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 }}
Israel attacks Iran
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here and a Quick Take on the latest in the Middle East crisis. And things actually looking a little bit more stable today than they have over the past couple of weeks. And that is some very welcome news.
The headlines, of course, that the Iranians have been hit by Israel, though no one is saying that Israel has admitted to doing it, in the town of Isfahan. Clearly, military targets and the Iranians trying to knock down those missiles coming over. But this was a significantly more restrained attack than what the Israelis did to kick off this crisis, which was attack an Iranian government building in Damascus and target and assassinate a senior Iranian leader. That led to the Iranian response that we saw over the weekend, which was a significant and serious one, with a few hundred missiles and drones. And now we are in the escalatory portion of the cycle.
The United States said very clearly to Israel, “We're going to help defend you no matter what. We don't want any offensive strikes against Iran. Take the win.” The fact that they said that meant that it was very, very likely that they were going to do something, but that something was going to be restrained, where if the Americans said, “Hey, just take it easy, don't do anything big,” then they’d end up doing something bigger, right? And you give them an inch, they take two inches. This is the way these things work. And it was coordinated with the United States. The US was not involved directly in the military strikes, but they knew it was coming. They had that cooperation, communication from Israel, which was important because the US had to be in position in case the Iranians decided that they were going to strike real time in response to Israel. The Americans were going to help the Israelis defend themselves yet again.
Now, the big question here is not, “Do the Iranians respond in a big way?” They don't. They've already signaled that that's not the intention. You've seen them downplaying the nature of these strikes on Iranian state media. So, this crisis, this proximate crisis between Israel and Iran is now in the rearview mirror. But going forward, what's the likelihood that we can stabilize this war, which is now well beyond just a matter of Israel versus Hamas?
One thing that makes me a little bit more positive is the fact that Bibi Netanyahu is himself in a little more secure position domestically. What do you mean, makes you more positive? Does that mean he's going to last longer? Yes. But it also means he doesn't necessarily have to go ahead with massive strikes against Hamas in Rafah, killing lots of civilians. Or eventually against Hezbollah, pushing them back so that almost 100,000 Israeli citizens can get back to the north. If he wanted to take a win and show that he now has, you know, a historical legacy of leading Israel in defending against an unprecedented strike from Iran, with strong support from the Americans, from the Brits, from the Jordanians, from the Saudis, this is the opportunity that could create Saudi normalization with Israel. This is the opportunity that could create a peace deal that the Palestinians would have some form of governance over the West Bank and Gaza together.
That's the opportunity that comes from this, precisely because Israel domestically now has a leader that doesn't have to look over his shoulder every moment. But the strong effort by Netanyahu, at least as of today, is to still go ahead with these Rafah strikes. You've got the battalions on the ground. You want to use them, you want to take out, these Hamas leaders, irrespective of the civilian cost. And that continues to be very popular among the entire population of Israel as well.
So, when I think about the next couple of weeks, I think that you're not going to get a breakthrough deal on hostages with Hamas, and that means that the fighting only stops if there's a broader agreement. And that broader agreement requires that the Israeli war cabinet is willing to stand down and not continue their war on the ground in Gaza. And in return, has a broader agreement with the Americans, with the Gulf states, and ultimately with a path forward for the Palestinians. Most people around the world would welcome, would love to see that. Getting the Israelis from here to there, especially when you are surrounded by enemies that consider you, to be, illegitimate as a country and refuse to recognize your right to exist, that makes it a lot harder. So that's where we are. But some breathing space for now. The mood in the United States, certainly better than it was at any point over the last week and a half, and that's a good thing.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
Iran attacks Israel
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here, and a Quick Take on a Sunday, which usually means something is not going well, and that is certainly the case in the Middle East, where you had unprecedented strikes by Iran and its proxies against Israel.
Now, on the one hand, clearly a very dangerous thing to do, on the other hand, could have been a hell of a lot worse. What do I mean by that? Well, it is not World War III. Americans warned Iran not to hit the United States, and the Iranians gave a heads-up, days in advance, through a number of actors, most importantly through Iraq. This reminds me very much of after the American servicemen and women, three were killed in Jordan, by an Iranian proxy. The Americans did not want a war to break out with the Iranians directly, waited about a week, gave a heads up through Iraq, of the kind of attack that the Americans were planning, waited four days, gave the Iranians a chance to basically prepare and get their own forces out, and warned them that if this were to happen again, there would be direct consequences, a direct strike on Iran itself.
In this case, you had the Iranian heads-up that gave the Americans and allies time to pre-position, to provide diplomatic support, both publicly and privately, to the Israelis. Send the head of CENTCOM to Israel, say that American support for Israel was ironclad, help ensure that the Israelis would be able to most effectively defend itself against the coming Iranian attack. That was, on the one hand, a really big deal by the Iranians that was meant to be a maximal display of force and a minimum likelihood of casualties. But still, there was a significant possibility of accident, that you could have a risk that would lead to a war directly between Iran and Israel. Something that the Americans desperately wanted to avoid because it would bring the US in. It would spike oil prices. It would probably mean the end of Biden's, potential of a second presidency. And it, of course, would also mean that Iran was going to get hit massively by the United States and Israel, something they wanted to avoid.
We saw hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles, many from proxies, but many from Iran itself, over 99% of which were taken down. And they were aimed solely at military targets in Israel. So again, lots of effort to try to reduce the risk but the potential that you would have had a number get through, accidentally hitting civilians or having significant military hit, that was a risk that the Iranians were prepared to take. So, it's a big deal, it’s a clear escalation, and it is certainly an effort by the Iranians to say, that if this is to happen again, that the likelihood that there will be a major war between Iran and Israel come what may, is very real. And the Iranians also said, and they said this before the missiles even hit their targets, or in the case of the vast majority of them were intercepted, said through the United Nations mission that this was directly in retaliation for the Israeli strike against an Iranian leader in Damascus, and that the matter, from Iran's perspective, should be considered closed.
In other words, no further attacks were coming. So, trying to in a sense, you know, reduce the likelihood of further escalation, in advance. And clearly, all of that kept the United States from responding directly. So, the US strategy here is do everything possible to show that you will get massive support for Israeli defense and national security in the event of an attack, any attack, but also to try to put maximum constraint on the Israeli government against a response directly against Iran, and that the Americans don't want to support Israel if they were to engage in offensive attacks against Iran at this point.
What are the Israelis going to do? I mean, the hope for the United States is that while Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to do more and suck the United States into a broader war against Iran, that he is going to be constrained from doing so. In part because he was so successful, they now have a major victory on their belt under his watch, being able to defend the Israeli people completely in response to an unprecedented Iranian attack. And there's also going to be a big distraction away from the war in Gaza. Doesn't mean that Israel suddenly loses its isolation or wins the PR war globally, I think that's certainly not going to happen, but, there's less pressure on the Israelis, on the prime minister, in terms of Gaza right now as a consequence of what Iran has done. And there's also less pressure for Netanyahu to be forced out domestically in the near, in the immediate future.
Further, if he were to try to go considerably farther than Benny Gantz wants to, and the war cabinet wants to, in a response against Iran, then Netanyahu risks that they would bolt from the war cabinet and that his government would then fall apart. That's certainly a proximate risk that contains what the Israelis are likely to do. I don't think they'll sit on their hands and do nothing. At the very least, I think there'll be more significant strikes against Iranian proxies in the coming days. And the Israelis will also continue to engage in strikes against Iranian targets as they see them, as is opportune, in proxy states going forward. This is the problem, of course, is that, even though you have averted major escalation in a very dangerous period over the weekend, the Israelis and the Iranians haven't accomplished anything to stabilize their relationship longer-term.
Israel has shown that they are capable of taking out Iranian leaders in Syria, and Iran can't defend them. Iran has no intention of suddenly leaving those proxies to fend for themselves. And further, the likelihood that Israel now gets a breakthrough agreement on hostage release by Hamas, and that leads to a ceasefire, has gone down, at least in the near-term. The other side of that is the likelihood that the Israelis proceed with at least some form of ground attack into Rafah, which the Americans have warned them not to, also has gone up.
So the Hamas war with Israel is nowhere close to ending, the likelihood of continued Palestinian civilian casualties continues to grow, and the potential for further military engagement, both vis-a-vis proxies, including the Houthis in the Red Sea, the fact that the Iranians have also boarded an Israeli linked vessel in the Red Sea and that there is no effective deterrent in place right now between Israel and Iran, despite all sorts of other actors not wanting this to expand into a broader war, that all makes the Middle East right now, more dangerous.
So, I mean, none of us know, what the next shoe is going to be to drop. But if you are looking ahead over the next, let's say, six months, a couple things I think you can say. First, it is more likely that the present Israeli government is going to be in place for longer, and that the war in Gaza is going to continue without a serious effort at stabilization, or at least not one that's consequential.
That's problematic for Biden as you look ahead to the election in November. The potential that this war expands and eventually does drag in the United States and Iran more directly, is also going up. It's not imminent but it is certainly reasonably plausible, and the guardrails on that war are becoming, they are eroding as both sides are taking shots against each other.
So, a dangerous environment. A second war that is not going the way the Americans or anyone else in the world would like it to. And that's how we're kicking off our week.
That's it for me and I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Iran launches ballistic missiles at Israel in revenge attack ›
- Islamic State group spoils efforts to blame Israel for deadly Iran blasts ›
- Israel's war in Gaza has emboldened Iran, says Karim Sadjadpour ›
- Who will Iran blame for deadly explosions near Soleimani’s grave? ›
- Biden’s Iran dilemma ›
- Will Iran attack Israel? ›
- Iran-Israel crisis: Dangers still high with little room for diplomacy - GZERO Media ›
- Israel attacks Iran - GZERO Media ›
What will Israel's invasion of Rafah look like?
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
How will Iran respond to the attack on their consulate in Syria?
An Israeli strike that killed the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps leader of Iran in Syria. So on the one hand, Iranian citizen, high-level military official. On the other hand, not in Iran itself, in Syria supporting proxy attacks. Clearly the Iranians have been willing to push hard using the leverage they have in the so-called acts of resistance to engage in strikes against civilian shipping, against Western military capabilities, and against Israel.
The Israelis are showing that they will attack wherever they think fit against them, but Iran has been reluctant to allow this to potentially lead to escalation in a direct war against Iran, which is why it's hard to imagine the Iranians engaging in direct strikes against Israel itself. Ballistic missile strikes from Iran into Israel. So in other words, if you're going to hit Israel, you try to use proxies or you try to hit Israelis outside of Israel itself. Israeli diplomatic facilities, for example, that's where I think you're more likely to see escalation. Escalation seems almost certain from the Iranians, but containing it also is something the Americans and Israel are trying very, very hard to do and that continues to be the case like when we saw the American servicemen killed in Jordan a couple months ago.
What will Israel's invasion of Rafah look like?
Assuming it happens, remember Netanyahu was saying that he has a date now for the strike, but he said that strikes were going to start once Ramadan began if there had not been an agreement on this six-week, hostages for temporary ceasefire deal. There wasn't such a deal, Netanyahu backed off, he could back off again. Also, the ultimatum from the United States is not about a war in Rafah. It is about a large-scale ground war without providing the ability for the Palestinians to evacuate and get humanitarian aid.
Between those two positions there's a lot of wiggle room and one expects that the Israeli government, as they are thinking about those strikes, which I do believe will come, will try to claim domestically that they're doing what they need to clear up Hamas and claim to the Americans that it is at a reduced cost of civilians and it is engaged in the spirit of working with the Americans and not requiring Biden to shut down offensive support for Israel. That's where we are.
What's the fallout from Ecuador's raid of a Mexican embassy?
Well, the first thing is President Noboa of Ecuador, this is political. This is a former vice president who was taking, was sheltering in the Mexican embassy. You raid it, that is a breach of international law, but there is a security, largely security referendum, nationwide referendum coming up in just a couple of weeks in Ecuador that Noboa wants to win. He is ahead, it looks like he will win it now, and this is going to be very popular on the ground.
Guy had been sort of on their wanted list for a long time, but they decided to take that action now because of the domestic politics. So it helps him. Probably doesn't kill the IMF deal that is presently being negotiated, but certainly suspends diplomatic relations between the two countries and it's probably going to affect trade too. So you've alienated the Mexicans, but given the near-term political benefit for the Ecuadorian president, he thought that was a risk worth taking. Lots of impunity in this environment. It's one consistency that we see in our geopolitical recession, our GZERO world.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
- Ecuador’s anti-corruption candidate assassinated ›
- Who will Iran blame for deadly explosions near Soleimani’s grave? ›
- Egypt braces for Israel’s ground invasion of Rafah ›
- Bibi sets date for Rafah invasion ›
- Turkish voters punish Erdogan in local elections ›
- How Netanyahu used Hamas to avoid talks of a two-state solution ›
- Yuval Noah Harari: Netanyahu's 'Deep State' fears enabled Oct 7 attack ›
- Netanyahu’s failed Gaza strategy ›
Israel's global image wanes further after killing of aid workers
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Is Netanyahu losing the PR battle amid public outrage over the IDF strike killing seven aid workers?
I think Israel is losing the information war around the world, not just with the Global South, which was certainly true a few months ago, but increasingly even with Israel's closest allies. I'm hearing from the Germans, from the French, you know, from the Canadians, from the United States, that there is really a lot of upset with the unwillingness to take far greater care about civilian casualties while the Israelis are engaging in massive airstrikes still across Gaza. And of course, especially if we see strikes into Rafah, where well over a million Palestinians are trying to shelter. It's a big problem for the Israelis. It's a big problem for Netanyahu, but no end in sight, right now. And the potential for the war to escalate continues to be very, very real.
What's needed to garner bipartisan support for Speaker Mike Johnson's bill for increased Ukraine aid?
We have bipartisan support. There is overwhelming majority support among Democrats and Republicans to pass aid for Ukraine, likely 60 billion. Could be structured as a loan. Doesn't really matter. It’s not like anyone believes the Ukrainians will be in a position to pay it off any time soon. Makes it more palatable for Trump supporters who have heard the former president say, “not one more dime in direct foreign aid,” has to all be structured as loans in case we don't like them in the future, then they have to pay it back. What if they can't? Who knows? But anyway, that's the structure. The point is that the Ukrainians who have continued to be able to mostly hold their defensive lines, they've lost some territory recently, in part because they don't have enough troops on the ground. They are pushing through more mobilization, but also because they don't have enough artillery and ammunition, enough military equipment. And that is coming some from the Europeans, more soon from the Americans this month, I suspect the next couple of weeks that happens.
What's the significance of Turkey's recent local elections setback for President Erdogan's government?
It is the first time in a couple of decades since Erdogan took power that his party did not win. They didn't get a majority, and instead it was the opposition. And that's a big deal. Even those municipal elections. Look, it doesn't mean the end of Erdogan. He doesn't have to stand for presidential elections, no parliamentary elections until 2028. So it's quite a while. But it does show that elections matter in a country like Turkey as much as Erdogan would like them not to. And it is mostly about lack of comfort with his government's performance on the economy, a lot more pressure to perform adequately. And the mayor of Istanbul is an erstwhile serious challenger to the Turkish president. So, I mean, his ability to change the constitution and consolidate more power, his ability to ensure that his party is going to be in control after 2028 has just gone down quite a bit. And that means he has to be more careful, more cautious and more focused on performing on the economy for his own people.
US-Israel rift over UN resolution: More drama than long-term impact
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
How will the US-Israel relationship be affected by the US backing a Gaza cease-fire resolution at the UN?
Well, it was high drama yesterday when Prime Minister Netanyahu said he was going to immediately suspend an Israeli delegation that was going to visit the United States on the back of that decision.Very unhappy that the Americans decided to allow it to go ahead and abstain as opposed to by themselves vetoing. And keep in mind that all every other permanent and nonpermanent member of the Security Council has voted in favor. A lot of US allies there. And you know, that would seem to be a big deal, except Yoav Gallant, Minister of Defense, still stayed in the United States and had a series of very productive and high level meetings with his counterparts in the US. And there are still negotiations proceeding that are constructive between the US and Israel and Qatar to engage with Hamas and try to get a temporary cease-fire done and a bunch of hostages released also called for immediate release by the UN Security Council resolution. So I think there's a lot more drama here than there is actual impact on the US-Israel relationship. And certainly a lot of pressure that continues to mount on a very unpopular Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu at home.
Will there be international consequences from the Francis Scott Key bridge collapse in Baltimore?
I mean, it wasn't terrorism. It was an accident, though. I mean, I guess if this was Russia, they'd say the Ukrainians were responsible for it. It is a major port on the Eastern seaboard that looks like it is going to be a real problem to get in and out of. And that means supply chain challenges, especially in terms of cars, millions of which go through Baltimore every year. But, you know, the United States has an economy that's doing quite well. A growth is significant, but not over whelming. And otherwise supply chain is working around the United States for imports. So I suspect that if there's an economic cost here, it's going to be relatively small and short lived.
What message is Russia sending by their public display of torture against accused terrorists?
Well, they're showing that they have a complete indifference to the well-being of any human being. They're also, of course, displaying that the Russian state will go after you with its full force if you are seen to be an enemy of theirs. That is true in terms of the way they treat opposition journalists and politicians. But it's also true in the way they treat suspected terrorists. And they, of course, have forced confessions. I suspect they do have strong evidence, given what we've seen of that over the last few days. But still, I mean, in a system of rule of law, you are innocent until proven guilty in Russia. Of course you are guilty when the government says you are guilty, in particular, when the absolute leader says you're guilty and then you no longer have rights and the state can do with you as they will. We saw that with Mr. Prigozhin, We saw that with Mr. Navalny. And now we're seeing that with four suspected and likely but not yet proven terrorists.
Biden and Trump's Middle East policies are "almost identical" - Harvard's Stephen Walt
In a candid discussion with Ian Bremmer, Harvard Kennedy School professor Stephen Walt highlights the striking similarities between the Biden and Trump administrations' Middle East policies. "It's hard to see a big change between the Trump administration's approach to the Middle East and what the Biden administration was doing up until October 7." Walt notes that Biden's actions have mirrored Trump's, from failing to fulfill promises like reopening the US Consulate in Jerusalem to continuing Trump's approach with the Abraham Accords.
Despite occasional frustrations and ongoing conflicts in the region, both administrations have maintained strong support for Israel, with little indication of significant policy shifts. Walt also emphasizes the cautious approach of both presidents regarding Iran, suggesting that neither side desires a full-scale conflict, given the complexities and potential repercussions in the volatile Middle East. “For the United States to get involved in yet another large Middle East war seems to me is contrary to our interests, but it's also contrary to most of Donald Trump's instincts.”
Watch full episode here: How the US election will change the world
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
How the US election will change the world
What role will foreign policy play in the upcoming US presidential election? “More than it usually does,” says Harvard Kennedy School’s Stephen Walt in an interview on GZERO World with Ian Bremmer. “Partly because the economy doesn't seem to be helping Biden as much as it should be, partly because it's hard to look at Biden's foreign policy and tout a lot of big success stories."
In a wide-ranging interview comparing US foreign policy under a second Biden or Trump term, Walt suggests that they may not be as different as people expect. “On a bunch of big issues, the daylight between him and Biden just isn't that great.” It may come as little surprise that Bremmer disagrees.
But Walt says this is especially true in areas like China policy, where Biden's approach has been refined and continued. "The Biden people refined the Trump approach in a number of ways—focused it very much on high-tech—but have if anything, doubled down on the policies that Trump adopted starting in 2017."
And while Walt certainly acknowledges an array of crucial differences between Trump and Biden, he argues that both second administrations may have similar outcomes in areas like the Middle East and Ukraine. That said, he makes clear that while Trump's second term may not drastically change US foreign policy, it could lead to a less supportive stance towards Europe and NATO. "Trump is fundamentally a nationalist, fundamentally a unilateralist, whereas Biden is very much a globalist or internationalist, and that's a key difference.”
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- What kind of foreign policy do Americans want? ›
- Will foreign policy decide the 2024 US election? ›
- Biden's Israel policy hurts his 2024 reelection chances from all angles ›
- Biden's 2024 election vulnerabilities and strengths ›
- Chris Coons on the Biden Doctrine: What is Joe Biden’s foreign policy vision? ›
- Why the US is sending aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan - GZERO Media ›
Ian Explains: Will foreign policy decide the 2024 US election?
How much does foreign policy matter in a US presidential election? This year, more than usual.
When pollsters started asking Americans in 1948 what they viewed as the “most important problem” facing the country, foreign policy and international security dominated.
Looking ahead to the 2024 presidential election, Biden has managed to turn a Covid-ravaged economy around, with growth pegged at about three percent per quarter. Wages are going up, unemployment is at an all-time low and the stock market is coming on strongly. By every economic indicator, Biden should be surging. And yet, by every political indicator, he’s floundering.
Biden’s fate in November may hinge on whether he can convince a skeptical electorate that the economy is doing as well as it is...actually doing. But Americans’ views on the Ukraine war have shifted, with a plurality now saying the US is doing too much to help Ukraine. And half of US adults polled in February said that Israel has gone too far on its war with Gaza. Could Biden’s handling of these key foreign policy issues cost him the election in November?
It’s already clear that foreign policy will play an outsize role in this year’s election. So will immigration, which topped Gallup’s “most important problem” list in February and which is both a foreign policy issue and an economic one.
Catch GZERO World with Ian Bremmer every week at gzeromedia.com/gzeroworld or on US public television. Check local listings.
- Journalist Robin Wright explains why Biden’s foreign policy comes up short ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Biden's second foreign policy crisis ›
- Henry Kissinger: Towering (and polarizing) figure in US foreign policy dies at 100 ›
- Pioneering Black American leaders in US foreign policy ›
- Biden vs Trump foreign policy: Political scientist Stephen Walt weighs in - GZERO Media ›
- Why the US is sending aid to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan - GZERO Media ›