all the way to respond to the essential because governments director is or at least make sure that the quality of the organization is of reasonable sense. the city's kaufman and k jones, where people's living space consists of a bunk bed, also set to remain social, where i could say, without protections on a resettlement policy, those affected would be forced to move to even cheaper accommodation like this or even onto the street. we pop with the land or the prints of a pen tenants. they said they would raise the rate. the government says it's stepping up, building new public housing to deal with a shortage of affordable accommodation with 50000 units to come on line by 2027. and independent housing research group says, until there is the political will, to ova hold the lines and housing system to make the wealth miss on affordable property market more affordable people like mailing and has sun will be at the mercy of those who decide the fate from across the board to who are westbrook out

to 0 home con chilies presidents. gabriel board, which has traveled to the south pope to reaffirm his country's claim to sovereignty of a part of the i thought to purchase the 1st latin american nita to visit the southern most point until it has no government and no indigenous population. us state department says 70 countries have territorial claims and non thoughts go with the united states and most of the countries do not recognize that when you become a subject, i'd seen the got the chillies and taught take policies, a long term state policy. these are turbulent times and international geo politics and the antarctic statute will shortly be read, discussed the permanent presence of the chilean state and then talk to cuz undoubtedly, and essential and relevant precedent. when discussing the future of the white continent, or dozens of military police officers from guatemala, have arrived and hate to reinforce a multi national security mission. and that's being led by kenya, which sent nearly $400.00 police officers last year. but it's failed to push back

guns that control much of the capital and the co thousands of people. 10 countries have together pledge more than $3000.00 troops for hating the few have been deployed, presented and none has become the world's oldest done person. in the kind of bottom, lucas's, a 116 years old. she was born in 19 o 8 and became a none. at the age of 20, she became the world's oldest person. off to the death of japan's to meet it took up who was also $116.00. that's it for main o'clock. we got more news coming up here on out to 0 at the top for the right off to revisit. upfront ceasing the in 2001, the us invaded afghanistan, stating its intention to build

a stable state and a military able to overcome the tyler by the united states military has begun strikes, but after 2 decades trillion spend and countless lives lost. the mission failed and the telephone came full control. and you 2 part series analyzes the strategies and mistakes that led to that failure of chemist on the price of people coming soon on, which is 0. the world take start 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 in decades on day one. this week we'll be discussing what trump 2 point oh means for the rest of the world. and an 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 of international relations at harvard university and all the political analyst and former deputy director at the app american institute. thank you up for joining me now. i'm going to start with you. uh, 2024 president elect. donald trump has made a round of personnel announcements for his upcoming administration. we have started is real support or 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 you went in basset. or are you expecting radical change in policy from washington based on these personal decisions 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. so although, obviously things are ready. 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 the 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 or yeah, i think the latter phrase it describes it. you're certainly not going to see

anything better than what the bad policy we have in there by and it could easily get substantially worse. uh, 2 other points. uh, the one person you didn't mention was the designated for the secretary of defense. the tag said, 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 side. is one of them is 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 need move astray. sion are hard line, anti iran hawks, and i remember it was trump who took us out of the nuclear deal with the ron 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 doing 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. it's 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 we 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 dogs, 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, 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, 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 them, 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 then 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 a 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 in get, get us 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 bomb level, non human. it's 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 a 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 present. it is what 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 here as a new us pull it over. just said, i mean i think trump understand and that was in the mid least 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 websites 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. 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 golf 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 to 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 in 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 you creating a new list to say, i actually believes that harris said she'd been elected would also have move 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 ukraine 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 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 port 10 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 of 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 as 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. speed. trump is consistently criticize nato, particularly when it comes to member 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. but nato is a, is a more complicated problem for native. it was still actually pretty popular institution with the american public. and if you tried to formally 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 you'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 to tell him 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 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, 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 and 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 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 a 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

in depth analysis of the days headlines. what are we supposed to read painting through the game. so basically you miss all by russian informed opinions. finally, after over a year of genocide, the i c. c has come to this decision, critical debate. the difference between china and most of the rest of the world is a china plans long term inside story do conferences and meetings like cop 29 and others make a difference on how to 0. it is special freeport series. earth rise discovers how indigenous the movements and knowledge are re shaping our relationship with the planets. if it doesn't work for nature, nature is going to come pick you in the bus and stop you and your pace that's pushing on a number of fronts to bring the attention of the walls. so what is going on here?

if we don't take care of all of these type of relationship, we have lost those rise. we are nature coming soon on the jersey to the the the

limits to how far the dream contains key stuff in your own adventure. now, counter arrange the color while i'm on the inside. this is the news out live from the coming up. in the next 16 minutes, rebuilding syria. as a high level delegation arrives in castle new pictures of devastated areas of the capitals, damascus reveal the scale of destruction from g is a complex. it's a more than a 100 targets the is really always intense from bob minutes of guns and kills at least a $180.00 for.