Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. I want to begin just by acknowledging that it seems like wherever anybody was in our area this weekend, people were talking about the situation in the Middle East, whether out to entertainment, out to dinner, whatever, that may have been unrelated and lighter. This is just one of those intense situations that even people who don't have direct connections to Israelis or Palestinians just can't help but have haunt them, so acknowledging that.

We'll begin today with a Washington take on the evolving crisis in the Middle East and the simultaneous political crisis in the House of Representatives. The context, of course, is the horrors of the last week with the press reporting 1,300 Israelis killed in the Hamas terror attack. Still so hard to get next to that number, 1,300 killed in one period of terrorism. 2,700 Palestinians, 2,700 killed by now from Israeli airstrikes as the evacuation and preparation for a ground invasion continue.

Here from yesterday's NPR Weekend Edition Sunday is Dr. Jamal Abu Helal, an orthopedic surgeon at the European Gaza Hospital in Southern Gaza. Half of Gaza's population is under 18.

Dr. Jamal Abu Helal: Children, children, children. Many, many, many children injured. Many children injured. Many children lost their family. Father, mother, sisters, without families. This is extremely difficult.

Brian Lehrer: Dr. Halal made this plea to NPR's Ari Daniel, hoping for Israeli restraint.

Dr. Jamal Abu Helal: We are people. We are respectable people. We are not animals. We are people like other peoples. We respect. We love. Hopefully, that Western people, they believe that we are human.

Brian Lehrer: It's being reported that the Biden administration, while speaking repeatedly about unqualified support for Israel, is also working behind the scenes, we're not sure to what degree, for Israeli restraint to at least give civilians more time to get out of their homes, and working with Egypt to allow humanitarian aid in and Gazan people out through their border.

Meanwhile, no Republican member of Congress has enough votes to become speaker and approve resolutions of support or actual military or humanitarian aid to the region. We'll get the Washington view first and then one from the Middle East.

With me now, The Guardian's Washington Bureau Chief, David Smith. David, thanks for coming on. Welcome to WNYC.

David Smith: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Let's start actually on the race for speaker. Where do things stand?

David Smith: Oh, still somewhat paralyzed. It's an extraordinary limbo, really, for House of Representatives as you say at a moment of global crisis. As Senator Chris Murphy said, this is really an all-hands-on-deck moment when we need ambassadors in place, and congress meetings, and translations, and so on. Right now, Jim Jordan on Friday became the latest Republican to win the Republican nomination in the conference, but there was still about a quarter of the party who voted against him basically, so he's not really anywhere close to the 217 votes he would require.

Brian Lehrer: Give me some background on how they even got to that point for people who may have only been following the Mid East news over the weekend and it was after our show on Friday when Jordan really emerged; Jordan who had previously dropped out and supported Steve Scalise and then Jordan re-emerged, really, as the leading Republican nominee for speaker. How did that even happen?

David Smith: Yes, it is chaotic. Obviously, in January, Kevin McCarthy, it took him 15 rounds to get the speakership, and eventually did, and then he was ousted more recently in that showdown over the budget. They had a vote and Steve Scalise, the half-majority leader, emerged from that but it soon became clear he did not have enough support in the party to actually win the speakership so before a vote even happened he withdrew from that.

The runnerup in that race had been Jim Jordan, of the Judiciary Committee, the chair, who was endorsed by Donald Trump. With Scalise out, they had another ballot, and Jordan versus a relatively unknown member of Congress. That led to Jordan's victory, but again, just like Scalise before him, not uniting the party, not with enough support to necessarily become speaker.

It's been interesting following weekend reports that Jim Jordan being a bit of a hardliner and a pugnacious character is allegedly bullying members of Congress to support him, trying to intimidate them in a old-fashioned Lyndon Johnson way, but we'll see how that works for him.

Brian Lehrer: To remind people of the basic math, they need 217 republicans out of the, I think it's 221 who would be voting for a speaker. No Democrat is going to vote for any Republican speaker of the House, so they're all out, so they need 217 out of 221. That's an almost unanimous majority on a pretty big total. Who opposes Jim Jordan?

David Smith: Just to underline your point, I think that the speed of the destruction was factored, really, back in the midterm elections when Republican majority was so narrow that it leads to the kind of math you're talking about where you can only afford a handful of defections. It's interesting, the anti-Jordan people, many of them are remaining anonymous.

I think if you're a diehard Donald Trump supporter, you're pretty happy with Jim Jordan. He has been a close Trump ally and accused even of, of course, playing a part in the January 6th insurrection. We've heard warnings from Liz Cheney, a former member of Congress, that giving Jim Jordan a gavel would be absolutely disastrous for American democracy. I think it's people of her mindset, really, the somewhat more moderate Republicans who really feel that Jordan would not be the right man.

Brian Lehrer: Which isn't that many Republicans, Liz Cheney and a few others who were more explicitly anti-Trump and denounced January 6th and said the election wasn't rigged and those kinds of things lost their seats in the last election or didn't even run.

David Smith: It's not entirely ideological about democracy. It's this Republican infighting what Hakeem Jeffries, Democratic leader, describes as a Republican Civil war. There's also a lot of personal grudges, and bickering, and people at each other's throats, and bruised egos now. With Jordan, I think you have loyalists to Kevin McCarthy who are objecting to him. You have people who feel somehow he was insufficiently supportive of Steve Scalise when he was the nominee. It's really descended now, I think, into a lot of petty politics in addition to those ideological concerns.

Brian Lehrer: When you say Jordan is trying to bully his way to enough votes LBJ style, what does that mean? What's an example of that?

David Smith: Oh well, I bow to others' knowledge of political history as a--

Brian Lehrer: Well I don't mean what did LBJ do, but what's Jordan doing? What kind of bullying? What kind of leverage does he have over the people who are not ready to vote for him off the bat?

David Smith: I saw one example of an email allegedly sent by Jim Jordan or his team to a member of Congress saying, "It's come to our attention you're not supporting Jim Jordan," and basically threatening on that basis, you'd be exposed in right wing media probably. I think the implication was Donald Trump at his next campaign rally will probably come and have a go at you. All the tactics we've seen in recent years, leveled against anti-Trump dissenters, I think there's now an effort to bring people on side in Jordan's favor as well, given that he is so closely aligned with Trump.

Brian Lehrer: What do you see as possible ways out, or what do any of your sources as The Guardian's Washington Bureau chief see, if any?

David Smith: Yes, if any is a good point. It is an absolute quagmire at the moment. I talked to fellow political journalists who say right now they cannot think of a single Republican who would get to that magic 217 number. One possible plot line to follow is Democrats weighing in, trying to offer some sort of solution to this.

For example, there's a theoretical possibility of giving the current acting speaker, Patrick McHenry, some additional powers so that he could at least get funding for Israel and Ukraine through- and some other measures that Democrats would be happy with. Whether that might also lead to even some compromised candidate actually as speaker, like a bipartisan candidate that Democrats can get behind, maybe anything's possible in the current political universe. It's hard to imagine the Republican hardliners or enough Republicans agreeing to that. That would be a way to isolate the extreme MAGA wing, if you like, but it's a long shot. Maybe McHenry's the way to go.

I must say, I'm at a loss to think of any current Republicans in the House who would check all the boxes required.

Brian Lehrer: There's a government shutdown deadline coming November 17th. By then, they have to have either a budget for the whole fiscal year, or at least what they call a continuing resolution to keep the government open for a while. We're not going to dwell on that right now. We know what happened as it was approaching the last deadline at the beginning of this month.

This is going to come up again after they put in just a six-week stopgap, and they don't even have leadership in place to negotiate with the Democratic leadership of the Senate and the Democratic President, Joe Biden. That's all to be unfurled as time goes on.

Listeners, your calls first today on the House leadership situation and the US role in the Mid East war, which we will get to with our guest, David Smith, The Guardian's, Washington Bureau Chief. 212-433 WNYC. Questions, comments, stories, 212-433-9692, call or text on the House leadership situation and the US role, in particular, in the Mid East War. 212-433 WNYC, 212-433-9692, call or text.

David, I see your most recent article on The Guardian site is called A dangerous game: Republican Chaos and Indecision as Crises Shake the World. How do you see the House and Mid East situations relating now in real terms?

David Smith: Yes, it's bad timing, certainly. The most immediate issue is that Joe Biden and the White House have requested additional funding for Israel, and the House is ill-prepared to deliver that. Without a speaker, technically it can't pass legislation or do anything much, hence this proposal to maybe expand the powers of the acting speaker.

I think there's also a more fundamental point here, which is at moments of global crisis, such as what's happening in Israel and Ukraine, many in the world look to America for leadership and as an example of a functioning democracy. We've heard Joe Biden talk about the struggle between democracies and autocracies. Right now, it does not give the impression of being fit for purpose because there is no speaker of the House, there is no ambassador to Israel. That might be fixed soon, but certain other positions remain vacant.

As you mentioned, a government shutdown is looming. There's a real problem of dysfunction here, which undermines efforts to solve the Israel crisis and many others.

Brian Lehrer: Your article quotes Michael McCaul, the Republican from Texas, who's chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. It says, "He's put forward a bipartisan resolution with New York Democrat Gregory Beeks, the top Democrat on the committee condemning Hamas and reaffirming support of Israel," but you're right, the House cannot vote on it until there is a speaker in the chair. They can't even vote on a simple resolution like that? I realize the committee's situation is not simple, but the wording of the resolution sounds simple. They can even vote on something like that with a temporary speaker, McHenry, who they have?

David Smith: Yes, it's pretty grim, isn't it? Again, maybe they can find a workaround because part of the problem here is that we're in such uncharted territory. Kevin McCarthy was the first speaker ever to be ousted. It looks like not even the experts are entirely sure what powers McHenry has.

Certainly, the view of McCaul and many others is that they can't even pass that simple resolution, which is pretty extraordinary at a time when Israel has had such a devastating terrorist attack. The US obviously is such a staunch ally, and yet Congress can't even make that simple statement of support.

On the other hand, I suppose it should be noted that the presidency, the executive branch does still function and I think most Israelis, most people in the world would be looking to Joe Biden before Congress. He, of course, was very forceful in his remarks. The White House still has powers to provide certain amounts of aid and carry out shuttle diplomacy and so on, so it's not as if it's all ground to a standstill, but certainly the longer this goes on I think the worse it gets in terms of not having congress fully functional.

Brian Lehrer: Right. With the division of powers in this country, Foreign Affairs are generally within the Executive branch, so there's a lot that Biden can do, as you say, and we're going to get to the shuttle diplomacy a little later in this conversation. Congress still appropriates money. You report that Biden said last week that he will seek approval from Congress for additional funding for Israel right now. That's in addition to the $24 billion in additional funding for Ukraine that is on the table, but is stuck because that was excluded from the continuing resolution on October 1st to temporarily fund the government for six weeks.

I think originally, people thought there was enough of a Republican plus Democratic majority in the House to get that Ukraine funding through, but that got stuck in the leadership fight once McCarthy was deposed. It's all stuck right now, USA to these two wars. If it's $24 billion in the latest desired trunched for Ukraine, is the Biden administration requesting a certain number for Israel? We already give billions of dollars to Israel in aid every year. What is it that they want in addition because of this crisis?

David Smith: That's a good question. I have not seen a specific figure given. I'm not aware of there being a precise request like that. Again, I suspect the White House will try to find workarounds as we saw with Ukraine, where in the absence of funding, I think they've sent some confiscated ammunition, I believe from Iran to Ukraine to help with that. For a while they can improvise probably in both cases, but eventually, we will reach that moment to where there's a specific number and Congress has to vote.

Of course, we may see a distinction in the cases there because the vast majority of members of Congress, I think are supportive of Israel and it's right to defend itself now. Whereas Ukraine, I hear pronouncements from the White House that again, they say the vast majority of even Republicans are still supportive of continuing to fund the Ukraine war effort, but I'm not so sure of that. I think you're seeing growing dissent among Republicans now, and again, going back to the Speakership race.

I can't imagine Jim Jordan who's going to be making Ukraine a priority. That is yet another problem there that whoever becomes a Republican speaker, it's going to be tricky, I think, for them to move Ukraine forward.

Brian Lehrer: A listener writes a text message reacting to something you mentioned a couple of minutes ago that I guess the listener didn't know. The question is, "Why is there no ambassador to Israel? Has it been since Biden took office?"

David Smith: Much more recent than that. Actually, the ambassador left in July, I think just reaching the end of his tenure. He's come back, I think, to the United States to work for Wells Fargo Bank. When that happens, a new ambassador is nominated by the White House and confirmed by the Senate. We're just waiting for that process to go through.

The Senate appears that need to be a little less dysfunctional than the House. Indeed, since this crisis broke out, they appear to be accelerating the nomination, the confirmation of the new ambassador. I think there's even a hearing this week, then it'll go to a full floor vote. That certainly should get done.

That said, some other key positions in the Middle East, certainly, I remember Oman and I think a couple of other vital countries there, and then positions of the State Department, the Pentagon and USAID relevant to this are unfilled. I think this is a longer-term deeper problem where fully staffing these embassies has slowed down in recent years due to partisan fights and so on.

I think it's yet another of those issues where you can cruise on autopilots while things are going well in the world. Then when a crisis erupts, suddenly the gaps in diplomacy are exposed.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a phone call. Here's Steven in Vero Beach, Florida. Steven, you're on WNYC with David Smith, Washington Bureau Chief for The Guardian. Hi there.

Steven: Thank you for taking my call. Normally, it's Steven in Harlem. I'm down here in Florida now. Thank you for taking my call. Just wanted to express my feeling that we have to stand against this Jim Jordan. In my opinion, he's every bit an insurrectionist who has defied the congressional- the law all the way down the line. He's in the pocket of this wannabe authoritarian ex-president. We have to stand against him. I don't know how the dysfunction's going to be corrected, but I do feel that we have to stand against, and I'll take whatever opinions you got off the air, and thanks for taking my call. Have a nice day.

Brian Lehrer: Steven, thank you very much. Well, I guess that implies a question of do Democrats have any influence over who the Republicans choose as speaker?

David Smith: They certainly haven't so far, and hence-- Well, I should correct myself. They obviously had huge influence in the sense that Kevin McCarthy was ousted because remember, by far, most Republicans still supported him. Eight rebelled led by Matt Gates, and then every Democrat voted against him. There was some debates at the time. Perhaps Democrats should keep McCarthy in place, better the devil you know, try and cut a deal with him. After all, he did keep the government open.

On the other hand, let's remember Kevin McCarthy, just a few weeks earlier, had launched an impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden on what many would say were entirely bogus grounds. Many Democrats said, "Look, we just can't trust McCarthy." They [unintelligible 00:23:03] ousting him and now, again, if they wanted to, they could have supported Steve Scalise. They could, in theory, now support Jim Jordan. Clearly, they're not going to.

As the caller says, why on earth would they support Jim Jordan when he is so closely allied with Donald Trump and the January 6th insurrection and refused to give testimony to the House January 6th committee. He really is seen as a political arsenist and an anti-Democrat.

I remember well at events in 2021 Jim Jordan being one of the very first Republicans to say, "Donald Trump should be the next president in 2024. Even before Trump had announced he was running, even before it was fashionable, Jordan was a big Trump cheerleader. He really would be putting MAGA in the speaker's chair and that would go against everything Democrats stand for.

I do think from what I read and hear, Hakeem Jeffries and others of the Democrats are trying to make contact to reach, find somebody who's far more bipartisan, far more moderate, whatever that word means these days, perhaps someone who at least believes in democracy, which is setting the bar quite low. We'll have to see how successful that is.

Brian Lehrer: An unbelieving-in-democracy listener texts-- I'm sorry. I find myself in this situation too often lately, and I apologize to my listeners where the texts are coming in faster than I can keep up with them when I start to read one. This one says, "The breaking of institutions and the chaos is their goal. Fascists rely on their overwhelming hope with nihilism Bannon, Roger Stone, Trump, Matt Gaetz."

To what you were just saying, I thought that it's just a non-starter. Hakeem Jeffries was on the show recently, basically saying it's a non-starter to get Democrats to vote in any numbers at all. It would only take a handful, I guess a relative handful for some moderate Republican along with the majority of Republicans who may not be moderate by most Democratic standards, but don't want Jim Jordan, to elect someone else.

For example, as we get a number of inquiries like this via text and on the phone, I'll let one text message stand for those who are calling and writing with this. This says, "House Democrats would rather let chaos and Congress continue for political reasons than do their part in helping elect a moderate House speaker,. Even though they are slightly the minority, they are shirking their duty to do their part so legislation can move forward, including to Ukraine." Do you think there's any meaningful pressure on the Democrats to do what that particular listener wants them to do?

David Smith: Yes, maybe to a degree. Look, if Republicans, because they are in such crisis, had a internal revolution and said, "Okay, here is our most moderate nominee," someone in the Liz Cheney mold. Again, what does moderate mean? I'm giving her as an example. She's obviously not in the House anymore, but someone in that style and she, was ultra conservative on many issues but someone- who even is that? Someone who was widely respected and supposedly in the middle of the road, then I think there probably would be pressure on Democrats to say, "What's your objection now? We really need to get this moving for Israel, Ukraine, and other issues.

Republicans don't seem to be there yet. Remember this is the tail wagging a dog. Matt Gaetz, other extremists are still calling the shots in that party. It's hard to see a democratic-friendly person emerging.

I think a wider point here is in the time I've been covering American politics here, there's that traditional view of Democrats in disarray, which makes my alliteration in a headline. They're the ones who fall in love and who are chaotic, whereas Republicans, supposedly a bit the Conservative Party in the UK, are reputedly the ones who are disciplined and tough. While Democrats fall in love, Republicans fall into line and they're a ruthless machine about winning power.

So far this year, you've seen an absolute role reversal of that. All 15 votes for speaker in January Democrats were united in supporting Hakeem Jeffries. Again, the vote to oust McCarthy, Democrats were completely united. Meanwhile, it's Republicans who are in disarray and just total mayhem as they're at each other's throats over the speakership election and unable to agree on anything.

As has been often discussed, I think at least partly because you have those bomb-throwers like Matt Gaetz and Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert, who no longer have to follow the party structures and rules but can generate lots of fundraising by saying and doing outrageous things and going viral on the social media.

Brian Lehrer: Sounds like David Smith from The Guardian is in need of an alliteration to go with Democrats in Disarray. Help him out. Write a text message and give him an alliteration for the Republicans. That would be the mirror image of Democrats in Disarray. Listeners, you can do it.

Before we take a break and then pivot specifically to Biden administration's shuttle diplomacy in the Middle East, to that last listener's text message suggesting that the Democrats are sitting back and letting this happen for political reasons rather than voting or being willing to vote for some Republican relative moderate to get things moving again, do you have an indication that that's true, that the Democrats are hoping that this comes back to haunt the Republicans, however it resolves, in the 2024 elections in terms of who winds up with the House majority?

David Smith: Yes, more than one thing can be true at the same time. I suspect maybe I'm being optimistic, but democratic leadership genuinely believe that what they're doing is the best thing for the country. Putting someone like Jim Jordan in power would have terrible consequences for all sorts of reasons.

At the same time, sure, there are elections next year. I guess pretty much every politician is is also thinking what is best for our chances and hopefully, that aligns with what is best for the country. Although, that's not necessarily always the case. I think another point that one of the listeners mentioned is on the Republican side, to what extent are they doing this for political reasons? There is a race here in terms of at first glance, you would assume what is going on right now is terrible for Republicans. Next year Democrats will be able to run an election campaign based on we are the party of order and competence. Meanwhile, Republicans couldn't even get their act together to elect a speaker.

On a deeper level, there is also that possible calculation from Matt Gaetz and others that if we throw sand in the gears of democracy and make things stop working, then that's very fertile territory for a demagogue such as Donald Trump to come along and say, look at Washington, look at the swamp, none of it works. I'm going to blow it all up and start again. You need someone like me, only I can fix it.

Never mind that we've done all that once before, they suspect, I think the Steve Bannon philosophy is that that might work again. Just if you feed that public dissatisfaction and discontent with the way Washington works, then you might create an opening for a perceived charismatic demagogue outsider to come along and shake up the system. They hope that would lead to the reelection of Donald Trump.

Brian Lehrer: Our listeners never ones to shrink from a language challenge are donating this to your cause, David, several have suggested on the alliteration watch Conservatives in Chaos. Somebody else writes, "Rambunctious Republicans Ruining Regularity." Another one with one of those same words, "Republicans in Ruin," "Unruly Republicans Wreak Havoc." Let's see. More are coming in here. "Republicans Running Amuck." Did I say that one already? "Rankled Republicans, Rabid Revanchist Republicans." "Republicans in Retrograde." "Ramshackle Republicans." There you go, David, take your pick.

Brian Lehrer: Ramshackle Republicans is very good, and rambunctious, I like. Everyone should keep reading The Guardian to see which ones we feel [unintelligible 00:32:41] use in our headlines and opening paragraphs.

Brian Lehrer: "GOP Goofballs," I guess that's sort of an obliteration. We'll continue in a minute with David Smith, Washington Bureau Chief for The Guardian.

[MUSIC - Marden Hill: Hijack]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. "GOP Gunks up Gov," one more that just came in with David Smith, Washington Bureau, Chief of The Guardian. David, let's go to the Biden administration and its role in the Mid East now. Language is totally in support of Israel, but is Secretary of State Blinken on a multi-country shuttle diplomacy mission to try to accomplish something more complex.

David Smith: Yes. It's been interesting to be in Washington watching the gradual evolution of Joe Biden administration on this. I was in the state dining room at the White House when Biden gave that speech, I think last Tuesday. You could feel the passion, the conviction. People said it was the most powerful speech ever by an American president in support of Israel, and also noted Biden's age. I think he's older than the State of Israel itself. He's from a school of the left that felt very positively about the creation of Israel.

As the week wore on, you did notice the spokesperson for the National Security Council increasingly making the point that there's two million people in Gaza and they had nothing to do with this, and they don't support Hamas, and we don't want to see any loss of innocent life.

Eventually, Biden caught up with that and started saying that himself. I think Biden's frequent phone calls, and Antony Blinken on this multi-country tour, there's a couple of purposes, one of which is to deal with the here and now of aid and yet somehow getting food, water, shelter for people who need it, and trying to open a humanitarian corridor.

Also I think Blinken is working hard to prevent a wider conflagration. That may be Hamas' ultimate goal to make this spread and destabilize the region, get Hezbollah involved in Lebanon and others. I think Blinken probably quite rightly and predictably sees it as his role to try and prevent that happening and calm nerves and be a bit of a safety blanket.

Brian Lehrer: Is Netanyahu listening to the US at all on restraint? Does the US have any leverage?

David Smith: My guess, my assumption is that you heard that very strong rhetoric from Biden about the ironclad relationship and so on in order to give him a bit of leverage behind the scenes. Very publicly, he was ardently pro-Israel, then on private phone calls, he could have a bit of room for maneuver. Whether Netanyahu is listening, despite his previously cricky relationship with Joe Biden, I think water was switched back on in Gaza and the Grand invasion has not started yet. Maybe those are two data points that suggest some calls for restraints are getting through.

I still think potentially this could be extremely grim and could be a humanitarian disaster. It'll be a test of Biden's presidency and America's influence to what extent Israel does heed some of those notes of caution.

Brian Lehrer: Eli in Lakewood, you're on WNYC. Hi Eli. Thank you for calling.

Eli: Yes, I'm an Orthodox Jewish rabbi, and thank you for having me. On the one hand, I have to applaud the president for his strong support of the Jews. On the other hand also, I think that his past weaknesses are really what led to this. Almost as soon as he became president, Palestinians were bombing the Jews thousands of missiles, a few months after he became president. Very unusual, four years of calm in Israel during the Trump years and around the world in general. Putin stayed in his corner and in general around the world, Sudan was peaceful.

The world has chaos all over the place right now, and it's only getting worse. No one sees it getting any better. It's because of the weaknesses of Biden and his administration versus Trump steered down Kim Jong-Un and the world got the message, and Kim Jong-un himself turned over a new leaf. Now instead of making armaments, they were destroying some armaments and producing electricity and the economy. Kim Jong-Un was crying publicly on behalf of his people.

The point is that past weaknesses of the Biden administration, really what led to this, and that's why the Biden administration finally learned its lesson that you have to do like Japan in 1945, a full and unconditional surrender demilitarization. It's almost 80 years. Japan has not acted up. They've been behaving very well for the last 80 years. 2014, Israel could have taken care of everything then. Like cancer, it just metastasizes

Brian Lehrer: What do you think the Biden administration could have done that would have represented strength in this respect and prevented--? I know listeners, many of you're disagreeing with this whole take, but what do you think that Biden administration could have done that could have prevented this? I know there was an article recently that I was going to cite, I have it here in my stack, about Biden not being received well by the Palestinians on a trip there because they felt that he was not doing anything for their aspirations.

Eli: He restored the funding, which a lot of it was going towards terrorism. He embraced Iran in many different ways instead of being tough with them. I suspect that the reason why there was this terrible intelligence failure is because the Palestinians were just so excited that they were giddy about the $6 billion deal that they just impulsively acted. It wasn't something that was properly planned out in advance. Obviously, they were practicing for this for a long time, but there wasn't any specific plan to make any particular attack in place. Then they got very excited. That could definitely play some role. Rhetoric in general plays an important role.

They were always equivocating in the past. Now they're ready to take the gloves off. They are taking the gloves off over here. We've never seen before that such an administration should support the cutting off food for civilians and fuel and electricity, and they're terrified that it's going to happen here. Eight million undocumented came through the southern border. They brought in all kinds of fentanyl. Maybe they brought in weapons, maybe they're terrorists.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, you're relating it to people fleeing Latin America.  Eli, I'm going to leave it there. Thank you very much. We're just about out of time with you, David Smith, Guardian's Washington Bureau Chief. I think we did hear from Eli, what some of the Republican talking points might be in the presidential election next year. We certainly heard from Trump already the other day, as well as some of the other Republican hopefuls, but definitely from Trump that if he had been president, this wouldn't have happened because there would be more strength on the US part. How do you think the Biden administration is responding to that? Of course, we don't know how the situation in the Middle East is going to progress, but how do you see this shaping up as an issue for 2024?

David Smith: What you're saying I hear all the time on the campaign trail with Republicans that Donald Trump presided over peace and prosperity and now with Joe Biden, the world is on fire and chaotic. Like a lot of political arguments, you can cherry-pick evidence to support that.

Certainly, some argued during the Trump presidency that the Nixonian madman theory was applying and that Trump was so volatile and unpredictable that nobody did dare start a war because he's the kind of person who might actually use nuclear weapons, and hence the North Korea warnings of rocket man and so on. Whereas under Biden, there was the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan, and now the Israel problem, which many would say is more to do with Israel's internal weakness and Hamas objecting to making peace with Saudi Arabia, and so on.

I think that's certainly going to be a Republican talking point that Trump and others we'll make. Obviously, the Biden White House will argue forcefully in response that leaders all over the world were horrified by Trump and the notion of America first and the chaos that brought, and Biden has rebuilt alliances and partnerships. If you talk to any European diplomats, they feel much safer in a Joe Biden world. The shining example, of course, they would point to is Ukraine where Biden has played a leading role in rallying Western support against Putin and a war against democracy there on the European border.

Of course, the other question underlying all of this is how much will it really matter in an election campaign. Certainly, the traditional view is that foreign policy does not play a hugely large part. I was interested just last night to watch, I think it was Showtime Channel, the circus that politics show about election campaigns. Donald Trump made unusual and to many people outrageous remarks criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu and describing Hezbollah as smart. Then most of the program was devoted to following the other Republican candidates around getting them to react to what Trump said and express that outrage. I already felt a sense of 2016 deja vu that these campaigns always seem to be about, "Trump has done something outrageous. What do you think about this?" They never get to talk about their own views.

I think probably not for the first time, Trump said what he said, realizing it's not going to cost him many votes among the base, and there's a whole bunch of other people who don't care. I think yet again, he's dominating the agenda that way, and yet again, foreign policy may play some role. As the caller touched on, certainly all the Trump supporters I talked to, if they have a foreign policy concern, it's all about the southern border. I think the Democrats underestimate that issue at peril.

Brian Lehrer: As the caller was arguing at the end of his call, they run back to the same argument, which is that Biden has been too weak. Obviously, Biden has his responses to that, as you've been saying, but here we are. If some people said back when the Soviet Union collapsed, that that was the end of history writ large, here we are with the largest war in Europe since World War II, and the biggest war in Israel between Israel and the Palestinians, arguably since the creation of the State of Israel. We continue to discuss, which is all we can do.

David Smith, Washington Bureau Chief for The Guardian, thank you very much for joining us.

David Smith: Thank you very much.

 

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.