these new challenges could be a trade will over the united states, once president elect donald trump takes office lation of this month. katrina, you are the 0 aging and goal us government. so as plans to push ahead with removing fuel subsidies by the end of 2025, even though the move is deeply unpopular, there's a cost of living crisis despite the nation being a major oil and diamond producer here on my task. so reports from lawanda carlos to santos, he's a high school teacher in angola. his salary isn't enough to ensure he can pay all his monthly bills. but he says government to feel a subsidies, help cushion consumers from rising prices. and that's why he is worried about politicians plans to scrap them makes you laugh at the men's and boss and see that the utah pockets. once the fuel subsidies are removed, prices of everything will go up to you to hit us better. right now. and goal is pay by $0.35 for lead to

a pedro. and about $0.21 for diesel removing subsidies, means that will pay more at the pump, so that he caught them to save the subsidy program is unsustainable. and goal stands about $3000000000.00 every year on the fuel subsidies. just to have an idea, we spend more subsidizing the pool, then we spend in education, and now so together. so we needs to, to present out the subsidies. but i don't believe that we will do it soon, because politically is very beds to present golf, the subsidies, the fuel prices nearly doubled last year. people protested in the capital of the wind police, the at least 5 were killed. indian race protest against plants to remove subsidies have also being held in of the african countries, such as like a mini applicant companies are in debt. and the as push on developing countries from bodies like the international monetary fund to cut the public state me and

introduced me to nomic policies. the company proved tough for people already suffering poverty and financial difficult. oil has helped and go into grow economy in the capital. there is a lot of development new buildings keep going up those of a day, some of them a oil companies and other businesses for many people. yeah, i still angola is after the 2nd largest, but use of crude oil, but few people benefit from the country to box or? well, this is one that was most, i'm equally economies within half of people age under 25 of douglas. as all those facing hardship moving fuel subsidies won't be popular. how do we tests out? is there one to okay, more noise coming up at the top of the hour on out to 0? that's right after upfront, thanks for watching the the

limits to how far dream continue to study in your own adventure now counter airway in the world. take stock of donald trump's electoral victory, geo political allies and adversaries of the united states. wonder what will come of a 2nd, trump presidency from ukraine to gaza. the incoming president will have to deal with some of the biggest, international crises and becky, one day one. this week we'll be discussing what trump 2 point oh means for the rest of the world. and then upfront special i mean to discuss what a 2nd separate ministration could mean for us foreign policy is

a now see line. former us state department official, who resigned in protest of the biden administration's support of israel's war on gods. steven wall, author of the israel lobby and u. s. foreign policy. he's also a professor on international relations at harvard university and online with the political analyst and former deputy director at the app american institute. thank you all for joining me now. i'm going to start with you. uh, 2024 president elect. donald trump has made around a personnel announcements for his upcoming administration. we have started israel supporter mike huckabee he'll be nominated as in bass that are to israel. mike waltz is set to be national security advisor, marco ruby, it was set to be secretary of state and at least the fabric as un invested. or are you expecting radical change in policy from washington based on these personal decisions, going to be clear. policy was already in such an awful place under the by the administration. however, i do anticipate that things will get worse,

especially with someone like a former governor mike huckabee who is a committed, evangelical christian, has talked about the fact that the policy and people do not exist. he's described israeli settlements as simply neighborhoods. what i, what you hear from is really ministers is that they're planning to annex the west bank. you have settlers waiting to move back into gaza as soon as the, the firing has stopped a. so all those, obviously things are already so horrifyingly bad under the current administration. but i do worry that, that moving forward, we will simply continue to see the same policies as well as green lighting the annexation of the west bank for example. and the concern there would be could this spark conflict per perhaps with jordan stephen, what do you make of this the news? do you see a radical policy shift and you see this as a more intensified version of the current policy? yeah, i think the latter phrase it describes it. you're certainly not going to see anything

better than what the, the, the bad policy we have entered by and it could easily get substantially worse. a 2 other points. uh, the one person you didn't mention was the designated for the secretary of defense. pete hague says, this hasn't been confirmed, but i've seen at least one video of him giving a speech, declaring his support for the extremist idea of rebuilding the 3rd temple in israel, which implies destroying the l august mosque, which is the 3rd holy is site in islam if that's what he really believes, you're going to have yet another cell. it, in this case running the defense department. the other point i noticed that all of these people and i think some other folks and even astray sion are hard line, anti iran hawks. and i remember it was trump who took us out of the nuclear deal with iran and allowed around to get closer to a nuclear weapon. but if they take a very hard line pastor towards iran as well, then the danger of a war in the middle east goes up. even if trump would rather avoid that to. i'm

going to, we also have seen some of the hard line, right? wingers in israel celebrate donald trump victory and we get it. we could speculate why i'm thinking about is really national security administer. it's a mob been view. i'm also thinking about this a little small churches, the finance minister. they were on social media. they were in other spaces, openly celebrating the trump victory. but in many ways, they are illogically aligned with the legs of mike huckabee who in 2015 compared israel's claim to the west bank. as a privilege to the united states of sovereignty over manhattan does is really right wing get more involved in or maybe even empowered after the election of donald trump. yeah, i mean it's again funny because we are already speaking about a low point before all of this happened. but what you had is a government and by then that gave israel what it wants in terms of military funding and diplomatic protection for the atrocities. there were committing against

palestinians, but always with some level of tension. it's always with some us discontentment of publicly criticizing indiscriminate bombings or talking about the need that they would never accept or re occupation of cause, though, there is always this rhetoric about tension and what they get in a trump administration. that a staff with these complete religious fanatics is the through the aspects support for israel's plans that there is no longer this pre times about the us supporting palestinian human rights supported palestinian statehood. and that effectively is a recipe for atrocities that are even greater than the ones that we have seen so far. and it's a really terrifying prospect because even the official numbers of what's coming out of gaza right now is certainly an underestimate that you can't get the full magnitude of the atrocities that have been committed. now if you're going to endorse israel's expansions policies and israel's attempt to liquidate the palestinian struggle for freedom and justice wants them for all and eliminate that for israel moving forward. we are looking at an absolutely horrifying situation in

the prospect of a very, very dangerous escalation in the region. i know i, i keep hearing this idea that under trump, it'll get even worse because it's not even a pretense of concern of who just talked about on my for policy and human rights, etc. is there any reason to believe that the by the administration's pastor was restraining is really all the, i mean i, after looking at it as i just, it's hard for some people to believe that it mattered at all. no, i mean i certainly agree with you that the, the idea that bite in was doing anything to try to prevent what, what israel was trying to do is, is false. and in many ways, i think this does contribute. i mean, as omar was saying, getting rid of the pretense at least gets rid of the hypocrisy. i mean, in many ways, i think this contributes to this perception of trump as someone who needs what he says and speaks or openly and honestly and if, even if the things he's saying are horrible, whereas you have the democrats and the by the ministration. as on our side pretending to care about human rights pretending to care about the international

order and the rule of law and yet acting completely against it. and so, i mean in many ways, i think that the, the, what the body of ministration has done has further undermined these causes of human rights or the international order. and instead, what we're going to see under trump is just this full embrace and an open spoken embrace of the policies that by the administration was implementing. anyway, i know you reside from the state department because of the by the administration's, a continual political support, military support for israel. is there any reason to believe what the, by the administration representatives would likely say and have said in the past, which is we're doing the best we can, we're behind the scenes pushing israel. they're just not listening. you know, the us has massive leverage. the us could have at any point upheld american law, which under us laws we is there is no longer eligible to receive us security

assistance. this was a just of the 30 day letter without ministration passed awesome days before this taping. exactly. so the, this was openly acknowledging from the administration that israel is blocking humanitarian aid, which renders israel no longer eligible to receive us security assistance. and yet they gave them 30 extra days. there is no provision in us law whereby they should have 30 extra days to continue starving people illegally. and yet this is already been happening for more than a year. and you know, the expression that comes to mind is put your money where your mouth is and that's, you had a body in administration that was saying that they want israel to change course while at the same time telling them yahoo, that we're going to give you all the weapons that you want, all the military funding that you want, and we're going to steal diplomatically. well, then you're not really asking them to change behavior. when you make it clear that you're gonna support whatever they do. there's an allegation of responsibility and effectively a sub contracting of american foreign policy to nothing. yahoo, you're allowing that to me who to shape american policy, which is to say that continued american support for whatever is realtors has to do

. that is a recipe for failure. steven mark rubio, a donald trump selection for a secretary of state has been known for his hard line stance on u. s. foreign policy. i fully supported israel and it's a war on guys that uh, what should we expect in terms of policy, but also in terms of blow back. i mean, i think uh, you know, as the trump himself to the back in 2016 mark or rubio is a lightweight. i don't think anybody takes his ideas on the ford policies being particularly sophisticated or well thought out. he's been bought and paid for by a pack and others for a long, long time. so very pro israel, he is also a real china lock, which is something of course that i think attracted him to, to trump. and in fact, the administration is it'd be very hard line on china, at least in a, in appearance. i think the other point to note about all of these appointments though, is that they are relatively weak individuals in the sense that they don't have independent power bases of their own. they don't have a lot of stature. you know,

fox news commentator doesn't have a big, independent power, vanessa, etc. i think that's true, ruby, i think that's also even true mike waltz. i look at the set of people. he's nominated this time and they look to me like people who aren't likely to stand up the truck. and if they did tried to stand up, he wouldn't face much political cost and get, get this thing them down the road. in other words, he's setting things up. so the white house, you know, his chief of staff, whoever he decides to a point to keep positions there are going to be able to do pretty much whatever donald wants to do home. and what about the wider region here in last year? israel has bombed living on human target officials and military facilities in iran as well. and trump has said openly that israel should bomb it, runs nuclear facilities, input worry about the rest later, which up in the white house doing dramatically increased the chances of an all out

war between is really need on i, i think we do increase that risk. i mean, trump has this reputation of sort of being an anti war president because of some exploitation of rhetoric. he's used in places like michigan talking about ending the wars and bringing peace and all of that. he says no more than one. there were no more than control, it's utter nonsense and look at his actual record actually, if it's stuff that just flies into the radar and people give them the passport. but you've had any like one of the drone war in the region with significantly more and far more significant civilian casualties because he did away with any kind of calculus about civil risk, the civilians. and so you have thousands upon thousands of people being killed by the drone warfare under the trump administration, and significant expansion of it that compared to under obama. you've had facilitation of saudi arabia as war on u. m. and also with devastating consequences terms of how the people at least being killed, if not hundreds of thousands more likely. that is also unfolded under his watch for somebody who allegedly does not want war the assassination of general. so they money in iraq and brought the us to the brink of war with iran. and as trump

himself seems to lack any basic understanding of international politics and decision making, that whatever decision he decides to make is on a whim without really a deep understanding of the consequences of his actions. i think that we are closer than ever to the possibility of a much re wider regional war that does get director running involvement. and that means the other devastation of the entire region and possibly a level, you know, adapt all that we have not seen in that region for a very, very long time. stephen, take what almost as seriously at the same time, i also know that trump is very a war verse, at least for his rhetoric. he doesn't want to be seen as a wartime president, will that pull him away from the brink of war, or are all bets off now when, when iran gets in the mix? i'm yeah, i disagree just a slightly, your sort of new was pull it over, just said, i mean i think trump understand and that was in the middle east, have been very bad for his predecessors. right. the warrant garza was bad for bite and a bomb and never quite got out of some of the wars we were in as well. certainly it

was a disaster for the bush administration. i don't warranty. i don't think he wants to see american ground troops, you know, somewhere in the middle east and unable to get out in various ways even tried to remove some of our troops from the middle east when he was president in the 1st or that doesn't mean he's a 1st to using for us as we just heard, he's willing to use drawings, he wouldn't be willing to use american air power because he doesn't think that that's actually going to have consequences for americans. it's not going to lead to american lives being lost. it's not going to be that expensive. what he doesn't understand here is that once you start losing using large amounts of military force, you start to lose control of exactly what happens after that. it's one of the reasons you see countries like starting uribe actually, i think trying to pull back a little bit, trying to improve relations with iran. not wanting to see military force get used in large quantities because they know they're going to be affected. so it might, that might fear is not that trump is willing to, you know, go to

a big boy in the middle east way. george w bush was in 2003. it's rather he would do smaller things, thinking there's no danger of expansion or escalation and he would wake up later to discover that he was facing a much bigger problem that might involve actually much deeper american involvement . how likely it is, is that to happen in your estimation. i mean, i think stephen makes a really good point and knowing the amount of money that a lot of these goals leaders are selling out to trump and his family. to say, hey, let's maybe avoid an unnecessary war with iran because we know that these countries right now are really trying to focus on economic development. they did learn some lessons from things like the warranty and then which ended up being taking much longer. and you know, steve pointed out that there were unanticipated consequences of that kind of violence. so i think that we are, if there's anything to feel it all optimistic about it might be that certain key leaders in the gcc have had

a taste of what war is and are hopefully going to be pushing for less confrontation . don't just on that point. it's kind of interesting to think about the fact that we have world leaders looking for ways to flatter trump personally as a way to influence american policy and creating that dynamic in the world where decisions about war and peace depend on whether you congratulate yourself with mr. trump or not, that is not how the world should work and it ought to be an alarming sign for everyone about the fact that this is who a significant portion of americans have decided to the man who's fit to leave the world in this really dangerous moment. all right, i also want to ask about other foreign policy implications of a 2nd. trump presidency is even going to go to you. a trump has been very critical of the binding administrations aid to ukraine. he also said he would in the war and ukraine within 24 hours after you comes to power, it will all be done in a day, although he doesn't say how, oh, what do you think his approach to this conflicts going to be?

well, i think this is not good news for ukraine. needless to say, i actually believe that harris said she'd been elected would also have moved to try to end the war in ukraine as quickly as possible. but you would have tried to do so as responsibly as possible in a way that got ukraine. the best deal it could. i think trump is much more likely to simply washed his hands of the problem and declare it to be the europeans if they want to keep the europeans problem that they want to keep supporting ukraine. i think the idea that he will try to push through a big aid package through our republican congress is very unlikely. the big question for trump though is exactly what this put into. if putting is satisfied with part of ukraine and a p steel that leaves you great and weak and outside of nato. the trouble of course, will trumpet this as a you know, great piece making deal that he succeeded with. if on the other hand, pollutants ambitions are greater than that,

and he actually wants more of you crane, then he has now been, trump runs through the danger of if he sells that you grain looking week and i leave. but in any case, i think that, you know, of all the countries that had something to worry about. uh, ukraine is probably the top of the list right now. absolutely. i know on that point, i mean, how do you use forecast this? i mean, does trump ultimately, in your estimation, pursue a path that leads to ukraine having to concede more territory to russia? i mean, that is certainly what he talked about on the campaign for what his rhetoric would lead us to believe. and so far and his and the people, he's a pointed there haven't been many clear signals about the what exactly this will this will portend for ukraine? i mean i, i think in general, the the extent to which that message resonated with americans that americans are tired of spending this unnecessary money abroad, of sending all this money to israel money to ukraine when people are struggling to

pay their grocery bills at home. i think this is a crucial part of his appeal and his, his messaging is omar mentioned as a sort of anti war candidate, as in incorrect is that may ultimately prove. but that, in general, my hope is that the democrats take a lesson from this, that continuing to pursue policies that drag the us into unnecessary wars, or continue to, to spend money on necessarily abroad. this is something that resonates and so i truly hope that in an upcoming elections, democrats will implement those lessons. stephen trump is consistently criticize nato, particularly when it comes to member of countries not meeting their financial obligations toward the alliance. is even suggested that the us would ignore a key part of the treaty and not defend certain nato allies if they were to face aggression from places like russia. how far do you think trump will go regarding

nato? uh, would it be an overstatement or hyperbolic for me to say that there's a chance to withdraw the us from natal altogether? yeah, um, well over here in europe, this is the 64000 euro questions and we know that trump's deeply spoke to the european union and so he won't want to do anything to support that data is, is a more complicated problem for native it was still actually pretty popular institution with the american public. and if you tried and formerly withdraw from the nato treaty, he was going to pay some push back, you know, from the pentagon, from other parts of the foreign policy establishment. so i think it's entirely possible they'll stay formally within nato. well declaring and putting lots of pressure on european countries to spend a lot more on defense. and in particular, by saying they should be spending that money here in the united states buying american weapons. he's not going to want to see europe ramp up. it's selling defense industries, potentially become a competitor to the united states or

a more effective competitor on global arms markets. and that may be a more effective trump in strategy. they simply withdrawn from the treaty and removing all american influence from the europe strategic future course on. something has repeatedly, as i said earlier, branded himself as the anti war president of to do is how likely is it the he'll be able to retain that title? even under the terms you talked about earlier, you know, the drone wars and such moving forward, is there a way given the sort of arrangement of geopolitical circumstances right now we're trump can continue to even move in that. right? yeah, i think it's going to be very, very difficult just because the region right now in the middle east is a tinderbox. and he seems to be completely on equipped to move us in a path of the escalation. so i think that's going to be a very difficult reputation to hold onto, but to announce point, all of this is ultimately about the american public's frustration with the us

spending money on every wealth or where else in the world, except when the american people, when he asked, why are we the only industrialized country that does not have universal health care reasons, we don't have money for it when he talk about so many things that are broken inside the country. the answer is always, it's because we don't have any money for it. and yet we constantly have money to for all other countries to engage in these like the wars. and there is something to be said about that is whatever your critique is of the foreign policy itself. we obviously have a bloated military budget and that's really what it comes down to. the fact that the pentagon cannot pass and audit the fact that all of this money ends up in the pockets of military contractors, private military contractors at the expense of the american people. and that's not going to be something that trump is going to change. and so whatever a foreign policy looks like in its details, we're still going to have a situation in which we based all of our money on an overflowed military budget. instead of taking care of the needs of the american people and that's ultimately going to get in the way of trump selling himself as somebody who restored the wellbeing put america 1st in any way. now, while

u. s. foreign policy has always been driven by self interest. terms for his presidency pushed this ideology further through this america 1st doctrine, which embodied a more kind of stringent isolation, his policy, and the 2nd trump presidency. is there a danger that this will become even more aggressive and more dangerous? they will, the america 1st logic drive even more decision making? when we see trump, for example, withdraw from time and deals like you did before? will he pull out of global alliances? what they see as a 2nd, trump presidency producing in that regard. oh, he's already made clear he's going to pull out of the paris climate accord again. and he's been also very clear that he has scorn for the un, you know, are ready to us, is not funding under uh the, the agency responsible for the, the welfare of custody and people in refugees. and so what i anticipate that he will further undermine international institutions writ large,

including things like the international criminal court and international court of justice, both of which are trying to pursue some measure of justice and accountability for, for palestine. but you know more broadly. and this question of, of putting america 1st as i'm or was saying, i mean, there's a reason this resonates with people that's spending on these on necessary august and necessary money abroad on wars. we've talked about the power v as real lobby, but the defense lobby. so much bigger and more powerful spending huge amounts of money to both parties to maintain these bloated military budgets to spend all this money unnecessarily. when again, we're not actually spending money to address the problems that people are, are having here at home. so if, if to any extent trump actually maintains in america 1st one policy, meaning that he's going to avoid unnecessary entanglements or wars abroad. i think that is likely to be a winning electoral strategy if americans feel that he is able to somehow

avoid the escalations that we've already talked about. are quite likely given the current trajectory. but if somehow he he manages to navigate around them. um, i anticipate that this will continue to be something that resonates with people, that they would rather have these resources spent on addressing problems here at home and, and, and again that, that is america's track record of being the, the industry as well. nation on the world stage has largely simply produced violence and horror abroad, at least in the living memory of those of us who sort of observed what us foreign policy has done on the world stage. it has not been the legacy of peace and prosperity. it has been violence and destruction that i have to be the last word there. a stephen one on the dog, and i will see you then. thank you all so much for joining me on upfront. right? everybody that is our show upfront, we'll be back the

the latest news as it breaks for the 3 hospitals have gone out of service. people are using them out so there's now face further displacement with detailed coverage . you've read off your vision forces for hundreds of people years through this place from this cold surface. and it had one from the hoss of the story is wait a minute to reset the it was target thing. come on those and start the hospital, has provided no evidence who was so successful on counting the cost from inflation to jail, political tensions and trade routes. we looked back at the main challenges, but of him to the global economy in 2024 and what's installed for 2025. will it be a year or 2 with bloom or i'll put you in a seat. counting the cost on i was a 0,

the us is always of inside 50 for the world. people pay attention to this one here . and i'll just see this very good that bringing the news to the world. from here, we are to see the series of legend some gloves and the stories of civilizations that market history was. this is where the story of savannah do you have any stories to tell the

limits to have a dream contained study in your own adventure. now a counter the israel forces the evacuation of 2 more hospitals in gaza as the un calls for health care to be protective. the you're watching ultra 0 light from a headquarters and don't find any number gains. also coming on top you the promises visiting damascus say they political course, syria follows will determine whether sanctions can be lifted par i would probably drop it off.