We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Pakistan-Iran attacks: Another Middle East conflict heats up
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week from Davos on World In :60.
How was White House National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan’s statement on a two state solution received in Davos?
Well, I mean, people like the idea of a two-state solution. They have absolutely no idea how to get there. And even if you say you could link it to Saudi normalization with Israel, by the way, the Israelis still want, and behind the scenes the Saudis still want. You still have to find a way to govern Palestine, both Gaza and the West Bank. And we are very, very far, I should say Israel is very, very far from having that as a possibility. So are the Palestinians.
Could the attacks between Pakistan and Iran ignite into a bigger conflict?
Yes, it absolutely could, but has almost nothing to do with Gaza. It was that ISIS attack in Iran that the Iranians are responding to. This is about domestic security, domestic concerns. That's why they hit Pakistan. That's why Pakistan hit them back. But no question, this is a tinderbox. The Middle East, it's very dry and we've got a lot of sparks. And I expect that this conflict is only going to escalate further.
Finally, what should we expect from the Ukraine peace summit to be held in Geneva?
Well, not very much, because the Russians won't participate. And President Putin has absolutely no incentive to give anything. The reason he's talking about diplomacy right now is because he's hoping to shake a few Europeans free and say, yeah, yeah, you should talk. You should sit down with them. It's making it easier to create a wedge inside Europe, especially once Trump gets the Republican nomination, who is clearly on that side. But we are very, very far from peace. In fact, we've got the Ukrainians right now on the back foot and deeply, deeply dissatisfied with it.
Davos 2024: China, AI & key topics dominating at the World Economic Forum
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here in Davos, Switzerland, for the kickoff of the World Economic Forum, 54th annual, though I haven’t been coming for quite that long. Lots going on here, of course, lots of concerns given ongoing wars as backdrop.
The big story so far, I would say, is that the Chinese are in force, 140 members of the delegation, ten ministers showing up, all with economic portfolios, and they want to engage. This is about a near state visit with the Swiss government, a trade agreement, and basically talking to a bunch of foreign direct investors, many of whom are saying, “Hey, we don't think you guys are so investible; we're going more into India and Vietnam and Mexico.” And the Chinese recognizing that they need to put up and make life easier for them. That has been interesting.
The Americans, especially the American government, very skeptical about all of this, of course, but in the near-term at least, don't have a major crisis, especially on the back of recent Taiwan elections. A lot of people are expecting a crisis there. Both sides trying to manage it. On the more negative camp, Ukrainian President Zelensky coming shortly. 83 states participated in an effort at some kind of peace negotiations just yesterday. Perfectly friendly meeting, absolutely no movement towards any diplomacy. The Russians aren't there, the Chinese aren't there, and the Ukrainians aren't going to accept anything that's remotely acceptable to the Russians as a party. What that means, of course, is that the Ukrainians are feeling increasingly desperate, that they need to make sure they get the support to defend themselves at a time that the Europeans are worried about spending the money and the Americans are divided about spending the money.
A little good news there, Senator Chris Murphy was supposed to be part of the big congressional delegation that comes to Davos every year from the US, didn't show up at the last minute. The reason is because they are working and making progress to get that additional budget deal done in Washington that would provide for some border security money, also provide for money, $60 billion for Ukraine, help them defend themselves in 2024. It's not what Trump wants to see, but he's not the Republican nominee yet, so the consequence is there is still movement.
Other final thing here that's getting a lot of a lot of attention is artificial intelligence. Of course, because it's the World Economic Forum, you mostly have people that are selling their new companies, but there's a lot of money behind them, a lot of enthusiasm. And unlike most flavor of the month type technologies, this is affecting pretty much every company in every sector here. So you can't go to a corporation or a bank and not have an AI related conversation as part of your bilateral. That's pretty interesting. 15 years of coming here, I've never seen anything like it. I'm kind of optimistic. Even though the technology is moving a lot faster than the governments.
Anyway, that's it kicking off this week at the World Economic Forum. I hope everyone is doing well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- China flirts with deflation. Why is that a bad thing? ›
- We need to talk about China’s economy ›
- China’s economy in trouble ›
- Ian Explains: Why China’s era of high growth is over ›
- Why is Xi Jinping willing to slow down China’s economy? ›
- Davos 2024: AI is having a moment at the World Economic Forum - GZERO Media ›
- Ukraine pushes to stay top of mind at Davos 2024 - GZERO Media ›
- How is the world tackling AI, Davos' hottest topic? - GZERO Media ›
What would a second Trump term mean? Think Jurassic Park
From Donald Trump's perspective, what was the biggest mistake of his first term? Appointing folks who turned out to be establishmentarians might be a strong candidate, according to Susan Glasser, staff writer at The New Yorker and co-author of "The Divider: Trump in the White House, 2017-2021."
Based on over 300 interviews with people intimately familiar with Trump's first experience in the White House, she expects a second term will differ in tone and tactics. One source even likened it to the infamous scene in 1993's "Jurassic Park" in which velociraptors learn to open doors.
"That is a pretty scary moment when a very senior US national security official tells you that that's what's going to be happening in Trump's second term," she said while discussing the subject with GZERO in a livestream discussion on January 8 about Eurasia Group's Top Risks for 2024. "Take it seriously."
Watch the full livestream discussion with Ian Bremmer, Cliff Kupchan, Susan Glasser, Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, Marietje Schaake, and Evan Solomon.
Check out Eurasia Group's 2024 Top Risks report.
2024's top global risks: The trifecta of wars threatening global peace
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take to kick off your year. Happy Top Risks to all who celebrate. It is our annual report that we've been putting out for decades now, looking at the biggest things going bump in the night that are going to hit over the coming year. And this year, there are a lot of them, the annus horribilis, the Voldemort of years, the year that must not be spoken. This is 2024. And you can see videos we've put together and slides and the rest on all the individual risk. But I want to give you a sense of the big themes that are out there.
And the biggest is that we are facing three wars, not one, not two, but three that are significantly dangerous in the geopolitical environment, none of which are likely to be contained. The principal adversaries fighting each other have no ability or willingness together to stop these wars. They don't even share basic facts about what they're fighting about. And the prospects of diplomacy slowing them down or containing them, at least in the coming months, seem negligible. I'm talking, of course, about the Russians fighting the Ukrainians, the Israelis fighting Hamas and the United States fighting itself. All of these things likely to get worse, not better, very likely over the coming months. A turning point in the Russia-Ukraine war making us feel worse about where it is heading. Certainly for the Ukrainians. And an expansion of the Israeli war against Hamas, very, very unlikely to be able to contain it within the present territorial confines of that conflict.
And the United States, with an election that is almost certain to be seen as illegitimate in outcome by large numbers of the population who are not on the winning side. We've never had a geopolitical environment in our lifetimes that had faced that level of simultaneous international conflict in places that have big impacts around the world.
There are other concerns that are on the report, in particular the existence of an axis of rogues. Russia as a rogue state, increasingly coordinating with their buddies, and there aren't many of them, but they're dangerous. Iran and North Korea. At the same time, dangerous friends of the United States. Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, Israel's Bibi Netanyahu. And maybe we'll find out in a week. Taiwan's William Lai. All strong, abiding friends of the United States on the global stage with individual leaders who provoke greater risk that are hard to contain for the US and for others around the world. AI technology moving a lot faster than the ability to govern it. That's great for economic opportunity, but it's also challenging for geopolitical and domestic political and societal dangers. Plenty of others to focus on. But before I stop, let me talk about some of the optimistic things that are happening in the world too. So many people are talking about this being the year of all of these elections, causing uncertainty and volatility and danger.
But outside of the United States, that's not really true. In fact, the big other elections, the non-American elections going on, are pretty stable. The European Union is going to return a coalition of parties running the EU that looks largely the same as the last five years. You've got India with Modi at 75% approval ratings coming off of very strong wins in three state elections in the last few weeks. He'll win easily and continue with economic reform for what is likely to be his last five-year term. Mexico. You've got a president, López Obrador, who is very likely to be able to secure the victory of his preferred candidate, Claudia Sheinbaum, who is more technocratic in orientation and a former climate scientist that will lead to more growth in Mexico. I can keep going. There are some places that the elections don't go so well, but they're not a surprise at all. Russia. Who are you going to vote for? Putin or Putin? Maybe Putin? Maybe Putin! One of those people. But either way, I think I know who's going to win and I don't think that's going to affect anything.
So the elections are not really that big deal outside of, well, the one country that happens to be the most powerful in the world. Yeah, it's a bit of a challenge. Also, one of the thing I would mention, the most important geopolitical relationship in the world, US-China, which doesn't have any trust and plenty of areas where there's conflict. I look at Taiwan and I look at technology and I look at the South China Sea and those things aren't going away. But this year, the relationship is going to be more stable than you think. It's been like managed decline, but the focus is more on the decline part over the last few years. This year it's more on the managed part.
There are a couple of reasons for that. One is because the US is fighting on all of these fronts. They don't need another fight with the Chinese. Biden especially doesn't want that problem running into his own reelection campaign in November. While the Chinese are seriously underperforming economically and they really don't want anything else that's going to lead to additional pressure, making it harder for their economy to rebound. Huge structural challenges there. So this year at least, at least up until the elections, US and China will have plenty of rockiness, but shouldn't be a serious challenge or a crisis, a sudden crisis impacting the geopolitical order.
So that's it for me. I hope you take a look at the report, enjoy the videos and all the rest, and I'll be talking to you all real soon.
Check out Eurasia Group's 2024 Top Risks report.
Biden and Israeli war cabinet go public over disagreement in Gaza war
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi everybody, and a happy Monday to you. A Quick Take to kick off your week, and it is still the war in the Middle East that is capturing my and so many of our attention. It's an increasingly public fight between the Biden administration and the Israeli war cabinet, particularly Biden and Netanyahu, becoming more public. It's not new, it just had been very private, the fact that there are large disagreements about how this war should be fought.
The Biden administration, the President himself saying the Palestinian Authority needs to have a direct role in any security of Gaza going forward. Netanyahu saying that he absolutely opposes such a role, not suggesting who else might play one. I suspect he wants it to be Egypt, though the Egyptians are saying, "Absolutely not." The Americans saying that Israel needs to move to a new, less intense phase of fighting, especially as the Israelis are now saying it's not just another month, but months more of fighting. The Israelis not directly opposing that publicly, but certainly not admitting to it. And in fact, the focus has continued to be, "Whatever it takes," to ensure that Hamas is completely destroyed. They will make that determination, I'm sure there will be a lot of judgment and gray zone in terms of when that might happen, but we don't yet see the Israeli government talking about a new phase.
Now privately, they were telling Biden they learned a lot from mistakes that they made, and lessons in the attacks initially, the bombing campaigns in the north of Gaza, and that that would lead to more restraint in the later fighting. Well, that certainly isn't what the Americans have been seeing. That was a message sent by the National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, when he saw the Israeli government over the last seventy-two hours, also, what we're seeing today from the Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in his trip.
It's getting harder given the latest killings, both the continued deaths of Palestinian civilians on the ground, as well as the massive domestic outcry in Israel because of three Israeli civilians who were shot by the Israeli Defense Forces and killed. They had stripped down, they were flying white flags. The IDF has publicly admitted to this tragedy. They have said that there is absolutely no excuse for it, even though the conditions of fighting are very stressful. And of course, if that's what they're saying about the Israeli hostages, what are they not saying about the Palestinian civilians?
So clearly this is leading to more international outcry against the Israeli fighting, and you are seeing more calls for ceasefire, including most recently, even from the United Kingdom, which had been as close to the US position as any major advanced industrial democracy. Now, calling for a ceasefire, they're not calling for an immediate ceasefire, instead calling for a sustainable one. And the one thing I would say is that for everyone out there that's calling for a ceasefire, they are calling at the same time for all of the remaining hostages to be released, which Israel and the United States do not support. They support the hostages being released, but not in return for a ceasefire. But it's not as if Hamas is saying, "Okay, let's talk about this," they're not. And absent a willingness to release those hostages, then the calls to end the fighting are themselves presumably not meant to hold. It's not like either side can pick and then the other side doesn't have to do anything. So there is that, and people are losing that in the headlines to a degree.
Meanwhile, in the United States, we're seeing a lot more domestic opposition to Biden's policies. And this is specifically, and quite worryingly, from young people in the United States. The latest survey that I saw, which was startling to me, that a majority of Generation Z in the US respondents believed that the October 7th attacks against the Israeli, the Jewish population, were justified. And that's startling. I'm not surprised to see that among Palestinians in Gaza in the West Bank, but I am surprised to see that among young people in the US. And this goes to show just how badly broken the information environment in the United States has become. How divided, and both sides are not listening to each other, not engaging with each other, also helps to show why we've had so much discord and backlash against that discord in American university campuses, and how the presidents of Harvard and Penn and MIT could be so badly in a bubble and advised by their lawyers on one side of this conflict in front of Congress, as opposed to understanding emotionally where much of the rest of the country and certainly the questions in Congress were coming from.
So big challenges here, it's not going to get any better, especially because the Israeli people still overwhelmingly support this war. And the Palestinians increasingly support Hamas. And in fact, the most recent surveys that were taken during the few days where there was a ceasefire on the ground in Gaza now show that a majority of Palestinians in Gaza support Hamas, and over 80% of Palestinians in the West Bank, who of course haven't suffered personally from Hamas's behavior in the way that Palestinians in Gaza have, they support Hamas as well. So what we're seeing is not only are we farther away from a two-state solution, but we also are a generation away from having people that can sit down in a room together and see each other's humanity. So that's a really depressing backdrop for what continues to be a very serious fight.
A couple points here, one is I think it's very important for the US multilaterally with all of its allies, including Gulf states in the region, to push hard against Hezbollah, push hard against the Iranians, to do everything possible so that this war does not continue to expand. We already see that shipping companies are pulling their shipping from the Red Sea, going around the Cape of Good Hope instead. That's a hell of a lot longer, a lot more expensive, but it's because the Houthis in Yemen supported by Iran continue to engage in attacks on those ships. Ostensibly shipping connected to Israel, reality not so much, just blowing up ships or attempting to going through the Red Sea. So that's something we really need to see stop, a potential for Hezbollah to be involved in the fight, something you need as much pressure on as possible.
I'd also say that the Americans, and Biden in particular, needs to engage in pressure against Netanyahu. The US is the vastly more powerful country and should be driving more influence in outcomes here, especially given the fact that it supports Israel with almost $4 billion of military aid every year. But you wouldn't think that from the comments that Netanyahu continues to make. Now, I remember when the Israeli prime minister back in 2015 opposed a US policy, at that point it was Obama's policy, but Biden was vice president, for the JCPOA, the Iranian nuclear deal. And rather than try to engage quietly with the Americans as a good ally would, no Netanyahu went to Washington and publicly addressed the House and Senate to torpedo that deal and did everything he could to undermine the American president's policy. That's not what an ally does.
And the US is allied to Israel, but it's not allied to Netanyahu. And that's where if I were advising Biden directly on this, I would be telling him, "You go to Israel and meet with the families of the hostages. You give interviews to Haaretz and the Jerusalem Post, you go and talk to the Knesset, and you make it very clear that while the United States is the best friend, the only major friend that the Israelis have on the global stage right now, that is not true of the Israeli prime minister who is doing everything possible to damage Israel's long-term ability to defend itself in alignment with other countries around the world." And by the way, all of this talk about Israel facing existential threat, it doesn't face an existential threat. And the reason for that has been American support, has been the incredible defense and military and technological establishment. Israel has 100-plus nuclear weapons. They have incredible military capabilities, vastly asymmetrical and outgunning everybody else in the region. Israel also has more sustainable and stable relations with other major militaries in the region. The Emiratis, for example, increasingly the Saudis, though quietly, Egypt, Jordan. What they don't have, of course, is sustainable relations with those that want to wipe them out. And here we're talking about Iran, and Hamas, and Hezbollah, and the Houthis, and militant groups supported by Iran in Iraq and Syria. And those things are absolutely serious, but they're not existential. And those that claim they're existential are also frequently the same people that say Israel is the best long-term bet for pension funds and investors in the world. So can both of those things be true at the same time? Of course not. Which is really true? Well, it depends on the political audience you're talking to, isn't it?
But at the end of the day, what we need is stability in this region. What we need is the United States aligned with a longer-term sustainable Israeli government and other democracies in the world, as well as stable Gulf Arab monarchies. We're very far from that, and frankly, we're getting further every day. That's disturbing. And in part it's because Biden's been a bit of a weenie publicly when he's not engaging with Netanyahu.
So those are my views, unexpurgated, as you always expect from me. I hope everyone's doing well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.
Zelensky's US trip likely to secure aid for Ukraine
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Will Zelensky's US visit lead to more aid for Ukraine?
I think so. Unclear why he had to go to Argentina for Milei's inauguration just before. That feels decidedly B-list for a guy that's running a war. But the US trip is important. And of course, he's seeing all of the senate Dems and Republicans, speaker of the House, as well as Biden and a bunch of defense contractors. Biden really wants this to happen. So do leaders of the Democratic and Republican Party. Biden has to compromise for support, both money as well as policy compromise on border security to get the Republicans to support it. I expect that will happen. So on balance, it's close, but I think you're going to get additional military support and cash from the Americans for 2024. That does not allow the Ukrainians to take more territory back, but it does allow them to maintain their existing defenses, which is pretty important.
Will Prime Minister Tusk's return to power help make Poland a leader in Europe?
Absolutely. And I think we're already seeing that in terms of Poland's role on Ukraine. We're seeing it in terms of engagement with von der Leyen on fiscal transfers and on general alignment on where Europe's policies are going on issues like transition energy, industrial policy, AI, you name it. I think that this is a big win for Europe and it's certainly a big win for the Polish people.
Is Prime Minister Sunak on the rocks in Britain?
No much more than he has been, frankly. I mean, he is potentially going to face a no confidence vote because of opposition to his migration, latest migration policy, but it won't pass. He's certainly out in the next election in the coming year and Labor's coming back. But compared to recent prime ministers in the UK, Sunak's been doing a pretty decent job. Essentially, he's a caretaker PM, post-Brexit. That's where we are.
- Biden seeks urgent aid package for Israel, Ukraine ›
- Biden’s visit to Ukraine signals US commitment, but war gets tougher ›
- Zelensky charms Washington. But will it be enough for the long haul? ›
- Zelensky takes aim at the UN Security Council ›
- Zelensky tells Congress US aid is only path to war resolution ›
- Is Biden's embrace of Israel a political liability for him? ›
Why the Israel-Hamas war is so dangerous long-term, according to Rahm Emanuel
US Ambassador to Japan, Rahm Emanuel, is keen to stay in his lane. In an exclusive and wide-ranging interview in Tokyo, Japan, on GZERO World, he tells Ian Bremmer this more than once. But that doesn't mean he can't weigh in, at least a bit, on two raging conflicts outside of Asia: the Israel-Hamas war and the conflict in Ukraine.
On Ukraine, Emanuel is more confident that the fighting won't spiral into a larger regional war. On Israel-Hamas? That's more complicated. But when Ian presses him on whether the Gaza war will expand regionally, Emanuel is not so sure. "Not regional," Emanuel explains, "but long-term in Israel's security, which is essential to our security interest as a country."
Watch the GZERO World with Ian Bremmer episode: The complicated US-Japan relationship
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week on US public television (check local listings) and at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld.
Can the US-Israel relationship still rely on shared values?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. A Quick Take to kick off your week. We are still very much focused on the war in the Middle East. Now, Israel attacking on the ground and in the air, all of Gaza, including troops in the major city, in the South Khan Younis. Obviously, the numbers of Hamas militants that are getting round-up, that are getting arrested, that are getting killed, going way up. Number of civilians that are getting killed, also going way up. And in the context of all of that, greater tensions on the border with Lebanon, though I still think it's unlikely that Hezbollah is going to enter into the fight. Greater attacks by the Houthis in Yemen on Israeli shipping, as well as on American military vessels in the Red Sea. And that makes it more likely that the Israelis expand their focus on that part of the fight and maybe even strike Iran down the road.
But the big question I suppose is, what does this mean for the long-term relationship with the United States, Israel's relationship with the United States, which has been on display as incredibly strong and unflagging even in the context of major domestic backlash against Biden in his own party for supporting it as well as around the world? And with the United Nations Security Council resolution that the Americans vetoed, 13 countries, including strong American allies, supported, and only the United Kingdom abstained.
I'm brought back to a video interview that Ted Koppel did way back with Richard Nixon, asking why the US had such a strong and abiding relationship with Israel. And Nixon said that the United States doesn't have any particular strategic interest with Israel in the Middle East, but it was a matter of morality. It was a matter of shared values. It's on the back of what happened to the Jews during the Holocaust, the necessity of supporting an independent Israeli homeland and state, and also the fact that Israel was the only functioning democracy that shared fundamental values with the United States. And that has indeed been the basis of this relationship for a very long time.
The question to ask is, is that now changing? There are two ways it could change. One is, it changes because Israel no longer reflects those values. And two, it can change because the Americans no longer care about that nature of a relationship. And I think both of those things are under some pressure right now.
On the former, I think that it has to be said that the United States has a lot of relationships. In fact, in many ways, most of its strategic relationships around the world are not just with countries that are democracies but are also with countries that are really strategically important to the US, like Canada, and Mexico, and Germany, and the UK, and Japan, and South Korea. You could make these arguments economically and from a national security perspective. Israel, you really can't. It's a tiny country, 10 million people in the middle of the Middle East. And economically, the US has far more interest and alignment with just about anybody else, and yet Israel gets $3.8 billion of military support for the US. The US is there for them through thick and thin. But the present Israeli government has been uninterested in rule of law when it comes to the West Bank and expanding settlements illegally, uninterested in rule of law and separation and balance of powers when it comes to an independent, though very strong judiciary and riding roughshod over the laws that regulate proper governance and transparency and checks on the Israeli executive. In this regard, Israel, under Netanyahu and his far-right government, has become less of a democracy, a functional democracy, and certainly less of a country that shares the values that the Americans, at least in principle, stand for and want to uphold.
On the other side, the United States has certainly had its challenges in its values historically. I mean, you look at some of the photographs of all of these militants that are lined up and stripped down and bound, some of whom are Hamas terrorists and some of whom are just innocent bystanders, and what do you remember as an American? Feels like Abu Ghraib, feels like the failed war in Iraq after 9/11. And that's a mirror on the United States that a lot of Americans don't want to be reminded of. A lot of Americans aren't so sure what the United States stands for. Certainly, if Americans don't feel like they're being treated properly by their own government, are going to be a lot less interested in continuing to send money and support and engage with conflicts internationally, especially if they're not a hundred percent convinced that they are standing on the right side.
Now, on the back of October 7th, I think pretty much every American, and there's always an exception, you can always find someone that'll support anything, but the outrage in the United States for what happened to the Israelis, what happened to the Jewish people on that day was very strong and very palpable. A couple of months later, it feels very different given the nature of the war and the comparative indifference in Israel of the plights of the Palestinian civilians that are on the ground in Gaza.
So here I do worry that what President Nixon had to say a few decades ago, and the level of confidence that any Israeli leader would feel very strongly, comforted by the fact that Israel wasn't strategically important but was morally essential, had alignment of values, that the Americans would stand for that no matter what. Well, I'm not so sure that we feel as comforted by that in today's environment, neither an Israeli government nor an American government going forward. It's something to be cognizant of at the very least and something that perhaps we can all come back to.
Certainly, if there is any opportunity here going forward, it is that in the aftermath of this horrible war, that there will be an effort from all sides, but led once again diplomatically by the United States to bring peace to this region, to bring opportunities for the Palestinian people where everyone involved is going to have to compromise in ways that today seem uncomfortable, even for some inconceivable, but a long-term and durable US relationship with its principle ally in the Middle East will need to be based on that essentially.
So that's it for me. I hope everyone's doing well, and I'll talk to y'all real soon.