Loading summary
Transcript87 lines
- [00:00]
A
So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now a global workforce of 300,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94% of common questions, not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business IBM,
- [00:33]
B
Bloomberg Audio Studios Podcasts, Radio news. You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.
- [00:56]
C
Oil markets in particular are closely monitoring the situation in the Strait of Hormuz, which despite a cease fire that was extended by President Trump earlier, this seems like tension is still remaining, if not escalating further, as not only you have Iranian activity with vessels trying to transit the straight now the U.S. as we mentioned, boarding a second supertanker in the Indian Ocean and President Trump taking to true social this morning to say, I have ordered the United States Navy to shoot and kill any boat, small boats though they may be, as he once again references the notion that the Navy has been destroyed by the US Military that is putting mines in the waters of the Strait of Hormuz. But this gets to another issue, Joe. It's not just about essentially having the strait declared open or closed or what have you, but what could already be in the water that could take some time to fully clear out, six months,
- [01:45]
D
according to the Washington Post, to actually clear the strait. And we saw in that same Washington Post report that it wasn't just these small boats laying mines in the water, that they in fact were using remote controlled, GPS controlled mines that are floated from other areas and close to impossible for the US to detect when they go on the water. So this is not becoming any easier. You know, we talked to Senator Roger Marshall, the Republican from Kansas on the late edition last evening about the cost of this blockade. It's pretty strident in his defense of this whole operation. Let's listen to what he said. Look, this is hurting Iran much more than it's hurting us. I mean, we're basically embargoing their entire country that they can't even feed themselves right now. So if they have no income, no food, hopefully this war will come to a much of an end. Remember this. So if Iran had nukes, if they had nuclear weapons. The gasoline would be $10 a gallon. And that strait would be would be blocked off for years as well. And not to mention just the safety of Americans going forward for generations to come. This is where we start our conversation with Tyler Kendall, Bloomberg's Washington correspondent is on the North Lawn of the White House right now with this Truth Social post to hang on to. And Tyler, I don't know if we're going to see the president or get any further news today. Maybe you can tell us.
- [03:01]
E
Well, Joe, actually we're expected to see the president. He has an open Press event at 3pm Eastern. It's related to health care. But the White House press poll is going to head in there. So I would expect there would be a lot of questions about this ongoing cease fire extension and what it's going to take for the US side to try to prompt Iran to come to the negotiating table. Because at this point we have a lot of questions about exactly what is happening in terms of diplomatic efforts behind the scenes. Because while we've heard from regional mediators, for example, like Pakistan, saying that they are pushing for some momentum, we saw the country's prime minister meet with Iran's diplomat just yesterday. At the moment, Iran is saying at least publicly, they're not going to negotiate until we see the US lift its blockade. And this White House says that's not going to happen. Instead, you have the president posting on Truth Social as you were just discussing, saying that the US is going to ramp up efforts in the strait, including to ensure that they can clear mines which may, according to one military analysis shared with Congress and reported on by the Washington Post, could take six months to clear. And that's really underscoring just how dangerous the conditions really do remain in the waterway. Because this has been a week of headlines that are pointing to escalation when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz. You've already ticked through a few of them, including the US saying that they intercepted Iranian super oil tank oil supertankers earlier this week. But then you saw Iran really trying to test the limits of the US's blockade as data is showing us that they're moving more supertankers into the Arabian Sea. So we'll have to wait if we get an update from this president because the White House at the moment, we should say still says that a diplomatic solution is viable. Right. We had officials come out yesterday saying, yes, this cease fire at the moment is indefinite because the US wants to give Iranian leadership time to coalesce and put a Proposal on the table.
- [04:56]
C
All right, Bloomberg's Tyler Kendall live at the White House for us. Thank you so much. Of course, no such proposal has yet been seen, at least reported on publicly, as Iran is holding a hard line just as President Trump is here. It seems like we're in a very stubborn, sticky situation, especially when it comes to the Strait of Hormuz. And for more insight on what's happening in the street and US Naval operations there, I'm pleased to say. Joining us now is Vice Admiral Robert Harward, who also served in Central Command previously and has a litany of other titles. A Navy seal, a member of the National Security Council under President George W. Bush, and again, former deputy commander of US Central Command. Admiral. Vice Admiral, thank you so much for being with us here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. When you see the kind of activity we are seeing in the strait, be it the Iran firing on ships, seizing vessels, the US Also boarding a number of vessels at this point, and President Trump threatening to shoot small boats that may be laying mines, how volatile is this to you? Do you really see this period we are in right now as being a, a cease fire? Can we really call it that?
- [06:03]
F
Well, it's not kinetic in the sense that we're not bombing anything. We're not putting boots on the ground. We're using pressure as much as possible this year. So there's some tactical events, but those are significantly less impactful for both the Iranians and us. And we're dealing with those as they come up. So the strategy has been very sound. Blockade, shook off their, their money and then any of the other activity we can use to diminish their military power. So I think it's a sound strategy. We're going to try to outlast them while the world economy adjusts. Additional oil, they're going to just have no money. How do they pay their people? How do they feed their people? So I suspect in very near order they're going to come back to the table and hopefully meet the concessions that the president has asked for.
- [06:58]
D
Admiral, it's great to have you with us. I wonder what you make of this timeline that's been put out. Reportedly, the Washington Post says the Pentagon briefed Congress that it would take six months to clear the straight once fighting ends. I know the president today says we're actively minesweeping, but bring us inside that operation and why it would be so complicated, why it would take so long to remove these mines.
- [07:21]
F
Well, again, I have not seen a report of a mine in the water. I think they're laying out the worst case scenario to give expectations and messaging to everyone. Worst case situation, they find a plethora of mines, they've got clear. So that's the worst case situation. But I have yet to see or hear a report of a found mine, a mine being detonated. So again, I think this is the worst case scenario. They're working very proactively to ensure there are no mines in the water. Don't forget that was one of the initial targets in the strikes. Take out their capabilities. So all those things contribute, but I suspect they want to make sure how bad this could be should that happen.
- [08:07]
C
Well, even if the mines may not be present, just the threat of them obviously is enough to deter the private actors who have to make calculated decisions as to whether or not they're going to risk crew and cargo to try to get through the strait. Admiral, Obviously due to that hesitation on the part of some in the private sector, we've seen obviously the President previously throw out the idea of naval escorts. If we are to see that kind of activity staying halted, the idea that vessels aren't still going through or going through at a much slower rate as before, and the US were to deem that unsustainable, try to get things flowing more freely, what would that naval operation actually have to entail? How much would we need to ramp up the presence beyond? What is there to maintain the blockade?
- [08:53]
F
Well, you put ships and boats in position to block anyone who could approach those. More importantly, systems that could take out drones and missiles, that's kind of dissipated significantly. And then in the mine front, you run other ships through there, ghost ships and hulls that if hit, have no significant impact. That's the tactics, techniques we used in Iraq, clearing the waterways up to uncasar when we did that. And so you could see those same sort of tactics be employed here to give the commercial shippers the security they need to move their product through the straits.
- [09:32]
D
As we see stepped up enforcement now in the blockade. Admiral, the US military says it now has intercepted two Iranian oil supertankers that tried to evade the blockade. We've got the very large crude carriers Hetty and Hero 2 now anchored at an Iranian port in the Gulf of Oman. What are these operations include? Once we have US forces on board and we have control of the ship, what happens to the crew and what do we end up doing with the boat?
- [10:00]
F
Well, mostly in most cases, some of these crews on Iranian third nation National. So are they cooperating? Can they live on the boat? Do you have the companies come out and replace those people. So there's all sorts of options. I think more important at this case is the options the President still has in his deck. Okay, we know we're shutting down their own. We can hold these ships, we can take custody them, we can even take the oil if we need to. Look at what happened in Venezuela. But I think to the regime and the people in Iran, they know how serious they are, evidently by trying to break the blockade. But they also know the President has more options on hand. How is he going to treat Carg Island? Is he going to seize it? Is he going to destroy it? Those present long term dilemmas for the regime. Again, another method and tactic to bring them back to the negotiation table to make concessions.
- [10:57]
C
You just mentioned living on the boat, Admiral. And for US Service members, I do wonder at what point you grow concerned about deployment fatigue, knowing that many had been rerouted to the Middle east, deployments extended as we built up our presence there and obviously as these operations got going. We know another aircraft carrier, the Ford, I believe, is set to be in theater in just a number of days. Do you see that as necessary relief rather than building up the force, just replenishing and allowing a refresh of some of our force that has been positioned there for some time?
- [11:30]
F
It can be either or. But you go back to this. Delayed deployments, that's what makes our military so amazing. We have all volunteer force people leaving their purpose, believe in their mission, and are willing to take on these sacrifices as their family do. And we've seen that through the history of our country. No other country is able to do that. It's because of our service members. So if they have to extend their deployments, they have to do what's necessary to meet the mission. They do it and they do it professionally. And most of them are proud to do that because they understand the impact they have and the purpose they serve. And that's what why all of us who served and have have such a close tie or such a family, because of that shared purpose and sacrifice. So I won't put too much in that or word too much, but we'll stay and do the mission.
- [12:23]
D
Yeah. These are remarkable men and women, Admiral. A lot of us first learned about you and about learned of your name back in 2017 when it was reported by multiple organizations, including the Washington Post, that you were being considered as a frontrunner to replace Michael Flynn as President Trump's National Security adviser in the first term. I realize, at least according to reports, you had your own reasons to not take that position. But I wonder your thoughts now on the people surrounding the president of the United States who are advising him with regard to this operation. Does he have the right people assembled to give him the right advice?
- [13:03]
F
That's a great question. And again, I wasn't considered. The president asked me and I told him I was proud and honored. But the timing was not right for me then. So I want to make sure the facts on that straight. But back to the point. The team and I focus on their policies. I am very encouraged by the policies. The president and his team had the courage to step in and take action against Iran. I've been watching this situation and waiting for someone to do that for decades and particularly the last two decades where Iran because no one would react, no one would challenge them. They did whatever they wanted to do to reach the point they had now where they were on the cusp of a nuclear weapon, they had an extensive missile on drone capability, they had minds they could control the Gulf. If that had not been challenged now, I think in the night too distant future we would not have been able to challenge that under nuclear umbrella. So I think that's indicative of the team he has now. And I think some of these strategies and point out like the blockade, killing, putting up the kill box for all the small boats that may want shoot or put mines in the water is indicative of the policies that I support, I feel are appropriate. And they got a lot more up their sleeve. I know we've talked to see it, but are we sure that no aircraft are coming in and resupplying the Iranians? We told them they will take our guy island, we're not going to blow it but get everyone off the island because if they're not, we're going to take them out and really shut down the island completely. So he's still got a lot on this plate. And so far this team has been very astute in applying those options for the president to meet his strategy and the end objective we're all looking for.
- [14:54]
D
Well, we're glad we could spend some time with you before you fly away. Admiral, it's great to see you. Robert Harward, former deputy commander, U.S. central Command, a former Navy SEAL, although I think that's forever, and member of the National Security Council under President George W. Bush. Fascinating conversation. We'll assemble our panel with a lot more on this straight ahead here on the Fastest show in Politics alongside Kailey Leinz in Washington. I'm Joe Matthew, this is Bloomberg.
- [15:21]
A
The thing about AI for business, it may not automatically fit the way your business works. At IBM, we've seen this firsthand. But by embedding AI across hr, IT and procurement processes, we've reduced costs by millions, slash repetitive tasks, and freed thousands of hours for strategic work. Now we're helping companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business IBM.
- [15:52]
B
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg Business app. You can also listen live on Amazon Alexa from our flagship New York station. Just say Alexa play Bloomberg 11:30
- [16:12]
C
earlier this week had a redistricting win for Democrats in the state of Virginia, a new map that will give them an advantage going into November of 10 likely Democratic seats to one. In terms of the House delegation, though, that was knocked down by a judge in Virginia almost immediately. This, this happened last night, Joe. Obviously we knew that this was a fight that likely could end up in courts, perhaps go all the way up to the Virginia state. Yeah, Supreme Court. We saw this in Texas as well. We all know how that went. But it just goes to show you the redistricting wars that begun with Texas are not ending there. This whole thing is far from that's right.
- [16:47]
D
We saw legal challenges in other states that have done this. Virginia's Attorney General Jay Jones vowing to fight the order issued by Judge Jack Hurley, a Republican appointee. House Democratic leaders are still celebrating because they think they're up by one here. Kelly, the question is, will Florida follow and will the courts allow that? And that's where we start with our great panel today. Republican strategist Sarah Chamberlain is with us, the president and CEO of the Republican Main Street Partnership and Democratic strategist Jim Messina, the campaign manager for President Obama's 2012 reelection campaign, former White House deputy chief of staff. Great to have both of you with us here. Jim, I'll start with you because Democrats seem to think that they're in the lead. I think it's by one seat if you're keeping score nationally. But if you Florida then follows on, and I'm assuming that the courts don't change the picture here. Is this just a wash in the end?
- [17:38]
G
Boy, it feels like that, Joe. It feels like a wash. And it feels like hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent here by both sides. And I think it's, you know, it's kind of sad where we become, I don't think voters really want some of this. It was all started in Texas. Both sides decided they had to then continue the game. But it looks like when it's all said and done, it's basically a wash. And Democrats are actually thinking that some of the Texas seats they now have better shots at because of their growing lead with Latino voters. So they may actually come out of this whole thing, you know, with a gain. I think the question is long term, though, you know, did we just make a whole bunch of more safe seats for both parties and have less swing seats? And I think that's a. If that's what happened here, I think it's going to do some long term damage to the institution.
- [18:30]
C
Well, so how much buyer's remorse is there right now, Sarah, in your party with this whole effort?
- [18:35]
H
There is some. Obviously we didn't, they didn't game it out that it would end up in this situation. They have great confidence, though, that we will prevail in Virginia. So then it will flip the numbers. And I just fulfill disclosure those Virginia members, three other four of them are members of Republican Main Street Partnership. So we certainly hope that, that we do get to keep them. They're great members and they, they should be in Congress. And be honest with you, the new Virginia map is kind of a joke. I mean, it is really crazy for
- [19:07]
C
those of the district starts outside of D.C. area.
- [19:10]
H
It does, and it goes hundreds of miles. I mean, it's really kind of ridiculous for those of us who live in Virginia.
- [19:16]
D
Well, so it's on to Florida then. Can Ron DeSantis move the needle?
- [19:20]
H
He's going to certainly try. Yeah. We'll have to wait and see how that goes. We're kind of starting to get low on time.
- [19:25]
D
Yeah, well, that's true, isn't it? He could be late to the party for this.
- [19:28]
H
He could be very late to the party for this psycho. But I do know he's going to make an honest effort to, to try to get a couple seats in Florida.
- [19:35]
C
Well, with what you were just saying, Jim, about Texas and the Latino vote, how could that actually show itself in Florida as well? Depending on. On how they want to redraw these lines.
- [19:44]
G
Yeah. Earlier in the block, we talked about the big media buys that both parties have done, and the Democrats are on the offense. They bought their first Florida congressional media ad since 2020. They think they could pick up two or three seats right now, depending on, you know, the current lines. Who? I think Sarah's right. We'll see what DeSantis can do. It feels late to me, but, you know, governors get what Governors want sometimes, but definitely Democrats are on the offense and are targeting three seats in Florida because of the president's numbers of Latino voters. And so, you know, it is, it is really interesting that Florida, which is not a swing state in a presidential election anymore, is now very much a swing state in the middle of these congressional races.
- [20:30]
D
You know, we've spent a lot of time talking about governors with regard to this story, whether whether Gavin Newsom could get it done, whether Abigail Spanberger could get it done, and how they might be judged in the end. But Nancy Pelosi, Jim, reached out to congratulate Hakeem Jeffries. Was he the real force behind the Democratic movement to redraw the lines?
- [20:49]
G
Yes. And he went to war to get this done. And, you know, there's been. Following Nancy Pelosi as leader is a thankless job, considering she's probably the best leader of our generation. And yet, you know, and he's more quiet on how he does it, but he really put together the implementation of this and dealt with the governors and dealt with kind of the national media, raised the money for it. And it's really his moment to shine here. And he has now a caucus who's saying, whoa, the new guy is pretty good at this. And so, you know, people are calling him the silent assassin this morning, and it's a pretty fair assessment after what they just did in Virginia.
- [21:29]
C
I want to go back, Jim, to something you were saying about creating more safe districts for either party and there potentially being fewer swing districts as we think about the Main Street Caucus members, for example, Sarah, you mentioned three of the four candidates we're talking about in Virginia, our members. You. It is a group that represents a lot of the moderates. A lot of these people are in swing districts. What will be lost if we lose some of these hotly contested seats that require a candidate to be more in the middle rather than on the extremes? I wonder if it just has the potential to intensify the problems existing on Capitol Hill.
- [22:01]
H
It certainly does, from both the far left and the far right. And, and I really want to emphasize people need to vote in primaries. I mean, yes, as we get more gerrymandered districts, the primary is the most important vote you can take. It's the whole election now, and we cannot afford any more extremists on either side at this point. And that's what you could end up with.
- [22:21]
D
Does money end up moving that way where you overspend up front in the primary cycle? In general election spending simply means less, or are we Already there, Sarah.
- [22:32]
H
We have. And then past cycles, this cycle is a little bit different, but in past cycles, the bulk of the Main street money has been spent in primaries.
- [22:40]
D
About that.
- [22:41]
H
Yeah, absolutely. That's how you get Main street type members elected. You have to go in and change the primary turnout model.
- [22:49]
C
It's incredible to consider. Obviously, most of our conversation here with redistricting, Jim, is focused on House seats in particular. But what about the Senate? Is there is a growing consensus that what would already have been a difficult year for Republicans just because of historical norms. You have a Republican president, we know how things usually swing in the midterms. Now you layer on a war with Iran that has raised gasoline prices at home and suddenly everybody thinks the Senate may too be at least in contention for, for flipping more difficult for Republicans to control. How much confidence do you have as a Democrat looking at the Senate map here that there is potential for not just guarding seats that may have been in jeopardy, but picking up some elsewhere?
- [23:31]
G
Kelly, I'm so glad you raised this because it is like what offensive politics is. When you look at the Senate map, there's no way the Democrats should have a chance to take the Senate this cycle. It's just a brutal map for the Democrats. But when you start to look at the numbers, oh, and the reason why it's a brutal map for Democrats is because Democrats would have to win two or three Senate seats in states where Donald Trump won by over 10 points, which in Senate races just doesn't happen anymore in the last 10 years. Senate Senate races usually go to whatever party won the presidential election in that state. So Democrats are now on the offense in states they should have no chance at in, like in Texas where Trump won by double digits, like in Iowa where he won by double digits, in Alaska where he won by double digits. And part of why is just the President's own approval rating. His biggest slide of any electoral group is non college educated white voters, which are a majority of voters in the states we just talked about. And so, you know, it's still difficult for me as just a number geek because Sarah and I like to sit there at night and crunch numbers. It's still difficult for me to see how the Senate goes Democratic. But when you start to look at his non college white numbers, you start to say, whoa, you could win Ohio, you could win places like Maine, you could win North Carolina and you could possibly put it together. You know, I'm not going to go spend all of Joe's salary on cow sheet tonight betting on it. But the Fact that we're just talking about it is kind of the offensive game plan. We talked about where the Democrats are now on offense in places we shouldn't be on offense.
- [25:10]
D
I have very little to offer here, Jim, but I have to ask you about the big issue right now and the way it's going to play in the midterm cycle. We've been spending a good chunk of time this hour talking about the war in Iran. We just spent time talking with Iran retired admiral about the potential for a six month clearing of the Strait of Hormuz. And this all brings us back to four dollar a gallon gas. But whenever we talk to Republican members, Sarah, they really make the case that this was a moral imperative to protect America by eliminating a nuclear threat. It's going to be one or the other here. Is that the message that wins or is it how did you get my gas to $4 a gallon?
- [25:47]
H
I think if we message it correctly, which we haven't really done much of yet, we really have to explain to the American people why we went into Iran, what the situation was and really
- [25:57]
C
what the endanger is.
- [25:58]
H
I mean, them having a nuclear weapon would be a disaster for the entire area and the entire world, frankly. I know past presidents have looked at doing this and President Trump has actually done it. So if we can explain to the American people, listen, we're actually making you safer $4 a gallon gas. It's not good. We understand that. But once this is over, it will come back down. That is the messaging that we have
- [26:22]
D
to get a little bit better happen before November.
- [26:24]
H
Absolutely needs to happen before November. We need to get our messaging there
- [26:28]
D
in terms of the prices coming down.
- [26:29]
H
The price, we were in hopes that this would be behind us by November and the prices will start coming down. And the American people understand we're actually safer now with what has happened in Iran. But time will tell. You know, this is taking a little bit longer than we had originally, originally thought it would.
- [26:43]
C
Well, and there were a lot of members who said, look, the President has 60 days of leeway here. We're getting closer to the expiration of that 60 days. And now everybody's saying, okay, well maybe it's 90 because there's a clause around an extra 30 days to get troops out. Sarah, are we just going to keep moving the goalposts for the president or are there going to be members who are going to be more vocal as we, as this drags on?
- [27:02]
H
We are going to continue to move the goalpost until probably early August, maybe late July and Then we can't keep moving it. We have to have some type of
- [27:12]
C
conclusion, some time to go though it
- [27:13]
D
is more than 30 days. Jim, what's your thought on that? When we start talking about a debate on the use of authorization for the use of military force, is is that inevitable if timelines are going out the window?
- [27:29]
G
Well, it's a great question. I want to go back to Sarah's point because I think she's right. The problem is the president didn't message this at the very beginning. The problem is the president didn't explain why we were doing this, why six months after he said he bombed everything that they could bomb and they don't have any chance to do this, we had to go in again. This is the first war of our lifetime. It started out with a negative approval rating and we keep talking about election Day and it's actually not election Day. Voters feelings on the economy. There's been numerous studies are baked in by the end of June. And why is it the end of June? Because everyone goes on vacation with their kids and gets on a plane, flight or drives a car in June and none of us think the prices are going to be below $4 by June. In fact, it could be, as you guys have reported up into the fall, that is just a disaster for the president and his party. I've gone through this when I worked for the president. It is just a disaster for the party. So it's not a November thing. It is a people driving around in June thing. And it is very unlikely that they're going to believe that this whole thing was worth it by then.
- [28:37]
C
All right, Jim Messina, great to have you with us alongside Sarah Chamberlain, our wonderful political panel today. We so appreciate you joining us here on Bloomberg TV and radio.
- [28:48]
D
Stay with us on Balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after this.
- [28:55]
A
So there's a lot of noise about AI, but time's too tight for more promises. So let's talk about results. At IBM, we work with our employees to integrate technology right into the systems they need. Now a global workforce of 300,000 can use AI to fill their HR questions, resolving 94% of common questions, not noise. Proof of how we can help companies get smarter by putting AI where it actually pays off, deep in the work that moves the business. Let's create smarter business. IBM.
- [29:26]
B
You're listening to the Bloomberg Balance of Power podcast. Catch us live weekdays at noon and 5pm Eastern on Apple CarPlay and Android Auto with the Bloomberg business app. Listen on demand wherever you get your Podcasts or watch us live on YouTube.
- [29:42]
C
We know the markets have been glued to each and every headline pertaining to the content conflict and or ceasefire in the Middle East. We did just have a headline crossing the terminal from Iranian media reporting blasts over Tehran that has triggered air defense systems. Those have been activated. Again, we do not know exactly what is happening in Iran, what may have triggered those defenses. But it is also worth pointing out the commentary we got from Israel earlier today. Joe, Israeli Defense Minister Pat saying that they're waiting for, for a green light from the US to complete the elimination of the Hamani dynasty, talking about the notion that they, they are ready to resume the war. All of it just speaks to how fragile this situation is and how little forward progress toward an ultimate resolution really seem to be seen.
- [30:29]
D
This is really something. AFP picked up that headline from Iranian State News and it is potentially what we're seeing move markets here. It's just very difficult to tell in real time when the algorithms start working. But it's a great time to compare notes with Jenny Welch, who runs our Geo Economics team at Bloomberg Economics and is with us now ahead of our conversation with Senator Tammy Duckworth. When you hear headlines like this, Jenny, it's a clear reminder that not only do not we have a ceasefire, but it's almost difficult to call this anything other than a war. Still at this point, what do you make of the news that we've seen in the last 24 hours of the President saying that the Navy is tripling up enforcement in the strait?
- [31:14]
I
We're in this murky limbo where the cease fire has been unilaterally extended by the United States for an undetermined amount of time. The blockade is still in place, which is technically an act of war. We have very real action happening on both sides. The Iranians firing on ships, the US Intercepting ships, a debate about whether Iranian ships are still able to make it to through the blockade. And I think, as Kelly mentioned, this highlights not just how fragile the situation is, but how volatile. We could have talks at any moment. We could have a major escalation in tensions in any moment. And I think both of those put the global economy and oil markets on a very different path. And yet both of them at this moment seem entirely plausible.
- [31:53]
C
Well, and clearly you're seeing a bit more upward pressure on oil prices. Day we're back at 107 on Brent crude. As we consider the situation in the street. Do we need to start having a kind of separation here, Jenny, between the strategic diplomatic aims that talks to be focused at including the elimination of the nuclear program versus still the economic reality in in the Strait of Hormuz. I wonder if markets should be reading any diplomatic effort as really something positive, knowing that we still have effectively a chokehold of this waterway that is being implemented by both Iran and the United
- [32:28]
I
States at this point in time. Our models for what oil prices should be are entirely divorced from where oil prices actually are. We had previously modeled what it would look like if the Strait of Hormuz was shut for two months. And our model suggested oil prices should be up at around $140 a barrel. We are now nearing three months of the Strait of Hormuz being closed. Oil prices are high, but nowhere near that. They don't seem to be climbing much higher at the rate we would expect them to given how little time we have left till that three month mark. And yet it's not that there has been a major change in the physical constraints on Hormuz. Yes, there might be some Iranian tankers still getting through, but we are still nowhere near the pre war levels of traffic in that strait.
- [33:10]
D
When you consider the idea of peace talks progressing from here, look no further than the President's tweet of the morning at 9:14am Iran is having a very hard time figuring out who their leader is. He writes. They just don't know. The infighting is between the hardliners who have been losing badly on the battlefield and the moderates who are not very moderate at all. The, the fraction. The fractures I should say that we're seeing inside Iran when the IRGC is saying one thing, the speaker of the Parliament saying another, and whoever else is at the table is pointing to a different solution, seem to be as confusing as the mixed messages coming from the administration. Do we know who we're talking to?
- [33:51]
I
So I think that is an excellent question and I think it might suggest why there was a breakdown in communications a few days ago, right when the President thought that he had a deal. Might have been talking to somebody, but maybe not someone with the authority to make a deal. I think the fractures within the system to a certain extent are a feature of it. They existed before the war. The war has probably compounded it, especially because the irgc, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, a real hardline force, has been empowered by this and is probably making more decisions or weighing more decisions than they were beforehand. And that has led to some of these divergences between them. And like the Foreign Ministry, which tends to be a little bit more open. But I think we should be under no illusions that they aren't able to make decisions, that they aren't able to put together a negotiating position and come and talk. That's probably not why talks broke down earlier this week. I suspect it was the continuation of the US Blockade and Iran not wanting to negotiate under those conditions.
- [34:45]
C
Well, that's what I wanted to ask you about. We were just speaking with a retired admiral who said the blockade is an excellent mechanism for increasing economic pressure on Iran. How real are those economic pressures, Jenny, when we consider the economic reliance on oil and, and energy? And who within the various leadership strata, if you will, is likely to want to cave to that pressure? Because I would imagine the military is not going to be as responsive to that as political leadership.
- [35:12]
I
I think that a blockade is extremely effective theoretically, but it depends on who you're dealing with. And for Iran, which has already been facing really stringent US Sanctions for years, their economy is already severely handicapped, you have a leadership that is seized this fight as existential. They are not worried about headline GDP numbers. They are worried about their own skins and the survival of the regime. And they, by the way, are reporting that they're still able to get some oil out. So there is still a lifeline. And recall they were also the only ones who were able to get it out for the prior six weeks of the war at a much higher price premium. So we don't assess that the blockade is going to break their will, at least in the near term. Maybe that will change if it endures for another few weeks to months, but the global economy is going to suffer in the meantime.
- [35:55]
D
To the White House has removed all references to timeline. In fact, the same day the president mentioned three to five days before we maybe have another round of talks to the New York Post. We've pulled back on all of this. The Washington Post says six months to clear the Strait. What are you considering here in the days or weeks ahead? Or does Bloomberg Economics have a timeline line on this?
- [36:19]
I
Our assessment is, and it's not a very optimistic one, that we are phasing into a new normal where this limbo might be with us for a while, where it's not clear whether we're at peace, not clear whether we're still at war. And it's sort of this low intensity protracted conflict and hostilities and a lot of uncertainty about whether it is safe to move through the Strait of Hormuz. We might be here for a while.
- [36:42]
D
It's a market that clearly is getting used. $100 a barrel of oil, Kelly.
- [36:46]
C
Yeah, well, And Jenny thinks that that should be a little bit higher. I guess the question is whether the market is going to catch up to what experts are saying, because there has been this disconnect for some time just on this timeline notion, especially as we consider what we've heard consistently from a Republican controlled Congress. Give the President 60 days, the war Powers act allows that. Now they're saying, okay, but there's also an extra 30 days he could have to get troops out safely. Even if in the best case scenario, with the number of assets we have deployed there and the kind of an indefinite blockade maintenance. Do you realistically think that even if we reach the 90 day point that we're going to have all of our forces out of theater by then?
- [37:27]
I
Well, I don't think we would ever or it would be very unlikely that we would pull all of our forces out of the theater. There are always going to be forces that remain in theater at our base, but probably, you know, additional forces given that the threat is not going away. Iran isn't collapsed. Its partners in the region like the Houthis haven't collapsed. So I would imagine there is going to be a sustained presence there above what there was before the war for some period of time. And then it gets to a question of how does that affect readiness in other theaters? You've had to draw those assets from elsewhere. You've had to delay their maintenance in order to keep them out at sea. And I think those are going to be questions that the administration will have to start to wrestle with very soon.
- [38:06]
D
The President has spent quite a bit of time on Truth Social and I guess he will be speaking publicly later, which is a little bit more meaningful than trying to dissect the words from a social media post. What's the most important question that you have for him right now? It looks like reporters will be in the room with him later on.
- [38:23]
I
I think the question that comes to mind is he's extended the ceasefire, but for how long? You know, he's previously threatened if Iran didn't come to the table or didn't produce a deal, that he was going to reinvigorate his prior threat to hit power plants and bridges in the country or otherwise escalate. And I guess my question to him is how long is your patience going to last on that front?
- [38:43]
C
Yeah, well, yeah, I think everyone's patience is a question here. We obviously know that there has been a certain lack of patience inside the Pentagon with even inter Pentagon leadership. There's been a lot of contention between the Defense Secretary and others. We now have the ousting of the Secretary of the Navy. Jenny, does that have a real impact operationally as we maintain a naval blockade?
- [39:08]
I
So it would seem to pose that risk. But I think when you think about the structure of the United States Navy and in particular the role of regional commands in execution, executing things like a blockade, I don't foresee an immediate threat to this operation. I think it probably will, though, create questions within the service and maybe concern about where things are headed, especially on the heels of prior dismissals that were already raising questions about how much the administration was listening to seasoned, experienced military officers.
- [39:36]
C
All right, Jenny Welch, we appreciate it, as always. And you can find her analysis on the Bloomberg terminal. She leads our geoeconomics team here at Bloomberg Economic. And as we continue our conversation on the ongoing war and cease fire with Iran, we turn now to Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth of Illinois, who is joining us live here on Bloomberg TV and Radio. She, of course, is a veteran herself, having served as a helicopter pilot in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Senator, great to have you with us. On balance of power, would you describe the current state of play when it comes to Iran? A ceasefire, at least in name, but an ongoing US Naval blockade. Is the US still being actively at war?
- [40:12]
J
I think we are still actively at war. And a war that we have no known end state. The president has not explained to the American people or even to the members of Congress, which he is supposed to do, as to exactly what his end state is, because it seems to change from day to day and sometimes from sentence to sentence when he is giving interviews. First he wanted regime change. Well, he got regime change, but it was for the worse. Right. We've got a worse ayatollah than was there before. Then he says he wants to open the Straits of Hormuz, but the Straits of Hormuz were open before he attacked and now it's mined. And now Iran is charging a million dollar per ship that's traveling through it. So, you know, I would say we are still at war. And this is Trump's war of choice and it's at the expense of the American people.
- [41:00]
D
Well, we're knocking around 60 days, maybe 90 days, Senator, when it comes to, to a war powers inflection point. I know there have been a series of votes and you've been front and center in the congressional effort to pass a war powers resolution. When you talk to your Republican colleagues, if we do in fact get through that next 30 days, and we're talking about this 90 days into, into a wartime operation in the Middle East. Do you think there will be growing appetite for an authorization for the use of military force? And how important is that to you?
- [41:35]
J
Well, it's critically important. And by the way, the way the law works is the president has up to a maximum of 60 days to come to Congress after launching armed conflict to explain and justify why that happened. So 60 days is the longest amount of time he has to come and explain to us the war powers resolution that Democrats have been filing every week. And we're going to do it every single week. Mine went through last week. And then of course, Tammy Baldwin, we're going to bring that up every week to give my Republican colleagues a chance to vote to have Trump stop hostilities, come to Congress, explain and justify this war of choice of his, and then we will debate and vote whether or not we will give authorization for the use of military force. That said, I do think the 60 day mark is really important because I've heard from some of my Republicans, Republican colleagues that, you know, I'm not going to be able to author, I can't vote to authorize more funding for this war beyond the 60 day mark without Trump coming to us. So there is growing anxiousness among some of my Republican colleagues. And I think we may actually be able to, you know, pass this war power resolution where we actually forced a president to come to before Congress.
- [42:48]
C
Well, as we consider what may come before Congress in the Senate specifically, Senator, now that we have seen the ousting of Navy Secretary fallen and we've seen an acting secretary appointed in Hong Kong, do you have concerns about him as a candidate? Is that someone that, that you are comfortable with serving in this role, or does there need to be a thorough vetting of someone else? And how is it complicated by the ongoing operations and naval blockade we are engaged in in the Middle East?
- [43:17]
J
Well, what I'm most concerned about is incompetent leadership both at the White House with the commander in in chief and incompetent leadership with Secretary Hexath. When you see such a rapid turnover of the top military officials constantly getting fired. And now, you know, Mr. Phelan was Trump's mar a lago buddy. This is a guy that raised millions of dollars for him. And I didn't think he was competent to serve as Secretary of the Navy to begin with. He has no naval experience, but obviously at some point he actually stood up and opposed with this war of choice. And now he's out. You know, and from everything that I'm hearing, this was a surprise firing for him. He did not expect it to happen. What I'm most concerned about is the disorganization within the DoD, the incompetence of the Secretary of Defense, and yes, anybody that is brought in to serve in that role needs to come before Congress. That's my job. It's my job to represent the American people and the voice of the people of Illinois and the people people of the United States to interview and determine whether or not someone is qualified to be Secretary of the Navy. And it's all absolutely complicated by the fact that we are still engaged in active hostilities with Iran.
- [44:29]
D
Senator, it's great to have you. We'd love to stay in touch with you throughout this whole process. Tammy Duckworth, Democrat from Illinois we appreciate your insights as always. Thanks for listening to the Balance of Power podcast. Make sure to subscribe if you haven't already at Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. And you can find us live every weekday from Washington, D.C. at noontime eastern@bloomberg.com.
- [45:05]
B
If you follow markets, you know the value of long term thinking. You plan, you diversify, you prepare for volatility. But in life, even the best strategies can't prevent every bad day a fire, a loss, a disruption that demands immediate attention. When that happens, what matters isn't just what you planned, it's who shows up. That's where Cincinnati Insurance comes in. For more than 75 years, they've helped individuals and businesses navigate life's toughest moments with care, expertise and personal attention. Together with independent agents, Cincinnati Insurance focuses on relationships, not transactions. Their approach is grounded in experience, follow through and trust built over time. Bad days happen, and when they do, you deserve an insurance partner who understands risk, respects what you've built and is ready to help you move forward. The Cincinnati Insurance companies Let them make your bad day better. Find an independent agent@cin fin.com travel smarter,
- [46:06]
D
not harder at America's Best Value Inn by Sonesta with convenient locations from coast to coast and value packed comfort at every turn, it's a practical choice for road trips, quick getaways and everyday travel that keeps things simple without sacrificing comfort. And when you're a Sinesta TravelPass member, staying at America's Best Value Inn means earning points toward free nights, upgrades and more every time you stay. Go to Sonesta.com to book your stay and unlock the best rates with Sonesta Travel Pass here today, Rome tomorrow. Join now@sinesta.com Terms and conditions apply.