Fareed Zakaria on West Asia conflict, US polls and more: Full interview

Below is an abridged version of Rajdeep Sardesai’s interview with Fareed Zakaria.

Rajdeep Sardesai: It’s been more than a year since the war began on October 7. The bombing seems to be intensifying, and there’s a threat of it spreading to other parts of West Asia. How frightening is the prospect of this escalating conflict?

Fareed Zakaria: We are at a moment of real danger for regional escalation. The focus has shifted from just Israel-Gaza to Israel addressing a broader issue it’s faced for years. For over a decade, Iran has been using proxies — Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthis in Yemen, and militias in Iraq and Syria — to pressure Israel and occasionally Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Israel, rightly or wrongly, has decided to confront this 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’re asking, “Should we strike Iran directly?” This raises the risk of direct confrontation between Israel and Iran, which is a much larger and more complex adversary than its proxies. Iran is a nation of 80 million and a major petroleum exporter.

The real danger is a potential Israel-Iran conflict, which would have global repercussions, 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 is advising Israel to strike in a controlled way — 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 way, leading to a cycle of de-escalation. But there are risks: Israel might not follow this advice, and Iran could perceive any strike as escalatory.

WATCH THE FULL INTERVIEW HERE

Rajdeep Sardesai: Adding to those risks, the Biden administration is seen as weakened politically, with elections approaching. Does that complicate things further?

Fareed Zakaria: It does. The US has leverage only with Israel, and even that is limited, as many in Israel feel the US is already pressuring them too much. The Biden administration is trying to balance its stance, but it’s a difficult time politically. Netanyahu, being a shrewd observer of US politics, likely knows he has a window before the US election to act with more freedom.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Given Netanyahu’s thinking and the dynamics in Israel’s war cabinet, could the next 30 days see further escalation?

Fareed Zakaria: Yes, there’s a real risk of escalation. Netanyahu, along with his war cabinet, feels the need to reestablish deterrence against these constant militia attacks. It’s similar to what India has faced with Pakistan—enduring small-scale attacks but ultimately deciding to strike back.

Rajdeep Sardesai: But striking back disproportionately, as Israel has been criticised for in Gaza, is a different matter. Thousands of innocent civilians have died. Does the global community have any leverage to stop this?

Fareed Zakaria: Not really. Israel has used disproportionate force, and it’s radicalising the population in Gaza and southern Lebanon. This creates ungovernable spaces that will lead to occupation, as we’ve 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. They’re now in a mindset of doing whatever it takes to ensure their neighbours never attempt such attacks again. While it’s understandable emotionally, it’s not strategically wise in the long run. But right now, Israel is not listening to anyone, including the US.

Rajdeep Sardesai: If the conflict expands into an Israel-Iran confrontation, does that inevitably draw the US more directly into the conflict?

Fareed Zakaria: The US will try to stay out, except in providing defensive support to Israel. If Iranian rockets target Israeli cities, the US will help intercept them, but it will avoid direct involvement in offensive actions to prevent further escalation.

Rajdeep Sardesai: So before we come 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: Best case, the Israelis carry out a limited strike on Iranian military facilities, avoiding oil refineries and the nuclear program. The Iranians take it as a de-escalation. They might fire 50 rockets, giving enough warning to ensure they are intercepted. The Israelis then either stop or respond with something minimal. In this scenario, tensions ease.

The worst-case scenario is that Israel strikes Iran’s nuclear facilities or oil refineries. Iran sees this as a major escalation and responds significantly. Oil prices could spike to $200 a barrel or more, triggering global panic. There’s a lot that could go wrong.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Given the low chance of a ceasefire in West Asia before the US election, how do you see it affecting the polls? Is it a significant issue, or is the economy still the main focus for voters?

Fareed Zakaria: The main issues in the US election are domestic—economy, immigration, and cultural topics like abortion and the so-called woke agenda. Foreign policy usually plays a limited role. But the election is very close. There are seven key states, and in each, the candidates are only leading by one or two points, within the margin of error.

While foreign policy doesn’t usually matter, in such a close race, it could. For example, 50,000 voters in Michigan or 25,000 in Pennsylvania could swing the outcome. People forget that in the last election, Biden won the popular vote by millions, but he secured the Electoral College by just 43,000 votes in one state. When margins are that tight, everything matters—including foreign policy.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Jewish American voters traditionally support Democrats, and there are sizable Jewish communities in swing states like Pennsylvania and Georgia. Similarly, Arab American communities in states like Pennsylvania and Michigan are growing. Could the war in West Asia influence preferences between Democrats and Republicans?

Fareed Zakaria: Yes, but I wouldn’t overstate it. Most Jewish Americans live in solidly Democratic states like New York, California, and Illinois, so their vote doesn’t have much impact in swing states. The more significant factor is Arab Americans, particularly in Michigan and Pennsylvania. They could potentially make a difference.

Rajdeep Sardesai: Let me focus on the two contenders for the presidency, Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. How much of a difference will it make to the war in West Asia and world peace, including Ukraine, depending on who becomes the next US President? Will this significantly impact US foreign policy?

Fareed Zakaria: Good question, Rajdeep. On West Asia, I don’t think it will make much difference. The US political system is strongly pro-Israel, regardless of the president. Even Obama, when he tried to pressure Israel on settlements, faced strong congressional opposition. Trump might be more pro-Israel, but with him, it’s always personal. So, not much change there.

For Ukraine, it’s a different story. Trump has a troubling history with Ukraine and a peculiar fondness for Putin. He was even impeached for trying to blackmail President Zelensky by withholding military aid. Harris would likely continue Biden’s strong support for Ukraine, so there, you’ll see a big difference.

The real impact for India would be economic. Trump has promised to impose 10% tariffs on all imports, including from India, which could hurt the Indian economy significantly. Tariffs like that would overshadow everything else.

Rajdeep Sardesai: You seem to suggest 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 he follows through on his tariff promises, it could be devastating for India, especially as it aims to export high-value goods to markets like the US This could even trigger a decoupling from globalization, where countries retaliate with their own tariffs.

The US and China might withstand that because of their large domestic economies, but it would be tough 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 polling gives Kamala Harris a slight edge nationally, and if the swing states follow the polls, she could win narrowly. But the margins are razor-thin—some within 1% or less. Also, 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 to play in West Asia or Ukraine? Or is it better for India to stay on the sidelines?

Fareed Zakaria: India could play a viable and constructive role. Prime Minister Modi has gained significant international stature and, if he chooses, could act as an intermediary, especially in Ukraine. The conflict is frozen, and only a few leaders have credibility with both sides—Erdogan in Turkey and Modi in India.

Modi could propose to mediate between Russia and Ukraine, raising India’s global profile. But it’s a thankless task, as you often end up being blamed for the outcome.

Rajdeep Sardesai: People will take note that you’ve named Erdogan and Modi as the two leaders who could broker peace between Putin and Zelensky.

Fareed Zakaria: Yes, and I’d say Modi even more than Erdogan. This is a great opportunity for Modi to step up as a global statesman. He has the platform, potential, and diplomatic skill, but he would need to get energetically involved and be seen as a truly neutral mediator.

Rajdeep Sardesai: In conclusion, Fareed, do you believe the world is in a more dangerous place than it was a year ago? We briefly referred to October 7, 2023, the Hamas attack. Has that, along with what happened in Ukraine, disrupted the world order? Are we heading toward a more chaotic world with a weakened United States, regardless of who comes to power after November 5?

Fareed Zakaria: The way I see it, Rajdeep, we are facing multiple challenges to the international order established by the United States and the West in 1945, which expanded after the Cold War. There’s a direct attack on this system in Europe, particularly on the values of no aggression, no territorial acquisition by force, and no legitimization of conquest.

In the Middle East, Iran is attempting to disrupt the US-led security arrangement with countries like 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 across 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 uphold it. You’re right that the US remains powerful, but it can no longer maintain the global order on its own. It needs support.