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 }}
Podcast: What's the US role in the Israel-Hamas war? Views from Sen. Chris Murphy & Rep. Mike Waltz
Listen: Two weeks into Israel's bloody war with Hamas, the death toll continues to mount, and amidst the rubble of bombed-out buildings, one thing seems clear: things are far from over. On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer asks what role the US government should play in the conflict and whether that role is as clear-cut today as it was after the attack on October 7. President Biden made a politically and personally dangerous trip to Israel this week, showing solidarity for America’s closest ally in the Middle East. But the administration must walk a fine line between supporting Israel’s right to defend itself, and preventing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza from spiraling out of control.
To get the view from both sides of the aisle on Capitol Hill, Ian speaks first with Senator Chris Murphy, the Connecticut Democrat who sits on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and then with Republican Representative Mike Waltz of Florida, a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It's a particularly timely moment to be on Capitol Hill, as House Republicans remain paralyzed over their inability to pick a Speaker. Senator Murphy and Congressman Waltz both comment on what toll that dysfunction is taking on US national security.
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.- The Israel-Hamas war: Where we are, two weeks in ›
- Israel-Hamas War: The race to avert escalation in the Middle East ›
- Will Israel's war with Hamas spread north to Lebanon? ›
- Podcast: The war between Israel and Hamas and its unfathomable human toll ›
- Israel-Hamas war: Biden's second foreign policy crisis - GZERO Media ›
- Podcast: The path to a two-state solution for Israel & Palestine: Former PM Ehud Barak's perspective - GZERO Media ›
Trump indicted on federal charges
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Hi, everybody. Ian Bremmer here. Another Quick Take. Too much news this week to keep me down. My goodness.
Seven indictments going to be coming down on Tuesday, federal indictments, against former President Trump. Unprecedented development in US history. We see so many of those in American democracy these days. No American president has ever been federally indicted before. I'd like to say no one will ever be federal indicted again, but of course that is looking increasingly unlikely given the state and trajectory of the US political system.
Now, of course, the right thing to do here would be to wait until the indictments come down to opine on them, wait until evidence is presented, and the jury rules to determine to what extent this is a case that is appropriate on its merits. It's kind of like OJ, right? I mean, everyone was on tenterhooks until the verdict came down, and then you had the real response. No, no, no, the real response right now has absolutely nothing to do with the facts of the case and has to do with your political alignment. Are you on Team Trump or are you on Team I Can't Stand Trump? Depending on that, that determines your response to the case.
We've seen that already in the US political system. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy comes out immediately and very strongly with Trump sort of language, "This is a witch hunt." "This is a politicization of the Department of Justice, a sitting president going after a former president." "Can't take this seriously." I mean, if you're listening to McCarthy or if you're listening to most of the competing candidates for the Republican presidency, not all, but certainly most against Trump, your view would be that this case is illegitimate. It's being brought against Trump by Biden to destroy him, to destroy his candidacy. It is politically motivated. That you should not have any belief or support for the independent DOJ and cases that are being brought forward. That rule of law in the United States is being subverted by this very case. That is the perspective.
On the other side is the view that you can't have rule of law if one man, any man, particularly the former president or the sitting President of the United States stands above it and that rule of law doesn't apply. The breadth of the cases against former President Trump is, of course, staggering both with indictments already being brought down. Of course, these are the first federal indictments. They're not the first indictments. Other cases are proceeding apace in Georgia as well as federal case on insurrection. There was recently a civil case that Trump lost and $5 million he has to pay for sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll.
I mean, this is far too much legal sturm und drang for any individual in the American political system. If these are legitimate crimes, in a system that has rule of law, you need to be prosecuting them. Then of course, there are people in the United States for whom Trump is guilty irrespective of what the facts bring, so they're prepared to try him and find him guilty in the court of the media and public opinion, irrespective of what the grand jury says, irrespective of what the evidence is found to be in the case.
I mean that by itself, the reality of this case shows a level of the US political system being broken. That's the biggest takeaway. The biggest takeaway, of course, is that impeachment no longer functions as a check on the executive. It has become inextricably politicized. It can only be used in a partisan way, and therefore it no longer holds legitimacy. That started off in the Clinton days, and it is only expanded as we've seen with former President Trump.
That is now becoming increasingly true with the Attorney General and with the special prosecutor. Irrespective of what you think about the case, the fact that it is not being tried on its merits in the court of public opinion, the fact that the media and the political leaders on the Democratic and Republican party and the American people have made up their minds about the nature of this case, that the majority of them, before any evidence is heard, shows that the US democracy is not what it once was. That's the biggest takeaway. That's the most disturbing takeaway.
Now, to look at what's going to happen going forward. This clearly isn't as serious as the insurrection case that might be brought, but it's far more serious than the case involving Stormy Daniels and the illegal use of funds to pay her off. Also, less politicized in the sense that Alvin Bragg in New York City is certainly seen to be making more of a career name for himself in going after Trump. That's not the case with the special counsel there. Indeed, the politics run in the other direction. Unless the Special counsel and the Attorney General truly believed they had a rock solid case against Trump, it is hard to imagine that they would be proceeding with it.
Having said that, Trump himself runs a grievance-based campaign. He's incredibly effective at it. He's a more effective campaigner than any political leader I've ever seen. Irrespective of how he governs, he loves campaigning. He now has a much more solid team around him for the campaign because they think he's going to win than they did in 2016 where he had the D team that all thought he was going to lose. His ability to fundraise off this. Of course, those letters were all basically out as soon as he got the phone call that the indictments were coming down.
I hate to say this, but I actually believe that these indictments make it more likely that Trump is going to get the Republican nomination. I particularly believe that because it's very unlikely that this case is going to get resolved by a grand jury before the nomination process for the GOP is complete. In fact, it's probably unlikely to get resolved before the actual election. The weird thing, of course, is if it got resolved and he was found guilty and was even in jail, again very unlikely, but as a felon, he'd still probably be able to run from jail as president, but he wouldn't be able to vote in Florida, which is all just shows how incredibly farcical the US political system has become.
The more important issue here, I guess from a positive perspective, is that there are a significant minority of Republican voters that believe that Trump should not be president if he's found guilty of a serious crime, if he's convicted of a serious crime. My point is that that is very unlikely to happen before the election process, and certainly before the nomination process. Yes, Asa Hutchinson, yes, Chris Christie are going after Trump directly, but most of the candidates, and certainly the most popular candidates are not going to, and they're going to support Trump if he gets that nomination. That's an advantage to him in the same way that McCarthy, Speaker of the House, is absolutely going to continue to do that.
What do I think? What think is we're going to cover this as a country every day. It's going to dominate headlines. It's going to help Trump, it's going to weaken US democracy. For allies around the world, this is a hit to confidence in the United States as a trusted long-term ally as a political system that they want to align with. For adversaries of the United States, it is useful as a proof point that the American political system is no better than their own. That there is a moral relativism and a hypocrisy when we talk about politics and values. That there is no right or wrong on the global stage, and to the extent that there is, that the Americans and American political elites are on the wrong side of that.
It's unfortunate. It's not what we want to see. Every American who grew up believing in liberty and democracy and rule of law has seen faith in those values shaken over the past couple of decades and continued with the news of the last 24 hours. I'm sorry to have to report on that. I still believe in the resilience, ultimately, of the US political system. But it is that very resilience that allows so many political leaders to say, "Not today. I don't have to deal with this because everything is just fine. The longer everything is seen to be just fine, the greater the erosion becomes." At some point you get a crisis. We are heading in that direction. I'm not looking forward to seeing it.
That's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon.
War in Europe is top priority at Munich Security Conference
Ian Bremmer shares his insights on global politics this week on World In :60.
Will Russia-Ukraine dominate the conversations at this year's Munich Security Conference?
I think absolutely it will be not just the topic of conversation that's keeping everyone anxious, but it will be the top priority. Again, it's in Europe. 50 members of a US congressional delegation showing up. That's a record like by a large number. I'm kind of shocked that many people will be there. The Russians of course won't be there, but the top priority is a war in Europe. Everyone's deeply worried about it as they should. It's the largest risk out there by a factor of magnitude. Balloon gate is not close.
Is Israel's democracy really under threat?
I would say it's eroding. The fact that Netanyahu, the prime minister, is trying to undermine the balance and separation of powers with the judiciary and have it more directly accountable, responsible to the executive would be a weakening of the Israeli political system. That would make it more of a flawed democracy, more of a hybrid democracy. Then of course, there's the broader question of outside of Israel, the occupied territories and how they are governed and how the Palestinians there do not have, do not enjoy actual citizenship, and are treated as second class citizens clearly has an impact on Israeli democracy as well. Put those two things together, flawed democracy is increasingly what we're talking about.
Finally, should I care about balloongate?
Well, I mean now that we're calling it balloongate, I guess you have to care about it. I mean, how many of these things are actually balloons? I don't know. We don't know what they are yet. What we do know really is that after the Americans shot down the Chinese balloon, NORAD really opened the aperture for what they are tracking, what they're paying attention to, and what the Americans might be willing to shoot down. So the fact that you have a bunch of additional stuff being shot down does not imply a greater threat. It implies a reduced threat tolerance. And the potential that that's going to antagonize third parties is going up. Very little reason to believe so far that the other objects are coming from China or are part of that surveillance program.
The biggest threats to US national security, foreign and domestic
Less than a month ago, the Biden administration finally dropped its long-anticipated National Security Strategy. The No. 1 external enemy is not Russia but rather China. It also emphasizes the homegrown threat of Americans willing to engage in political violence if their candidate loses at the ballot box.
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks to New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger about the key national security threats facing the United States right now.
Sanger believes the biggest threat to America's national security right now is an "insider threat" to the stability of the election system coming from Americans willing to engage in political violence. Taiwan's status as a semiconductor superpower may be staving off a Chinese invasion.
On Russia, Sanger believes that Ukraine and the world face the paradox that the better Ukraine gets at resisting Russia, the more likely Putin might launch a tactical nuke. And if he does, he might just get away with it.
This interview was featured in a GZERO World episode: US threat levels from foreign and domestic enemies
Ian Bremmer: Risk of nuclear crisis in 2022 is too high
The White House believes that there is a 20% chance of another Cuban Missile Crisis "in the next eight weeks" with Russia, Ian Bremmer said at an event at the Asia Society in New York on Monday. While Bremmer doesn't see as high a chance that Putin would risk using nuclear weapons, he added, "Either way, those numbers are way too freaking high." The even bigger risk, he points out, is that not enough is being done to manage the unprecedented danger from Russia in the medium term.
The Russian economy is being cut off from the West the same way as Iran has been, with a 40% or 50% contraction expected over the next five years. A G20 economy has never been decoupled from the West before. If Russia becomes a rogue state like Iran with ballistic missile attacks, drone strikes, espionage, proxy wars, radicalism, and terrorist violence - but with 6,000 nuclear warheads in their arsenal - "that really does not bode well for the next five, 10 years or for our kids. It really doesn't," Bremmer told former Australian PM and Asia Society President and CEO Kevin Rudd at the Asia Society's headquarters in New York.
US threat levels from foreign and domestic enemies
The Biden administration finally released its long-anticipated National Security Strategy, basically America's biggest threats — foreign and domestic.
The No. 1 external enemy is not Russia but rather China. It also emphasizes the homegrown threat of Americans willing to engage in political violence if their candidate loses at the ballot box.
On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer speaks to David Sanger, who knows a thing or two about national security because it's his beat at the New York Times.
His take on China? Taiwan's status as a semiconductor superpower may be staving off a Chinese invasion.
On Russia, Sanger discusses how Kyiv and the world face the paradox that the better Ukraine gets at resisting Russia, the more likely it is that Vladimir Putin will consider launching a tactical nuke. “If the Russians use a tactical nuclear weapon in a conventional war and essentially get away with … then all of a sudden, the taboo about using nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict is gone,” he says.
Meanwhile, America should not lose sight of the "insider threat" to its democracy, particularly with midterms just days away.
Podcast: America at risk: assessing Russia, China, and domestic threats
Listen: From Russia’s invasion of Ukraine to China’s vision for a new global order, there’s plenty keeping President Joe Biden’s national security officials up at night. On the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer and New York Times national security correspondent David Sanger break down the top foreign and domestic threats outlined in the Biden administration's recently released National Security Strategy document.
According to the report, the No. 1 external danger is not Russia but rather China. Sanger explains why he believes Taiwan's status as a semiconductor superpower may be staving off a Chinese invasion. As for the Russia-Ukraine war, Sanger talks about the "Ukraine paradox" - the better Ukraine gets at resisting Russia, the more likely Vladimir Putin might launch a tactical nuke (and, Sanger notes, he might just get away with it.)
But the biggest threat to America's national security could well be at home —an “insider threat" to the stability of the election system coming from Americans willing to engage in political violence.
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.- US foreign policy and consequences of midterm elections - GZERO ... ›
- The geopolitics of the chips that make your tech work - GZERO Media ›
- Standing up for democracy and the truth: Former US national ... ›
- The US-China economic competition is heating up, says investor ... ›
- The biggest threats to US national security, foreign and domestic - GZERO Media ›
Ranking cyber threats: CISA chief Jen Easterly
Just a few years ago, we were worried about non-state actors like ISIS carrying out major cyberattacks. Is there still a threat?
"Low probability, but high impact," US cybersecurity chief Jen Easterly tells Ian Bremmer on GZERO World. Also, attacks by non-state actors are harder to verify.
The bigger problem, she adds, is the dozen or so states that are using cyber to do sort of lawful things like collecting intelligence, but then go about using such tactics for nefarious purposes.
And we don't have many rules in place to deal with that.