by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable. vote yes on e. in order for small businesses to thrive, they need to be smart, efficient, savvy. making the most of every opportunity. that's why comcast business is introducing the small business bonus. for a limited time you can get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. yup, $1000. so switch to business internet from the company with the largest fastest reliable network. give your business a head start in 2024 with this great offer. plus, ask how to get up to $1000 prepaid card with qualifying internet. this is "gps", the global

public square. welcome to all of you in the united states and around the world. i'm fareed zakaria coming you to live from new york. today on the program. the united states versus iran. american soeldiers killed in jordan. u.s. ships attacked in the red sea. and missiles and drones launched at american bases and iran's proxies claim responsibility for it all. america has begun to respond. is it the right way? how can an all-out war be avoided? i'll ask an expert panel. then, american aid to ukraine and israel is being held up until the troubles at america's border with mexico are fixed. david frum will explain why he

called this the gop's great betrayal. and also we'll tell you about the most interesting world leader to break on to the scene in quite a while. argentina's halfjavier milei. >> but first here is my take. it is fitting that the line that best describes u.s. foreign policy over the middle east in the last 15 years comes from the godfather. michael has been trying to distance himself from his old mafia businesses and ties but crises flare-up that demand his attention. he cries -- >> when i thought i was out, they pull me back in. >> president biden might be thi thinking just that asez responded militarily to the u.s. attacks on forces that claimed the lives of three american soldiers in jordan. every since bush's second term,

they've been seeking to reduce the exposure to the middle east. the u.s. efforts at regime change backfired and the most important challenges to the american led international order come from russia and europe and china and asia and the middle east is a side show. but crises come not at times and places of your choosing. and the withdraw of american power has set in play a series of movies that are now shaping the region. as washington has lost interest in the middle east, anti-american militias have been gaining strength and influence, from the houthis, to hezbollah to islamic resistance in iraq, a umbrella group that is believed to be responsible for the attack that killed the american soldiers in jordan. iran is allied to all of groups which helps preserve its

influence in the region. hamas has provided an ideal opportunity for the forces because they could be claim to be protesting israel's actions and thus assert themselves and gain legitimacy. the biden administration which has been working hard to prevent these militia attacks from turning into something bigger, now needs to decide whether its own retaliation might cause an escalation of hostilities. biden is under pressure at home from republicans accusing him of looking weak. lindsey graham has been urging him to hit iran to preserve america's credibility. the biden response seems to have been careful and measured. a larger attack would be a mistake. these militias thrive on conflict with the established armies. the houthis enduring nearly a decade of massive saudi bombardment and came out largely unscathed. as henry kissinger noted on

vietnam, mere weeks before becoming the national security adviser to nixon, there is a simple rule. the gror illa wins ifez does not lose. and the conventional army loses if it does the not win. once kissinger entered government, he got seduced by the need to preserve the u.s. kridibility and pressured not to look weak so he had action against the north vietnamese forces which failed. the north won in vietnam but not losing and america lost by not winning. iran's proxies are trying to stir up as much chaos as possible to force the u.s. and israel to large scale strategic blunders, not to mention to spoil relations between israel and saudi arabia. the attacks by islamic resistance in iraq on u.s. forces have a specific goal.

pressure the government of iraq to expel u.s. forces stationed in that country. the group's militias are the very ones that support the current shia dominated government in baghdad. in a battle between washington and these militias, the baghdad government would have to side with those groups that sustain it in power. that would then complete the takeover of iraq by iran. symbolize by the expulsion of american troops and unraveling the u.s. built security system in the persian gulf. the biden administrations had to respond to these attacks on u.s. troops but it shows a limited response and should take care not to get into a tit-for-tat with the militias. the iranians are not looking to escalate either. the most effective response

would be to show not that washington could escalate militarily, which of course it can do, but that it could de-escalate politically, meaning that it could use the crisis in gaza to create conditions for long-term stability and that means working to create conditions for israeli security and palestinian aspirations for a state. which would then make it much easier not just for saudi but broader arab-israeli reconciliation. that kind of political and diplomatic response would not appease the war hawks in washington, but it would be the most effective counter to america's foes. as michael coralion said in the same movie, never hate your enemies. it affects your judgment. go to cnn.com/fareed to a link to my post column this week. and let's get started.

last sunday, three u.s. soldiers were killed in jordan by iraqi militias backed by iran. on friday, the u.s. responded with strikes on military sites in iraq and syria used by iran and its proxies over the weekend the u.s. and u.k. struck another iran backed group, the houthis of yemen who have been harassing ships in the red sea. is the middle east spiraling in a broader war. vali nasr is in the region and he's a professor at john hopkins. mina al oraibi is the editor of a state backed newspaper in abu dhabi. vali, you've seen these attacks that the united states has doon in response to the militia attacks from the houthis and the others. do you think that these militias

are going to escalator do you think they viewed this as a fairly limited calculated response by the united states? >> i think the killing of the three americans brought a sort of a moment of truth for tehran, hezbollah and the houthis altogether to see whether or not they want to go any further than they have. i think they do not want to he is c-- want to escalate with th united states. i think they're happy in a the united states has not hit iran. that it has hit specific targets that it has associated with particular actions of the militias an the iranians have put out in the newspaper and immediate you, that no iranians were there and they're not claiming any casualties that requires escalation. so i would anticipate that the houthis an the iraqi militias will have to show some kind of

reaction but not the level that would escalate this conflict and that depends on what the united states does next. >> and vali, just give us a sense, the burning question is how independently do these militias act? is it likely that iran planned and pulled the trigger on these attacks that resulted in the death of american soldiers? >> i don't think that either iran or these groups wanted to kill american soldiers because they knew that that would be a bridge too far and the u.s. would have to react very aggressively. i think the broad strategy here is to attack the united states, attack israel, consolidate the strategic gains that they made on october 7th and continue to make. make sure that the gorillas win and the israeli army loses as

you mentioned in your introduction. but i don't think that every decision is made in tau ran and it is the killing of the three american soldiers to might lead to that kind of command and control. there have been 160 attacks made on u.s. targets. more than that as time that we're speaking and i don't think every one is manage out of tehran. i think they have given support to put pressure on the u.s. and israel but i don't think they managed them as tightly as we're assuming. >> mina, this is something of a quandary for many of the gulf states. they have no love for iran. they have no love for these militias that often stir up trouble for the saudis, the houthis in yemen have been a sworn enemy. and yet, i was in the region ten days ago, they really don't want a wider war, right.

so which is -- which is dominated right now? the desire to purge iran in a sense or the desire to not let this spread into something wider? >> i would say the primary priority at the moment is not to let it spread further. the gulf requires stability, always wants to see a de-escalate. there are huge concerns about these militias. let's not forget that the houthis attacked both the uae and saudi arabia before they were attacking ships in the red sea. there is a sense that a limit has to be put on these militias. jordan and the attack that the three american soldiers were killed in was on jordan. that was the first time that you have these militias targeting jordan so directly. and so there is a concern this is going to get out of control. but the key concern in the gulf

at the moment is getting a cease-fire in gaza. which will take away some of the excuses that these groups are using to escalate further. and to see a serious american strategy an how to deal with the militias. again the militias have been getting stronger an stronger for the last 15 years. and part of it has been because of the u.s. turning a blind eye, seeing that they could live with them as long as their own troops are not targeted and yet we see them escalating year on year. >> stay with us. when we come back, we'll get to precisely this question of what to do about the militias and what to do in gaza, when we come back.

and we're back with vali nasr and mina al oraibi. vali, let me pick up on what mina was saying before the break, was that washington let these militias grew, hezbollah began in the 80s and then the hamas and then the houthis and the militias in iraq and syria. all of them backed and financed by iran. what is the best strategy? david sanger in "the new york times" today has a analysis piece which i thought was very interesting where he said hitting iran hard has not proved to deter them. he pointed out that the assassination of soleimani, did not really deter iran as we could see now.

but that sometimes negotiating with them has had some at least temporary effect on pausing iranian activities. how do you think the u.s. should be handling this issue of getting these militias to cease and desist? >> i think david is correct in the sense that when the united states killed soleimani, even iran reacted with the single largest missile attack that the u.s. forces have ever encountered. and it was very fortunate that at that point that did not lead to a much larger war. and then it is also true that before october 6th, the united states and iran had somehow arrived at a modus that let national security adviser to think that the middle east was at its most peaceful moment over a decade. but we are where we are.

and the dilemma that the united states faces is that the gaza war has become a cause for the escalation in these attacks for reasons that mina mentioned, that these groups see an advantage or an opportunity in pursuing a much more aggressive behavior, put pressure on israel and the united states. so the u.s. faces a dilemma. it needs to end this war and arrive at a cease-fire, because the last time we had a cease-fire was all of the time that the guns went silent in the middle east. but if you have a cease-fire, hamas and hezbollah has won in the way that henry kissinger explained it. if you do not have a cease-fire, the united states is running a serious risk of ending up in a direct confrontation with houthis and iran and or shia militias in iraq or all three at the same time. so i think the united states has to make a choice. does it want to sort of take the first step, at least get to a cease-fire. calm down the region, then think

about it much longer, broader strategy of what your going to do about the houthis and the shia militias and iran or is it going to pursue a policy of trying to intimidate that and run a huge risk of ending up in a war. and both sides could miss calculate in a moment like this. >> mina, what do you think that the gulf arabs, the united arab emirates, and the saudis and bahrain would want. they don't like iran. but the iranians are not taking advantage of the palestinian issue and the gaza war and are seen, i think, as much more of the champions of that cause. the gulf arabs are largely silent. theres have been some condemnation but it is houthis that are launching missiles and hezbollah and they claim on behalf of the palestinian cause. >> well, i mean, hezbollah and

the houthis want that and the militias in walk want that to be the narrative. that the way you support the palestinians is by launching missiles here and there. rather than having a concerted effort to get the recognition of the palestinian state. which is actually what the arab league, what saudi arabia, what the uae and others are working towards. so it is important in the framing to think what success is and what we want and ultimately there has to be a palestinian state that ends what we're seeing now. the united states, foreed, you began the program saying that the you the wants to get out of the middle east. the reality is that the united states is in the middle east and gets involved in certain wars or conflicts without ending them or taking a final solution on them. so we'll give an example. when it comes to israel and palestinian, without the american veto there would have likely be a call from the u.n. for a cease-fire that would have been binding but the united

states used the veto so it is involved. so likewise, when we look at the houthis, one of the first measures the biden administration was to remove the houthis from the -- and gave this impression it is okay and the list goes on. the u.s. is involved enough. to weaken these militias, you need nation states that function. iraq, lebanon, syria, they're weakness has allowed for iran to extend its power and influence. one of key things iran has wanted to be able to create in the region is to have a land border and control running from iran all the way to hezbollah. so cutting through iraq, cutting through syria, and into lebanon. and so has worked for years on this and continues to wield influence. what we're seeing on the ground, also in the last two days, you've seen the militia leaders appear in baghdad to say we're still here.

musla, who was the brigade targeted by the americans in their strikes on iraq most recently, was there in public being seen saying i could walk about without -- with impunity in iraq. if you had a strong nation state that holds to account militia leaders then we would have a different conversation rather than waiting for air strikes that don't bring a solution. it is hard work but you need stronger states. >> we will have to leave it at that. m mina al oraibi, thoughtful and insightful comments and hope to have you back. next on gps, i will talk to a long time conservative who said that the gop's blockage of aid to ukraine is a great betrayal.

i think he's having a midlife crisis i'm not. you got us t-mobile home internet lite. after a week of streaming they knocked us down... ...to dial up speeds. like from the 90s. great times. all i can do say is that my life is pre-- i like watching the puddles gather rain. -hey, your mom and i procreated to that song. oh, ew! i think you've said enough. why don't we just switch to xfinity like everyone else? then you would know what year it was. i know what year it is. i'm daniel lurie and i've spent my career fighting poverty, helping people right here in san francisco. i'm also a father raising two kids in the city. deeply concerned that city hall is allowing crime and lawlessness to spread. now we can do something about it by voting yes on prop e. a common sense solution that ensures we use community safety cameras to catch repeat offenders and hold them accountable.

vote yes on e. as the war in ukraine rages on. american aid is drying up. that is because republicans in congress continued to block white house efforts to provide new funding insisting that america must first security own borders. the senators expected to vote this week on a deal that tied aid for ukraine and israel to immigration reform. joining me now is david frum. staff writer at the atlantic who called it the gop's great betrayal. explain what you mean and why you see this as such a betrayal. >> president biden's request for aid was sent to congress on october 20th. last sunday, was the 100th day of republican blockade on the aid package israel, ukraine and

plus $14 billion to enforce the border. that came after the month of september. when republicans refused to include aid to ukraine, the house republicans, aid to ukraine in the package to keep the government open. there is a blockade going on and it is obviously not motivated by the things republicans say. president biden on the border has yielded to republican demanded in a way that is just unprecedented. he's proposed, he's accepted a series of measures without asking for the things democrats wan, pathway to citizenship for young people brought to this country at an early age, an increase in green cards. he hasn't asked for any of those things. he said to the republicans i will give you what you say you want on the board he if you give me what the country and the world needed on ukraine and the answer is no to every question. >> do you think that fundamentally there are a lot of republicans who just don't want to support ukraine? is that part of what is going on here, a kind of new strain of

isolationism? >> well we could chart the numbers in vote after vote since 2022. and we could see the number of hard core anti-ukraine republicans is quite small. it is an eighth of the house of representatives and maybe just three or four hard core anti-ukraine republicans in the senate. this is about loyalty to trump and trump's connections. and this takes us back to the biggest question about donald trump as president, i keep saying with trump in russia, there are many secrets. but there are no mysteries. it is obviously that something is really wrong. and right now his favorite broadcaster tucker carlson is in moscow doing who knows what as we speak here. while the party that takes trump's orders in the house and senate is blockading aid to ukraine. >> you have been a long time hawk or hardliner on immigration.

you've argued for much tougher border enforcement. but you think in this case, with the republican criticism of biden, that he could just do this by himself without congress is not valid. explain why? >> well this gets us to a crucial point, and a technical point. in the 1990s and 2000s, when people crossed the border, they were coming knowingly illegally. these were young men in their early 20s, from central or america and they tried to avoid contact with law enforcement and without coming into contact with any kind of official. so enforcement was the answer for illegal immigration. that is not what is happening now. what is happening now is you have the minors, people under 18 or family groups coming and they are seeking contact with the law. because they want to enter the asylum system. where the law is on their side. the law is on their side. they get to stay in the country pending a hearing which could

take years. decades. so, back in the 1990s and 2000s, you could say enforce the rules against illegal immigration, but with asylum-seekers, you have to ink cha the rules, we're talking about international treaties and statutes but about judicial precedence. if you need to change those, you need to change congress. >> and are they proposing those kind of changes to asylum laws. >> senator langford has. and some are more draconian than most republicans would want if they thought hr 2 was a real law. but it would make important reforms and say things like that if you want asylum you have to prove that you personally, it is not just the situation is lawless or the country is impoverishes, but that you areare

being targeted for something like your religion or your race. but back where i come from there is a lot of crime and i've walk through eight, ten, 12 countries on any way to get to this one, so the bills that are being negotiated in the senate would say, no, those are not good enough reasons and if you crossed, if you were in danger in country one, and you've crossed countries two, three and four and five and refused refuge, you can't pick and choose where you get your asylum. >> finally, and we only have 30 seconds so a quick thought, why have we had this eruption, i understand that people are gaming the system and using the asylum laws, why millions and millions. what explains this explosion of traffic on the border? >> basically the rise in global prosperity. it costs some thousands of dollars to make a move from a poor country to a richer country and the number of people who could afford that on the rise. we're not seeing people on the move because the planet is

miserable. we're seeing people on the move in search of opportunity on a planet where more and more people could afford to make the investment to give it a try. don't blame them. you could do the same in their situation. i don't blame them at all. they're making rational moves. but in the numbers that we're getting, the rest of the world cannot cope with this number of people all at the same time. >> david frum, very smart stuff and if people want to see the range of your writing, you have an amazing piece on woodrow wilson in the atlantic right now. so, maybe one of the days we'll have you back to talk about that. thank you. next on gps, is china's economic miracle over? i'll talk to martin wolf of the financial time.

. ever grand was once the second largest real estate developer in china. this week a court orders the bankrupt company to be liquidated. it is one more tale of china's economic woes. last year the country's gdp growth came in at a three-decade low. if you exclude the pandemic years. has china hit bottom? will the government be able to revive the world's second largest economy? joining me is martin wolf, chief economic commentator at the financial times. welcome, you are just the man to help us understand. because this is in many ways the biggest puzzle in the global economy. is china headed for a decade of japan-like stagnation, or is it going to be able to revive

itself? so 20 years from now, most likely, what would historians say about china's growth t trajectory? what made it boom for 30 years and why has that boom come to an end. >> i think the boom has come to an end for natural reasons. growing at 10% a year or any close to it, for more than 40 years would be absolutely extraordinary. it was bound to -- to slow. many of exceptional opportunities they had to catch up technologically. the enormous massive urbanization of the chinese people, not finish but much of it done. the colossal investment boom that went with building capital of all kinds for the first, that is all over. so what we're really betting on is what does a chinese state prepared to do to promote

greater efficiency and greater economy. if they could do that. they could grow more than 4% a year for nix 20 years and that is double america's rate. so it would still be catching up, just never again. it will never again be the sort of economy it was up until now. >> so, you put it very well it seems to me that there is a big debate taking place among china watchers. is the government not doing more to reform the economy? because there is a keind of policy paralysis, the party has become more powerful than the government, or is it that xi jinping doesn't want a more marketized, more reformed, more consumer-friendly economy? that he wants a state-driven economy? which do you think it is, looking at the data as you could

tell? >> my guess is it is a bis of both. it seems that xi doesn't look like someone for whom growth is an overwhelming priority, certainly if it reduces in any way or threatens in any way state control over the economy. but i think it is also true that the changes they would have to make at this stage because the past models, the export led growth and model are over, they have to change a lot. >> do you think some of it that xi is an austerity nut or a austerity person. he seems to not believe in the idea of goosing the economy, helicoptering cash as they used to call it. he talked about how it is important for chinese people to endure pain. even young people. he gave a speech saying you guys have it too easy. you need to suffer more, it

builds character. >> yes. i think that seems to be an important part of his attitude to control the society. and he might also think, look, we've been, as you put it, goosing the economy at least since the financial crisis sand all we've got is these enormous headaches. the huge amount of debt. the debt ratio is triple since then. we can't go on doing that. it is unsustainable and produced ridiculous useless property which nobody want. so i don't like that either. so he has moral objections, he disliked the waste. but it doesn't mean that he has an alternative and i'm not convinced that the chinese people are prepared to accept the low growth economy. >> so you've often pointed out, there are often to components to growth. one is the number of workers and the secondly how productive they

are and chinese productivity has been declining and fertility rates, the numbers of workers are declining sharply. are these such large overhangs that it is very difficult to imagine fundamental revival of china and that they are going down japan's path? >> i mean, the forces are given. there is no way that it is suddenly going to explode upwards. it could employ some of the young people who are now unemployed. but the labor force is likely to shrink at a rate of something like 1% a year. they will not change that for china. so that is a given. and the question is can they raise productivity, and they've got the potential, because they're still -- that is why they're not japan. but to exploit the potential, they have to do quite a lot of big stuff that will shift the economy in a more dynamic direction again. and it is not clear for the

reason we've discussed that xi really wanted to do that. and perhaps he's prepared to sit it out and accept 3% growth, the most 4% and that is okay. >> martin wolf, thank you for helping us understand this very complicated subject. next on "gps", argentina's newly minted leader is called the mad man by his own supporters aan his of his ideas are really out there. but could they possibly work. we'll be back with that in a moment.

growing up, my parents wanted me to become a doctor or an engineer. those are good careers! but i chose a different path. first, as mayor and then in the legislature. i enshrined abortion rights in our california constitution. in the face of trump, i strengthened hate crime laws and lowered the costs for the middle class. now i'm running to bring the fight to congress. you were always stubborn. and on that note, i'm evan low, and i approve this message. two leading candidates for senate.

two very different visions for california. steve garvey, the leading republican, is too conservative for california. he voted for trump twice and supported republicans for years, including far right conservatives. adam schiff, the leading democrat, defended democracy against trump and the insurrectionists. he helped build affordable housing, lower drug costs, and bring good jobs back home. the choice is clear. i'm adam schiff, and i approve this message. more than two months ago, argentina stunned the world when it elected a new president,

javier milei, who called himself a narco capitalist libertarian. he wanted to abolish the central bank and he had a chainsaw signaling his goal of slashing up the state. he's also a big admirering of donald trump. so can milei actually fix argentina's economy or will he bring it further into ruine? with me now is shannon o'neill, a senior fellow for latten american studies and the author of the book, the globalization myth, why regions matter. welcome. >> thanks for having me. >> the interesting thing about milei, is he's different from -- some people say he's like bolsonaro who is a right wing populist and he's a bit like the left wing populist. explain who this guy is. >> he's anti-establishment but

anti-argentina establishment. so he's coming in and appealing to an audience and to voters especially young voters who are tired of high, if not hyper inflation and inflation and financial booms an busts an the difficults of life of day-to-day in argentina. >> which have been run by a kind of populist establishment for decades. >> they've been in office or waiting to come into the office. controlling the unions and the apparatus and the governors and the like and milei, said i want to get rid of all of the politicians and i'm an economist who got into this because i was on tv shows and was entertaining hence the chainsaw. but he brings in a cutting down the state and the balancing of the budget which is not what the previous party had ever done. that is what appeals to people. something different. because the economy is not

working. >> he's a throwback to a margaret thatcher or someone like that. >> he's idolized margaret thatcher. they have had their differences in the back what they call the mallinas, he's a accolade of margaret thatcher as libertarians around the world. ee focused on the economy. he's focused on gun issues an crime but he's really focused on economics and that is his big message and what he started to do. >> and fair to say that the parrones, who i decide is left wing populist, have run the economy into the ground over the decades? >> they have. they'll come in and spend a lot of money and hire people to work for the government and give a lot of money to unions and to other groups. their a leftist organization but they're a patronist organization and they have a lot of clients. but it is unsustainable. for the way they spend money for a koornt that isn't producing enough to support it.

each time they get in trouble and they end up in debt and we're going to stop the cycle that repeated itself again and again. >> and places like davos, they want him partially because he has the crazy rhetoric but he does have spart visors. >> he brought in mainstream economists and he's talking about balances budgets and privatizing and the kind of market-friendly elements there. he also has the backing of the ifm. they made the biggest bet in its history with argentina back a couple of presidents ago. lent them almost $50 billion and now thee node to be repaid and i think the ifm is embracing him because they think he's a president who might repay them. >> and what about the crazy hair and is that all part of a kind of anti-establishment shstick? was he always like this. >> i think he's always been a

ideosyncratic person and part of his charm is that. he has crazy hair and doesn't have a family but does have cloned dogs that a big part of his selling point. but right now, it seems he has moved from the more fringe to a much more serious set of policies and approach. and those people around him, and i think argentinians right now are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and willing to accept shock therapy and austerity with a hope that a year from now things will be better for them. >> ironically, it all hinges on the weather. >> it does. because argentina's biggest source of dollars and income in the world is agriculture products, particularly soy. so if it rains, then argentina and milei will have a good chance. if it doesn't and there is a doubt like last year, i'm not sure the government will make it and he's promised policies that everyone in the world and dav os is looking to come true.

>> shannon o'neill, pleasure to have you on. >> before we go, you could now watch my documentaries on max. there are 15 of them up on the streaming service on everything from polarization in america to the rise of xi jinping, to the promise and peril of article official intelligence. it is work i'm very proud of and i hope you will take a look. and thanks to all of you for being part of any program this week. i'll see you next week. to duckduckgo on all your devie

duckduckgo comes with a built-n engine like google, but it's pi and doesn't spy on your searchs and duckduckgo lets you browse like chrome, but it blocks cooi and creepy ads that follow youa from google and other companie.

and there's no catch. it's fre. we make money from ads, but they don't follow you aroud join the millions of people taking back their privacy by downloading duckduckgo on all your devices today. counte