wild, far in its history, the basis of killed at least 27 people enforced and 47000 others from their homes. many have taken shelter, incentives set out by the government or by volunteers. multiple wild fires fueled by strong winds and dry weather have been raging across the side of eastern regions since last friday. junk box reports from unknown in south korea. a buddhist monk examines the ruins of what was once a historic south korean buddhist temple. until something in its monks have protected this temple for 1300 years and saying it last is extremely saddening. however, the sorrow as entails along the entire region as in golf bus size and we considering the suffering of everyone affected. there is no room to dwell solely on our last night in this nearby village, 83 year old corners she door walks me through some of the devastation. google more

. you know, how long you know you. this house was once a shrine where our ancestors rituals and ceremonies were held. he says only about a household in this village have fire insurance, doing business, india, and you has to be the government that helps us. they need to offer a real compensation. don't we don't have personal savings. this is the country, sorry. everyone's old and no one has money. and now we can't even farm. we are really at a loss of. the country is acting. president says, all resources available will be used to stop the fuzz and help those affect. people like pay young so has been living in an evacuation center tend fall 3 days. almost doubling most of the house is completely gone and there's nothing less just a pile of ashes. i didn't know what to do. my heart is pounding, emergency workers and volunteers are struggling to help tens of thousands. so i'll

be back you ways to the fire spread so quickly that we are currently facing a shortage of supplies. many people here still do not know water. whites in their towns as firefighters continue to baffle fires across the nation. se, when it is safe for more people to leave the evacuation centers, many will return to homes like this. to begin the long process of cleaning away the rubble and rebuilding their lives. jack boffin, outages era and dong south korea to the bottom line is next with another in depth look behind the scenes in us politics of madison to the website. obviously that does come stevens, the, [000:00:00;00]

the

hi i'm steve funds and i have a question with renewed war in gaza and yemen, an instability spreading across the entire region. warner president trump true goals in the middle east. let's get to the bottom line the so much for the no new wars campaign promises a president donald trump. now the united states finds itself at war with yemen, which threatened to resume its naval blockade of israel for breaking the gaza cease . fire that cease fire was put to a violent end by israel on march 18th, when it launched the bombing campaign, they killed 5 mid level hamas leaders and hundreds of civilians, mostly women and children. you as officials now say they're working on a different cease fire plan, but now trump is meeting the drums of war with iran, and threatening dire consequences unless these young men attack stop. so what are america's intentions for the region today? we're talking with valley nasser professor. of international affairs and middle east studies at johns hopkins university. and he's author of the upcoming book, ron's grand strategy,

a political history valley. it's great to have you in studio with me today. thank is ask you what i think the purpose of this year today as i'm trying to understand what america wants to achieve in the middle east, because i think so many people watching, they're not quite sure. on one hand, donald trump is come out and said no new wars, we don't want to be deeply involved in these things. and yet we've just fired a barrage of missiles, a young man threatening iran and have taken all sorts of interesting pastors with regard to israel. and gaza, so just tell me what you think america is trying to achieve in the middle east. when all of the phone that's been happening in the last 2 days, 3 days is actually a major change. israel has resumed this military campaign in gaza. the united states has bombed young man, and he's also threatening you're on with military reaction. i think the united states on the president trump still is trying to find a way to get out of the middle east. it still does not want to spend the next 4

years in, in wars in the middle east. and he wants to focus on china, russia, domestic sets of issues. but present trauma is trying to force a situation on the lease by using america's muscle in a way that he can get there. and that's a very, very risk again. but so he wants to stay in that, you know, in the gaza, in a way that would mean the palestinians would move somewhere else. that is red, gets the total security that he's looking for and gaza, potentially the westbank. he wants to finish the issue in yemen and perhaps liquidate and other one of their ons, that actually a militias, a partners by force thinking that that will do the trick. and then he's trying to bully iran to the table saying that if you don't come to the table, it's going to be war. and he's calculating that these kind of a strong arming the region would basically get them a release to, to where he wants, wants it to be. which means that he can then basically move on to the other thing. so i read a lot in political science. we call it literature,

but books and articles about conflict negotiations when you're trying to bring a conflict to a resolution piece or, you know, some new equilibrium. and they often talk about both parties often try to muscle up and take, you know, military actions against each other before this engagement negotiation. we've seen it happen many, many times in the middle east. donald trump seems to be doing that, you know, seems to be pounding these rivals in place. but who's in the go shooting with who's on the other side. ways. the other side is really the supreme leader and you're wrong because the, you know, the cause, the issue is obviously only with the palestinians. and that's a, that's an aside. but, but the bigger issue in yemen, particularly a nuclear issue, is about it on what president trump is trying to do is not that different from back obama mean. what president obama decided to talk to iran, he was afraid that there was going to be a water in the middle east. and the only reason that would be of water in the middle east was there on the new care program. so he decided that to take war off the table, he had to negotiate. i mean,

president trump is pretty much saying the same thing that there's going to be here saying there's continuity between obama and from there, there is because both of them, one out of the middle east and both of them need to deal with their own nuclear program. in order to be able to get out of the middle east, because that's the only reason why is really, may go into a larger war in the region is over on the new kit program. except president trump is putting this in a much bolder, more aggressive tone. that if you don't negotiate with me, it's going to be war. the problem is that he's doing this all in public and the more a saber rattling than this open way on tweets on, on bombing. yeah. man demaury actually reduces the room to maneuver for the wrong leadership. and i, i think they may calculate that actually they don't have the political capital to go to the table. if he's doing this in such a brazen way, she talked about g, m and, and counting him. and one of iran is last operating, supported,

malicious. how wheel is it runs control over the who tease over from us over has the law and some of these arms. do they have any independent action, or is this entirely as the trump administration off? and cas, it that finding the has, the law is finding a wrong finding. how much is biting a, ron? what's your sense? no. it, they, they're not control 100 percent, right? on their, not a division of their ons. at military, they are an independent organization which have their own vested interest in young men who tease also have their own political sets of interest in this war. they have made their ceasefire conditional on, on uh, on cease firing, garza and so when cease firing guys, breaking down at it's very likely that the hotels would feel a lot of pressure even within the out of work to basically stand up and do what they promise on the other hand, iran would find it very, very difficult to raining the who t's under

a direct ultimatum from president trump. and also when the cause of war is restarting, and the president trump can, is basic creating a situation where he wants to iranians to admit that they have caves before his ultimatum by coming to the table. and the political costs for that may be so high that even if they want to come to the table, they may not find a way to come to the table. i was just at the right seen a dialogue and deli india and one of the major interviews there are besides pulsing gabbert, the director of national intelligence, who didn't say much, but the really interesting interview there was armoire gar, guess the former ministry of state for foreign affairs in the u, a. e. and in his remarks he really put out an olive branch for iran so that he was hopeful and thought they were very positive signs about you a being able to work with a ron. i've heard saudis say the same thing a, is there really a new breeze going on out there, despite the bluster we're hearing from the white house about iran in this moment?

i think so in the sense that the white house really doesn't one war, this is not 2003 iraq. if administration really doesn't one more, the president is putting all this plus there. but we're not seeing a military build up in the golf right now. and what else is different is that you're a saudi arabia don't one war in the gulf because you can started war. but you don't know how it's going to and, and they're the ones who may get bloody and their whole economic plans for that. you know, technology infrastructure, you know, 2013 developments, etc. all of that may be jeopardize. and so they are hoping that there wouldn't be negotiations. so they're putting the most effort to get around to the table and the united states to the table. and iranians also, i think, want some formal negotiation. the key is, is president trump style, likely to smoke se iranians, or is it likely to persuade them to the table? right now it looks like uh that, that the room for the iranians to be able to get to the table is narrow and it's

not expanding. he's not really showing olive branch to tyrone is not saying the right things to give them confidence to come to the table. he's actually being extremely aggressive with them. and he's creating a situation where if you're on tomorrow, said i'm coming to the table, it looks like they are coming to the table because he's threatened and they cannot afford to be seen to be bullied to the table valley. i know you think about much of the world beyond the middle east, and i want to ask you a question. it's really been confusing me. you know, on one hand, if you're hanging out with european leaders, which i've, i've also, i've been talking to, there's an incredible confidence crisis right now about their relationship with the united states about their funded middle course security. and there's this since they have that america is kicking down its own hill that it's walking away from all of the elements and infrastructure of its own global power. the only a person that doesn't seem to have a confidence prices about the united states is this really prime minister, you know, be not in yahoo. and i think in that arrangement is,

is there another side of this story down the road where america is, all of a sudden, you know, proceeds to be a weaker and the less significant power that it doesn't mean a weak power, but a week or power that doesn't have all of the instruments at once once did. where does that leave is real at that moment? what is not good for israel if the united states actually lose its footing? if even things happen domestically or in your opinion, are the theaters, what do you an ad space? it loses focused on the middle east. what is not willing or capable of supporting israel. but to your point, if you're iran, you would basically look at this picture and say things are going sideways in europe at the present. it has put a big bet on, on, on peace and ukraine. and it's not clear whether that will deliver. and then there's so much happening domestically on the trade front. they may very well say, let's wait. that right now, we're still in the honeymoon, maybe 6 months from now the us has had, will look very different. and if the us hands looks very different, you're right,

then the balance between iran and is where it will look different candy and addison is really, really focused on iran, in the way that they are saying if cause it falls apart. if other things in data aboard fall apart because of gaza, if you're a falls apart, i mean there's, there's a whole, this whole thing between iran and the united states is not happening in a vacuum. and iran is a very cautious of that. that, that there, there's a lot of things this present as put in place that if they all come to fruition, of course, his hand is going to be enormously strong. but a number of them can go wrong in the next 56 months, which then can change the context in which this talk of negotiations is happening. i mean i, i'm maybe overstating this for a minute. but minute i imagine, to present from had a choice between spending a weekend with, you know, you're being community president, our original of underlying, or russian president vladimir put and he would pick potent, i said, i want to hang out with him, you know, and, and, and do things with him. why am i putting in rush? i have

a very good relationship with the wrong. so is that another element here that as we see a shift at least, what looks to me like a shift of something that wants to be an embrace of russia. what you're shocking, a lot of people this does iran become part of that package? possibly i actually think this is more strategic done personal. the way media puts it. i don't know if the present actually with enjoy spending time with put in but it has, it's sort of a view that, that to, to isolate china, you need to, you need to bring russia in the direction of the united states. you need to break that relationship with china as long as he doesn't put much value in your up in this calculation. and then, you know, ultimately you wanna also bring iran along as well. i think that where there's a problem is that the iranians are not interested in working through russia with the united states. they don't trust the russians just because you have good relations with someone. doesn't mean that they actually necessarily believe that the russians would be the honest brokers here that the russia will not cut

a deal with israel and the united states that would sell the iranians so. so, you know, going through the russians is actually not as productive as going through you a, is it on much rather, go down that route. and i think a, ronnie's understand that is to get, they get to the table. it has to be united states senator on it and that formula that worked in 2015, 2018 of having a group of work powers negotiated with their on is no longer feasible. the europeans don't want to work with the russians. the americans don't want to work with chinese, and they run is don't want to be left their own in the room with just the europeans and the americans. st in. they need somebody to convene which could be your saudi arabia. and then basically they need to deal with the united states directly. and i think that the, just the philosophy of how you get to the table is different. iranians want to be shown respect and to be seen to be coming to the table on their own terms, not being bullied. whereas the president trump thinks that he's on a hurry. he wants to dealing 2 months,

which is not necessarily doable. and he's going to bully your onto the table and, and, and it's, it's the start of that may actually cause the collapse of this thing rather than the willingness of the 2 sides to have a deal. you know, i don't know when i could speak about this pot that seems to be getting hotter and hotter with all the things in it. you've got syria that is shifted from being a kind of pro. she is state to now very pro sunni state and you've got what looks like a reproach mom between the rules. and these really is you've got a lot of moving pieces moving in ways never expected. uh before. what's your god? is there any chance of stability coming out of this, or do you think it's more likely that we're going to see another cataclysmic, a real, you know, set of misjudgments miscalculations and serious war? and i think more likely will sing a cataclysm because i don't see in the united states and israel vision for i just want you to see that again as i want my i,

i think there is you're going to say so homily that i know that there is going to be categories because i think the united states and israel, or not looking to establish it as sort of a regional order that is acceptable to the region itself. and they would be inclusive about their view points that they want to add to a cert victors dictate on the region as an i and is there any particular sees itself as having one in the cause of warning, an absolute term. so it wants to establish an absolute, sort of hedge, a monic position on security issues around the region and, and that opens the door to all kinds of resistance coming down the road. and that puts the stability of many out of countries, jordan egypt, etc. on the line, saudis, you, we've got to the golf countries are extremely nervous to add up public is very angry. they don't see a light at the end of the tunnel where there would be a situation in which they would be acceptable to them. and then you'll have your own,

which is basically waiting in the wings and could benefit from this kind of an instability . so the united states in particular is playing a very high wire game, assuming that he can dictate piece to the middle east, right, then establish space in the middle east. these are 2 different things. when it comes to the us is real relationship. who isn't driving that vehicle? because i remember in the past when you and i discussed the jcp away and we discussed, you know, some of the rationale behind that iran is behaviors and concerns. israel is also pretty good at making strategic choices that confine us. um do you believe that is real good? can find us options again and could make a strategic choice that donald trump may not want me. i mean, it certainly can. uh, it has the capability to do so, it can change facts on the ground, which would then force the united states to react to it. it has the ability to influence the part of the policy debate in the united states in important ways. but ironically,

i think president trump has shown greater willingness at least to basically assert uh he's on view or the view he's, he's very nice. he's done the by then administration was, i mean we, there would probably not have been a gaza piece, a sorry, a gaza ceasefire. had it not being for president trump say to clear that prime minister not to know it didn't like the ceasefire to begin with. doesn't like it now, once a whole new sort of a process to happening in gaza. and that's why the war has resumed. and they would not have been a c side and 11 or sees firing cause i believe, had had president from not insisted that on january 20th when he comes in, he wants these conflicts, at least to be wrapped up. and right now the way he's willing you're onto the table is he's putting more of a premium on talking done military. whereas israel actually wants to just jump over any idea of talking and go for hitting your eyes nuclear program right now. i. so

there is, if you would, the difference in approach to prep president from really does not want to war with iran. israel may be willing to start at an attack on iraq. but i, but i think president prime it isn't. nathaniel was a more difficult the pushing president, trump to follow his lead. then he had pushing president biden to follow his lead, but indian is realized the thesis about very but where did see things going? and the question is, does the united states indian feel comfortable with uh, with following that leap, but only time will tell. we'll look at, let's go, come back the concept for a moment and, and the, you know, this day in which the ceasefire, you know, i'm blew up with the depths of over 400 palestinians, 5 mid level hamas leaders were killed but, but huge, huge crisis again, and gaza, and you still have donald trump talking about expelling 2000000 people from casa,

and we settling them somewhere, while no air of state at all has given even a millimeter of, of sunshine to that, to that proposal. where does that go? well, that's exactly the point i was making. there's a difference between dictating and, and game or piece for the region. i was actually achieving or making peace which would involve bringing data states on board and arriving at it at, at a final solution. that would be inclusive of everybody's input. they would not be exactly what is really want. it would not be exactly what the out i was one, not exactly what the us ones, but in the end it would be something that all of them would be willing to support and live with. that's the definition of arriving, get peace or achieving piece means it has to be negotiated and inclusive. and then that has more resilience, where president trump is going and perhaps is really, is going, is actually dictating dan game to the out. there would be no more palestinian issue in garza, there would be no more palestinians in garza, they're going to leave and gauze is going to have

a very different future. so they're going to tries to ram this through a that up throats if you would. but it's, that's dangerous because these add up rulers also are runing over publics are extremely unhappy and something can break. at some point, the valley view, everything is going on in the united states. you know, our own politics about the palestinian issue is that some of those involved with the summer protests that you estimate adversities who have green cards or visiting over on visas. the students had been detained by ice. you know, if you, with the notion of expelling them from the united states and suspending their rights because of what they said, i don't want to simplify this, that the administration has said that they were terrorist sympathizers. but that's the administration's account. others including academics in many jewish intellectuals today, rather very, very worried that speech is being curtailed in a way that we haven't seen in the united states and many years. you're, you're in a university, the deals, the middle east, is there now a, a damper over the kinds of discussions like we're having around the region with

fear that people can't speak one way or another, or even protest which has been part of university culture. you know, for as long as i can remember, the simplest way it's putting it is that we're in a period of tremendous uncertainty. in other words, not only because there is a clump down on, on, not paid speech on anti semitism on, on protests, but literally the boundaries of what constitutes these things is not very, very clear. so, universities are also grappling with defining these things. in other words, what is it that constitutes unacceptable and speech? how do you deal with it? uh, but, so all of that creates uh, is a good speech protected. whether it's unacceptable or not. i mean, it's really, as in question, right? we have a guarantee of free speech and you can't, you know, speier in a crowded theater. we know that that's what this would be, but virtually all other forms of speech had been guaranteed. are we finding a major role back even as you discuss it as a, what is appropriate speech and what's not, from the university perspective,

it's almost chilling what i can speak for universities and some of the issues that a raising are really uh, sort of constitutional sets of issues which i don't, i'm not, i'm not comfortable commenting on as an expert. but the reality is that what i can say is that students, faculty, even university administrators are dealing with a situation of uncertainty. you know, there's because boundary lines off even if we exceed that boundary lines, are shifting is not clear where they shift thing too hard is shifting to what subjects are included, etc. so the, so this is sort of a kind of a negotiation of, of what constitutes what, what, what is that, as you say free speech, what is hate speech is, is being negotiated in real time, but not in a room by a group of congressmen, lawyers, etc. it's just happening at on, on an ongoing situation in, in the, in the, in the public domain, if you would. and so it's creating

a lot of anxiety uncertainty in terms of ultimately where does, where does, where does the line altima to get defined. or just finally valley, you know, you see cataclysm coming. i mean, the 1st things i mean 1st, 1st of all is that we have to, i think both sides want to run to adverse getting into a much more situation war total sanction of the wrongs economy. so i think stopping the right, that sort of train wrecked that were, that could be a major water in the region, is what saudis one would you a wants what scotts are wants, what i think iran wants. and i think what the administration wants, where do you go beyond that? is, is really depends on what are the deal survives, like i said previously, okay. do you have survive? we don't know where we would have been today. so it, it, you know, iran in the united states have a massive gap of trust between them and that needs to be built 1st by a deal that they can make and then can keep fascinating. while i really appreciate your candor. today, valley nasser professor of international affairs and milly studies at johns hopkins

university. thank you so much and we wish you a very well with your forthcoming book. thank you very much for joining us. so what's the bottom line? the temperature is rising again throughout the region with the us bombing, human, and threatening iran, as is real resumes the killing a guys in syria is still an open question. the trend we're seeing under the trump white house is contracting us power, punctuated by burst of action. this is trump's transaction driven foreign policy. israel is in good standing right now with washington. the air of gulf states are mostly in good standing now that a rod has even been knocked back. they even might be able to find a way to get into good standing. but the palestinians and virtually the rest of the region have 0 standing. so throw out all of what you think you used to know about the power politics in the middle east. everything has to be re thought us power is going to be erotic and impulsive forcing all countries to eventually seek out balancers and hedges against the united states. and that's the bottom line,

the when delusion from the truth, the fact tag in the balance. when voices that silence agendas prevail, systemic emissions. lean control the listening post, the coding the media on out his era. the latest news for you can see the is protective net to try to protect the vehicles traveling through this village for drones. strikes with detailed coverage there are look out on the pills for monetary the movements of us and mexican border authorities around the clock from the hoss of the story. jeremy spend $75000000000.00 on the fence last year for the minutes. we experts see much more. this means it's a sense of belonging. we are very close knit community. everybody knows everybody. and the every day he wrote,

keeping communities together. this is the same sort of universe set of my universe . i just eat up, is it scotland house or headboards and meets those fighting to save their 5 and his way of life in the face of its population. a sense of community on a jersey to the challenges with

the the hello and welcome to the program on sort of hide us on. this is a news live fund. uh huh. coming up in the next 60 minutes, the celebrations and hard to to the ends on the chief because his troops have re taken control of the capital off the driving out. the