[New Square 2PM] The TV debate for the vice president...Will it be a variable in the race?

■ Host: Lee Se-na, anchor Na Kyung-chul
■ Starring: Min Jeong-hoon, professor of the National Diplomatic Institute,

* The text below may differ from the actual broadcast content, so please check the broadcast for more accurate information. Please specify [YTN New Square 2PM] when quoting.

[Anchor]
Tensions in the Middle East are rising as Iran launches a large-scale ballistic missile attack on Israel.

[Anchor]
Interest is also growing in the impact of the U.S. presidential election, which is five weeks away.

Let's look at the vice president's TV debate that ended a while ago.

Professor Min Jeong-hoon of the National Diplomatic Institute is here. Welcome.

[Anchor]
Let's look at the Middle East situation first. Iran fired a large-scale ballistic missile at Israel. It's been about five months since the air strike on the Israeli mainland in April. This attack, what does it mean?

[Minjeonghun]
I think it was an inevitable attack for Iran. Iran's domestic situation and economy are difficult. The economy is in a difficult situation due to sanctions. Israel's aggressive attacks at a time when the U.S. warns that if it retaliates against Israel, it should be followed by a moderate president in Israel and there is also such a domestic movement in Iran seeking to resume dialogue with the U.S. after the U.S. presidential election. Anyway, haven't Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthi rebels, and key figures in the Revolutionary Guard, the pillars of resistance, been killed? In that regard, we have to do something as the head of the axis of resistance, but we delayed and delayed it, and this time the head was killed in Hezbollah, and the war between moderates and hard-liners intensified in Iran, and we can no longer postpone our actions. I think that this is what I think.

That's why I think it was such a painstaking attack to respond in that respect, but to avoid an all-out war with Israel through a restrained response. So, given that 180 ballistic missiles were fired at three military bases, it would have been easier for the US or Israeli intelligence authorities to detect such movements when preparing ballistic missiles. So, according to media reports, there was no significant damage on the Israeli side because the U.S. intelligence authorities had already detected the move three hours ago and had it delivered to Israel. So if you look at that, I don't know if Israel's influence on the axis of resistance and the forces can be reduced, but I think it was a move to prevent the best expansion for Iran.

[Anchor]
You said it was an inevitable attack from Iran's point of view, but the White House called Iran's missile attack a failure, so was it because it was the kind of restrained attack you mentioned earlier? How do you rate it?

[Minjeonghun]
It's a personal evaluation.Ma would have been relieved on the White House side. If Iran created a justification for attacking the Israeli mainland in various ways, not only military facilities but also civilian areas, it would have been the worst for the Biden administration, which is really trying to prevent an all-out war in the Middle East, but I think Iran could have taken a breather by showing its moderation. I thought it was a failure.Ma thinks that the U.S. has already been able to prepare for Iran's attacks to some extent, and that confidence and relief are also expressed in this area.

[Anchor]
Now Iran has said that it will end its actions without further Israeli provocations, but Netanyahu has warned of retaliation. What is the possibility of an all-out war in the future?

[Minjeonghun]
The possibility of an all-out war cannot be completely ruled out. Anyway, you're saying that Israel's military operation in Lebanon is also a limited ground war. That's a reflection of the concerns that the United States and the major Middle Eastern countries have. Especially because there was strong pressure on the United States to avoid an all-out war, Netanyahu's wartime cabinet took this opportunity to gain an upper hand in the forces involved in the axis of resistance.Nevertheless, Ma thinks that he gave the United States a justification to get out of it by conducting a limited limited war. So anyway, because the mainland was attacked by Iran, Netanyahu's point of view is that, of course, there will be consequences for that, retaliation.I think Ma will also consider the Israeli wartime cabinet on this part.

Because in the case of the U.S. position, other Israel's war expansion, or all-out war, it is actually not easy if Iran's military power or the axis of resistance enters the war at once. We will think about whether it is in Israel's strategic interest to drag it that far when it is unclear whether the U.S. will come in. In fact, because the war has been prolonged too long, there are many people in Israel who feel tired and express dissatisfaction with this part. That's why we have to consider that, so we declared that we would respond because we were attacked, but I'm still thinking about using a strategy that responds to the attacked area or continues to delay it.

This time again, when Iran attacked Israel, more than 180 ballistic missiles flew toward military bases.
So because we've made efforts to reduce civilian damage, we're going to go after military bases outside Iran, or we're going to let information go first. Wouldn't this lead to a limited level of direct engagement with Iran? Now what Iran had to attack is Israel's aggressive actions against the axis of resistance, a military operation. Israel's goal, considering the U.S. and other countries, can lead to concessions from the U.S. on the axis of resistance, such as Israel's direct residents' unrest, the rescue of hostages, and Hamas' defeat, but the full-scale war against Iran is also very burdensome for Israel and it is not easy to draw support from the U.S., so I think Netanyahu would be very concerned and coordinated even if he said so.

[Anchor]
I'm curious about how the Middle East will flow in the future, but I'm also curious about what the U.S. will do then and what kind of response it will take to the future. So do you think you're going to keep pace with Israel?

[Minjeonghun]
I'm sure you'll feel very upset. Now, the Biden administration wants to stop the war as soon as possible and solve the Middle East problem so that it doesn't have much impact on the presidential election, but Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is continuously going his own way. Isn't it that there was no information sharing about the United States in killing the head of Hezbollah? So how embarrassing is it for the United States? Nevertheless, if you look at the strategic interests of the United States in the Middle East, you will have no choice but to fully support Israel. Therefore, this time again, Iran makes a statement of condemnation for attacking Israel, and Harris equally supports Israel's right to self-defense and defense. By saying this, I am once again confirming my position to end the war quickly, so I think I will inevitably condone the limited ground war seen by Israel, but I think I will warn you more strongly about further actions. We have to see how much Netanyahu will hear about that.Ma, anyway, Israel's attacks on the axis of resistance have been somewhat successful, so if you take that into account, the United States officially says it supports Israel, but it also contacts major countries in the Middle East to end Israel's offensive, military operations as quickly as possible and get to the end of the war. I think it will show such a complex behavior.

[Anchor]
You said that the Biden administration would be tired. There are about five weeks left until the U.S. presidential election. Given the past precedents, how much is the impact of these external factors on the US presidential election?

[Minjeonghun]
It's limited. So foreign policy and war are limited in influencing U.S. presidential votes. A typical case was in 2004 that directly affected it. At that time, the United States fought a war against terrorism in the Middle East. They directly entered the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and ground forces were deployed. At the same time, the victims of the U.S. military and the American people came out and it came to the fore. So, if foreign policy or war affects the votes of the U.S. presidential election, it has a limited impact when the U.S. actually puts ground forces into the war, and when the U.S. victims come out of it, and it makes headlines in the media.

But in this case, of course, the Palestinian Americans are dissatisfied and opposed to the Israel-Hamas war.Nevertheless, no American citizens and the American people have been sacrificed by the current fighting between Israel and the Axis forces of Resistance. It is very limited, so it remains to be seen how much Palestinian American complaints will affect votes, especially in contending states.Ma thinks that overall, it will have a pretty limited impact.

[Anchor]
So you're saying it's a limited impact unless there's a direct U.S. intervention.

[Minjeonghun]
Direct intervention and U.S. casualties must come out from there.

[Anchor]
Then, I think that the conflict situation in the Middle East, which is the conflict situation in the current situation, may have a little effect, but it may be a little unfavorable to Vice President Harris, right?

[Minjeonghun]
That's right. It's working negatively. But what I'm saying is that we have to see how directly such negative perceptions will affect votes. Anyway, isn't Vice President Harris the second in the Biden administration? But this Middle East issue, the Israel-Hamas war, started for a very long time in October last year, and the U.S. is facing criticism for not effectively playing the role of an appropriate mediator, or an end to the war, and Trump is not missing this part and making it very aggressive.

In that regard, it will be a painful finger for the Biden administration anyway, and it will also negatively affect the evaluation of Harris.Ma said, "Most voters have already made up their minds, and with some nonpartisan centrist votes left, we have to see how much of this war in the Middle East will affect those votes, and most importantly, we have to see how sensitive Palestinian Americans living in the Rust Belt region of the rival states will react to the situation.

[Anchor]
As you said, I think former President Trump is a good card. How effective can these attacks be in winning votes when the Biden administration is being blamed for failing to prevent this Middle East crisis?

[Minjeonghun]
It remains to be seen how effective it will be in winning new votes, but I personally think it will be a limited impact if we look at the results of past studies.Anyway, in the case of former President Trump, this election campaign frame is an attack on the Biden administration's situation. At its core, an economy like inflation, a southern border crisis, and a weak U.S. appearance in foreign policy. It's this part. In particular, the U.S. has failed to respond properly to the two protracted war in Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war. This will be a very effective way to highlight the Biden administration's situation.

Even if this does not attract new votes, it can have some indirect influence on rallying supporters or highlighting the Biden administration's situation to the non-partisan middle class to make the final decision, so I think it is more likely to actively use it in that respect and continue to highlight the message if the Israel-Hamas war does not continue to escape from difficulty over time.

[Anchor]
Let's move on to the TV debate of the U.S. presidential and vice presidential candidates that ended just now. It was a debate between two vice-presidential candidates, Tim Walz and JD Vance, and I think that the debate between the vice-president has never drawn so much attention, but that's how close Vice President Harris and former President Trump are right now, right?

[Minjeonghun]
The anchor said well, but there are two aspects. The first is an ultra-thin election, so we have about 40 days left now? It's only about 40 days until the presidential election. We don't have any planned campaign events. So after the Democratic candidate was replaced by Harris as the presidential candidate, Harris vs. Trump also had only one TV debate. I thought I could do it once, but it doesn't seem easy. Therefore, the only remaining TV debates were the vice presidential debate, so there must have been more interested in obtaining information. The second is such a close election that I think it is paying attention to all election campaigns and issues.

And especially in the case of Walz and Vance, they're not well-known, so we'll see if they're good at serving the presidential candidate and leading the state administration of the United States for four years. According to the results of the study, it is known that the vice presidential debate has an extremely limited effect on filial piety. However, since it is an extremely close election, if even 0.5% affects it, it is not small in the case of competing states. That's why I'm receiving attention, and I think I had a very careful, in a way, a boring discussion, maybe because of that.

[Anchor]
On the other hand, it is said that the discussion took place for about 90 minutes, so how can you make the general review?

[Minjeonghun]
It's in the press. If I look at it, I think it will be the epitome of a polite two-person debate without a shot. It was very nice, very restrained, and I could clearly see you not making mistakes. This part was the biggest part where I tried to finish well without making mistakes. Above all, since it's a two-factor debate, he plays such an auxiliary role by floating the first-in-command and attacking the other's first-in-command. In a way, it shows the second-in-command who claims to be a villain. In the case of the No. 1 man, he's a presidential candidate, so it's better to refrain from attacking. Candidate Trump is an exception. It was a very nice, calm discussion because he showed restraint, and in the case of the second-in-command, he was at the forefront of the attack, attacked the candidate, actively defended his presidential candidate when his running mate was attacked, and instead showed this typical second-in-command debate that he didn't reveal much. That's what I'm thinking.

[Anchor]
So, there was no mistake, but there was no single shot. As the first topic of the debate, since it happened yesterday, the tension in the Middle East was dealt with, but both candidates seemed to avoid immediate answers.

[Minjeonghun]
That's right. Neither candidate expected the first issue to be a Middle East issue because neither Trump nor Harris can be free from the Middle East. Since the economy and the inter-Korean border crisis are much more important issues, I thought that would be dealt with, but the issue of inter-Korean border issues took place next time.E. As you mentioned, the urgent situation in the Middle East raised the question about it, and I think it showed us that we were blaming each other and then we were blaming each other and then we got out.

[Anchor]
We also had discussions about border security and immigration, and the candidates turned off the microphone for a while? What happened?

[Minjeonghun]
There was a sharp workshop. while criticizing each other So in the case of Vice Presidential candidate Vance, the Harris administration, or Biden and Harris administrations, have done nothing in three and a half years. Therefore, the American people and voters were in trouble because they opened the borders wide and allowed illegal immigrants to enter at will. And the community is in crisis, this is the argument, nothing has been done. On the other hand, this is not the case for candidate Walz. The Biden administration tried to implement an inclusive immigration policy while tightening border controls. And since illegal immigrants are flooding, former President Trump is somewhat responsible for the current border crisis because he sent it to the Federal Assembly to do legislative activities as an alternative, but former President Trump should not pass it. And didn't you say a wall should be built to strengthen border control? Since he criticized that he only set it at 2%, candidate Vance has to defend this part. So, as we keep giving and receiving each other like that, it seems that time goes by and ultimately turns off the microphone.

[Anchor]
Of course, it was natural that the two candidates showed conflicting positions on almost all topics, but this was one of the issues that Vice President Harris is pushing for, and the two candidates showed the same position with the presidential candidates on abortion rights, right?

[Minjeonghun]
That's right. Today's vice presidential candidates' arguments and policy visions have shown their repeated confirmation and advocacy of what is already in the pledge. So even with regard to abortion rights, as you said, abortion rights are a card that the Democratic Party can attack, and in fact, candidate Trump is defensive. Because abortion rights were abolished a few years ago by Supreme Court judges appointed by the Trump administration, and the decision was returned to make the state decide, this has emerged as a very important issue in the 2020 midterm elections and this presidential election. And considering the female votes, Trump cannot strongly express his opposition to abortion rights on this part. So it's a situation where you're very defensive and respect women's right to self-righteousness, and everything will be decided by the state government. I just showed you this part today. Candidate Walz is very strongly, this is a fundamental right for women and supports abortion rights. It's hard for Vance to talk about, while he's pushed hard. Therefore, they cannot say that they oppose abortion rights, but instead, they adopt pro-family policies. That's why I'm going to apply for childcare programs and fertility treatments, and I'm going around like this. I think it has shown that it does not lose women's votes by taking a detour.

[Anchor]
Economic issues can't be left out of the debate. But especially over the tax cut policy, right?

[Minjeonghun]
Economic policy, like other issues, is a field that is very differentiated. In the case of candidate Trump, it is called a typical trickle-down effect. It's a conservative economic policy. It uses economic growth, pro-business policies, so the tax cuts are there. By lowering corporate taxes and reducing the tax burden on companies, companies are more active in economic activities, creating wealth there, and claiming the trickle-down effect that the wealth comes down to workers and the middle class. In this regard, Harris is presenting a different model. That's Bidennomics when there's Biden, and now Harris is talking about the opportunity economy, saying that he will strengthen the middle class by giving all Americans equal opportunities.

So, unlike Trump's side, I'll let the rich pay their fair share of taxes. Through this, we will provide financial resources to support the middle class. Because I'm talking about this, it's a part that completely differentiates me. We had a war of words in that part. Another thing to note is that candidate Vance attacked the Biden administration for three and a half years of failing to control inflation prices. So I've done that, and candidate Walz is in a defensive position here. As it turned out, they were sending out policies to provide various tax benefits for the middle class, showing how they finished it like this.

[Anchor]
We need to continue to see how much the TV debate of the U.S. presidential vice presidential candidate will affect the presidential election.

So far, I have been with Professor Min Jeong-hoon of the National Diplomatic Institute. Thank you.