US Says It Will Strike Iran Harder

Summary

Balance of Power — “US Says It Will Strike Iran Harder”

Podcast by Bloomberg • Aired March 4, 2026
Hosts: Kailey Leinz, Joe Mathieu
Key Guests: Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken, General Frank McKenzie (Ret.), political panel Jeannie Shan Zaino & Maura Gillespie

---

Episode Overview

This episode centers on the escalating U.S. and Israeli military operations against Iran, potential diplomatic avenues, the strategic and political consequences of continued conflict, and critical developments in Capitol Hill and domestic politics. The hosts provide expert analysis from Washington correspondents, insights from high-level interviews (including Antony Blinken and General McKenzie), and discussion with a bipartisan political panel. The podcast also covers recent election results from Texas amidst the ongoing crisis.

---

Main Discussion & Key Segments

1. The Escalating Conflict with Iran

• US Military Operations and Administration Messaging
  • Host Kailey Leinz updates on active combat operations (00:55), referencing a historic U.S. submarine torpedo strike on an Iranian warship and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s assertion that the conflict “is only just beginning.”
  • Iran’s conflicting signals around diplomacy are highlighted, including denials of outreach for talks following U.S. strikes, and President Trump’s position that “the time to talk is over.” (00:55–02:42)

2. Interview: Former Secretary of State Antony Blinken

• Is Diplomacy Still an Option?

  • Blinken’s optimism on diplomacy remains, despite current rhetoric. He discusses off-ramps focusing on “munitions and markets” and how market instability (especially in oil and stocks) may pressure timetables for action. (02:42)

• Clarity of US Objectives

  • Blinken expresses deep concern about “shifting rationales” for action:

    “Once our men and women in uniform are engaged … my first thought is for their safety and for their success … But having said that, we’ve heard, you know, a number of shifting rationales.”
    (Antony Blinken, 03:37)

  • He questions whether the U.S. has achieved “regime change or just Ayatollah change,” alluding to uncertainty about the long-term consequences of high-level strikes in Iran. (03:37–05:16)

• On the Nuclear Threat & Broken Diplomacy

  • Blinken notes:

    “On the nuclear side, there was no imminent threat.”
    (Antony Blinken, 07:00)

  • He criticizes the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the JCPOA (Iran deal) and points to rapidly reduced breakout time for Iran’s nuclear program as a direct result:

    “President Trump tore up that agreement, said he’d replace it with something better. He never did. And that’s the road that we then wound up on … with Iran, yes, dramatically advancing its production of fissile materials.”
    (Antony Blinken, 05:29–06:45)

• Reflections on Negotiation Strategy

  • Blinken admits regrets about pursuing a perfect Iran deal under Biden, but says walking away from JCPOA was far more consequential. He suggests a lack of experienced diplomats on the U.S. side (e.g., Kushner, Witkoff) left the U.S. at a disadvantage:

    “Iran has a core of very highly trained and experienced diplomats … Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are not.”
    (Antony Blinken, summarized by David Gura, 08:22)

• Concerns about a ‘Forever War’

  • Blinken and Gura discuss fears of an indefinite conflict and parallels to Syria, Libya, with sobering implications if regime change in Iran results in chaos and scattered nuclear materials:

    “Knowing that that much nuclear material is … scattered about the country is something that should be deeply worrying.”
    (Antony Blinken relayed by David Gura, 09:54–10:57)

3. Capitol Hill & War Powers Debate

• Senate War Powers Resolution

  • Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine’s push for a vote is discussed; it is seen as symbolic, with little GOP support and unlikely to pass.
  • Jeannie Shan Zaino highlights its importance for senators’ legacies:

    “All of these senators need to look back at how the votes on the Iraq war … that we all remember came back and really had an impact on their careers going forward.”
    (Jeannie Shan Zaino, 12:05)

• Congressional Authority & GOP Unity

  • Maura Gillespie criticizes the administration’s inconsistent messaging, suggesting it complicates congressional support even among Republicans:

    “The White House has not given a good messaging tactic for Republicans to reiterate because they themselves don’t seem to know what’s going on.”
    (Maura Gillespie, 13:39)

• Budget and Supplemental Funding

  • Both panelists doubt significant congressional appetite for more war funding without clearer strategy, especially amid high consumer prices:

    “That would be stunning to me at a time when Americans are suffering higher oil prices, higher gas prices, higher grocery prices, the list goes on and on.”
    (Jeannie Shan Zaino, 15:48)

---

4. White House Press Briefing: On Ground Troops

[17:46–18:10]

• Press Secretary Caroline Levitt says “ground troops are not part of the plan … at this time,” but does not rule it out as conflict continues.

5. Interview: General Frank McKenzie (Ret.), Ex-CENTCOM

[18:39–27:39]

• Current State of Military Operations

  • McKenzie confirms the U.S. has now established near-complete air dominance over Iran, allowing more aggressive targeting.

    “The plan, I think, is unfolding about as well as any CENTCOM commander would like to see.” (Gen. Frank McKenzie, 19:29)

  • He sees only “low-end” escalation options left for Iran, while the U.S. controls the “high end” of the escalation ladder.

• Sustainability of Aggressive Strikes

  • McKenzie believes the U.S. can maintain this pace “until Iran recognizes that it’s in their best interest to come to the table. And … it should not be as equals. It should be as victor and vanquished.” (20:34)

• Risks of Munition Depletion & Global Readiness

  • Acknowledges concern over U.S. stockpiles, tracing shortages to decades of underinvestment, but claims the Defense Department is addressing this.

• Potential Expansion: Arming Kurdish Forces & Proxy Fights

  • Supports considering arming local proxies as means of further pressuring Iran.

    “I would hope that we’re exploring all of those ways to put additional pressure on them.”
    (Gen. McKenzie, 22:23)

  • Warns that Iran’s global terror network retains some disruptive power, especially regionally.

• Protecting Global Shipping (Strait of Hormuz)

  • Discusses operational challenges and U.S. efforts to sink Iranian naval assets and disrupt mine-laying operations to protect global commerce. (25:02–26:07)

• Endgame Scenarios & Boots on the Ground

  • Stresses U.S. should “not leave any option off the table” but calls ground invasion a last resort and underlines unpredictability of regime collapse.

6. Diplomatic Perspective: Israel

• Israeli Ambassador Danny Danon (quoted via prior interview) stresses that Israel seeks to “create the conditions” for new leadership in Iran, but says Iranians must choose their future. U.S. and Israeli goals thus remain ambitious, and the risk of protracted instability is underlined. (26:28–26:57)

---

Domestic Political Impact: Texas Primaries Amid War

[28:48–40:53]

• Texas Senate Race Developments

  • Democrat James Talarico wins a primary upset with strong moderate appeal; Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett concedes after voting confusion arises.
  • On GOP side, a three-way race heads into a runoff between incumbent John Cornyn and Ken Paxton, exposing Republican divisions and massive spending.

• Jeannie Shan Zaino describes Talarico as a “rising star” akin to an Obama or Beto O’Rourke, noting the historic challenge of turning Texas blue.

• Maura Gillespie points to the sheer cost and internal GOP friction, anticipating a “really ugly, nasty campaign” ahead, as Paxton’s vulnerabilities and Cornyn’s establishment backing come to the fore.

Trump's Endorsement as a GOP Wild Card

• The Trump factor looms over the Republican runoff; his endorsement could be decisive but remains unpredictable, with implications for party resources and midterm strategies.

---

Notable Quotes

• Antony Blinken (03:37):
  “We’ve heard … shifting rationales, but … we’ve got to be able to hold multiple truths in our head at the same time. Is it a good thing that this ayatollah is gone? Yes … but … to take on the extraordinary risks … without having made the case with the American people … I think that’s problematic.”

• General Frank McKenzie (20:34):
  “We can continue to do it until Iran recognizes that it’s in their best interest to come to the table. And when we sit down at that table, it should not be as equals. It should be as victor and vanquished.”

• Jeannie Shan Zaino (12:05):
  “All of these senators need to look back at how the votes on the Iraq war … really had an impact on their careers … this is an important vote for them to be put on record because their constituents … have a right to know where they stand.”

• Maura Gillespie (13:39):
  “The White House has not given a good messaging tactic for Republicans to reiterate because they themselves don’t seem to know what’s going on.”

---

Key Timestamps

| Segment | Speaker / Content | Timestamp | |------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------| | War with Iran: White House Update | Kailey Leinz | 00:55 | | Blinken Interview on Diplomacy | David Gura & Antony Blinken | 02:42–10:57 | | Senate War Powers Vote Analysis | Panel: Shan Zaino & Gillespie | 12:05–16:47 | | Ground Troops? White House Brief | Kailey Leinz | 17:46 | | “US Has Only Just Begun to Fight” | David Gura quoting Trump | 18:10 | | General McKenzie Interview | McKenzie & Leinz | 18:39–27:39 | | Texas Senate Primary Results | Leinz, Shan Zaino, Gillespie | 28:48–40:53 |

---

Takeaways

• The Biden-Trump transition on Iran policy has broken the possibility of sustained diplomatic containment, with current U.S. strategy marked by intensified strikes and hardline goals.
• Expert voices highlight severe risks: regime destabilization could spread nuclear material and chaos; at home, war spending faces skepticism amid inflation.
• Congressional and domestic politics are unsettled—Senate Republicans face intra-party battles, while Democrats gamble on unusual political openings in Texas.
• The U.S. military posture is maximalist, but long-term costs and strategic vulnerabilities are apparent, both in the Middle East and beyond.

The balance of power, both abroad and at home, is in acute flux—with diplomacy and de-escalation appearing ever further out of reach.

Transcript

[IBM AI Representative]

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

[Bloomberg Balance of Power Announcer]

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.

[Kailey Leinz]

Here in Washington, we are of course monitoring all of the developments from all different face of the administration when it comes to the ongoing war with Iran and the messaging around it. We are expecting the White House Press Secretary Caroline Levitt, to speak with the media and answer questions any minute now. That briefing was scheduled to begin at 1pm Eastern Time and we'll of course bring you any headlines from it. But we also received a briefing earlier today from the highest ranking members of the military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Dan Kaine joined once again the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, in briefing the media and providing an update on this conflict, which in the words of Secretary Hegseth, is only just beginning. He suggests that we are not anywhere near the end to these military operations, as he also pointed to the military's accomplishments, in his view, in eradicating some of Iran's military capability, including using a torpedo from a US submarine for the first time since World War II to sink an Iranian warship off the coast of Sri Lanka. So clearly combat operations are still going. The question is, is there any path forward still for potential diplomacy? The New York Times, of course, reported this morning that Iranian operatives the day after the US Began these strikes did reach out for potential talks, though Iran is now pushing back against this idea, suggesting that that reporting was false and psychological warfare. So if Iran is suggesting it's not interested to talk, at least in terms of what it's pushing out through the media. And President Trump says the time to talk is over. What hope is there of talking? That's something that David Gura, my colleague here at Bloomberg and of course co host of Bloomberg this weekend, had the chance to speak with the former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken about earlier today and David's joining me now for more on what they. They talked about. So, David, what did Secretary Blinken tell you?

[David Gura]

You know, he's an optimist, of course, and somebody who is a true believer in the utility of diplomacy. And I asked him explicitly during that conversation, did he think there's still room for diplomatic negotiations to talk, for these two sides to get together? And he said, yes, there is. We talked about what a potential off ramp might be as well. And he said he's thinking about two things, munitions and markets. Focusing on markets in particular, he does think that what we've seen in the oil market, in the stock market, is something that could motivate the president to think about this timetable more deeply and more carefully, munitions wise. He suggests that maybe the US And Israel might think about how this is widened and think about the constraints they might have in terms of fighting what the Iranians are doing here. Look, you talked about the briefings that lawmakers have gotten here in recent days. We've heard from the president, we've heard from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. You've heard from the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense. I asked Secretary Blinken if from all of that he has a clear understanding of what this administration's objectives are, and this is what he had to say.

[Antony Blinken]

Well, look, the case keeps shifting, but the first thing to say is this from my perspective. Once our men and women in uniform are engaged in an operation or in war, my first thought is for their safety and for their success, irrespective of what I think about how we got there or even where this is going. So that's primarily what I'm thinking of. But having said that, we've heard, you know, a number of shifting rationales, but I think it's important to take into account that we've got to be able to hold multiple truths in our head at the same time. Is it a good thing that this ayatollah is gone? Yes. Terrible tyrant. Is it a good thing, potentially at least, that Iran's nuclear program is, I guess, re obliterated because apparently it was obliterated last June, but maybe not so much because they had to re obliterate it or its missile program diminished or its navy sunk? Yes. But to do that and to take on the extraordinary risks that go with it without having made the case with the American people, with citing imminent threats that apparently didn't exist, I think that's problematic. And the chances of unintended consequences taking hold in any situation like this are very real, very serious for our partners and allies in the region. And for ourselves and of course, for the Iranian people. I think a big question that everyone has is, okay, have we done regime change in Iran or just Ayatollah change, which is the way it looks right now?

[David Gura]

You brought up the argument that there was an imminent threat. In years past, you'd warned that there were a matter of weeks before Iran could develop fissile uranium. Is that an argument that's persuasive to you so much as that's been made by the administration that there was an imminent threat?

[Antony Blinken]

It's an ironic argument in a number of ways. First, as I said, they claim to have obliterated the nuclear power fissile material program back in June, and now we're told, actually, no, we didn't. And a number of us warned at the time that one of the reasons why military action against the nuclear program might not do the trick is that the Iranians were likely to start to rebuild, maybe rebuild deeper underground where we couldn't get at it. Whether that was happening or to what extent, I don't know because I'm not privy to that information. But at least that seems to be part of the rationale. The deeper irony, of course, is that we never should have been in this position. Insofar as the agreement that President Obama reached, the Iran nuclear deal, the so called jcpoa, put Iran's nuclear program in a box. It made sure that Iran could not produce the fissile material needed for a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And so if they chose to break out of the box and go for that, we'd see it and we'd have plenty of time to be able to do something about it. President Trump tore up that agreement, said he'd replace it with something better. He never did. And that's the road that we then wound up on that led to, in some ways to where we are today, with Iran, yes, dramatically advancing its production of fissile materials so that that breakout time moved from one year to a couple of weeks. But you don't only need fissile material, you actually need a weapon too. And I think, as has been publicly reported, our intelligence agencies and others, the IAEA continue to conclude that Iran has not made a decision to actually weaponize if and when they do, or if and when they did. Most estimates had that, that timeline at a couple of years. There are different kinds of weapons, less sophisticated ones you could build on a quicker timeline. But the bottom line is that on the nuclear side, there was no imminent threat. There was, though, the fact that, yes, in terms of fissile material production. They'd gone from the Obama deal more than a year to a few weeks.

[David Gura]

It's interesting. I asked the secretary about how he feels about the negotiations that took place during the Biden administration. So President Biden came into office and there was an effort to reanimate the JCPOA to try to get Iranians to agree to it. Once again. Those talks fell apart in 2022. And I asked the secretary, does he now think that perhaps they were trying to go for perfection instead of something that was a little more reduced, in effect, Go for perfection is the enemy of the good. He said he does have some regrets about that, but fundamentally, he still pins this on the fact that the Trump administration, Kaylee, pulled out of that deal back in the first term. And this is the legacy of the decision to do that.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, and I wonder, David, if he had any thoughts for you on the composition of the Trump administration and what they're doing here. Both his successor, the now Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, but also those who are charged with the diplomatic efforts here who are not career diplomats like Antony Blinken, Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner were the one leading these talks as the president's envoys. Did he share with you thoughts on that?

[David Gura]

Yeah, he didn't want to criticize them directly. And he said what was probably missing the most here, and again, he said he didn't know the full details of this was having the full apparatus of the State Department in those negotiations. In other words, having the technical experts who could come to the table when Steve Witkoff was there with Jared Kushner sitting across from Iranian diplomats. And he made what I think is a very salient point here, that is Iran has a core of very highly trained and experienced diplomats who've been at this for many years. Remember Zarif, for instance, who handled the deal during the Obama administration. These are folks who know what they're doing, are experienced, professional diplomats. Of course, Steve Woodkoff and Jared Kushner are not. So he didn't criticize them per se. He said that he assumed that they were operating in good faith, as he assumed the Iranians were operating in good faith here, but did note the fact that there was an inherent imbalance in the fact that there were trained diplomats on one side, and there are those who have not done this by practice or professional practice over the course of their careers.

[Kailey Leinz]

And, David, finally, when we consider the conversations you were having on Bloomberg this weekend, this past weekend, and the ones that you may still have yet to have on Bloomberg this weekend, this coming weekend, knowing that all signs from this administration are we will still be actively at war with Iran. These combat operations will continue in the absence of diplomacy. When we consider the timeline here and the military aspect of this, did Antony Blinken share with you any concerns about the idea that we could get drawn into a, quote, unquote, forever war? As President Trump talks about, we have the munitions to carry this on forever if we so choose?

[David Gura]

You know, I asked him if he fears that there is a point at which you're going to need to put US Boots on the ground. He said that's not a necessary thing. There's no sense that that has to happen here. But like a lot of folks I talked to on the show in the days since, he has been apprehensive about how this is widening and how that's likely to attenuate the timetable here. It's certainly something that he's very concerned about. And we talked a bit about parallels to what's happening. And he brought up Syria, he brought up Libya as well, countries that were kind of roiled by civil war when their leaders were taken out. So those are very sobering examp of what's to come here. And I'll just say one thing lastly, and folks can listen to the full interview on the Big Take podcast this afternoon. Something that he mentioned a number of times back when he was secretary of state is that if this were to happen, if there were to be some leadership shift in Iran, the regime could take the uranium that it had processed and spread it across the country, in effect hiding it at a moment where there is so much chaos and uncertainty about what's going to become of this country, knowing that that much nuclear material is again scattered about the country is something that should be deeply worrying, he thinks, to those who are watching all of this unfolding.

[Kailey Leinz]

All right, Bloomberg's David Gura, co host of Bloomberg this weekend, thank you so much. An important conversation with the former secretary of State, Antony Blinken. You can of course hear more of that in info on the Big Take podcast. But I want to turn back now here on Balance of Power to our political panel as we consider the political implications of this ongoing conflict with Iran and what role, if any, Congress is going to end up playing with war powers votes set to take place over the coming days in the Senate that this afternoon, though, it is expected to fail. Jeannie Shan Zaino is with me, democracy visiting fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School's Ash center and Bloomberg Politics contributor, our Democratic analyst And more. Gillespie, bluestack Strategies founder and Republican strategist Jeannie to begin with you on this war powers vote, which of course is being pushed by Democratic Senator Tim Kaine, all signs are that there will be no Republican support for this realistically, or at least not adequate support to get this over the threshold it needs to actually pass the Senate. How significant as a signal, as a symbol, though, could this vote still be if it clearly shows that it's still just Democrats on one side and Republicans in large part on the other? What's the point?

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

It is important. It is significant. And all of these senators, senators need to look back at how the votes on the Iraq war, for instance, that we all remember came back and really had an impact on their careers going forward. You have to think very, very serious, seriously about this. And I was struck yesterday after the briefing that they got to hear people like Senator Richard Blumenthal from Connecticut say we may be putting boots on the ground. He described himself as more fearful than ever. And also Senator Warren, Warren came out and said, you know, if you had listened to what I listened to, essentially you are right to be worri. They don't have a plan and they don't have an end strategy. And so I think as senators hear from the administration, this is an important vote for them to be put on record because their constituents, as we enter the midterms, have a right to know where they stand on what is perhaps the most significant foreign policy decision by this president, certainly, but by any president in the 21st century.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, Samura, do you bring or do you see a point at which a line is crossed even for Republicans who by and large want to stand with the president on his decisions? If we do see ground troops going in, do you think that could be something of a tone shift in terms of what we're hearing from Capitol Hill on whether or not congressional authorization is needed

[Maura Gillespie]

for members to stay in line with the president between calling it war and then not calling it war and not wanting to call it war. I think that from the start of this, really, the White House has not given a good messaging tactic for Republicans to reiterate because they themselves don't seem to know what's going on. I think the lack of severity of the situation and not being serious with not only the why, but what the goal is and being clear eyed about that and consistent has been a downfall for the administration and will be a downfall for members of Congress who are looking to decide, you know, where do they stake their legacy? Do they stake it with the Trump administration and kind of hope that it all pans out or do they decide what is best for not only the future of the country, but this act. Right. And the powers that you're giving to the president long term, not just right now, but for generations to come. And I do think that that's something that members should be thinking through, but to stay with the President just for

[Kailey Leinz]

the sake of it.

[Maura Gillespie]

I don't know if that's a great long term strategy.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, there's also the question as to whether or not the President is going to ask Congress not for permission to continue military operations, but instead for more money to carry them out. This is something we got into last night on Balance of Power with Republican Senator Mike Grounds.

[General Frank McKenzie]

We do know that we've still got munitions available to us, but any time you expend munitions, you want to make sure that you're in a position to replace those munitions as quickly as, as possible. And so if in the middle of this process, over the next several weeks, they decide that they're going to ask for a supplemental, I most certainly would consider it. Or as a part of the appropriations process, I think the President indicated he'd like to go up about $500 billion in additional expenditures for the next coming year.

[Kailey Leinz]

He also suggested to us that even budget reconciliation could be an option if this needed to be done on partisan lines, Jeannie. But could you see a scenario in which there actually could be Democratic support? This if it is money that is needed to replenish our stockpiles in order to provide for security, or even money that's needed to get Americans still stranded in the Middle east out.

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

You know, I think obviously there would be support to get Americans stranded out. But I would be stunned if Democrats, and quite frankly, Republicans were willing to appropriate more money for this without any clarity on why we are there, what is the end game and for how long? That would be stunning to me at a time when Americans are suffering higher oil prices, higher gas prices, higher grocery prices, the list goes on and on. They elect a president who says he's going to focus on making their lives more affordable, and yet we are now in a war. And we are now in a war that is costing, by some estimates, upwards of $780 million a day. And that's probably on the low side that we would be appropriating even more money to. That would be stunning to me in this environment. And at the very least, the administration owes it to the Congress and the American people. To be very clear on what the

[Kailey Leinz]

point is all right, Jeannie, Shan Zaino and Maura Gillespie, our political panel today. Thank you so much.

[David Gura]

Stay with us on Balance of Power. We'll have much more coming up after this.

[IBM AI Representative]

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, slashed 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.

[Bloomberg Balance of Power Announcer]

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.

[Kailey Leinz]

Play Bloomberg 11:30 right now in the White House press briefing where the press secretary Caroline Levitt is speaking to reporters saying at this time ground TR troops are not part of the plan for operations in Iran. But of course the question is could they become part of the plan as all administration officials, including the Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, are suggesting that this conflict is not yet near being over.

[David Gura]

As President Trump said, more and larger waves are coming. We are just getting started. We are accelerating, not decelerating. Iran's capabilities are evaporating by the hour while American strength grows fiercer, smarter and utterly dominant. Four days in, we have only just begun to fight. America fights to win. And in Operation Epic Fury we are.

[Kailey Leinz]

And joining us now with his insight is someone familiar with Americans fighting capability and fighting in this region. In particular, former U.S. cENTCOM commander General Frank McKenzie is with us now here on Bloomberg TV and radio. He's now executive director of the University of South Florida's Global and National Security Institute. General, thank you so much for, for being with us. You have recently penned an op ed in the New York Times that ran on Sunday entitled Iran Got Trump All Wrong. In it you write on the so called escalation ladder, the concept war planners have used for decades to evaluate how conflict might evolve. Iran still has options, but they are at the low end, at the high end of the escalation ladder. All of the options are ours. So General, now that we're five days into this conflict, conflict, what options do you see us having that we have not yet chosen to act on?

[General Frank McKenzie]

Well, Kelly, first of all, good to be with you here this afternoon. We're in execution of a plan that's been refined for many years by United States Central Command. And what we're seeing right now is the complete establishment of air dominance over all of Iran, which will then allow us to strike Iranian ballistic missiles, drones and cruise missiles with a lot more efficiency and effectiveness. You've got to take out their air defense in order to do that. That's largely been done, probably a little bit left, but we're working on that. It will allow us to use non smart weapons, weapons that don't require a big standoff range to drop against these targets. The plan, I think is unfolding about as well as any CENTCOM commander would like to see. Now, there will be some surprises, undoubtedly because war is the province of chance. But I believe we're on plan as we move forward.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, and when we consider the movement forward, can we continue to do so to strike this many targets, to do it at this cadence indefinitely, as right now the Pentagon and the President are suggesting?

[General Frank McKenzie]

I think we can continue to do it until Iran recognizes that it's in their best interest to come to the table. And when we sit down at that table, it should not be as equals. It should be as victor and vanquished.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, if and when we get to that point, General, even if the US Accomplishes the entirety of what it said its objectives are, with this operation in Iran, if it is no longer a threat from a ballistic missile standpoint or from a nuclear standpoint, clearly we will have expended a great deal of resources to do so, including from a munition standpoint. And we can't just snap our fingers and get those assets back and reloaded and replenished. General, are you concerned about us being in a weaker strategic position, if not in the Middle east specifically, as it comes to Iran, when we consider the theaters elsewhere around the world that we may need to have those things in store for.

[General Frank McKenzie]

So the Joint Staff and the Secretary balance the global magazine for the United States. This is not a new. This is not a new problem. We've known for a couple of years now that our arsenal needs to be bigger, it needs to be deeper. Because of decisions that were made across successive administrations going back to the early 1990s. We do need to reestablish parts of the defense industrial base, and I believe the Department of War is acting to do that right now.

[Kailey Leinz]

And speaking of right now, we are getting headlines out from the White House press secretary, Secretary's briefing, Caroline Levitt with the press, who has just said that Trump has spoken with Kurdish leaders about a base in Iraq. He has not agreed on a plan to arm Kurdish forces, as there has been reporting about in the last few days. In general, given your former purchase commander at centcom, I wonder if you have an opinion as to whether arming Kurdish forces is a good idea, what that could mean if he were to make that decision.

[General Frank McKenzie]

I think we should seek a variety of ways to put pressure on the Iranian regime. Certainly arming forces on the ground is one of those ways that we could do it. And I would hope that we're exploring all of those ways to put additional pressure on them. So I would. I think it's certainly worth taking a good hard look at.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, and this brings me to the other idea, that this isn't necessarily just going to be strictly US And Israeli military against Iran and the irgc, that Iran also has this vast proxy network to consider here as well. And we know Israel and Hezbollah have been exchanging fire in Lebanon. How concerned are you by the proxy aspect here in the perhaps unpredictable nature of that component of this?

[General Frank McKenzie]

Always concerned about Iran's proxy network. Their global terror network, which is perhaps a better and more direct way to describe it, is certainly a weapon they have. They're probably trying to energize it now. Of course, Lebanese Hezbollah, one of their partners, premier proxy terror networks, has been largely eviscerated by Israel over the past year or so. And I think Israel is now redoubling their attacks on them. We should worry about the potential of attacks in this country by Iran. Although they have a bad track record of success in doing it, we know it remains an aspiration for them to carry out those attacks. This is not an easy country for them to operate in. And I know we're taking all the measures we need to in order to be prepared for that. I worry more frankly about attacks in the region against our friends and partners in the region. Iran's already attacked them directly with ballistic missiles, drones and cruise missiles. So I'm certain they're going to use other methods to attack those countries as well. Although I would note that Iran's decision to engage countries like the uae, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Qatar by attacking them directly, I believe ultimately is going to prove to be a profound strategic mistake for Iran.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, when we consider the proxy network, we of course, have seen one of their proxies, the Houthis, already in just recent years having a very disruptive effect when it comes to global shipping in the Red Sea specifically. And the US Military was struggling to a large degree in order to make sure that waterway was secure and to kind of combat the Houthis efforts. Now we're having a very similar conversation about the Strait of Hormuz. The President, as I'm sure you well know, General, has suggested the US Will provide insurance, even naval escorts if necessary, in order to guarantee the safe passage of tankers and vessels through the Strait. How difficult, from an operations standpoint, is that going to be for the. For the United States Navy? And how many resources could we actually expend just on that effort separate to the actual operations in Iran itself?

[General Frank McKenzie]

Sure. So I'm glad to see that U.S. central Command under Admiral Brad Cooper have already undertaken some pretty significant steps to reduce Iranian naval capability. I don't know the count right now, but there's certainly over 20 ships sunk at the same time we're striking. I am certain where Iran stores its mines, the mines that they can deploy into the Strait of Hormuz to make it difficult for ships to go through. So we're probably working very hard right now to reduce those stocks and make it hard for Iran to actually implement that part of their plan. The other part of their plan will be their vast armada of small craft that can get out into the Gulf, into the Estrada Hormuz, and interfere with shipping. We're going after them right now. What you'd like to do is prevent this from becoming a problem. Don't let these forces operate. Don't let them drop mines, because it's always harder to sweep the mines than it is to destroy the mines while they're still in their storage areas. We're very much aware of this problem. The US Navy is very much aware of this problem. The Navy is trained for years to reopen these channels should it become necessary to do so. And I know that CENTCOM is giving it a great deal of attention right now.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, we so appreciate your expertise on this live situation. And finally, General, before we let you go, I do wonder your take on what happens when this is no longer an active situation, when we've reached the end game, whatever that may be. This is something I got into last night on balance of power with Israel's ambassador to the un, Danny Danone. This is what he told me.

[David Gura]

First, we are focused on degrading the capabilities, making sure there is no threat to Israel, to the region, to the world. And in the long run, you know, we believe that there will be a new leadership that will be the responsibility for the Iranian people to choose. But we will create the conditions for them to actually take control of their future. Once we will create those conditions, the Iranian people will have to step up and actually choose their own leadership.

[Kailey Leinz]

General, could creating those conditions actually require that this not just be an aerial campaign, but that the US Might need to put boots on the ground in Iran?

[General Frank McKenzie]

Well, I wouldn't claim to know that. I would think it would be wise for us not to leave any option off the table. And I think that's pretty much our stated position. I do agree that what we would like is a different form of government in Iran that may be hard to get to, but that's where you want to go. Our track record of predicting the fall of regimes like this have been has been poor. No one saw the fall of Bashar Assad in Syria coming until two or three days before it actually happened. And while this regime has ensconced itself pretty heavily by killing all the potential people who could come to lead, I still think there's.

[Kailey Leinz]

Yeah. All right, General, thank you so much for joining us. And please stay in touch with us as this conflict continues to unfold. General Frank McKenzie, the former commander of US Central Command, here with us on balance of power.

[David Gura]

Stay with us on balance of power. We'll have much more coming up after this.

[IBM AI Representative]

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, slashed 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.

[Bloomberg Balance of Power Announcer]

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.

[Kailey Leinz]

I'm Kailey Leinz here in Washington, where conversation over the last five days, no surprise, has been dominated by the fact that we are in active combat operations still in the Middle east, the US And Israel in war against Iran, which is why this is not our top story today.

[Maura Gillespie]

Here.

[Kailey Leinz]

On Balance of Power. In any other context, it likely would be. We had primaries yesterday in North Carolina and Arkansas, which weren't too exciting. But most crucially in the state of Texas, where a Senate seat is in play in this midterm election cycle, and the primary results in that Senate race on both the Democratic and Republican side were interesting. On the Democratic side, you have Texas State Representative James Talarico, who was relatively unknown until just months ago. A devout Christian, young rising star, at least as he's seen in the Democratic Party, who says he can appeal to moderates in the general election. He beat out Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett in the Democratic primary, a victory that was perhaps marred slightly by confusion over Democratic polling sites in Dallas county, something that Crockett was very quick to call attention to. Even as Talarico celebrated, we were able to keep the polls open, but I can tell you now that people have been disenfranchised tonight.

[General Frank McKenzie]

Our campaign is shocking the nation. We, we are still waiting for an official call, but we are confident in this movement we've built together. Every, every vote must be counted. Every voice must be heard.

[Kailey Leinz]

Of course the official call has come and Crockett has conceded. So it will be James Talarico in the general election in November. Who he'll be up against, though still an open question, because on the Republican side we are heading to a May runoff. It was a three way race between the incumbent Senator John Cornyn, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and Congressman Wesley Hunt. And none of them could garner the 50% needed to cross the threshold to avoid a runoff. So we're going to see much more money spent in this race where already tens of millions of dollars have been spent by Senate Republicans and affiliated groups in order to try to protect John Cornyn, because he is seen, at least by establishment Republicans here in Washington, as the person who would most easily defeat James Talarico. So let's get into this now with our political panel. Jeannie Shan Zaino is with me, Democrat Democracy visiting fellow at Harvard Kennedy School's Ash center, and of course, Bloomberg Politics contributor alongside Maurici, who's a Republican strateg and founder at Bluestack Strategies. Welcome to you both. Jeannie, I want to start with you first and with the Democrats first because that was the conclusive result from last night. What should we glean from Talarico's victory over Congresswoman Crockett?

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

Yeah, I mean, and this is a guy, Kayleigh, and I think you described it perfectly. Many people on the Democratic side seeing him as a potential rising star. You hear people banding about names like similar to or reminiscent of Barack Obama. Beto o' Rourke with enormous oratorical skills. Really, really good. He's been on your show on Balance of Power. Really good on the medium with social media young, and he was, I think, 18 points behind not that long ago. And he rose up to win and he won in a pretty substantial way. I think the Last numbers I looked at, he's about seven points ahead. So Democrats have really gotten what they want here. Texas democr Democrats, it's been like since 1994. Some of my students weren't even alive last time Democrats won a statewide seat in Texas. But with somebody like Talarico, I think many Democrats feel like they are halfway there to getting the perfect setup to potentially capturing this state. You know, it all depends on what happens on Morris side of the aisle, on the Republicans, because their dream is, of course, to run against Ken Paxton. And I think Cornyn, with his, you know, 1, 2%, you know, win there or at least capturing more votes and getting to this runoff really took some people by surprise.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, so I wonder, Maura, how you're viewing this and if you are surprised because we were being told yesterday and in the lead up to this primary that Republicans were concerned about Talarico winning, especially if there is a chance that he is going to go up against against Ken Paxton come November, which we obviously don't know yet. But how nervous are you feeling about this this afternoon?

[Maura Gillespie]

I think that Talarico vs. Paxton is a really good sign for Democrats. But, you know, the amount of money that's being spent on this primary loan, when you're coupling that with the messaging that Republicans and Democrats alike have been focused on when it comes to affordability, I think it really does fall flat when it flies in the face of what everyday Americans are facing. And you're just talking about tens of million dollars on a primary alone now going to a runoff, and that's even before the general election takes place. So I think that that's a conversation that needs to be had internally as you run campaigns. You know, it does sort of become this question of how much money are we spending in this country on elections alone and not even just elections on campaigns. It's one thing to spend money on elections, but it's a whole other thing on these campaigns themselves. They drag out, they cost a lot of money. And for messaging tactic, I just think it kind of is poorly done for both sides. But right now for Republicans and when it comes to Cornyn, yes, the nrc, the Republican campaign for Senate campaigns are going to be putting a lot of money behind Cornyn because they do see him as again, think about it. Last year, a few years ago, he was considered a potential instead of having, you know, John Thune as Senate majority leader, Cornyn was in the running. And now, now he's contending for a primary. So it just really does show you where he stands in the gop, as far as you said establishment. But for the future of the party beyond Donald Trump, it does matter.

[Kailey Leinz]

Yeah, it's incredible that he was one of the Johns we were talking about would be the next after Mitch McConnell. It was going to be John Thune, maybe John Barrasso or John Cornyn. And now he is a John very much in danger. Maura, just quickly on the idea that, yes, they're going to have to spend more money between now and this runoff in May. But talk to us about, like, runoff election dynamics. Who is likely to show up for a runoff vote, because we already know primary voters are more politically engaged than the average member of the American electorate, perhaps in general elections. What about the runoff voter? Who would that favor?

[Maura Gillespie]

So you would think that it would favor Ken Paxton because it tends to lean more conservative. I mean, but it also tends to lean to people who are more motivated. I do think what Cornyn's team needs to do, and they already had that add out, which is pretty blistering. But point out the contradictions. Ken Paxton says he's this family man, he's a devout Christian, all these things, and then he cheated on his wife. And that's the ad that Cornyn's team is running. And then he got his daughter to do an ad saying that he's a great family man. So I think that, you know, at a certain point, voters are going to be tired of being lied to and feeling that there's a walking contradiction that's trying to tell them that he's, you know, running on these principles, that does he have them? Does he have the values that they have? Does he share them? And Cornyn can speak to that, and I think he will. But you are seeing, you know, this divide there, and it's going to get ugly because of these things that are going to pop up. And you're going to see Ken Paxton sling at John Cornyn about not being true maga. But does that really hold? And I think as we get closer to the midterms and as we kind of get through these, these fracture points that the Trump administration is already having, because what they're standing for is not what they they ran on. And there's a lot of conflicts within the cabinet and a lot of egregious spending and things that are going on in Trump world that don't reflect the struggles of everyday Americans and the people who elected him to be president in the first place. So I think that if Cornyn's team can draw that distinction, they'll fare better by reaching their actual voters and speaking to the people who they're looking to elect them not to Trump world.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, so Jeannie, I want to get back to the money dynamics here because as Mara was pointing to, the Republicans are going to have to spend a lot even before we get to the general election, but Democrats are going to have to spend a lot on the general election. Right. This is going to be another election cycle in which we see in the in the hopes of turning Texas blue, which they have hoped for decades and not succeeded, and they are going to have to deploy a lot of capital. Does this risk being kind of a financial sunk hole, if you will, for Democrats once again when there are other states in place in these midterms as well that they need to think about deploying resources to?

[Jeannie Shan Zaino]

Yeah, absolutely. And I think so much of it depends on the outcome of this runoff. And you know, I, you know, you think about the 70 million Cornyn spent for to to get to a runoff. And then by one estimation, I heard, Kelly, 100 million could be spent in the next 12 weeks. That is astonishing. Democrats want to try to take advantage of that if Donald Trump, Trump stays on the sidelines and get Talarico out there for precisely the reason that you're talking about. So they have a leg up once this general election is set and they're hoping again that it's Paxton. But you know, I was listening to John Thune today say that he is once again going to try to get Donald Trump to endorse for the money reason and also because he wants to avoid what he said was a spirit would be a spirited campaign campaign, which is probably another word for a really ugly, nasty campaign, which Cornyn yesterday said was going to be coming. And he had a lot more oppo research to drop on Paxton. So that's what Democrats are banking, that they can get a leg up. Unless, of course, Donald Trump decides to endorse. And I think that is the big thing to watch. And to your point, this cycle has always been tough for Democrats in the Senate. It I don't think in their wildest imagination they thought that Texas was going to be doable. It's still a long road to hoe there. But the fact that last night they got Talarico and may get a Paxton against him really is a bright spot for them. And I think you're going to see tons of money pour into this race to try to get them over this historic hump in Texas.

[Kailey Leinz]

Well, Mari, I want to talk more about that elusive Trump endorsement and whether or not that's likely to come and what impact you think it will have, knowing, for example, that one of the incumbents who has officially lost his bid for reelection yesterday, Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw, was defeated in his primary. He didn't have the Trump endorsement. Is that a lesson that if and when Trump decides to speak on this Senate race, it will be definitive?

[Maura Gillespie]

You know, I think when it comes to the Senate race, it's a little bit different than some of these districts where, yes, Dan Crenshaw had gotten into a little bit of trouble. And I think that the Ted Cruz late endorsement of his opponent Steve Toth, you know, maybe swayed some people in that area in the Woodlands. But by and large, I think for Senate as a whole, Trump has to realize, and he did realize during this first primary. Right. That endorsing Ken Paxton was problematic for the party at large. And so he chose not to. And I'm glad that he chose not to. I don't know that he can get over his own ego and not endorse Ken Paxton. I think it's going to be a matter of John Thune and those in the NRIC showing Trump what he has, what they have on Paxton so that not to embarrass the president. And if they frame it in that way, maybe he will go ahead and throw his support behind Cornyn. But I think a lot of it comes down to he wants those who are going to, I hate to say it like this, but bow down to him in order to get his endorsement. And unless they do that, he's not willing to give it. And I think that financially, the amount of money that's being spent on this campaign and this primary and to the general, it takes away from other races that the Trump administration needs. You know, if they don't want to have a repeat of what happened in his first term with impeachment hearings and things of that nature, then they need to be putting more of their focus on winning and not just playing to the president's ego.

[Kailey Leinz]

Okay. Maura Gillespie of Bluestack Strategies, Republican strategist, alongside our Democratic analyst Jeannie Shan Zaino, Democracy Visiting Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy Schools Ash Center. Thank you both.

[David Gura]

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 [e-mail]

[IBM AI Representative]

this is Matt Rogers from Las Culturistas

[David Gura]

with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang. This is Bowen Yang from Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers in Bowen.

[IBM AI Representative]

Yang hey, so what if you could

[David Gura]

boost the WI fi to one of your devices when you need it most? Because Xfinity WI fi can. And what if your WI fi could fix itself before there's even really a problem? Xfinity is so reliable. It does that too.

[IBM AI Representative]

What if your wifi had parental instincts?

[David Gura]

Xfinity WI fi is part nanny, part ninja, protecting your kids while they're online. And finally, what if your WI fi was like, the smartest WI fi? Yeah, it's WI fi that is so smart it makes everything work better together. Bottom line, Xfinity is smart and reliable. You deserve the peace of mind of having WI fi that's got your back. Xfinity Imagine that it's football season and now you can get anything you need for game day delivered with Uber Eats.

[General Frank McKenzie]

Well, almost.

[David Gura]

Almost anything. You can't get a running back, but baby back ribs.

[Antony Blinken]

Yes, Uber Eats official on demand food delivery partner of the NFL.