PDB Situation Report | April 19th, 2025: How Long Can The Tariff War Last & A Ground Campaign Coming In Yemen?

Summary

Podcast Summary: The President's Daily Brief
Episode: PDB Situation Report | April 19th, 2025: How Long Can The Tariff War Last & A Ground Campaign Coming In Yemen?
Release Date: April 19, 2025
Host: Mike Baker
Guest Experts: Preston Brashers (Heritage Foundation) & Bill Rochio (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies)

---

1. Introduction

In this episode of The President's Daily Brief, host Mike Baker delves into two critical global issues: the ongoing trade tensions between the United States and China, and the escalating conflict in Yemen with potential ground offensives against the Houthi rebels. Drawing on insights from esteemed experts Preston Brashers and Bill Rochio, the episode provides a comprehensive analysis of these complex situations, exploring their implications for U.S. policy and international stability.

---

2. US-China Tariff War

a. Current Impact

Mike Baker opens the discussion by highlighting the intensifying US-China tariff war, emphasizing its tangible effects on Chinese export hubs like Guangzhou and Shenzhen. He notes the severe slowdown in manufacturing, canceled orders from US buyers, inventory buildups, and looming layoffs. Baker references an export manager who remarked, "he's never seen this kind of slowdown in 20 years," underscoring the unprecedented nature of the current economic strain [00:51].

b. Analysis from Preston Brashers

Preston Brashers, a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, provides an economic perspective on the tariff strategy employed by the Trump administration. He explains that tariffs, essentially taxes on imported goods, have historically been a tool for raising government revenue but have become less significant since the advent of the income tax in 1913 [03:02]. Brashers outlines the dual impact of tariffs on both consumer products and domestic manufacturers, noting that while some exemptions have been put in place to mitigate immediate impacts, the overall pressure remains substantial [04:32].

c. Economic Implications

Baker probes deeper into the historical context of tariffs, asking Brashers to clarify misconceptions about their novelty under the Trump administration. Brashers elucidates that the use of tariffs as a major revenue source has significantly declined over the past century, with modern tariffs being much lower than those of previous decades [05:02]. He emphasizes that global trade barriers have generally decreased over the years, promoting globalization, which contrasts sharply with the current protectionist stance [07:12].

Brashers further discusses the administration's objectives, distinguishing between reciprocal tariffs and efforts to address the trade deficit. He explains that the current tariff approach is more about reducing the trade deficit rather than merely seeking reciprocity, pointing out that the U.S. trade deficit is largely driven by its status as a consumer-driven economy and a substantial budget deficit [09:28].

d. Future Outlook

The conversation shifts to the sustainability of the tariff war. Brashers expresses uncertainty about the long-term viability of the tariff strategy, highlighting potential economic trade-offs such as increased consumer prices and disrupted supply chains. He suggests that while tariffs can generate significant revenue, they also risk alienating trading partners and complicating international relations [12:16].

A notable quote from Brashers encapsulates his cautious stance: "Economics is all about trade-offs. There might be some economic pain that comes with it, but if there's a consideration to national security and other things, that's necessary." [07:18]

Baker and Brashers also explore the feasibility of a border adjustment tax as an alternative to tariffs, discussing its potential to generate substantial revenue without the same level of disruptive impact [15:48].

---

3. Situation in Yemen

a. Current Military Actions

Transitioning to the Middle East, Mike Baker addresses the deteriorating situation in Yemen. Recent U.S. airstrikes against Houthi targets have weakened the group, prompting Yemeni government forces to prepare for a ground offensive aimed at reclaiming the strategic Red Sea port of Hodeida [26:26]. Baker introduces Bill Rochio, a senior fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, to provide deeper insights into these developments.

b. Analysis from Bill Rochio

Bill Rochio explains that the Trump administration has adopted a more aggressive stance in Yemen compared to the previous Biden administration. Whereas the latter focused primarily on targeting weapons systems, the current approach includes direct actions against individuals and leadership within the Houthi movement [27:59]. Rochio asserts that while these tactics may initially curb Houthi aggression, they risk destabilizing Yemen further by creating a power vacuum that could be exploited by extremist groups like Al Qaeda [30:03].

A critical observation from Rochio highlights the potential for unintended consequences: "If we replace the Houthis or depose them, it could be replaced with another bad actor, and we could be convinced that they're good actors. That's exactly what happened in Syria." [31:45]

---

4. Iranian Influence in Yemen and Regional Implications

a. Iranian Patronage of the Houthis

The episode further explores Iran's role in supporting the Houthi rebels. Bill Rochio discusses the loose yet influential relationship between the Iranian regime and the Houthis, emphasizing that while Iran does not dictate Houthi strategies, it provides essential support in terms of weapons and advisory services [42:19]. This patronage complicates U.S. efforts to quell the conflict, as Iran’s backing strengthens the Houthis’ capabilities.

b. Strategic Considerations and Risks

Rochio warns of the broader regional implications if the Houthis are successfully ousted. Drawing parallels with other Middle Eastern conflicts, he cautions against the rise of alternative extremist groups in the power vacuum, potentially mirroring the chaotic outcomes seen in Libya and Afghanistan [34:16]. He underscores the necessity for pragmatic U.S. foreign policy that carefully considers the complex local dynamics and avoids unintended support for new adversarial factions [36:01].

A poignant remark from Rochio encapsulates his concerns: "We need to understand our enemy, the limitations of our allies, and who they are as well. We shouldn't get involved like we did in Afghanistan or Libya." [36:01]

c. Diplomatic Efforts and Potential Outcomes

The discussion shifts to recent diplomatic maneuvers, including talks between the U.S. and Iran regarding potential strikes on Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Rochio expresses skepticism about the feasibility and reliability of such negotiations, citing the complexities of military logistics and the unpredictability of Iranian responses [39:29].

He further critiques the Trump administration's negotiation tactics, suggesting that while dialogue is essential, there is a high likelihood of Iran stalling or manipulating discussions to its advantage [44:49]. Rochio concludes with a bleak outlook on the prospects of achieving meaningful progress in curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions without exacerbating regional tensions [48:26].

---

5. Conclusion

Mike Baker wraps up the episode by reiterating the multifaceted challenges posed by the US-China tariff war and the volatile situation in Yemen. He emphasizes the importance of informed discourse and strategic policy-making to navigate these global issues effectively. The discussions with Preston Brashers and Bill Rochio provide listeners with a nuanced understanding of the economic and geopolitical stakes, highlighting the intricate balance between assertive action and diplomatic prudence.

Notable Quotes:

• Preston Brashers [07:18]: "Economics is all about trade-offs. There might be some economic pain that comes with it, but if there's a consideration to national security and other things, that's necessary."

• Bill Rochio [31:45]: "If we replace the Houthis or depose them, it could be replaced with another bad actor, and we could be convinced that they're good actors. That's exactly what happened in Syria."

• Bill Rochio [36:01]: "We need to understand our enemy, the limitations of our allies, and who they are as well. We shouldn't get involved like we did in Afghanistan or Libya."

---

Stay Informed: For those who missed the episode, The President's Daily Brief offers a thorough analysis of pressing global issues, providing clarity and context to complex international developments. Subscribe to the podcast or visit PDB Premium for an ad-free experience.

Transcript

[Mike Slater]

My name is Mike Slater. I have a podcast called Politics by Faith. I was just talking to a friend of mine who said he hasn't been able to follow the news lately. It's been too much. It's too crazy. It's driving him crazy and he's just checked out. If you feel that way sometimes, too, I think you'll really like our podcast Politics by Faith. We take the main story of the day and we run it through the Bible. What does the Bible say about this? It's amazing, but it's all there. And then God tells us what to do. We don't even have to figure it out. The answers are right there. He gives us the answers. Politics by Faith. Please join us over there. You can listen to it wherever you're listening to this podcast right now. Politics by Faith.

[Mike Baker]

Welcome to the PDP Situation report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed. We'll start things off with new fallout in the US China tariff war. Perhaps you've heard about this. Factories are idling, hoarders are vanishing, and the pressure is mounting on both sides Now. How much longer, you ask, can both sides endure the pain? Heritage Foundation's Preston Brashers joins us to break it down. Later in the show, we'll turn to the Middle east, where the ongoing strikes against the Houthi rebels appear to be reigniting Yemen's decade long civil war, with government forces reportedly planning a ground offensive against the wounded terror group. Bill Rochio of the foundation for the Defense of Democracies gives his insight. But first, today's PDB Spotlight. The pressure from President Trump's sweeping tariffs is starting to hit home in China at export hubs like Guangzhou and Shenzhen. So you didn't know I spoke Chinese. Factories are going quiet, orders from US Buyers are being canceled, inventory is piling up, and workers are bracing for layoffs. One export manager told local media he's never seen this kind of slowdown in 20 years. Meanwhile, ports are jammed and uncertainty is seeping into every corner of China's manufacturing base. This all sounds very dire, doesn't it? The question now, how long can China absorb this slowdown and how much longer can Washington keep turning up the pressure without feeling a major impact here in the US Joining us now to break it all down is Preston Brashers. He's a research fellow at the Heritage Foundation. Preston, thanks very much for joining us here on the SITUATION report.

[Preston Brashers]

Yeah, thanks a lot for having me, Mike.

[Mike Baker]

What we're hoping to do is to approach the talk about the trade war with China from an economics perspective and let's look at it from that direction as opposed to what I think a lot of the conversation has been, which is, you know, okay, how is this impacting China on the home front? Let's start with sort of a layman's explanation for, for tariffs in general, and then we can start drilling down towards a specific battle between the US And China.

[Preston Brashers]

Yeah, so, I mean, tariffs are a form of tax, but they're attacks on products that are crossing into the United States from other countries. And so this has been part of the way that the United States has raised revenues from from the outset. It used to be a much larger part of the US Revenues back before we had an income tax. Since the income tax has come into existence, tariffs have become a much smaller portion of what we have. But tariffs can be, they're, they're opposed on both intermediate goods. So you can talk about manufacturers that might have, have some inputs that they're buying from, from overseas. So, so it can have some effect on domestic manufacturers as well. But it were, but it also is going to hit consumer products and obviously we, we purchase a lot of consumer products from China. Think your smartphones, laptops. Although it should be noted that the President trump, the, the 200% had, 225% tariffs have, he's put some exemptions in place. And so some of these products, some of these intermediate goods, there's, there's kind of consideration being they're making considerations for some of these things that, that perhaps could have a deep and immediate impact. So they're, they're trying to be mindful about this, I think, but, but obviously this is, this is a huge step the administration has taken. They're, they're not wasting any time and kind of trying to address these, these China issues.

[Mike Baker]

And I mean, it's interesting what you said at the outset, which is the tariffs used to be a, a much more important part of U S. Government revenues because I, I, it seems like, I mean, if you read a lot of the, the press out there, it sounds as if, oh, this is some new invention on the part of the Trump administration to utilize tariffs. If you could talk to me about that. I mean, how, you know, when did that change? When, when did we move? I suppose based on what you said, it might have been around the time that we implemented the income tax.

[Preston Brashers]

The income tax was implemented in the 1913 or so. That was really where you started to see some, some movement away from tariffs. For, for a period, the income tax, it ramped up obviously, during, during World War I, but then you saw in the 1920s that, that they moved, moved towards reducing the income tax. But then President hoover in the 1930s really wrapped up, wrapped up the tariffs again. So they've, they've come, they've come and come and go a little bit. But the big difference really between now and what we're talking about 150 years ago is that the US government just raises a lot more money than it used to. So you used to be able to fund the government off of 2 or 3% of GDP. And so that was where, where you could, you could run the government off of tariffs and then a few excise taxes. Nowadays that probably would be feasible. I'd love it if it was. I'd love to get to a, to a government that was, was so small that, that you could. But, but unfortunately, probably we're really going to have to have. Yeah, it's going to be a while before we can think about getting rid of the income tax replacing altogether with tariffs. So I think those are a little bit overstated claims as to being able to replace it altogether. But tariffs at the level of tariffs today is significantly less than it was in earlier decades. Even within the century, 50, 60 years ago, we've, we've worked to reduce trade barriers and a lot of other countries have as well. So trade barriers are relatively low. There's been obviously a big push towards globalization, not just in the U.S. but other countries as well. So that's, that's kind of where we're at. And maybe there's a little bit of buyer's remorse in some, some ways that, especially with, with respect to China, a lot of people are questioning whether it was a good idea to let them into the WTO and open up trade relationships. And I think that's, that's really, I think a lot of what this is about probably is, is that China angle. And, you know, it's one thing to have good relationships and open and free trade with, with, with our allies and free countries. You know, I think people have a very different mindset about it when it comes to China, though.

[Mike Baker]

What's your perspective on the, on the use of tariffs at this point as being done by the Trump administration?

[Preston Brashers]

So I think, I think with anything there's trade offs, so people should be realistic about those trade offs. I'm an economist. Economics is all about trade offs. And so there might be some, some, some economic pain that comes with it. You might see that some Some prices will go up as a result of tariffs. But if, if there's a consideration to national security and other things where we think that, that that's necessary. You know, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not an international relations expert. I defer to some extent to people that are on some of these things. But there's obviously a case to be made that certainly China has not been a good actor in a lot of cases. I talk to companies, leaders of companies all the time that will talk about IP theft, dumping of products, things of that nature. Certainly China has some unfair trade practices that the US should be concerned with. As a general matter, I'm not a fan of, of taxation, you know, high taxes in general. I'd like to see tree barriers reduced and hopefully this can be a way to get to reduce trade barriers with countries that are willing to work with us towards reducing theirs as well.

[Mike Baker]

Okay. And this, I'm sure to you it's going to sound like a simplistic question, but those are my favorite kind. Is, is this about leveling out the differences between the US's tariff amount, the trade percentage that I'm talking about for the tariffs and, and respect of other countries, or is it about the trade imbalance between the US and a relevant country? Because, you know, there's been this talk that, that the White House is, is, you know, they're fuming about the, the trade imbalance with a variety of countries and obviously including China. But then the, the, the counter to that seems to be, well, we, we are the largest consumer out there, so it, there's going to be imbalance.

[Preston Brashers]

Yeah, it's a great question. And there's been a little bit of mixed messaging on this. I think the, the tariffs that the administration and others have spoken of tariffs and the use of tariffs in a lot of different ways. And I think frankly, they're coming at it from a lot of different angles. They talked about reciprocal tariffs. If you saw what was rolled out, that wasn't necessarily just reciprocal tariffs. They imposed the 10% across the board and then, and they calculated what they called the reciprocal tariffs based off of this formula. It was not necessarily, it wasn't truly about reciprocity. It was more about trade deficits. And that's a different concept than necessarily what these countries tariffs and trade barriers are against the United States. And so perhaps it was a negotiating tactic that you come in with this very aggressive tactic to get countries to come to the negotiating table very quickly. I would imagine that's part of what's going on here. But, but, but it wasn't simply reciprocal tariffs. Now, when it comes to the trade deficit, trade deficits come from a lot of different things. It's not just from the trade barriers. Trade barriers can be a part of that. And tariffs are just one form of trade barrier. There can be some others as well. And the administration has spoken to some of those things such as currency manipulation or you can, you can think of, for example, the, in the European Union, if they put restrictions on, on just very, very, very tight regulations, for example, can be a form of a trade barrier if you're, if you're imposing these regulations in a way that it's designed to make sure that you're keeping sellers from other markets out of your, out of your country. So there's a lot of things that are at play here and it is extraordinarily complex. I mean, even just talking about the, the tariffs, tariffs, if you look at these schedules, they just go on forever, just product by product. And so it's enormously complex. But, but part of what's that? Well, part of the issue actually, when it comes to the US Trade deficit, the US Trade deficit is, is largely actually a result of the fact that in the United States, we are a nation of consumers. And part of the reason that we're a nation of consumers is because unfortunately, it comes from a matter of we're not saving enough money. That's both at the private level and the public level. And so one of the things that contributes to the, to the large trade deficit that we have is, is actually the massive budget deficit that we face, this $2 trillion budget deficit. Whereas as the government, we're not paying for all the things that the government is spending money on. These, these, and this leads to, this contributes in a large way to those trade deficits that the administration is, is trying to address. So there's a lot at play here and some of its rhetoric, perhaps some of this negotiating and there are some real issues as well. So it's a, it's a combo. Combo combination of a lot of things.

[Mike Baker]

Okay, very interesting. I want to dive into a little bit more of a focus on China. But, but first, Preston, if you could stay right there. We've got to take a quick break and then we'll be right back with more of the Situation Report and Preston Brashers. Hey, Mike Baker here. Now, I'm a big believer in self reliance, right? Taking charge of your family, your health, your future. But when your sleep is off, well, you know this, everything slips. You toss you turn, you're waking up drained and and can fall behind where it matters most. That's why I'm so excited to share something that makes a real difference. Beam's Dream Powder Beam, it's spelled B E a M just like you'd imagine. Is proudly founded in America and run by people who share our values, hard work, integrity and delivering results. Look, it's a science backed healthy nighttime blend packed with ingredients shown to improve sleep so you can wake up refreshed and ready to take on the day. Dream is made with a powerful blend of all natural ingredients. You got reishi, magnesium, L theanine, apigenin and melatonin. Look at that. I sound like a scientist. I've used it and it gave a huge boost to my focus and energy. And I'm not the only one. Beam has already improved over 17 and a half million nights of sleep. Think about that. Helping people across the country wake up and feel their best. Even better. Well, Beam is an American company. Built here, run here. Here's the deal. Beam is giving my listeners the ultimate Patriot discount of 40 off. That's right, you heard me correctly. That's 4, 0, 40 off. Try their best selling Dream Powder and get up to 40 off. For a limited time, go to shopbeam.com mike that's M I K E and use code mike at checkout. That's shop beam b e a m.com mike and use code mike for up to 40 off. Support an American company, invest in yourself and start getting your best sleep tonight.

[Bill Rogio]

This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. It's tax season and we're all a bit tired of numbers, but here's one you need to hear. $16.5 billion. That's how much the IRS flagged for possible identity fraud last year. Now here's a good number. 100 million. That's how many data points Lifelock monitors and every second. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed. Save up to 40% your first [e-mail] podcast terms apply.

[Mike Baker]

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is the Heritage Foundation's Preston Brashers. He's an economist and an extremely smart person, as you probably realized from our first segment. Now, Preston, I've heard from the White House, okay, not directly, they didn't call me and say this, but I've read that according to President Trump, the US Government is currently raking in something along the lines of $3 billion a day from the tariffs as they currently stand. Does that sound about right. From what you've seen.

[Preston Brashers]

I don't have an exact number that, that data I don't think would be publicly available this quickly. I would say that the, the amount of tariffs could potentially be substantial. I mean, just the level of tariffs with China, the level of the across the board tariffs. One of the things that we have looked at at the Heritage foundation is, is a border adjustment. It's not exactly a tariff, but it is, has some similarities. And you can get to a trillion dollars of revenue from a border adjustment at about a 10% rate.

[Mike Baker]

Before we go further, what is a border adjustment? What are we, what are we talking about?

[Preston Brashers]

Yeah, so a border adjustment would act very similar to a tariff, but a tariff, I mentioned how a tariff can capture intermediate goods, for example. And so what you can have is if you have, say a car and you have parts that are being distributed across the border and then it's manufactured and assembled in different, you know, maybe in the US and then Canada and Mexico and is crossing the border multiple times, that, that, that cascades and you have this double taxation that happens. What a border adjustment does is it basically acts like what these other countries. Most of these other countries, they have a value added tax. And with a value added tax, what they're doing is they're saying it's kind of like a sales tax, but, but it, but it's done based off of the value of the product. So when you have these intermediate goods that are crossing the border, you would have a tax that applies when it comes in and then if it's coming back out, you have a credit that offsets that. So what you're going to end up with is, is something that works a little bit more like a flat consumption tax. So I think it's a feasible outcome that what could, could result from this is you could have Instead of that 10% across the board tariff, you could convert that into it into a 10% border adjustment and use that within the budget reconciliation process to advance some of President Trump's pro growth tax cuts that he wants to advance. And the advantage of doing that is, is you'd actually get, get to use this, the budget scoring from that in a way that you wouldn't be able to do with tariffs because you're locking those into, into permanent law. And so that would be something that they could use to, to advance some of President Trump's other priorities. So that's the direction that we'd like to see this go to. That we think would be a really, I think, productive way to to do this.

[Mike Baker]

Does it surprise you in terms of the response with the tariffs, the trade wars? And I don't mean just with the US And China, but in general terms, just the focus on tariffs, the uncertainty, if you want to call it that, that it's created in international markets and with allies. Are you surprised at the response so far? Is it what you would have expected? Is it less than you would have expected? You know, give me your perspective on that.

[Preston Brashers]

What I would say is kind of mentioned before that there's been sort of mixed messaging on some of this. Like, is this, is this about reciprocity? Is this about we want to address the issues with China and make sure that we're decoupling from China, or is this about we really want to make sure that we're, we're pushing everything back to the United States and producing everything here and producing and cutting off that global trade. And so, so I think for a moment there, there was a lot of, and maybe again, this was a negotiated tactic, I don't know. But there, I think there was a concern from a lot of people. And, and, you know, as a, as an economic analyst, I had a lot of uncertainty, too, as to what was going on. But, but there does seem to have been a signal that, and certainly they came out very strong and left this very large incentive for, for countries to come to the negotiating table. And I think we've seen that many countries, such as Japan, right now we know there's talks going on there, so there was a lot of uncertainty, and I think countries were very concerned. And certainly I wouldn't want this to turn into something where we're cutting ourselves off in a way that's going to box us out and push countries closer to China. So I think it was a good move for the president to announce the pause in the tariffs to get as many countries to the negotiating table as possible, work out some deals and, and, and secure some wins and really get to reduce trade barriers with our friends so that they're coming closer to us and not closer to China?

[Mike Baker]

Yeah. And, and obviously, with the exception of China, in terms of the, you know, the, the U.S. the White House's moves on, on the pause. As an economist, is there a way that you can look at the current situation with China, the levels of tariffs? And I realized part of this is, you know, it falls in the realm of foreign policy and, you know, geopolitics. But from an economic perspective, can you look at the current state of play and say, all right, there is a anticipated timeline for when the US Consumer is going to start feeling the pain of this battle between the US And China.

[Preston Brashers]

Yeah, it's, it's very difficult to kind of play out exactly the timeline of when you'd feel that. And it's really gonna, it's not going to be, I wouldn't anticipate it's going to be kind of an across the board inflation that you, you would feel it would be more something that there's certain snags and supply chains because there, there are things that are going through China and it does take a while. If you think about, if you're, if you're com. A multinational company and you, you now have this, this big incentive to try to find a way to, to produce outside of the, outside of China or diversify where you're, you're supplying from. That's going to take a little bit, a little bit of time. And so I would anticipate it, assuming these, these tariffs remain in place that you would, you would start to see it within a matter of months. There would be some, some effects. I don't think it would be across the board. I think that the markets would adjust if it is just, just focused on China. But there are going to be some things where, and I think that's where those exemptions came in where they do have to be mindful that companies can't change overnight. Like if you have manufacturing that's set up there, if you have just a, you know, a widgeteer, an input to your production that's coming out of China, it's going to take you a little while to figure out another way to source that.

[Mike Baker]

I realize I'm asking you a lot of questions that you know, it's, it's a soft science at best. But you know, the idea of, of onshoring a lot of the manufacturing, right. That's, that's moved offshore from the US in today's world. I mean is that, you know, if you look at all the various things, the labor market in the U.S. you know, cost of, of sales in the U.S. and manufacturing. Do you think that I, that that that process of on shoring is, is a realistic expectation?

[Preston Brashers]

That's a great question because, you know, there's an interesting poll that I saw that that was released that was that it, it asked people whether they would want to go into manufacturing and there were, there was, I believe it was 20, 25 that said they would prefer to have a manufacturing job relative to their current job. I believe it's 20 was the number and there were Two different interpretations of that. Some people are looking at that and saying, well, that means there's a lot of people, 20% of people, that's a lot of people. And if, if there's an opportunity there for, for all these people to kind of move into manufacturing and then other people are looking at that, saying well that, that just shows that there's a lot of people that would prefer to work in, in. Because manufacturing jobs are not necessarily always the most pleasant and best work, work environments. Some people might prefer to have a different type of job. I do think we maybe, you know, it's, it's an interesting question. I think in many ways part of the issue is not necessarily the trade side of it. I would actually point to maybe the fact that we are in some ways subsidizing certain, I guess, laptop class jobs. We push people into, into universities, we subsidize the university system and I think, you know, student loan forgiveness, all these different things that, that really we've kind of as a society maybe taken too active of a role in trying to push people down a certain path. And that path wasn't the manufacturing, that path wasn't industrial. So I'm not necessarily one that says has a overly romantic view of manufacturing, but at the same time I don't think we should be discouraging people from, from that route now. I don't think we should be putting barriers in place such as regulations. You know, I think about some of the labor regulations and some of the environmental regulations that might make it difficult to, to produce, to have factories here in the United States. And so we offshore stuff to China where it's where they produce things more cheaply and, and produce more pollution and have all these, these other hosts of problems.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, it is, it's a fascinating subject. I'd love to have you back on for another conversation about this because there is, there's so much here. I take your point. It's a very complex issue that doesn't lend itself to a, to a short beginning and middle of an end type of news story by any means. And you look at, you know, you look at the US currently and you think, okay, all the companies that right now are facing these issues that have, you know, committed themselves over years to China as, you know, part of their manufacturing, distribution, delivery process, the entire logistical chain. And right now, I mean it's very difficult for them to forward plan. Right. And you know, you're not doing a just in time situation where you're just, you're, you're booking and making Deals on a weekly basis, you've got to, you got to plan out. Right? And so I think there's, there is a pain here that's impacting. I was just, I'm not going to bore you with all the details, but maybe I'm about to. We took our youngest boy, Muggsy, out to buy a new motocross bike. And it was interesting because one of the models that he was interested in, the dealer literally said, look, we're sold out and we can't get an answer from our supplier in China as to when we might get more stock. We just don't know. And they, they're telling us they don't know. So that's just, I know that's a, that's a little thing, but it's interesting already how it's impacting businesses. Preston, again, I, I hope when we call you, you'll pick up the phone and, and you'll agree to come back on the situation report. But thank you very much for joining us today.

[Preston Brashers]

Yeah, thanks so much, Mike. This has been a great conversation. Appreciate it.

[Mike Baker]

Excellent. Thank you, man. Take care. And that's my story about Muggsy and the motocross bike. You're welcome. All right, when we come back. As the US Pounds Houthi, targets from the air forces loyal to Yemen's internationally recognized government appear to be gearing up for a ground offensive to reclaim territory lost during the nation's decade long civil war. And it was a brutal civil war. Bill Rogio from the foundation for the Defense of Democracies, you know him, He's a friend of the show. He joins us next with what to expect.

[Unknown]

Step into the world of power, loyalty, and luck.

[Mike Baker]

I'm gonna make him an offer he can't refuse.

[Unknown]

With family. Cannolis and spins mean everything.

[Preston Brashers]

Now you want to get mixed up.

[Mike Baker]

In the family business.

[Unknown]

Introducing the [e-mail] test your luck in.

[Mike Baker]

The shadowy world of the Godfather slots. Someday I will call upon you to.

[Preston Brashers]

Do a service for me.

[Mike Baker]

Play the Godfather [e-mail] Welcome to the family.

[Preston Brashers]

No purchase necessary. VGW Group void.

[Mike Baker]

We're prohibited by law 21 plus.

[Preston Brashers]

Terms and conditions apply.

[Mike Baker]

Welcome back to the Situation Report. Yemen's long simmering civil war may be about to boil over again. Wordplay. Forces loyal to the country's internationally recognized government are reportedly preparing a ground offensive against the Houthis, hoping to take advantage of the group's weakened state after weeks of U.S. airstrikes. According to Yemeni officials, the plan centers on recapturing the strategic Red Sea port of Hodeida. The goal is to push the Houthis out of key coastal areas they've used to launch drone and missile attacks on international shipping. And they may not be acting alone. Saudi Arabia has reportedly launched new missile and artillery strikes along Yemen's northern border, possibly setting the stage for the offensive by softening up coup depositions in advance. Joining us now to break it all down is Bill Rogio, senior fellow at the foundation for the Defense of Democracies and editor of FDD's Long War Journal. Bill, thank you very much for coming back on the SITUATION report.

[Unknown]

It's always a pleasure. Thanks for having me.

[Mike Baker]

Look, there's a lot going on, but let's, let's start with what is happening in Yemen. Give us, give us that top line summary of what's happening now.

[Unknown]

Yeah, the developments in Yemen are interesting. So the Biden administration, as we discussed before, mainly targeted weapons systems, things for the Yemeni in order to try to get the Yemenis to stop attacking international shipping. It didn't work. The Trump administration has taken a different tack. It's not only targeting weapons systems, it's going after individuals. And just today, the US Central Command, which is directing the strikes, targeted a fuel depot that is being used to provide, you know, that is to basically to fuel the many military. So this is, but also targeting the leadership. I've seen reports Yemeni generals and colonels are starting to be identified as being killed. We didn't see this under the Biden campaign. We are seeing this under the Trump campaign. Whether it'll work, that remains to be seen. I think that the, you know, the Houthis aren't just a small terrorist organization. It runs a government. It runs a military. So it's a, it's a terrorist government. And so there's a lot of work to be done. But you have a far better chance to get them to stop attacks on international shipping than you did under the Biden administration's, if you could call it a strategy of just targeting weapons systems that can be and were being replaced by both the amenities who manufacture them and the Iranians who supplied them.

[Mike Baker]

I suppose what is the downside here or potential downside scenario for weakening the Houthis to the degree where, you know, the, I don't know how you want to refer to them, the, the established humani government or but certainly the government that's been supported by the Saudis and others, you know, what is the downside scenario here if that government, you know, is able to, in a direct offensive, take back territory.

[Unknown]

So I think a downside is as you could see a Libya or Syrian situation where you have a fractured Yemeni state, which you really essentially do now. But if, look, the Yemeni government that we support is really very toothless. One of my concerns is that Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula can reassert control as it has done several times in the past, or that you get a situation where Al Qaeda is all of a sudden viewed as moderate, just as it is in Syria where you have a specially designated global terrorist who leads a foreign terrorist organization, who's become president and runs the government. So of Syria that you could have a situation like that. The problem is that I, that I see with our foreign policy, and this is not a left or right or Republican or Democrat issue, but it's a Washington issue, is that we're always looking for someone to work with. And in this places like Yemen and Libya and Syria, there are really very few good actors or the ones that are good tend to be powerless or meeting very little power. So my concern is that this, if the, we replace the Houthis or if we depose the Houthis, it could be replaced with another bad actor and we could be convinced that they're good actors. That's exactly what happened in Syria. You know, we, we exchanged one bad leader, Assad, and replaced them with a terrorist. And so, you know, is the situation better in Syria today than it was a year ago? I'd argue it's just as bad. It's just a different kind of situation.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, I think it's an excellent point that, you know, I know we've got plenty of case studies, recent case studies in how the US Tends to do what you're describing, looking for that, that partner. Right. That. Okay. And we, in part, it's because I, you know, the Americans, no matter what the administration is, I agree with, this is an operational issue. This is not a, a partisan issue. But we tend to, as Americans, mirror our values on others. Right. And so then we imagine so with Afghanistan, somehow, you know, yes, the Soviets had to, you know, turn tail and run out of Afghanistan, but because we're bringing democracy, right, they're going to love us and it's all going to work out well. Right? Well, that's not the case because most often these countries don't know what it is that we're trying to sell and they don't understand it and much less want it. So I take your point and that's, that's kind of a concern here. Look, I'm not, you know, I'm not saying that we shouldn't be degrading the Houthis, right. You know, they're in, in part funded, trained, supported, resourced by the, the Iranian regime and they've also obviously been playing havoc on international shipping. But I think you have to be pragmatic and say, well, what comes in behind it?

[Unknown]

I completely agree. We absolutely should be taking out the Houthis. We should do everything. We just need to be, as you said, be pragmatic. Your case of Afghanistan is perfect. Right? When we, the Taliban, we, President Trump negotiated the Doha agreement with them that President Biden used to withdraw and we're talking to the Taliban now. We, we took off the bounty, the $10 million bounty for Sarah Qani, one of the most horrible terrorists on this planet who's responsible for the deaths and wounding of thousands of Americans in Afghanistan, tons of thousands of Afghans. He's with ties to Al Qaeda. So we may be good at deposing a regime. We just don't seem to have foresight. And you're absolutely correct. We project our values upon people that really are our enemies. The Taliban are in our friend Ahmed El Shara and in Syria and in Hayatiiroshan, which he runs. They are not an ally and yet we're treating them like one. And I hope we don't, you know, have followed similar steps in, in Yemen as we've done in Libya. Right. Another basket case study of, of our failed follow through policy. And I just hope we don't do that again.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, nobody wants to talk about Libya. No, nobody likes talking about Libya because it's, it's such a hot mess right there. You've got what, you've got over 130 tribal elements there. And you know, you try to somehow imagine you were going to create a unified federal state and, and it's, it's a disaster at this stage of the game. I, I love your reference to Shirah in Syria. And, and I was, I loved the fact that as he, as he and the rebels rode into town and Assad was, you know, getting on the bus to, to go to Moscow. By the way, nobody ever talks about the fact that, you know, Assad's, what is he doing in Moscow? Is he like working as a barista? What is. So anyway, point being is, you know, the next day, basically almost the next day, you know, Sherrod dumped his, his camos and he put on a suit and an expensive watch because he understands how to play the west mindset. Right. You know, to some degree, if I, if I look like what they want me to look like, they're going to, they're going to layer on their expectations and their, their hopes onto this image. And I think, you know, he's not doing a bad job of playing the west right now to some degree. Look, it's interesting because when you talk about what happened in Libya, you talk about what happened in Afghanistan, you talk about what could happen in, in Yemen, libertarians would argue, well, why the hell are we even there? What is the point? Why doesn't America just stay out of it? We should be, you know, should be focused on our own people. We have no role to play overseas. We should not be engaged in these activities. I always, you know, I guess my question is how would you, how would you answer that?

[Unknown]

It's a great question. I, I fall somewhere in the middle of interventionism and, and isolationism only because we're really bad at interventionalism. Right. So if we're going to intervene, we need to do it wisely. We need to understand our enemy. We need to understand the limitations of our allies and understand who they are as well and what their goals are. And we shouldn't get involved like, you know, in retrospect, you know, deposing the Taliban and then trying to prop up and, you know, as you mentioned. Right. Promote democracy in Afghanistan, that was a fool's errand. It should have been very clear from the very beginning. We should have had limited goals in Afghanistan. Instead, we had lofty goals. Same thing in Iraq, you know, same thing, you know, in Syria where we take a terrorist organization, the, the Turkestan People's Workers Party, which is, you know, a foreign, Lewis listed foreign terrorist organization responsible for killing tens of thousands of Turks and call them the Syrian Democratic Forces, or, I'm sorry, the. Yes, it's the sheer and democratic. There's nothing democratic about our Marxist terrorist organization. But we, we, again, it's another perfect case of projection. We need to be very careful. We can't ignore the world. We get things like 911 because we pretended Afghanistan was fine and that Al Qaeda wasn't a threat. But, you know, again, we just have to, we need better leadership. We need better expertise. We need to get rid of the people in the State Department, in the Department of Defense that have these, you know, and it's, again, this isn't a left and a right issue. There is a lot of ideological blinders on both sides of the aisle. Again, to project their, their, their values and their, their vision of the world. And it's and in the Middle east and other in Africa and many places in the world, they do not share our values. And we have to, we have to be very careful when we decide to, you know, when we when we're going to go and do democracy and nation building. So again, I don't want to come off as being an isolationist. But you know, when you get stuck somewhere in the middle there, you know, you have, you really have no home in especially in a place like Washington.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah. Nobody's living in the center. Right. You got, you got trenches and then you got nothing in the middle except people lobbing hand grenades. You don't want to be in that. Bill, if you could stay right where you are. I want to swing the conversation a little bit over towards Iran. But first we have to take a quick break. And we'll be right back with more of THE SITUATION report. Welcome back to THE SITUATION report. Joining us once again is Bill Rogio, senior fellow at the foundation for the Defense of Democracies and of course, as you know, editor of FDD's Long War Journal. Bill, thanks very much for sticking around. We started by talking to some degree about the Houthis. I want to pivot just slightly to talk about their patron, the Iranian regime. What do you make of the reports that have just come out talking about the fact that the White House apparently convinced the Israelis to put the brakes on a, you know, pending attack against the Iranian nuclear infrastructure?

[Unknown]

Well, the Trump administration, I think is everyone should or should be very clear to everyone at this point, really is looking to negotiate across the board in Ukraine with Russia, negotiate with the Iranians, negotiate with the Syrians, negotiate with the Taliban. I, you know, with the Taliban. Right. We just had two American hostages released in exchange for the dropping of bounties. So and I'm not surprised that President Trump believes that there's a lot of deals to be made out there. My, one of my concerns is that when you're dealing with the Putin's and the Iranians of the world, they're not you're not dealing on a level playing field. And I do hope he understands that, that you can't trust the Iranians and you can't trust the Russians when it comes to negotiations with as far as Iran goes, I'd look, I've always been very skeptical that the Israelis can pull off a strike against Iran's nuclear program without significant US Support. There's a lot that goes into hitting nuclear program like Iran's that's extensive with bunkers and facilities that are very deep underground, built in the mountains. It's not just fly a plane, drop a bomb and it's destroyed. You got to do follow on strikes. You have to do, you have search and rescue available. We go down, you got to be able to refuel those planes, you got to be able to get air, get them cleared to go over the Saudis and the Jordanian airspace, etc. Etc. It's a very complicated, I don't think this is something the Israelis can do on their own. So if the Trump administration, you know, they, if they were going to carry it out, they need American support, both political and military support, to, to launch an effective strike and they have to do it effectively. They're really going to get one shot at this.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, I, it's interesting because the reporting that's coming out indicates that the Israelis initially were looking at a combination of, of air strikes and ground operations involving some of their special forces elements and then decided to pivot and say, okay, this is going to be primarily an air based attack, which then kind of calls on more resources from the US Requires more effort from the US More input. And so I think that at that point kind of shifted the conversation inside the White House and they said, well no, let's take a different tack, put that on hold at least for now. But let me ask you this, trying to tie the two things together, the Iranian regime and the Houthis, from your perspective, how much control, how much say do the mullahs have over what the Houthis are doing? Right? Is it, is it, look, we'll tell you what your strategy is going to be and you're going to follow it or is it much looser than that?

[Unknown]

So I would say it's, it's loose the, the Iranians and its access of resistance, that includes Hezbollah, that includes the Iraqi and Syrian militias, that cleans the rupees, groups like Hamas. The Iranians are never going to ask these groups to do something. A, they don't believe, the Iranians don't believe that the, these groups can carry out. That includes the groupies and if there's concern. So it's, it's a back and forth, right? The Iranians have a good read on the capabilities of these groups, what they can and can't get away with. But if they're, you know, so if the, the Iranians are never going to order the Houthis to do something, but they can advise them, they could encourage them, they provide the weapons systems and the advisors. So it's that sort of relationship. And the, as far as the Houthis go, right, like this is one of the questions that I have, right? Are we dealing with a symptom of the disease or are we dealing with the cause? And the real striking at the mouth is it's necessary, it's something we have to do. But if you really want the Houthis to stop, you hit the Iranians, you hit them hard, you make the Iranians pay, you kill their, their IRGC operatives that are advisors and building weapons systems within, within Yemen and other places. And you also show the, the Iranians that they're weak at home. You pick targets inside of Iran. That's the real weakness of the Iranians is and that's why they have these, this axis of resistance. They have groups like the UDIS and Hezbollah because that's how it's, it's, it's the way of projecting power. But it also shows how weak they are. If they can, if they're shown to be weak at home, that is something that they, they can't tolerate. That is something that can get, really get them to force the Houthis and Hezbollah and Hamas to draw back. That could get the, the Iranians to order them. That's a situation where if the Iranians feel they are truly threatened, these groups would comply with that.

[Mike Baker]

What do you make of the, the initial round of discussions that took place? You know, at one point there was reportedly like a 45 minute discussion between Witkoff and Abbas Arachi, the, the foreign minister for Iran several days back. And now they're scheduled to have a second follow up round of discussions on Saturday. This I believe in Rome. What do you make of all of that?

[Unknown]

I, I don't think the Trump administration is going to get what it wants and what it needs. The problem with our negotiations in the past is it's decoupled Iran's nuclear program with its support for these militias across the Middle east or that access of resistance. That was the whole one of the big problems with the jpcoa and I suspect that it's going to be a big problem with, with this. So, so we, we and also the Iranians are going to try and run out the clock. They're going to string the US Along. They're going to say and do enough things to keep Trump advisors and particularly the State Department which loves negotiations for the sake of negotiations and that, that doesn't matter who is running the State Department, doesn't matter if it's a Republican or a Democratic administration. The State Department likes to Talk for the sake of talking. That's, that's what they're paid to do.

[Mike Baker]

Well, I don't disagree with you. I, I do worry that, you know, we're basically looking at, yet again, just kind of kicking the can down the road. Right. For the sake of saying that we got a deal, you know, we're basically just putting lipstick on a pig. But, you know, that's just me being, being cynical. You and I, you and I should, we should do the live version of those two old guys that sit up in the balcony on the Muppet Show.

[Unknown]

The Muppets, Yeah. I love them.

[Mike Baker]

Sit about things. Yeah.

[Unknown]

I will say that the Trump administration does need to go through the process of talking to them.

[Mike Baker]

Right.

[Unknown]

I just hope they don't allow themselves to. Right. They need to get to know and then do what it needs to do, what they need to do. I just hope that they eventually recognize that they're being played.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, no, I, I, I, you know what? And I expect there are, there are voices in there saying that and, and advising that. And I agree with you. You've got to have a channel of communication. Right. That's very important. Whether we're talking about the Iranians or the, the Russians, the Chinese, you've got to have that ability, but you've also got to be able to dual track and you have to be pragmatic about where that might get you. Right. So it, I mean, it is. Look, we're in a fascinating time here. I think the, I think iaea, the Atomic Energy Agency, has just put out a statement saying that Iran, the regime, is dangerously close to a breakout on their nuclear weapons capabilities. So, yeah, the stakes are extremely high. Do you, do you anticipate. Let me ask you this. You know, take out your crystal ball and tell me what you think is going to happen or what will have happened in the next six months with Iran.

[Unknown]

Yeah, that's a great question. I, honestly, it's all a matter of how President Trump wants to be perceived. Remember, he campaigned on no new wars. Now, striking at the Houthis is not a new war. It was an existing issue. Right. The Houthis were attacking US Warships, international shipping. So as a continuation. So what he's doing can't proceed. Launching strikes on Iran would be perceived as such. Does he want to go down that route? You know, how desperate or how desirous is he of getting a deal to show that he's the dealmaker or how willing is he to walk away? You know, President Trump is. It's very, I Find it. He's very upkeep. He's the most typical person to read in Washington. You know, if this was the Biden administration, I could easily say, they'll talk for the sake of talking. This will be strung out. President Trump could, on a drop of a dime. He could either, he could say, I've had enough and it's time for us to deal with this problem meaningfully, or he could say, well, we're just going to continue negotiations, so, yeah, unfortunately. I wish I had a better answer for you.

[Mike Baker]

No, you know what? That's. I tell you what you think about it, and then we'll have you back on the show and hopefully you bring a better answer because that one was awful. Bill, that was.

[Unknown]

No, I.

[Mike Baker]

Look, it was. I realized when I asked some of these questions, sometimes there's no good answer. Right. It's just a matter of, okay, what do you, what do you anticipate? Were you speculating all that? But, you know, honestly. Got it. Look, we're in a situation right now where, you know, the White House is in critical discussions or at a critical stage with Iran. They're in critical discussions with, with Russia, with Putin. Right. Who also likewise seems to just be, you know, happy to string this out. We're in a critical situation with China. You know, it's a definition of multitasking here.

[Unknown]

Yeah, absolutely. And look, you know, there's been times in my career where I could give you a definitive answer. When, you know, President Biden announced the withdrawal from Afghanistan. I was the guy who created that map that showed, you know, the Taliban taking over. I said, day one, the Afghan government will be likely be lucky to make it out by the end of the summer. They collapsed on August 15th. Some of these, some of these are very easy to answer and some when you're, when you're dealing with the best way, you know, a mercurial leader like President Trump, it really depends on his mood and his vision. And again, I just, I just can't get inside his decision making loop, which is interesting. And by the way, in many ways, it's his unpredictability. A lot of people view that as a negative. I view it as an asset, our enemies and our adversaries that say, you know, I'm not really sure about this guy and we need to really consider whether we want to negotiate in good faith or not, or we want to conduct this type of attack where we want to do this to raise the ire of President Trump.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, no, I, I agree. I think that unpredictability you got to keep your, your, your, I don't want to say enemies necessarily. You know, we want to maybe phrase them all differently in the countries that are not aligned with our interests and don't have our interests at heart. You have to keep them on the back foot and you also have to make them believe that you're capable of, of choosing any decision point on that, that spectrum. Right. So I, I think it is, it's a, it's a positive. You know, if you've got a consistently readable leader in the, in the White House, that's a problem because it's a very aggressive world out there and, and they'll play it for all it's worth. But look, Bill, this has been as always, fascinating and I hope that we'll get a chance to talk to you again here very soon. And I hope at that point in time you'll, you'll, you know, you'll get back to wearing a suit and tie and the way you thought the situation was poor. It was a casual environment. But maybe it's, maybe, maybe we should go that way. I tell you what. Next, Cardigans. I'm working hard, I'm working hard to bring the cardigans back. So let's, let's focus on that. We'll coordinate before our next appearance. Bill Rocheau of the foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Listen, thank you so much man for joining us as always.

[Unknown]

Thank you. Always a pleasure, my friend. Hope to talk to you soon.

[Mike Baker]

Well, that is all the time. There is so much going on in the world today. I hope, I hope today's episode helped to, to bring it into, it is into focus. Maybe not completely, maybe it's still a little blurry, but there is a lot happening in the world and our job is to try to point out what's happening and let you think about it the way you will. That's all the time we have for this week's situation report. If you have any questions or comments or humorous anecdotes or you want to pass along a joke or a limerick, just reach out to me at pdb@the first tv.com Every month our amazing team select a bunch of your questions and we produce one of our critically acclaimed and I, I suppose at some point it's going to be award winning Ask me anything episodes. Finally, listen to the podcast of the show if you want to ad free. Yep, you can do that. Become a Premium member the President's Daily Brief Simply by visiting PDB premium.com I'm Mike Baker. And until next time. Well, you know the drill. Stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.