israel has been through for a long long time and they don't like it. And obviously I hopefully they're getting those Americans are there and getting out because it is scary sitting in the house. I don't think people understand how frightening it is, and especially in places not Israel, but they don't have bomb shelters where drones are flying over your head. Really, I haven't
been there. It's not pleasant and you do not get used to it.
I want to draw more on your experience in the State Department, so beyond you just being the ambassador to Israel, but the role that you've played there is you look at the level of diplomatic engagement with other countries, is all of this unfold. So it does seem like this is very much a mission of the US and Israel at this point in time. And we saw yesterday kind of back and forth between Curios Starmer, the UK Prime Minister, and President Trump. President Trump suggesting that the UK should
join wars after we've already won them. We saw kind of muted statements from European officials here, what should yes, yeah, yeah, What should be happening on the diplomatic track at this point in time as the military conflict continues. What do you think the US should be doing Israel should be doing to sort of get more allies onto its side as this war continues.
As you guys, as I said at the beginning, you know, foreign policy is quite messy. It's just not it's not you know, it does not follow a straight line because things happen and unintentioned. A couple of things that are
interesting to step back and look at this. First of all, I think the Iranians decision to attack Sairabi and the Amates quaint clatter was a massive mistake because you know, as they say, your enemy of your enemy is your friend, and they certainly have galvanized the rust of the Middle East as it relates to how bad actors the Iranians are.
That's number one.
Number two, the President's going to eat allies, and not only just the Middle East is going to need European allies because if this drags out, you know, obviously there's gonna be all sorts of needs for both airspace and supplies and important to that. And I like to remind people, you know, the European countries are fighting a war against Putin.
And what's going on in Ukraine.
I mean we've we've sort of you know, you guys aren't talking about what's going on in Ukraine.
This is Ukraine.
Thing is just you know, sadly, you just went to the fourth year, so you have a lot of things going on right now, and you know you need you know, and I was, you know, working at the stage department. You need friends, You need friends and good times and you certainly need friends and bad times, and so we're to see ourselves. I'm sure that the Secretary of Rubio and the Trump guys are reaching out to these allies all the time and trying to get their help. But
your point is one hundred percent correct. You need allies in times of peace, and you definitely need allies in.
Times of war.
Tom Knights, who was the US Ambassador to Israel, joining us on the Sunday.
Morning stay with us for more on Bloomberg this weekend.
Right after this, I'm.
Going to turn out of the Junior Centaer from the state of South Dakota, that is Mike Browns, who sits on the Senate Armed Services and the Scent Intelligence committees, and let me just start with Iran if I could on this Sunday morning.
Senator, thank you very much for being here.
We have heard so many different rationales for the US pursuing this war with Iran, and I'm curious if a constituent were to approach you and ask why we're doing this, what would your response be?
Nine days into this war.
Thanks for the opportunity, and we've actually had constituents. I'm right back in Pierce, South Dakota this morning and yesterday had coffee one of the coffee clatches that we try to stop in and say hello at one of our constituents as asking exactly that what's going on and was this the right time to make this move? And my message was that there's ever a right time. But in some cases, as you start to gather your intelligence and you see what your adversaries are doing, they have a
say in it as well. In this particular case, we knew that while the nuclear facilities had been really significantly disrupted, that Iran was still looking at other things, including going back in and getting the nuclear supplies. The uranium that has already been developed that doesn't go away, it's simply buried.
The second piece on it, and probably the more important pieces right now, is that they had continued to increase their supplies of short term and intermediate ballistic missiles and a huge number of drones and they were building them very rapidly. And the question was is as long as their air defenses had already been taken down significantly during the twelve day war, was this the appropriate time to actually go back in and take out those other items.
But there's one more piece in the middle of it, there had been the play diplomatic talks going on, but in the background, we know what their purposes are. I mean, we've got very good intel and we know that even though they were publicly talking about diplomacy, behind the scenes, this was simply to delay and they had no intentions, no intentions of making a deal with regard to their nuclear activities in the future. They were not going to
give up the opportunity to make a bomb. So number one, at what point is there a good time to have a conflict. There's never a good time, but there are better times than others. And the longer we waited, the more of their offensive capabilities that would inflict lots of damage on our bases in the Middle East and on our allies, while at the same time we weren't building our defensive capabilities as fast as they were building their
defensive capabilities. It takes time for us to take some of our more complicated missile systems and.
To develop them.
You have a good sense optunity was there, but we need to do something.
Do you have a good sense from the administration about what they're thinking when it comes to timeline, Because just as there's been varying rationales for this. There's also been kind of mixed messages about how long this administration is preparing to be engaged in this war.
I don't think any of us are expecting an extended long term engagement. But remember we're now just what eight days into this conflict, and so far our plans appear to be going as scheduled with regard to taking out their defensive capabilities, and now we're working on the offensive capabilities using some of our additional equipment that are less
or that are perhaps not as a capable. In other words, we can use F twenty twos, we can use F thirty five's, and in doing so, it's really tough for them to find us and to shoot us down with those types of equipment and with our missile systems that we can use to basically go in and take out
their sensitive their communications and their defensive capability. When that happens, now we can take some of our other heavier equipment, our b ones, our B fifty twos, and so forth, and they can come in and really do strategic strikes throughout the country to take out more of their capabilities, which includes their ability to actually make the drones and so forth.
So I want to ask you about what you're just talking about, those these coffee meetings talking to your constituents. And the President was asked on Air Force one and that same gaggle we keep playing if he was concerned about gas prices, and he said he wasn't. So I'm wondering when you talk to your constituents, when you talk to Americans who are really feeling economic pressure, are they worried about it?
And are you worried about it for them?
Well, I think when this started we knew that there would be a spike because it does impact an area of the world where twenty percent of the fuel or the oil that's developed is moving through the straight hor moves every day, and so you've got to be concerned about it. But did we know that the prices would go up?
Yes?
The question is was there ever going to be a better time in which to take on this operation and was there any chance that we would ever be in a position to where it wouldn't have to be taken care of?
Him?
So you support the president taking this.
Action, that's time to do it.
Sorry I spoke over you. So you support the President taking this action?
At this time.
Oh, definitely, no question. Look, the President had to make a tough decision. This is the right call at the right time. We know that prices are going to go up for a period of time. But once we've secured the straight up har moves again, and once that oil starts to move through once again, then prices will begin
to stabilize. And at some point in the future, as there is clear evidence that we've taken out their ability to attack that shipping, then the price will start to not only stabilize, but it will start to come back down. We're eight days into this. We knew this was going to be tough, but we also know that it's the
right thing to do right time. The Iranian regime that's in power today has no intentions of giving up their offensive capabilities, and they clearly were working at becoming more of a threat to their neighbors in the Middle East and clearly a threat to US interests.
Senator, let me ask you about your appetite for potentially a long war, potentially an expensive war. So we have not heard the President say definitively there will be no boots on the ground ever in Iran.
I'm curious a reaction to that.
And then also, you're back in South Dakota today, But what do you expect the conversation is going to be like among your colleagues on the Senate Armed Services Committee about the prospects of an emergency defense spending package as a result of this.
Yeah, First of all, the President is correct when he does not commit to never doing something. In others, you never take away options. That then gives your adversaries the opportunity to take advantage of that. So you never take away an option. And the President is correct and that with regard to that. It doesn't mean he's going to send troops in, but he never takes away the option.
That's important.
Second piece on this, Yeah, look, we know that these are expensive. The question is is if we can get in now and get this done in a fairly short period of time, it would be less expensive now than if we would have delayed it and allowed the Iranians to continue to develop their offensive capabilities in that region.
So right time never a right time, but this is a better time than if we would have waited another month, two months, three months, and then had to have gone in and found even more offensive capabilities that we would have had to have addressed.
But with the President refusing to rule out the possibility of troops on the ground, and you know, going to Dover this weekend to greet those US casualties already casualties coming back from the war. When you look at the America First Agenda, you have to be getting at least some inkling of concern from constituents, from supporters of the president how this is helping them and their families if we're looking at US casualties and higher prices in the US.
Yeah, look, number one, Like I say, nobody ever wants to go into a war, but sometimes the responsibility of the president is to defend the United States and that requires judgment about what the right time it is to bring troops in. We never want to see our young men and women get into a fair fight. We always want them to have the advantage.
But is this worth it? What is the President trying to do here? And is it worth American lives?
It's not a matter of being worth it. It's a matter of at what point do you take out a major threat to the United States and to the stability throughout the Middle East, And right now is the right time to take on the Iranians and to take out their capabilities before they develop them even more. And so look, I was governor here in South Dakota for eight years during the time in which we were sending young men and women off to war. I went to thirty one funerals.
There is no leader out there that wants to go to funerals. But there is an obligation to recognize the threat of the loss of life for these young men and women. And there is no such thing as as a young man or a woman that dies in battle where you don't affect young families. By definition, they're young, they're warriors. This is not taken on lightly. It's a matter of judgment and whether or not this is the
right time long term to protect us interests. I think the President made the right decision, knowing full well that it was a very serious decision and the threat of the loss of life for young men and women was there.
Senator.
That's the reason why you have a president that looks at the big picture and at what the right thing is to do for our country long term.
Senator, there you've talked a lot about our efficacy and striking sites within Iran military sites in Iran. There is some concern and controversy surrounding a bombing of an elementary school, a girls' elementary school in An in the first date of the war. Let's take a listen to what the President had to say to a reporter on the plane yesterday at about.
That based on what I've seen, that was done by Iran?
Is that true, mister nixspt it was Iran who did not.
We're certainly investigating.
The only side that targets civilians is Iran, and that assessment that this was done by Iron runs counter to what news organizations include the New York Times have put together looking at all of the visual evidence. I'm curious sort of how you see this proceeding from your vantage on the Armed Services Committee, you anticipate hearings. Are you confident in that investigation that's going to take place by the Pentagon here in the minute we have left.
Yeah.
Number one, nobody in the United States targets civilians. We just simply we don't do that, and particularly children. Iran does. Terrorist organization don't know for sure what happened right now, excuse me. What we do know is that we do a better job of actually laying out what actually does
happen once we complete an investigation. We don't know whether that was sitting right next to a very sensitive military site, whether or not the Iranians built something right next to a school with the intent of trying to protect that military site. So let us do the investigation, let us lay this thing out. The one thing that you do know is that in the United States we will do
a good job of looking at it. But most importantly, we do our best with our strategic weapons systems, with our very capable smart weapon systems, to avoid doing damage. But when you have this type of a conflict, unfortunately there are times in which civilians are hit. We don't like it, we don't want it.
Thank you so much.
Sometimes it happens very unfortunately, SATA.
Thank you very much that Senator Mike Brown's joined us from South Dakota on this Sunday morning.
Stay with us for more on Bloomberg this weekend.
Right after this, Welcome back to Bloomberg this weekend. I'm Christina Rafini here with David Gera. It is International Women's Day, and as we were talking around the newsroom about who some of the toughest, coolest women.
Were out there.
These two guests are who we thought of. They not only shared a podium, they are both mothers of young children, something that in previous decades would have ruled them out.
Of metal contention.
We're talking, of course, of Kaylee Humphries and a lot of Myers Taylor's of the US women's bob sled teams.
Take a listen, Alan, I want to start with you first of all, who do you have there?
I want to thank you for being.
With us and just talk about this is not your first Olympics, but why it meant so much to be on top of that podium again and to have your family with you.
I have my son here, Noah, and he is very excited, so he's trying to press all my computer keys and everything.
But the real.
Reason they was so exciting is because they're my motivation, my kids, both of them. My older son Noah, my older son Nico who's six, and my younger son, Noah, who's three. They're my motivation for continuing in the sport. They're both deaf, and I just wanted to show them that regardless of what the world tells you, you can go after your dreams and you could pursue them, unfortunately for me, and it add a gold medal.
That's so amazing because for so long, first of all, it was women can have it all, and then it was maybe women can't have it all, and then but there's this idea that maybe women can have both. And can you talk a little bit about, Kaylee, what the difference is between that, Like, maybe we can't have everything, but you can be a mom and be a bad US Olympian at the same time.
I think for a lot of years, especially growing up in a very male dominated sport, you know, you always get told as soon as you hit forty it's done. As soon as you become a mom, your body's never going to be the same, and there's all these misconceptions and a lot of my career had a lot of people, you know, say that I couldn't do things place to target on my back, it was never going to happen.
And so believing in yourself, believe in what's possible, and dreaming big is a huge part that I think Alana and myself have always done. And so to be able to stand on that podium, you know, for me to be able to earn two medals at this Olympics to know that I did it, you know, a year and a half postpartum, and there was a lot of doubt, even in my own mind, but I wanted to go out there put my best foot forward. I had a great team surrounding me, believing in me and what was possible.
And you know, Alana and I were able to get it done and be able to show everybody that because your mom, because of you know, whatever limitations people want to place upon you, you know, if you dream, bag and work hard, you can make anything happen.
Alana, I want to ask you and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is correct. You have the most medals for a black athlete in the Winter Olympics in history.
Correct, Yes, that's correct. I mean if I could, we just might drop at that and leave it there.
I would literally tell that to everyone I met from like the.
Grocery store of the post office. But one of the other moments that I thought was.
So amazing is you know, you guys are both in forties too, so not only are you moms, but you are on the older end of spectrum for people who are doing the Olympics.
And that was a big story.
This year too, was older athletes coming back and proving they've still got it. What was it like to know, as a mom of two kids, as a woman in her forties, that you were standing there on top of that podium with yet another gold medal around your neck.
I mean, that's the thing.
It took me two kids and almost twenty years to finally win a gold medal.
You know, I've been fortunate to win medals before, so to finally win a gold at this age, and having two kids, when it's improbable, when it's against all odds, it was really cool. And it just goes to show you, like I am a big proponent of the village I've had around me, and I've had a lot of great people, whether it's nannies, whether it's my husband. My kids for the most part, are behind our dreams.
Listen, we're talking about the realities.
I think this is perfect.
You know, it's just been a journey from starting to finish.
But I think it's really cool that show that if you're given the right support system, if you have the right supports, there's no limit to what women can accomplish, regardless of the age, regardless of how many children they have, but I just want to emphasize it does take a village, and it does require a lot of support. I think we need to just do more as a society to make sure women are supported at all stages.
About Hey, let me ask you lastly just about like one part of that village, and that is you guys as teammates, and like what kind of conversation exists about what you all are going through these big moments in each other's lives and how you're thinking about that particular part of the village that the team itself figuring all of this out.
Yeah, a lot of them. And I have been fortunate we've shared five Olympic podiums together, so you know, most of our career has been on the Olympic podium together. Just like any athlete's journey, you have an individual path, and I think motherhood is no different. You know, my path is different than alone his path. And you know we're similar yet very different and in a lot of aspects. But I think for me specifically, and I hope a lot it can say the same. You know, we've really
pushed each other. I think when it comes to motherhood. You know, she's a little farther ahead than I am. Her kids are a little older, but there were there were questions. You know, what happens if you kid ask with a hospital, what happens when you're on tour, and this happens. And so I've been able to and she's been gracious enough to kind of fill me in on
what happens, having been in that side before. And then there's, you know, the sports side of things, and I get to be the athlete I am because she motivates and pushes me to be the best, because she's working super hard to beat me and vice versa. There are times, you know, when I went a race by one hundredth of a second and she's won a race by one hundredth of a second, and so we push each other
to be the best. I know she's out there working every day, and I think that's what makes us so successful on Team USA as a whole, that we can be on the podium for five Olympics in a row together because you know, we've got great support as a whole within the USA Bob Sled and Team USA, but we really push each other to be the best version I know she's out there working hard. I'm out there working hard. Neither of us can relax really when it
comes to the competition piece. But at the end of the day, we know that we're supported with our team and our team of teams, and that's really what elevates us as a nation compared to the rest of the world.
It takes a village, sometimes it's an Olympic village, so that the people we have around you.
Thank you both honor to talk to you.
Yeah, thank you very much.
No, I don't know if you can see me.
Thank you.
We appreciate you being with us.
Bye, guys, bye bye.
Thanks for joining us on today's Bloomberg This Weekend podcast. Don't forget to tune in live for the show every Saturday and Sunday morning, starting at seven am Eastern.
We're on Bloomberg Television Radio and the Bloomberg Business App, bringing you unique takes and in depth interviews on news, politics, lifestyle and culture.