Below is an abridged version of Rajdeep Sardesai’s interview with Fareed Zakaria.
Rajdeep Sardesai: More than a year has passed since the war began on October 7. The bombing appears to be intensifying and threatens to spread to other parts of West Asia. How frightening is the prospect of this escalating conflict?
Farid Zakaria: We are in a moment of real danger of regional escalation. The focus has shifted from Israel-Gaza to Israel, turning to a broader problem it has faced for years. For more than a decade, Iran has used proxies — Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and militias in Iraq and Syria — to pressure Israel and occasionally Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Israel, rightly or wrongly, decided to face it head on.
Israel’s actions in Lebanon are an attempt to stop the constant rocket fire from Hezbollah in the north and the Houthis from Yemen. They ask, “Should we hit Iran directly?” This raises the risk of a direct confrontation between Israel and Iran, which is a much larger and more sophisticated adversary than its proxies. Iran is a nation of 80 million and a major oil exporter.
The real danger is a potential conflict between Israel and Iran, which would have global implications, especially for oil supplies and possibly drawing in the US.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Is this conflict now inevitable?
Fareed Zakaria: Some level of escalation is inevitable. The Biden administration has advised Israel to strike in a controlled manner — targeting military and intelligence sites, avoiding nuclear and oil infrastructure — to prevent a dangerous escalation. The hope is that Iran will respond in a measured manner, leading to a cycle of de-escalation. But there are risks: Israel may not follow that advice, and Iran may perceive any strike as escalating.
WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW HERE
Rajdeep Sardesai: In addition to these risks, the Biden administration is seen as weakened politically as the election nears. Does this complicate things further?
Fareed Zakaria: That’s right. The US only has influence with Israel, and even that is limited because many in Israel feel that the US is already pushing too hard on them. The Biden administration is trying to balance its position, but politically the moment is difficult. Netanyahu, as a keen observer of American politics, probably knows that there is a window before the US election to operate with more freedom.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Given Netanyahu’s mindset and the dynamics in Israel’s military cabinet, could the next 30 days see further escalation?
Farid Zakaria: Yes, there is a real risk of escalation. Netanyahu, along with his military cabinet, feels the need to restore deterrence against these constant militia attacks. It’s similar to what India faced with Pakistan – enduring small attacks but eventually deciding to strike back.
Rajdeep Sardesai: But the disproportionate retaliation that Israel has been criticized for in Gaza is a different matter. Thousands of innocent civilians have died. Does the global community have any leverage to stop this?
Farid Zakaria: Not really. Israel has used disproportionate force and radicalized the population in Gaza and southern Lebanon. This creates ungovernable spaces that will lead to occupation as we have seen before. Israel will likely have to reoccupy Gaza and parts of Lebanon, which are no-win situations.
October 7 was an existential moment for Israel. Now they are determined to do whatever it takes to ensure their neighbors never attempt such attacks again. While understandable emotionally, it is not strategically wise in the long run. But right now, Israel is not listening to anyone, including the US.
Rajdeep Sardesai: If the conflict escalates into a confrontation between Israel and Iran, does that inevitably draw the US more directly into the conflict?
Fareed Zakaria: The US will try to stay out, except in providing defense support to Israel. If Iranian missiles are aimed at Israeli cities, the U.S. will help intercept them, but avoid direct involvement in offensive actions to prevent further escalation.
Rajdeep Sardesai: So before we get to the US presidential election, what do you see as the best and worst case scenarios in West Asia over the next month or two?
Fareed Zakaria: At best, the Israelis make a limited strike on Iranian military facilities, avoiding oil refineries and the nuclear program. The Iranians take it as de-escalation. They can fire 50 missiles, giving enough warning to ensure they are intercepted. Then the Israelis either stop or respond with something minimal. In this scenario, the tension decreases.
The worst case scenario is that Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities or oil refineries. Iran sees this as a major escalation and has reacted significantly. Oil prices could soar to $200 a barrel or more, triggering global panic. There are many things that can go wrong.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Given the low chance of a ceasefire in West Asia ahead of the US election, how do you see this playing out in the polls? Is it an important issue, or is the economy still the primary focus for voters?
Fareed Zakaria: The main issues in the US election are the domestic economy, immigration and cultural issues such as abortion and the so-called awakening agenda. Foreign policy usually plays a limited role. But the election is very close. There are seven key states, and in each the candidates lead by just one or two points, within the margin of error.
While foreign policy doesn’t usually matter, in such a contested race, it might. For example, 50,000 voters in Michigan or 25,000 in Pennsylvania could change the outcome. People forget that in the last election, Biden won the votes of millions, but secured the Electoral College by only 43,000 votes in one state. When the margins are this tight, everything matters – including foreign policy.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Jewish American voters have traditionally supported Democrats, and there are significant Jewish communities in states like Pennsylvania and Georgia. Likewise, Arab American communities in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan are growing. Could the war in West Asia affect the preferences between Democrats and Republicans?
Farid Zakaria: Yes, but I wouldn’t exaggerate it. Most American Jews live in solidly Democratic states like New York, California, and Illinois, so their vote doesn’t carry much sway in swing states. The more important factor is Arab Americans, especially in Michigan and Pennsylvania. They could potentially make a difference.
Rajdeep Sardesai: Let me focus on the two presidential contenders, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. What will be the difference in West Asian war and world peace, including Ukraine, depending on who becomes the next US president? Will this significantly affect US foreign policy?
Fareed Zakaria: Good question, Rajdeep. For West Asia, I don’t think there will be much difference. The US political system is strongly pro-Israel, regardless of the president. Even Obama, when he tried to pressure Israel for settlements, faced strong opposition in Congress. Trump may be more pro-Israel, but with him it’s always personal. So not much change there.
For Ukraine it is a different story. Trump has a troubling history with Ukraine and a particular fondness for Putin. He was even impeached for trying to blackmail President Zelensky by refusing military aid. Harris is likely to continue Biden’s strong support for Ukraine, so you’ll see a big difference there.
The real impact for India would be economic. Trump has promised to impose a 10% tariff on all imports, including from India, which could significantly hurt the Indian economy. Tariffs like this would eclipse everything else.
Rajdeep Sardesai: You seem to suggest that a Harris administration might be more favorable to India than a Trump administration.
Fareed Zakaria: The challenge with Trump is you never know if he means what he says. His entire career has been built on misleading people, even as president. He made thousands of false statements. If it follows through on its tariff promises, it could be disastrous for India, especially as it seeks to export high-value goods to markets such as the US. It could even cause a break from globalization, where countries retaliate with their own tariffs.
The US and China can withstand this because of their large domestic economies, but it will be difficult for the rest of the world.
Rajdeep Sardesai: If you were a betting man, who would you say has the edge in this US presidential race?
Fareed Zakaria: The poll gives Kamala Harris a slight lead nationally, and if the swing states follow the polls, she could win by a bit. But margins are razor thin – some within 1% or less. Additionally, Trump has historically outperformed the polls, largely due to the “shy Trump voter” similar to the “shy anti-Modi voter” in India.
Rajdeep Sardesai: In conclusion, do you think India has any role in West Asia or Ukraine? Or is India better off staying out?
Fareed Zakaria: India can play a viable and constructive role. Prime Minister Modi has gained considerable international clout and, if he chooses, can act as a mediator, particularly in Ukraine. The conflict is frozen and only a few leaders are trusted by both sides – Erdogan in Turkey and Modi in India.
Modi could offer to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, boosting India’s global clout. But this is a thankless task as you often end up being blamed for the outcome.
Rajdeep Sardesai: People will notice that you named Erdogan and Modi as the two leaders who could bring peace between Putin and Zelensky.
Farid Zakaria: Yes, and I would say Modi even more than Erdogan. This is a great opportunity for Modi to emerge as a world statesman. He has the platform, the potential and the diplomatic skills, but he will have to step in vigorously and be seen as a truly neutral mediator.
Rajdeep Sardesai: In closing, Farid, do you believe the world is in a more dangerous place than it was a year ago? We briefly mentioned October 7, 2023, the Hamas attack. Did this, along with what happened in Ukraine, upset the world order? Are we headed for a more chaotic world with a weakened United States, regardless of who comes to power after November 5?
Farid Zakaria: In my view, Rajdeep, we are facing multiple challenges to the international order established by the United States and the West in 1945, which has expanded since the Cold War. There is a direct attack on this system in Europe, especially on the values of non-aggression, no territorial acquisition by force and no legitimization of conquests.
In the Middle East, Iran is trying to disrupt the US-led security agreement with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Israel and Egypt. Meanwhile, in East Asia, China is quietly working to replace the US as the dominant regional power. So we see these challenges in Europe, East Asia and the Middle East.
The real question is whether the US and other nations that benefit from this order, including India, will come together to maintain it. You are right that the US remains powerful but can no longer maintain global order alone. He needs support.
