Trending Now
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 }}
Iran was the clear loser of its war with Israel and the US. So, what happens next?
Less than a month after Iran’s stunning defeat in a brief but consequential war with Israel and the United States, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has emerged politically stronger—at least for now. But as New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman notes to Ian in the latest episode of GZERO World, that boost may be short-lived unless Bibi finds a credible way to resolve the crisis in Gaza. “The people who won this war for Israel...were, for the most part, the very same people who were in the streets of Israel for nine months against Netanyahu and his judicial coup,” he says. That internal contradiction, he argues, is likely to reassert itself as the conflict continues.
Friedman warns that Netanyahu still faces the same three unappealing choices in Gaza: permanent occupation, rule by local warlords, or a phased withdrawal in partnership with an Arab-led peacekeeping force and the Palestinian Authority. If he were to choose door number three, then Bibi would win the next five elections, Friedman says. But doing so would likely require pressure from Washington. With Trump now touting his foreign policy win in Iran, Friedman believes the moment is ripe for the US to push hard for a ceasefire in Gaza.
The conversation also explores the uncertain road ahead for Iran’s leadership. In the wake of military humiliation, Friedman anticipates an internal debate over whether to double down on nuclear ambitions or seek reintegration into the international community. “All real politics in the Middle East happens the morning after the morning after,” he says. As both Israel and Iran attempt to move forward, Friedman suggests the real reckoning—for governments, publics, and the global order—may just be beginning.
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
What's next for Iran, with Thomas L. Friedman
Listen: On the latest episode of the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman to dissect what may go down as the most consequential month in the Middle East in years. Just weeks after Israel launched a war against Iran—and after President Trump authorized US airstrikes—an uneasy ceasefire is in place. But what was actually achieved?
Iran, the clear loser of the 12-Day War, entered as the most vulnerable player and emerged weaker still. Tehran stood largely alone, with Hamas degraded, Hezbollah decimated, Syria toppled, and Russia distracted. Yet the Islamic Republic can still claim regime survival, some damage inflicted on Israel, and a murkily intact nuclear program.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, avoided a ceasefire until he had secured key gains: he crippled Iran’s infrastructure, leveraged US firepower to hit targets beyond Israel’s reach, and rescued his collapsing political career. As Friedman notes, “The people who won this war for Israel...were, for the most part, the very same people who were in the streets of Israel for nine months against Netanyahu and his judicial coup.” That tension will only grow in the months ahead.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published
Attacking Iran has given Bibi new political life. But will he face a backlash at home?
As part of the latest episode of GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman breaks down what Israel’s recent military success against Iran means for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political future—and for the ongoing war in Gaza. While Netanyahu appears to be in a stronger position geopolitically and domestically, Friedman warns that the deeper dynamics in Israel haven’t changed as much as they might seem. “The people who won this war for Israel... were, for the most part, the very same people who were in the streets of Israel for nine months against Netanyahu,” he says.
Despite the military gains, Friedman argues that the hard choices about Gaza remain unchanged: partner with an international Arab force and the Palestinian Authority, let local militias take over, or reoccupy Gaza permanently. The first option, he says, would dramatically shift Israel’s regional position: “If Bibi were to choose door number one... he wins the next five elections.” But with Netanyahu’s domestic opposition still raw and ideologically opposed to his vision, Friedman suggests the post-war political chemistry in Israel—and Iran—is about to get “really interesting.”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
Ian Bremmer: The United States isn't Sweden
I don't usually respond directly to individual op-eds but when it's Tom Friedman in The New York Times, and you're talking about how we respond to global coronavirus, well, it seems like it's a good time to weigh in. The op-ed in question: "Is Sweden Doing It Right?" And asking essentially, on the back of that, therefore, should we be Sweden, the United States? Is that the direction that we want to go in? And by the way, do we know what Sweden actually did? And this is really one that you need to take a red pen to.
First of all, not true that Sweden just opened everything up and allowed a herd immunity. Some schools were closed, mass gatherings were canceled, travel within the country has mostly stopped. So, it's very different from the idea that Sweden is business as usual. And as a consequence, it's very misleading to think that if we were Sweden, that our economy wouldn't have taken a hit. It would have taken a very significant hit, probably still an unprecedented hit since the Great Depression. You would have been shutting down an awful lot of real business. But it wouldn't have been as bad as it is right now. So, that's one important point.
A second is, could we do what Sweden has done? We're a much larger country of red and blue states that have control of their individual states, of their school systems, of their budgets, of their police forces. And they are the ones that make the rules. I mean, Trump can say "I have ultimate authority," but it's not Trump's authority to make. So, I mean, you know, are we asking should we have 50 individual states that all choose to be Sweden? Well, some of them kind of did, if you think about what they did and didn't put in place. Others didn't. It's not going to be a federal government decision.
And also, the preconditions in the United States if you want to do Sweden, I mean, no mention here of obesity. No mention of type 2 diabetes. The fact that American health care is nowhere close to what Sweden's is. And American trust in that system is nowhere close to what Sweden's is. And the inequalities in the United States, this disease on the back of African Americans to a much greater degree. Sweden, so much more homogeneous. Makes the two systems so, so different.
And then, what is it that Sweden actually has gotten out of it? About 25% of Stockholm, it is believed, now has antibodies. Which means that on the back of this policy, they have a quarter of their population that has already been exposed to, gotten the disease. Does that get you herd immunity? The science is out on what herd immunity is going to be when it comes to coronavirus. Yeah, 60% seems to be tipping point. You need at least that to be able to get immunity for the country. But you also need to know whether that 60% that just got coronavirus were asymptomatic or 60% that had it and had moderate to severe symptoms. And doctors do not agree on that at this point. And if it turns out it's the latter, then Sweden has had this experiment and they're nowhere close to herd immunity. Not to mention the fact that we're only talking about Stockholm and not the rest of the country, which okay, Tom and I probably only go to Stockholm when we go to Sweden, but the Swedes actually go across the whole damn country. So, you need to pay attention to all of that as well.
It's really important, I think, for us not to hold up the Swedish model as somehow some proven way to get the economy working, have a few more people end up, older people end up in critical condition or die, but everything else is fine, and we should now look carefully at that. What we need to do is recognize that the United States is not Sweden. Could not be Sweden. Sweden is not Sweden in terms of the way that we're kind of mythologizing it right now.