PDB Situation Report | June 21st, 2025: Does Israel Really Need U.S. Involvement In Iran? & The Islamic Regime Teeters
01:06:55 Share

The NBA playoffs are here, and I'm getting my bets in on FanDuel. Talk to me, Chuck GPT. What do you know? All sorts of interesting stuff. Even Charles Barkley's greatest fear. Hey, nobody needs to know that. New customers bet $5 to get 200 in bonus bets if you win. FanDuel, America's number one sportsbook.

21 plus and present in Virginia. Must be first online real money wager. $5 deposit required. Bonus issued is non-withdrawable bonus bets that expire seven days after receipt. Restrictions apply. See full terms at fanduel.com slash sportsbook. Gambling problem? Call 1-800-GAMBLER. Welcome to the PDB Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker. Your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right.

Let's get briefed. We'll start things off with the latest from the Israel-Iran war. Israeli jets still control the skies over Tehran, and Iran's leaders, well, they're vowing to fight to the end. We'll get perspective from retired IDF Major General Yaakov Amadour. Later in the show, regime change in Iran may no longer be a hypothetical. With the mullahs on the ropes, could the people finally bring 45 years of Islamic rule to an end?

Former Senator Robert Torricelli weighs in. But first, today's Situation Report Spotlight.

It's been just over a week since Israel launched its campaign against Iran, and at this point, Israel controls the skies. Iran's nuclear facilities, missile launch platforms, and top military leaders have all come under sustained attack. In response, Iran is firing off smaller and less effective barrages, many now hitting civilian areas, including a hospital on Wednesday.

So how has Israel pulled this off? And how long can the operation continue? Joining me now is retired IDF Major General Yaakov Amadour. He's a distinguished fellow at the Jemundar Center for Defense and Strategy, and he previously served as Israel's National Security Advisor. Sir, thank you very much for taking the time to join us here on The Situation Report. Thank you for having me. If we may, I'd like to start with a

A fairly broad question here at the 30,000 foot level. And that would be, what, from your perspective, what is the goal here? Is the goal the destruction of the Iranian nuclear program or is the goal regime change? The goal is to destroy the ability of Iran to produce military nuclear capability.

We don't want to have Iran with a bomb. We will do whatever is needed to prevent Iran from having this bomb. The second issue, which was important for us, is about the missiles that they are launching. They launched more than 450 heavy missiles into Israel.

And we see the damage of each missile when it hit Tel Aviv or Haifa or Be'er Sheva. The Iranians set a plan to produce 10,000 missiles like that, and even bigger than those. And we are determined to destroy the whole infrastructure that they have and not let them to build more missiles in the future.

These are the two goals of the war. Nothing more than that. Of course, on side effect of it, we had to destroy the air defense system of Iran. So we will have the ability to control the skies. So we did it.

we had to minimize their ability to launch missiles into Israel. So we are killing many launchers and we are destroying many storages of missiles inside Iran. But this is only because our homeland is getting the missiles and that is limiting our time. So these are not the goals. The goals are very clear.

I must admit that the regime afterwards will be weaker, no question. But we cannot impose a regime in Iran. The Iranians will have to make the decision of whom they might want to be their rulers in the future. The regime will be weaker, but we cannot make the change. The change should be done by the Iranians. If we look at the issue of the nuclear program, the destruction of the nuclear program,

In your estimation, can that be done without the involvement of the US? There is one installation that we don't know to do as good as the American. It's the FODO installation. We don't have the mother for bone. We don't have the ability to carry it. It's Americans can do it with B-52 and B-2.

And if we want that to be destroyed, totally destroyed, that should be done by the Americans. We can damage to the place. We can block the entrances, for example. We can destroy the installations around, but we cannot destroy completely as the Americans probably can with their capabilities. It is very specific target.

All the other parts of the world can be done without involvement of the Americans. One remark, the Americans involved very much, and we thank America for that, in our defensive

In our defensive efforts, there are two batteries of TAD in Israel integrated to our Aero 2 and 3 systems, and together they are intercepting the coming missile. The Aero 25, 30% of what was intercepted was done by American soldiers. But in the tank side of the war, we made the whole war with American-made technology.

Last time that I checked, all the airplanes which flew from Israel to Iran and back were American-made. So it's American involvement. It's by technology, all the munitions that we are buying in America, spare parts which we are getting probably while sharing information. But the war itself is conducted by Israelis, only Israelis. Americans are helping in the defensive side.

When we talk about the defenses, it appears as if the rate, the success rate of intercepts has dropped, has gone down. I've seen some reports talking from 90% to somewhere in the 65% range. What accounts for that problem? No, the statistics is different. People are combining and making predictions

We tried to understand based on the information that we had about Iron Dome. Iron Dome success was between 90% to 95%. We never said that that would be the success of the arrow. We are speaking here about intercepting ballistic missiles. It's totally different challenge. And the launch into Israel, till yesterday, around 400.

And the success of the deception was around 80%. And that is within our expectations. We didn't have expectation for more than 80% relating to the arrow drawn versus to the arrow two and three versus against the ballistic missiles. Yeah.

Don't compare between the missiles coming from 100 kilometer to the missiles coming from 1500 kilometer. I mean, it's much more complicated, much more problematic. No, that makes sense. Absolutely. But let me ask this. The success that you've had in destroying the missile stockpiles and the ability to build more on the Iranian side,

That could account for, obviously, it does account for their inability going forward to launch the large-scale barrages that I think was part of their early strategy. But on the Israeli side, is there any issue in terms of shortages of interceptors, particularly for the aero system? Up till now, we made the calculation in the past, taking into account the long war.

We understood that with Iran, it's not going to be a short one. And we have kind of calculation how much should we use in every state of the world. Now, we didn't go outside the calculation that we had. Okay. And I know this is a tough question. You may not necessarily want to go into any detail on it.

When looking at the success of the strikes that you've had so far, how good is the intelligence? How good are the damage assessments? And how confident can you be in understanding both how much damage has actually been done to the nuclear program infrastructure and also in terms of just targeting launchers, missile stockpiles, that sort of thing?

In such an event, there is a competition between the efforts to get more intelligence about more targets, new targets, and the BDA. Because at the end, you have limited sources and you have to allocate. And in Israel, according to our DNA, I'm sure,

that we are allocating more for new targets than for the BDA. Okay, the BDA will wait and learn slowly, whatever. And if we will have to do something else to complete something that was not good enough during the bus, but if you ask me where the intelligence is putting more efforts now, it's not about the BDA, it's about new targets.

But we had a pretty good intelligence about the BDA, because if you destroy something completely, you see it burning, and you know how many missiles were in there, you can take out all the missiles, and so on and so forth. So we have apparently good BDA, not complete BDA, it was take time, because we prefer to put our resources in reducing new targets.

General, if you would stay right where you are. I apologize, but we've got to take a quick break and then we'll be right back. I've got a long list of additional questions to ask you. We'll be right back with General Amador and more on the situation report. Stick around.

Hey, Mike Baker here. I want to take just a little bit of your time to talk about your online security, right? Now look, going online without ExpressVPN, well, it's like leaving your blinds open at night. Ooh, that sounds creepy. You wouldn't do it, right? Anyone can watch what you're doing and you have no idea who might be out there lurking in the dark. Now ExpressVPN, well, they reroute 100% of your traffic through secure encrypted servers. So your ISP can't see your browsing history.

Look, because all your traffic flows through their servers, internet service providers know every single website you visit. And did you know, in the US, ISPs are legally allowed to sell that information to advertisers. Seriously. ExpressVPN works on all your devices and this is important, it's easy to use. Just fire up the app and click one button to get protected today.

Protect your online privacy today by visiting ExpressVPN.com slash Baker. That's B-A-K-E-R. That's ExpressVPN.com slash Baker to find out how you can get up to four extra free months. ExpressVPN.com slash Baker.

Fourth of July savings are here at the Home Depot, so it's time to get your grilling on. Pick up the Traeger Pro Series 22-Pellet Grill & Smoker, now on special buy for $389, was $549. Smoke a rack of ribs or bacon apple pie, this grill is versatile enough to do it all. This summer, no matter how you like your steaks, your barbecues are guaranteed to be well done. Celebrate Fourth of July with fast, free delivery on select grills right now at the Home Depot. It's up to availability.

This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. Between two-factor authentication, strong passwords, and a VPN, you try to be in control of how your info is protected. But many other places also have it, and they might not be as careful. That's why LifeLock monitors hundreds of millions of data points a second for threats. If your identity is stolen, they'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com slash podcast for 40% off. Terms apply.

Welcome back to the Situation Report. Joining me once again is retired IDF Major General Yaakov Amador. General, thank you very much for sticking around. We were talking in the last segment about the issue of quality of intelligence, the ability to have confidence in damage assessments as you're working through the various operations. And one question I wanted to throw your way is when it comes to

U.S. involvement. It's top of mind, obviously, in the U.S., and this seems to be a cottage industry of trying to guess what President Trump may do in terms of jumping into this conflict.

To what degree do those damage assessments play a role? Because I'm wondering, I guess, and I know this is somewhat speculation, but I'm wondering, you know, if perhaps the White House is waiting for those damage assessments to understand whether, in fact, their assistance is actually needed. It's clear that the system is needed for one purpose at least.

And the one purpose is very clear. It's the destroying of Mordor installation. Israel cannot do it with our...

present capabilities within the Air Force. I'm sure that now in Israel somewhere, smart people are sitting and try to think, what can we do without the rockets? I'm not sure that they will find a good solution, but it is the only point in which we need active support of the Americans in the offensive side of the war. Theoretically, 4B2 can come,

do what they need to do, going back to Diego Garcia, and it's the end of the environment of the American Indian War, theoretically. For sure, when you come in, you don't know how it will be ended. I know all the stories, but theoretically, this is what's needed. And I don't think that the BDA is the issue here. I think that the Americans have good information about what we succeeded to do and what we want to do in the future, and they have what

a good impression it's not good picture impression of the of the success of israel and what was destroyed in what will be support and destroyed in the future let's if i could i want to shift just slightly uh and and this is kind of where we fall into the realm of speculation and i apologize for for going in that direction but we talked just briefly about regime change the idea that yes

The regime will certainly, certainly be weakened as a result of what's been taking place. But ultimately, as you pointed out, it's up to the Iranian people as to what happens. From a speculative point of view, what could that look like from your perspective? What might come in behind this regime? It very much depends on what will happen to the regime.

It might be that this regime will remain because the regime is very strong and very cruel and ready to take measures against any kind of opposition which might emerge in the street of Tehran. And on the other side, there is no opposition as such. I mean, there is no any organization you can call this is the opposition. There is no group of people you can say these are the leaders of the opposition. So when the regime is ready to take very hard measures,

On the other side, there is not any organized opposition, unless the mass of the people are running to the palace and kill the king. Other than that, the regime can continue. So this is an option which is a very realistic one. But from our point of view, regime without nuclear capability and without missiles that can reach Israel,

It's not a regime that we are going to fight with. I mean, we don't have any claim to the Iranians. We don't want to be destroyed by Iran, and this is why we went to war. But if this regime remains, but without nuclear capability and missiles, it's the business of the Iranian people to deal with the regime, not ours.

Yeah, that kind of falls under the category of, I suppose, in a way, not to put this, and I don't mean to be glib, but be careful what you wish for, I suppose, because we have recent cases. I agree with you. Don't try to do too much because you'll find yourself in too much. Looking at the operations so far, how important has it been and why to be targeting military and IRGC leadership?

On our point of view, it is part of the military plan to make the decision-making process much more problematic for the rulers of Iran. We went to a war in which we wanted to be sure that we can reach the targets, that we can reach the goal of this destruction of the nuclear capability in the missiles, and we wanted it to be

not impossible, but much more complicated for the decision makers to make the decisions. What to launch, when to launch, where to move the anti-air missiles, where to move the facilities which are very sensitive and so on and so forth. So from our point of view, decapitating of the

Military leadership was very important part of the military plan, not connected at all to regime change. They are not the regime. The regime is Khamenei and then to Russia around it.

and he was self is not so important. It's not a terror organization. That you kill Masarala and people don't know what to do. This is a strong establishment with many people with deep state behind it. It is not going to change if you take the leader, but if you take all the medium decision makers, the chief of staff, the head of the intelligence, so and so forth,

You made the whole process of understanding what is the situation, how to react, very problematic for them. Which is more important to the regime? Is it Khamenei and the mullahs, or is it the IRGC? If the IRGC disappearing, it's the end of this Iran. Iran will remain its state, but this Iran, Iran of the mullahs, will not survive.

is one of the worlds. The ILGC is the basis of all the worlds. So it is very important. Not important. This is the, if you ask for the regime, what is the center of gravity? The ILGC.

Yeah, my understanding is, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if they have their, meaning the Revolutionary Guard Corps, they've got their tentacles in every aspect of Iran. The economy, the government, the media. Yes, you are right. They are, as I said, they are the basics. They are everywhere, and they have the responsibility to keep the regime going on.

and to make sure that no one will revolt. And we cannot eliminate the ILGC, it's a huge body. But if you ask theoretically, what is the basis for the stability of the regime and the ability of the regime to survive? It's the ILGC. How would you describe the...

This is going to sound odd, but how would you describe the management style or structure of the IRGC? And what I mean by that is, is it effectively a top-down where the generals are unquestioned, they're the leaders, and then below that, nobody really has decision-making authority, they're not given flexibility or responsibility, or is it more diffused than that and they push down decision-making to lower levels?

No, they don't push the decision making to the lower levels, but they push the implementation to the lower levels. After having the policy, the lower level can act and probably if they achieve it, the goal ahead within the frame, no one interested. Again, shifting gears a little bit, going back inside Israel. From your perspective, what's the mood of the people like right now in Israel as it relates to this conflict?

I think that from the beginning of this part of the war, remember we are in a long war since the 7th of October, almost a year and a half ago, more than Israel. But I think that the decision to go to Iran was accepted as a very legitimate act. You hear very few voices against it. The feeling of most of the Israelis is that

The whole war cannot be ended without taking care for the head of the state. Everyone understand that we fought Hamas. Hamas is the result of the efforts of the Iranians. We fought Hezbollah. Everyone understand that this is an organization which has been established by the Iranians, financed by the Iranians. All the work consistent came from Iran and Syria, and Syria was kind of state controlled by the Iranians.

So, I think that the feeling here in Israel that it would be impossible or not logic to make the law without ending it, taking care for the head of the snake. Is there any likelihood? I know what their public comments have been, but is there any likelihood that a ceasefire could exist

and a peace proposal of some sort could exist in which the Iranians are still allowed to enrich uranium? From our point of view, the answer is very strong, clear no. And I hope that the Americans will not do the same mistake again. The bad agreement which was achieved by the Obama administration was, from our point of view, a very bad one.

And I hope that the administration will not make the same mistake. Again, I know this is a tough one to answer, I suspect. But when you look at the last agreement, the 2015 agreement, and part of that was the idea that, okay, well, we've got trust, but verify, we'll have inspectors on the ground. From your perspective, if we put a percentage on it,

To what degree was there transparency in that deal? The problem is that the team was not the monitoring system, in spite of the fact that the weapons system was not under monitoring at all. It was not part of the agreement. And missiles hadn't been part of the agreement. It was just enrichment. And the enrichment part, the Iranians were smart enough.

They didn't cheat about the enrichment. They prepared the next generation of the ability to enrich.

which is more problematic. New, modern, such footage has been produced and they learn how to do better and then to accelerate the timetable of the enrichment because the agreement gave them the ability to make research about new generation of, and at the end of the day, they ended with new, certain footage that could make the job much easier for them.

So, and remember that the agreement was very limited in time. This year, 26, supposed to be the last day of the agreement. So, for all of our athletes, it was a very bad agreement because it gave the Iranians the ability to enhance their capabilities without enriching. And in 26, to end the agreement at all and to have all the legitimacy to produce...

So, I saw that it's very bad agreement. By the way, when the grant was exposed to the media and the people, Susan Rice, my counterpart, gave a speech in APAC convention. She didn't say it's a good agreement. She said it's the best that could be achieved. And I told her.

Your best is not enough, but I think that even that was not the real story. The Americans had very good cards. The negotiators missed the opportunity. They could achieve a better agreement. So I believe, I hope, I pray that this research will not make the same mistakes again. One last question, General, if I could.

The question of the timing of the conflict when you started this operation against Iran,

Why that timing? Did you, again, I know this is tough to answer, but was there specific intelligence that was acquired that said, now we have to move? Was it a matter of you've weakened the proxy network to such a degree that there was just an opportunity, it was a unique opportunity? What accounted for the timing of this?

I think it's a combination. It's the perfect storm from the positive side. We understood immediately after the 7th of October that we have an opportunity here to get rid of the proxies. If we do it one by one, we don't fight all of them together. We are going on Hamas, then we are going on Hezbollah, then the collapse of the regime in Syria gave us a huge opportunity.

That was the end of the ability of the Iranians to rebuild the Hezbollah, and they lost the ability to influence the Middle East. What King Abd al-Jodhun called the Shiite crescent disappeared. That was the opportunity. Then there was the timetable of the Iranians. The Iranians decided, and we had very good intelligence about it, to escalate

to the whole process within the weaponization system, the group that they had. It was done very secretly because they understood that this is the only element that if they finish, it's the end of the story. We cannot stop the process anymore. And we understood that we might miss it because if they continue with the same process,

way that they decided to do, well, there is actually time to stop it. And the decision to accelerate the preparations for producing thousands of thousands of missiles. They have in mind that, oh, 10,000 missiles within two and a half years. We understood that both are very close to a situation in which tomorrow it will be too late.

and the combination between the new opportunity based on our achievements in the war, and understanding that tomorrow might be too late, brought us to this period. The day itself was the day 61 from the declaration of the president of the United States of America that Iranians have 60 days to reach an agreement. We waited the whole 60 days, risking our agents in Iran that could be exposed.

And the result was the day that we decided that it is after the timetable that the Americans and the Iranians had, according to America, to achieve an agreement. It's not we which said 60 days. The president said 60 days. And nothing is moving on. The Iranians are planning to have more time to continue with their nuclear and missile project. The Americans understood that the Iranians are playing with that.

So that was the result. The day was picked because it was the 61 days after the declaration of the president. The decision, the principle of the decision was because it was almost too late and the opportunity was there.

And don't forget that having more open administration in Washington is also a factor in our decisions.

Yes. Listen, General, unfortunately, we've run out of time because I've got a number of questions left for you. I can only hope that when we call you again that you'll agree to come on back because we appreciate all your experience, your insight, your comments. Thank you, General Yakov Amador, former National Security Advisor for Israel. Again, thank you very much for stopping by and sharing your experience.

All right. Coming up after the break, as Israel strikes battered Tehran and the regime reels, well, many are asking, will Iran's people take back their country? We just had a little bit of that conversation. We'll get perspective from former New Jersey Senator Robert Torricelli. Stick around.

This episode is brought to you by Avid Reader Press. Legendary investor Ray Dalio's new book, How Countries Go Broke, The Big Cycle, explains the mechanics behind big debt crises. Larry Summers says Dalio's brilliant iconoclastic approach is an invaluable resource. And Hank Paulson says it provides a solution to what is the biggest and most certain threat to our prosperity. Read it to understand the greatest economic issue of our time. Available now wherever books are sold.

You know that one friend who somehow knows everything about money? Yeah, now imagine they live in your phone. Say hey to Experian, your big financial friend. It's the app that helps you check your FICO score, find ways to save, and basically feel like a financial genius. And guess what? It's totally free. So go on, download the Experian app. Trust me, having a BFF like this is a total game changer.

Hi, this is Joe from Vanta. In today's digital world, compliance regulations are changing constantly, and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and stay secure with the most advanced AI, automation, and continuous monitoring out there. So whether you're a startup going for your first SOC 2 or ISO 27001, or a growing enterprise managing vendor RIST, Vanta makes it quick, easy, and scalable. And I'm not just saying that because I work here. Get started at Vanta.com.

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report.

As Israel's campaign grinds on, one question is gaining urgency. What happens if the Islamic regime in Iran collapses? While the mullahs still cling to power, their grip is weakening. Decades of repression, economic ruin, and international isolation have left many Iranians disillusioned. But if the regime falls, who fills the vacuum? And how should the U.S. and its allies respond? That's another good question you've asked.

Joining me now is former U.S. Senator Bob Turaselli. He's a longtime advocate for reform in Iran and remains closely engaged with opposition voices and exiled leaders watching events unfold. Sir, thank you very much for taking the time out on the situation. Thank you for having me. I've actually looked forward to it.

Excellent. Well, hopefully you feel that same way after we finish talking. Let's start from sort of the top line view. Give me your perspective on what's happening right now with the Israel-Iran conflict.

Mike, let me also make clear from the beginning, although I've spent most of my adult life in the United States government, since leaving the government, although I'm a private citizen, I've stayed involved in this issue by a consultant to the opposition in Iran, those who would like to replace the Ayatollahs. So I want your audience to be engaged.

clear that while my views are always the interest of the United States, I've interpreted that interest also involved regime change in Iran. I want to be completely forthcoming with you. I think the Israelis may have started with

a limited objective that was to compromise the purification of uranium, plutonium, by the Iranians. It quickly expanded to also destroying their ability to make ballistic missiles. But now we're on the verge of something broader, and that is

building upon the enormous economic pressure and the political stability and the isolation of the Iranian government, we're entering into that phase of regime change. That is where we could solve these problems permanently by eliminating the Ayatollah and or the government. That obviously is a prescription to solve a much bigger problem, but also much, much more complicated problems.

It's interesting because Netanyahu and others on the Israeli side have been

I think relatively clear that, you know, their objectives are to go after and to decimate the nuclear program to, you know, ensure they can no longer fire ballistic missiles into Israel. But they've also been clear that, you know, regime change as an objective is not on their plate. But that, you know, should conditions allow for it, then that's up to the Iranian people. We've become very close to that policy morphing into something different.

and that is that as Iran gets more destabilized, and you're not starting from scratch. There's enormous resistance to the Iranian government within Iran. You've seen this in street demonstrations that have come up three times in the last 15 years that have come very close to, I think, threatening the regime. The question now is you never know with a society, and it's very hard to judge from the outside,

When you destroy its military capability, when you do economic damage, when a foreign power attacks, this can swing two ways. It can consolidate the population behind the regime, as I think would happen in the United States if someone attacked us, or it can further destabilize it, where people realizing they're paying an enormous price for the actions of an illegitimate government and seek its overthrow.

We've gotten this wrong as much as we've gotten it right in the United States and trying to figure that out. Generally, you don't get it right from abroad. My own view, knowing the expatriate community and watching Iran, I think it's a powder keg. I think with a push, with a push, the Iranian people could take this into their own hands.

Let me ask you this. I've talked to a number of Iranians who have said, look, the people, not the regime, but the people, they don't have a problem with Israel, right? That's not an issue. There's almost more of a problem between the Persians and the Arabs in a way. But at the same time, you know, you don't tend to...

rise up and protest and overthrow a regime when you're being bombed, right? And so there's, I think, I get the sense when talking to some Iranians that they're very conflicted here. You know, no matter how awful your leader is, you tend to rally around them when you're getting attacked from afar.

Nevertheless, looking at, as I tend to, American interests exclusively, the interest of the United States, despite what our government has said in recent years, is for this government to be overthrown. I know we've made that mistake before. We've tried regime change in places where we couldn't, we shouldn't, we did, and it backfired. I accept all that. We've made a lot of mistakes in this arena.

In this case, I want your audience to remember, these are the people who took the hostages in 1980. These are the people who planted IEDs all over Iraq that took the arms, lives, and legs of hundreds and thousands of American soldiers. These are the people who have funded Hezbollah and Hamas. This is not a regime that had a bad policy for a while. I don't say this lightly. They are the face of evil on Earth.

And the Israeli bombing campaign may rid them of the ability to purify fuel and to build an atomic weapon. That may succeed. But ultimately, the only way to get stability in the region and the nuclear threat is to eliminate this regime.

If the Israelis can do it, more power to them. I think it's going to take more than the capabilities of Israel. The seeds of that revolution are on the streets of the cities of Iran. I'd point you to the last three major disruptions that you've seen in Iran. People clearly are ready, given a push. The problem in the American government, in my opinion, is we've come to the view that there's no alternative.

And this is probably influenced by what happened in Iraq, that if you take out Saddam Hussein, it's chaos. There's no one else. Iran is not Iraq.

It is a large country. It has institutions. It has a middle class. It has a professional class. It has educational institutions. I think there's much more reason to believe that if the Ayatollahs were gone, you could get an internal revolution. And I say this just as you just said, you talked to Iranians in America.

there's a strong diaspora community, a wealthy diaspora community, an educated diaspora community, very dedicated to rebuilding the country, hopefully with a democratic government. And in my case, where I'm close to the MEK,

Probably the leading group of the diaspora. They're almost a shadow government. They have people who, as part of a coalition or by themselves, could govern Iran tomorrow if they could get past the Revolutionary Guards and the Ayatollahs.

So let's talk just a minute. I know that a lot of this is speculation, right? I mean, and that's true. And also, before I forget, I appreciate you. I'm glad that you mentioned all the blood that's on the current Iranian regime's hands from their activities in Iraq. Yeah.

I don't think a lot of people understand just how many lives were lost or damaged, injured. When you see an injured American veteran without an arm or a leg, you think Iran. That's where those IEDs came from. Yeah. Again, I don't think it's really understood by the general population. They think of Iran as something outside of any concern that the U.S. may have had in the past. But let me ask you this, if I could. Yeah.

The IRGC, they've got their hands in everything. They're in all aspects of Iran. And what's the... And again, I know this is speculation, sir, but what's the likelihood that whenever it comes in behind this regime, should there be change? What's the likelihood that the IRGC is going to be somehow not involved? I mean, I have a hard time imagining them giving up their grasp of power. I don't think they give it up. I think...

The best analogy to see the IRGC is the Nazi Gestapo. It is an army within an army. It is an army within the regime designed not to protect from foreign enemies, but to protect the regime from the people. And kind of like a Gestapo, they own means of production, they own real estate.

they are a part of the economy, they're a nation within the nation. They will not give up power gently. This is their families, it's their standard of life, it's their legacy, it's their lives. They will cling to the last possible moment. But it's a nation of 94 million people. If you get a

revolution on the streets. As powerful as the IRGC may be, look what happened to SAVAK. SAVAK was the Shah's internal army. Same model, same methods, same brutality, same economics. They vanished overnight.

When the Shah fell, they ended up in California. They ended up in Iraq. They ended up in France. They headed for the winds. So will these people. Well, and a great deal of the senior leadership has already been taken out during this current- The senior leadership has been taken out. And I will guarantee you, just by instinct, watching these characters through my life, that if you're a senior mid-level person in the IRGC, you've got an airline ticket and some cash in your back pocket.

Just in case. Where in this equation does Reza Balabi and the monarchists fit? I know this is controversial in Iranian community in the United States, but you ask an honest question, you get an honest answer.

There's a lot of emotional attachment by a lot of American Iranians who were in the Shah's regime, came and sought refuge in the United States, and we accepted them and they built good lives here. I know they have memories of the Shah's time. There's a nostalgia to it. But very frankly, the specter of the Shah's son returning to Tehran is a gift for the Iranian regime.

Because their argument, like unfortunately some in the American government is, well, the Ayatollah may be a problem, but there's no alternative. If there's no Ayatollah, it's the Shah.

And if that's the twin reality, the Ayatollahs or the Shah, we're not going to get a public uprising to overthrow the government. People are not going to make that choice. And that's a false choice. There are democratic sectors within Iran. There is the IRGC. There's the MEK that is on the outside based in Paris that is an umbrella for thousands of

Iranians within Iran and in the diaspora. As I said, this is almost a shadow government. There is an alternative. But as long as the regime can hold up the specter that if we fall, you've got the Shah back, it's a gift to them. Senator, if you could stay right where you are. I apologize, but we have to take a break. And then we'll be back with Senator Torricelli and more here on The Situation Report. Stick around.

We interrupt this program to bring you an important Wayfair message. Wayfair's got style tips for every home. This is Stiles McKenzie helping you make those rooms sing. Today's style tip. When it comes to making a statement, treat bold patterns like neutrals. Go wild like an untamed animal print area rug under a rustic farmhouse table from Wayfair.com.

fierce. This has been your Wayfair style tip to keep those interiors superior.

power, politics and the people behind the headlines. I'm Miranda Devine, New York Post columnist and the host of the brand new podcast, Podforce One. Every week, I'll sit down for candid conversations with Washington's most powerful disruptors, lawmakers, newsmakers and even the president of

of the United States. These are the leaders shaping the future of America and the world. Listen to Podforce One with me, Miranda Devine, every week on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts. You don't want to miss an episode.

Thank you.

This isn't just another news podcast. It's a look at what matters and a peek at what's too interesting to ignore, keeping you informed and entertained. I'm Caitlin Becker. Listen and subscribe to the New York Post cast every weekday morning on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcast. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is former Senator Bob Torricelli. We've been talking about

in a broad sense, what could happen, what may result if there is a regime change. Senator, anytime you say regime change, particularly here in the U.S., people get a little bit squirrely. I understand that. Yeah. And so I'm wondering from your perspective,

Again, I don't disagree with you. Look, anything other than that is just limited. You're putting lipstick on a pig or a bandaid on a sucking chest, however you want to describe it. You're kicking the can down the road to deal with the problem at some point in the future. And so I don't disagree at all that that would be the best outcome. Let me ask you this.

I know how people in the U.S. government and elsewhere feel about it, but let's look at the regional actors, right? The Saudis, the Jordanians, and others. What's your perspective on how they feel about the current conflict, but also about this idea of a change in Iranian government? So in the neighborhood, all nations are not equal in power or influence. There's an outside sphere of Iran, and you can understand it.

It is the largest country, is potentially the most powerful, it is the most unstable, and is by far the most aggressive. So this willingness to arm, to seek alliances, to seek protection, at the same time to engage with the Iranians to try to keep an edge off the problems. I don't want to say this in a disparaging way, but

In the region, there's always been a sense that you can kind of trade your way out of trouble. Just keep enough commerce going there of one type or another to keep peace with them. But if you ask me, would there be a relief in Bahrain or in Riyadh if the regime fell? I think there would be fireworks. They just won't say it out loud.

They will not say that a lot. There's an enormous intimidation. You know, I have affection for some of these nations in the region, so I hate being overly critical of them. But the reality is most of these regimes in the region live in fear of fundamentalism and poorer parts of their societies that are not as in touch with the monarchies or the regimes. They live in... The top lives in fear of the bottom.

And there's always this belief that the fundamentalist Islam of Iran can stoke that problem. So it's not simply a fear that Iran can attack militarily with sophisticated weapons. It's more they can create unrest on the streets from below. Monarchies often live with that fear. In this case, I think even more so. So the world's a strange place. It creates odd alliances.

but i will guarantee you the saudis for whatever they say and the uae for whatever they say and the kuwaitis are are hoping with baited breath there could be a regime change here without without them having to show their cards um kind of go back to the idea of

Be careful of what you wish for and what could come in behind this. We've got recent case studies, certainly Libya is a good example, Iraq. I mean, we know that what comes next can be worse. That's all true. Let me tell you.

You know, I'm old enough to have a lot of old stories. When I was a kid, out of law school, I worked in the Carter White House. And I remember Hamilton Jordan having a staff meeting saying, you know, if we can just avoid the problems of Vietnam or Watergate, we'll have a successful administration. I remember thinking,

That's your scale of history? We're learning from the last 10 years? Actually, it wasn't even 10 years. We're learning from the last six years? Isn't history a little deeper than that? What you say is true. Regime change in Libya backfired. Regime change even in Iraq backfired. I accept all that. Regime change in Germany and Italy and Japan worked out pretty well.

regime change in Poland and Czechoslovakia and East Germany worked out pretty well. So I'm not telling you it always works. I'm not telling you it doesn't have dangers. It does. But in many ways, our attempt to change some of these governments, whether it was as a product of war or economic pressure or otherwise, in many cases, it also made the world better. All I'm suggesting to you is that

Kind of like my days out of law school in the Carter White House, we need to think more broadly than our unfortunate experience of the last 10 to 15 years. As you were talking, sir, I was just trying to, in my mind, catalog any successful regime change examples in the Middle East. It is a challenge.

And I don't know that I can. I had hoped that the regime change in Egypt was going to be more successful. But if I could go back and take Mubarak, Barack Obama almost single-handedly took out Mubarak. And we ended up with a more fundamentalist, more brutal, less American line. The United States has a way of making our own problems. So I'm giving you the best example against my argument.

And a lot of it, admittedly, is speculation. So I know I'm putting you in sort of that uncomfortable position of having to answer questions with speculation. But is the opposition, let's look at the MEK as the best example, is the opposition strong enough to...

And again, I'm not sure how to phrase this, to take control, to step into a vacuum should the current regime collapse. I think your phrase, step into a vacuum, is the key here.

No opposition group is strong enough right now to invade Iran, defeat their military forces, and march into Tehran. If that's the model you have in mind, then the State Department is right. There's no one with that capability. But that is unlikely to be the scenario. I mean, I would have argued that

Lenin wasn't strong enough to march across the German border and take over Russia either. He returned to, I think he returned to St. Petersburg with 24 men. Napoleon left Corsica with, what, 80 men to take down the monarchy? It's walking into what you said is the vacuum.

the ayatollahs are only falling for the same reason the Shah fell. It's not that their guns don't work anymore. It's that people just stop cooperating. At some point, soldiers just say, well, I'm not pointing these guns at my neighbors anymore. People just won't support the regime anymore. They stop working. Revenue stops coming in. People take to the streets and they take over the means of production. They're not, uh, uh,

several thousand oil workers right now if they revolted could shut down the iranian economy before i get sir i'm sorry for interrupting um i'm at that age where if i don't uh ask what pops into my head i may forget so uh you mentioned the as an example you know should the oil workers go on strike there was a recent uh situation truck drivers on strike in iran exactly uh and then

And then it went off the headlines. It kind of flared up briefly. It looked like it might catch on. And then we hear nothing else about it. What can you tell us about that situation? Well, first, you got to be very careful with news out of Iran. In the United States, if the New York Times doesn't have a reporter there or the network doesn't send a reporter, and neither of which exists in Tehran, from an American perspective, it didn't happen.

And you got to be very careful of that. For months, there were revolts going on in the streets of Iranian cities. And the average American wouldn't have known it was even going on because there's no mainstream reporter there. So you got to be careful of that. But the scenario you're talking about is exactly what I have in mind, that this doesn't come from armed invasion. You get regime change because the truck drivers won't deliver food.

food, the oil workers won't keep the pumps running or the docks going. In the case of the Shah, he was the small shopkeepers. They just shut down. They wouldn't take customers anymore and it created an economic collapse. This happened for lower middle class store owners, really were the heart of the collapse of the Shah. Where this comes from in Iran,

No one knows. I guarantee you, whatever the CIA thinks, they're wrong. They don't know. You remember the famous memo that the CIA wrote to President Carter predicting that the Shah had another 20 years as an island of stability and he was gone in two weeks. And that's not a fault of the institution. It's a fault of...

sitting thousands of miles away. You just don't know. It's wild, but I have the overwhelming instinct, wherever it's coming from, just so you look at the circumstances, it's coming. And to your question, could the MEK fill the vacuum? Yes, either alone or more likely in a coalition of other opposition groups.

They have the resources, the will, the expertise to come in in a vacuum, in a vacuum, not in a war, in a vacuum, and make the trains run on time, get the oil pumped, get the mail delivered, pick up the garbage, and transition into a free economy of some definition. I mean, I know what you...

You know, are hoping for, which I think, you know, obviously, I agree, right? It would be the best thing for regional stability, for national security interests of the US and our allies, for regime change. So I know that that's the hope for result. But what do you think will happen?

I have no idea. I can tell you the end game, but this could play out over the next five days or play out over the next 10 years. I mean, at the end of the day, a regime with this narrow a base, with these economic problems that has oppressed its own people, I mean, every time they leave the world by far in executions. I mean, to be a member of the N.E.K., for example, is a death sentence.

You do that over enough years and you kill enough people, you suppress enough people, another generation losing any quality of life, any economic opportunity, it compounds, it builds to an inevitable result. The regime cannot survive it.

But different cultures have a different measure of the ability to absorb pain. Look at it as a spectrum. Of all the nations in the world I know, the country that can take pain the least is the United States. You disrupt our quality of life. I'm not saying this. I love America, but this is not our strong suit. Disrupt our quality of life and, to our credit, our freedoms. Have us lose faith in the future. The incumbent government is going to have a problem.

But it has surprised me in my life the ability of some cultures to absorb pain, enormous pain. I mean, look how long the Russians put up with Soviet communism. Generations were lost, but they put up with it. And that is true in many regimes in the Middle East. Look how long the Chinese put up with Maoist communism.

I mean, the great leap forward to the 1950s, 50 million people starved to death, but the regime continued. Now, so how long people will put up with this is different by cultures. But that doesn't change the end result. In the end, it accumulates, the pressure accumulates, and people rebel. It will happen in Iran. You ask me when? Honestly, I have no idea. Neither does anybody else. Only that it's coming.

I hope that when we pick up the phone and give you a call, you'll come back because I'd love to. I'd love it. You can visit this. I would enjoy it and I'm honored to be on today and thank you for having me. Senator Bob Torricelli, here on the Situation Report, I suspect we'll be talking with the senator again in the not too distant future, given I don't think this conflict is going to be solved anytime soon, frankly.

That's all the time we have for this week's PDB Situation Report. And if you have any questions or comments, please reach out to me at pdbatthefirsttv.com. You know what we do with your questions, your comments. We take the best ones every month and we smash them together into an episode that we call Ask Me Anything. We got another one in the tube ready to launch. So keep the cards and letters coming. Finally, to listen to the

podcast of this show ad-free, you can do that. And you can do that very simply. Just become a premium member of the President's Daily Brief by visiting pdbpremium.com. See, I told you it was simple. I'm Mike Baker. And until next time, you know the drill. Stay informed. Stay safe. Stay cool.

Welcome to It Takes Energy, presented by Energy Transfer, where we talk all things oil and natural gas. Oil and gas drive our economy, ensure our country's security, and open pathways to brighter futures. What do you know about oil and natural gas? You likely associate them with running your car or heating your home. But these two natural resources fuel so much more than that. More than 6,000 consumer products that we rely on every day are made using oil and gas.

Before you even step out the door in the morning, you've already used more products made possible because of oil and gas than you realize. From the toothpaste you brush your teeth with, the soap you washed your face with, and the sheets you slept on. Not to mention your makeup, contact lenses, clothes, and shoes. Oil and gas are vital parts of all these products and so many more.

Look around and you'll see the essential role oil and gas plays in our lives. Our world needs oil and gas, and people rely on us to deliver it. To learn more, visit energytransfer.com.