this is "gps" global public square. i'm fareed zacaria coming to you live from new york. today on the program, united states versus iron. american soldiers killed in jordan. u.s. ships attacking the red sea. missiles and drones launched at american bases. and iran's proxies claim responsibility for it all. america has begun to respond. how can an all-out war be avoided? i'll ask an expert panel. then, american aid to ukraine and israel the being held up until the troubles at america's border with mexico are fixed.

david crumb will explain why he calls this the gop's great betrayal. and we'll tell you about the most interesting world leader to break on to the scene in quite a while. first, here's my take. it's perhaps fitting that the line that best describes the u.s. foreign policy of the middle east comes from "the godfather." in the third movie, the aging michael corleone is trying to distance himself and a crisis flares up. >> just when i thought i was out, they pull me back in. >> president biden might be thinking just that, as he responded militarily to the recent attack on u.s. forces

that claimed the lives of three american soldiers in jordan. ever since george w. bush's second term, the american forces are reducing their exposure to the middle east. the u.s. imports only a tiny amount of royal from the region. the efforts of regime change in iraq backfired spectacularly. the most important challenges come from russia and europe and china and asia. the middle east is a side show. but crises come not at times and places of your choosing. the withdrawal of american power has seen a series of moves that are shaping the region. as washington has lost interest in the middle east, anti-american militias have been gaining strength and influence. an umbrella group is believed to be responsible for the attack that killed the american

soldiers in jordan. iran is ally to all these groups that has helped its influence hamas and gaza has provided an ideal opportunity for these forces because they can claim to be protesting israel's actions and thus assert themselves, demonstrate their might and gain legitimacy. the biden administration, which has been working hard to prevent militia attacks from turning into something bigger, now needs to decide whether its own retaliation might cause escalation of hostilitihostilit. biden is under pressure at home. senators like lindsey graham have 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 thrive on conflict with

established armies. the huothiis had a decade of bam boardment and came out untaited. near weeks before becoming nixon's national security adviser, there is a simple rule, the gorilla wins if he does not lose. the conventional army loses if it does not win. the tragedy of american foreign policy is having seen the die lema so clearly, once kissinger entered government, he got seduced by the preserving of credibility and appeared not to look weak. he ordered massive action against vietnam and failed. america lost by not winning. iraq's proxies are trying to stir up as much as possible. not to mention to spoil a

possible normal sooigs of relations between israel and saudi arabia. the attacks by islamic resistance on 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 ones that support the current dominating government in baghdad. in a battle between washington and the militias, the baghdad government would have to side with those groups that sustain it in power. that would then complete the takeover in iraq. symbolized by expulsion of troops. and the unraveling the u.s. security system in the persian gulf. the biden administration had these attacks on u.s. troops. but it showed the administration not to get into tit for tat with the militias.

the iranians have signaled they are not looking to escalate, either. the most sufficient response would be to show that not washington can escalate militarily, that it can do, but it can de-escalate politically. it can use the crisis in gaza to create conditions for longer-term stability. to means working for israeli stability and aspirations for a palestinian state. and that would make it easier for saudi and 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 corleone says in the same movie, never hate your enemies, it affects your judgment. go to cnn.com/fareed for a link

to my "washington post" column this week. 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 -- want to escalate with the 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 tehran 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. 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.

so, you've got the power of xfinity at home. now take it outside with xfinity mobile. like speed? it's the fastest mobile service around... and right now, you can get a free line of our most popular unlimited plan. all on the most reliable 5g network nationwide. ditch the other guys and you'll save hundreds. get a free line of unlimited intro for 1 year when you buy one unlimited line. and for a limited time, get the new samsung galaxy s24 on us. i'm daniel lurie switch today! 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 are 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 8, 10, 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 times."

evergrand 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 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 kind 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.

more than two months ago,

argentina elected a new president. he calls himself a narco, capitalist, libertarian. he wants to abolish the country's central bank, and one of his favorite campaign props was a chainsaw, signaling his goal of slashing up the state. he's also a big admirer of donald trump. so can he actually fix argentina's economy? or will he bring it further into ruin? with me now is shannon o'neil, a senior fellow for latin american studies at the council on foreign relations and the author of "the globalization myth, why regions matter." shannon, welcome. >> thanks for having me. >> interesting thing about him is he's different from -- some people say he's sort of like bolsonaro, but some people say he's like the left wing populist. but he's different. explain who this guy is. >> what he has in common is he's

anti-establishment, but he's an anti-argentina establishment. so he's appealing to young vote who are tired of hyper inflation, of recession, of financial booms and busts, of the difficulties of life and day-to-day in argentina. so he's come in -- >> which have been run by a kind of populist establishment for decades. >> they've been in office, controlling the unions, controlling many of the public sector workers, controlling lots of the appaapparatus. so he came in, saying i want to get rid of all these establishment politicians. i'm an economist who went on tv talk shows, but he brings in a privatization message, a dollarization message, a cutting down of the state and a balancing of the budget, which is not what the previous party had ever done. so that's what appeals to people, something different,

because the economy isn't working. >> so in a way he's a throwback to a margaret thatcher? >> he idolizes margaret thatcher. argentina and britain have had their differences in the past, but yes, he's very much an accolade of margaret thatcher, and other libertarians around the world. he's socially conservative on gun issues, gender issues, but he's focused on economics. that is his big message. >> and fair to say that who i describe as the left-wing populist have run the argentina economy into the grounds. >> they have. they'll come in, spend lots of money, they'll give lots of money to unions. they're a leftist organization, but they eyare a patronage organization, but it's been

sustainable -- unsustainable, so they default on local debt, international debt, so he's saying we're going to stop that whole cycle. >> and places like davos, i think they warmed to him partly, because he's got some very smart advisers. >> he does have smart advisers, and he went from the campaign to governing and brought in more main stream economists. i think he speaks to the international financial community, because he's talking about balancing budgets and privatizing and the market friendly elements there. he also has the backing of the imf, which made the biggest bet its made in his triwith argentina a couple of presidents before, lent them $50 billion, and now they need to be repaid. the imf is embracing him, because he thinks he might repay them. >> what about the crazy hair? is that all part of a kind of anti-establishment schtick? was he always like this?

>> i think he's always been ababid y ab abidiokyncratic person. right now, it seems, one, he has moved from the more fringe to a much more serious set of policies and approach, and those people around him. and, you know, the people in argentina are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, willing to accept shock therapy with the hope a year from now things will be better. >> ironically, it all hinges on the weather. >> because argentina's biggest source of dollars, the biggest source of income in the world is agricultural products, particularly soy. so if it rains, then argentina will have a good chance. if it doesn't and there's a drought like last year, i'm not sure his government will make it.

he's promised policies that everyone is hoping will come through. >> shannon, pleasure to have you on. >> great to be here. before we go, i want to let you know that you can 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 artificial intelligence. it's work i'm very proud of, and i hope you'll take a look. thanks to all of you for being part of my program this week. i will see you next week.