U.S. Weighs Role It Should Play in Escalating Israel-Iran Conflict
57:48 Share

Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Earthjustice. As a national legal nonprofit, Earthjustice has more than 200 full-time lawyers who fight for a healthy environment. They wield the power of the law to protect people's health, preserve magnificent places and wildlife, and advance clean energy to combat climate change. Earthjustice fights in court because the Earth needs a good lawyer.

Learn more about how you can get involved and become a supporter at earthjustice.org.

Everything is getting more expensive. Rent, groceries, insurance. And because California's excessive ride share insurance laws attract litigation abused by billboard lawyers, costs are going up for everyone. Bogus claims and inflated settlements drive up state required insurance costs, which make up nearly a third of your Uber ride fare. Join our fight to protect your access to affordable rides. Go to uber.com forward slash fare dash insurance to learn more.

From KQED. From KQED in San Francisco, I'm Grace Wan, in for Alexis Madrigal. The Israel-Iran conflict stretches into an eighth day as the countries exchanged missile strikes. Yesterday, President Trump announced he would take two weeks to decide how the U.S. will respond. Meanwhile, EU and Iranian representatives are meeting in Geneva today to find a diplomatic solution. We'll talk to experts about how we got here. That's all coming up next, right after this news.

Welcome to Forum. I'm Grace Wan, in for Alexis Madrigal. Friday began with Iranian missile strikes on Israel as the conflict between the two nations stretched into its eighth day. In Geneva, foreign ministers from France, Germany, and the UK are meeting today with Iranian representatives to find a diplomatic path forward. Meanwhile, President Trump announced yesterday that he would take two weeks before deciding what role the U.S. will play in the escalating conflict.

At home, fishers have emerged among Republicans about whether military action is warranted. And some Democrats are urging passage of a bill that would require congressional approval before Trump commits American troops and resources to the conflict.

To explain how we got here, we're joined by two experts this morning. Robin Wright, she's a contributing writer and columnist for The New Yorker. Her latest piece for the magazine is titled, What is Israel's Endgame with Iran? She's also the author of The Last Great Revolution, Turmoil and Transformation in Iran, among other books. Welcome to Forum, Robin. Thank you.

Great to be with you. We also have Trita Parsi. He's the co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Welcome, Trita. Thank you so much for having me. Robin, I wanted to begin with you. This conflict began last Friday when Israel launched a series of missile attacks on Iran. Why now? What was behind Israel's decision to attack Iran when it did?

Israel's calculations really go back to what's transpired since October 7th, when Israel and Gaza went to war. Since then, Iran or Israel has decapitated much of the country.

much of the leadership or many of the fighters in Iran's allies across the region, be it Hezbollah in Lebanon, some of the popular mobilization forces in Iraq and to the Houthis to some degree in Yemen. And this is a moment that Israel calculates Iran has never been weaker. Now, it also comes in context of American diplomacy. Iran and the United States had held five rounds of diplomacy

and was due to have a sixth one on Sunday, Israel preempted diplomacy by attacking Iran.

And so this has complicated any move on diplomacy to try to get Iran to agree on basic questions about its controversial nuclear program. Trita, Iran and Israel have certainly traded missile strikes before, most recently in April and in October of 2024. What is different about this current conflict, if it is different?

Well, beyond the fact that this clearly was a war of aggression by Israel, because it started this war without any provocation from the Iranian side. Talks were ongoing. They were scheduled for Sunday. They attacked on Friday, despite the fact that Trump was saying that he wanted to have the talks on Sunday. So whereas in previous cases, it was a little bit more complex. But the most important difference, of course, is that last time around, it

It was an attack, but not clear whether the intent was to go towards full-scale war. In this case, from the very beginning, it's been clear that the Israelis were looking for complete war and complete defeat because they went after the heads of the Iranian military, as well as many of its nuclear scientists, engineers,

and was trying to disrupt Iran's command and control. And the attacks were extensive, very, very large number. And at least in the first 12 hours, they were very, very successful. But the Iranians regained control over their command and control and immediately started responding after about 18 hours, which I think may have taken the Israelis a bit by surprise because they were hoping that that initial success

would have led to far greater disruption and chaos on the Iranian side than it actually ended up being. It's interesting because when you look at the media and depending on what you're looking at, some pundits call this a war, others call it a conflict. Robin, is this a war?

Oh, I think completely it's a war. And remember that the goals have quickly evolved. Israel first said it was going after Iran's nuclear program and then within 24 hours expanded it to strategic energy sites, hitting a refinery and oil depot. And the regime is the government in Israel has made no progress.

has had no doubt about talking about now regime change. Should it kill Ayatollah Khamenei, who is the supreme leader in power since 1989, who has veto power over political, military, and economic policy in Iran? Prime Minister Netanyahu, the defense minister in Israel, has also talked about the

whether the Ayatollah should, in quotes, no longer exist. And that really changes the political horizon as well as the military prospects or aspects of this war. And I think this is what makes it more complicated for U.S. diplomacy. If Israel is going for regime change, which I think is beyond its ability, and the United States is looking for a deal on nuclear weapons,

programs, then they're at odds over what the ultimate goal is. And I think one of the questions for President Trump is how far does he go and what is the outcome? What is the end game? And the United States has not done well with those questions in Iraq or Afghanistan since 2003.

So we're getting into a very much more complicated set of issues that the divisions between not just Iran and Israel, but between the United States and Israel too. You know, for listeners who are getting up to speed on this, Trita, I mean, at the center of the current conflict as described by the Israelis is the idea that Iran had nuclear capability, meaning the capacity to build a nuclear weapon.

What do we know about whether Israel's strikes have delayed or destroyed that capacity? The Iranians certainly have a nuclear capability, and thanks to Trump leaving the JCPOA, the Iran nuclear deal that Obama negotiated that really put their nuclear program in a box, they

The Iranians have now essentially stopped adhering to a lot of those different restrictions because the U.S. just walked out of the deal. And then Biden made a very lukewarm attempt at going back into it and did not succeed. So now the Iranians are much closer to the ability to build a nuclear weapon. As long as the Iranian nuclear deal was in place,

The Iranian breakout capability was at a minimum 12 months, which means from the point that they would make a decision to build a nuclear weapon to having the material for a nuclear weapon, not the bomb, but the material would be a minimum of 12 months. Then they would probably need another two years to build the bomb.

Now, as a result of these restrictions being gone since Trump left the deal, the Iranians are estimated to be just a couple of days away from having the material. That still doesn't mean that they have a nuclear bomb. And I think it's very important to understand that.

This does not, under any circumstance, qualify as an imminent threat that would then justify a preventive or preemptive strike by the Israelis. They have said that their attack was a preemptive self-defense. There's under no interpretation of international law that this situation would amount to that. And even the Israeli statements are self-contradictory in what they're saying about this.

So there is a program that is highly problematic. There was no justification for taking military action. There's no knowledge at this point that says that whatever setback has occurred on the program – and there's clearly been some setback. Natanz seems to be, to a very large extent, destroyed one of their nuclear facilities –

It does not mean that this is not something that the Iranians cannot recuperate from rather quickly and rebuild. We still don't know if their stockpile of enriched uranium has been destroyed or not. And that's more or less the crown jewel. It's not the sites per se. So at this point, I think one clear evidence that the Israelis have failed is that if they have been successful, why are they coming back to the United States and begging Trump to enter the war to finish this? Hmm.

Well, Robin, Telsey Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, publicly testified earlier this year that the intelligence community did not believe that Iran was actively building nuclear weapons.

even as it enriches uranium that could be used for an arsenal. And Trump told reporters, I don't care what she said. I think that they were very close to having them. You know, Trump is, as we know, an outlier when it comes to statements. He often speaks off the cuff. But how is that perception of what Trump thinks Iran has in terms of capacity factoring into how the players are reacting?

Well, to pick up on a point that Trita made, it's really important that your listeners understand there are multiple parts to make a bomb. And Iran has worked very hard on enriching uranium. It has advanced centrifuges to spin uranium. It is made its own. It is rich to a point that it's near bomb grade.

But to make a bomb, you actually have to be able to have a delivery system and most importantly, the technology that marries this all together, so-called weaponization.

And President Trump is correct when he says Iran is nearing the capability. But but Tulsi Gabbard is right, too. Trump's referring to enriched uranium and Tulsi Gabbard is pointing to the process of actually making a bomb, weaponizing it. And I think there's an important distinction as well.

What is Iran's intention? Is it once it makes a bomb to immediately drop it on Israel, or is it to have a defensive capability, in effect a deterrent,

so that any country thinking of attacking Iran, be it neighboring Iraq, which happened in 1980, or Israel has happened in recent years, that any other power in the region would think twice because Iran has a nuclear capability. And that's important for people to understand as well. Iran

Iran's revolutionary regime is like all revolutionary regimes, inherently paranoid. It is suspicious. It believes its existence is constantly being challenged, questioned, or that other parties want to overthrow it.

And I think this is only reaffirmed the belief in Iran, unfortunately, that the outside world is trying to engage in regime change. And the danger is down the road that it does decide to make that huge political decision to cross that threshold and decide to work covertly on a bomb.

Well, we're talking about the war between Israel and Iran, which is now in its eighth day. We're joined by Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, and also Robin Wright, contributing writer and columnist for The New Yorker. Her latest piece for the magazine is titled, What is Israel's Endgame with Iran? We

We want to hear from you, listeners, and what are your questions about the conflict in Israel and Iran? And what role do you think the U.S. should play in that conflict or war? Give us a call now at 866-733-6786. That's 866-733-6786. Or email your comments to forum at kqed.org. I'm Grace Wan, in for Alexis Magical. More Forum after this break.

Support for Forum comes from the University of San Francisco School of Management. Celebrating 100 years of partnership with the Bay Area business community, the USF School of Management connects students to the city's vibrant culture, hands-on internships, and a wealth of career opportunities.

where AI and sustainability are integrated into every facet of business education, and where students bring innovation, ethics, and entrepreneurial leadership to a planet in need. The University of San Francisco School of Management. Change the world from here. Support for KQED Podcasts comes from Earthjustice. As a national legal nonprofit, Earthjustice has more than 200 full-time lawyers who fight for a healthy environment.

They wield the power of the law to protect people's health, preserve magnificent places and wildlife, and advance clean energy to combat climate change. Earthjustice fights in court because the Earth needs a good lawyer. Learn more about how you can get involved and become a supporter at earthjustice.org.

Welcome back to Forum. I'm Grace Wan, in for Alexis Madrigal. We're talking about the war between Israel and Iran and what role the United States might play in that conflict. We're joined by Robin Wright, contributing writer and columnist for The New Yorker. She's also the author of The Last Great Revolution, Turmoil and Transformation in Iran, among other books. And before it was shut down by Doge, she was a senior fellow with a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank, the Wilson Center.

We also have Trita Parsi. He's the co-founder and executive president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. And we're taking your questions. What do you want to know about the conflict in Israel and Iran? And what role do you think the U.S. should play in that war? You can give us a call now at 866-733-6786.

That's 866-733-6786. You can email your comments and questions to forum at kqed.org or find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram. We're at KQED Forum or join our Discord community.

Robin, before the break, we were talking a little bit about Donald Trump and the role he's playing in this conflict. Since the war began, Trump has issued a variety of statements. On Thursday, he said he would take two weeks to decide a path forward. But earlier in the week, he suggested that no one knows what he's going to do. Here's President Trump. Nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble and they want to negotiate it.

And I said, why didn't you negotiate with me before all this death and destruction? Why didn't you negotiate? I said to the people, why didn't you negotiate with me two weeks ago? You could have done fine. You would have had a country. Robin, what does that two weeks give Donald Trump? Well, Donald Trump has invoked two weeks on many other issues as well, on foreign policy and domestic policy. But I do think he's trying to see if the Iranians can

will engage more seriously on this question of uranium enrichment, which is at the key of the nuclear program, and what Iran does down the road. Two weeks also indicates that he remembers what he said in the campaign over and over and over about not engaging in any more wars in the Middle East. I think there's pressure from within his coalition, Republican coalition, about what

And what happens, and even more so, what happens after the U.S. engages? I don't think it's as simple, and I'm sure Trita will agree, as simply dropping a couple of bunker buster bombs on Fordow, which is the most deeply buried of Iran's nuclear facilities.

So he may be trying to game out what happens next, given the American history in Iraq and Afghanistan. You know, going back to the things that Trump has said, Trita, I mean, earlier this week, Trump issued a veiled or maybe really not so veiled threat to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. And he said, you know, we know exactly where the so-called Supreme Leader is hiding. How is the Iranian government reacting to Trump's two-week visit?

you know, stay.

I think the Iranians are very suspicious because they believe at this point that Trump was engaged in deliberate deception last week when he kept on saying that there's going to be talks, that he's optimistic about the talks, and then the Israelis bomb. And then Trump took credit for it and essentially said, we're controlling the skies of Iran. So they believe that that was a deception in which was coordinated between Israel and the United States. I'm not

as convinced but i think it's going to be very difficult to get the iranians not to believe that but given that it probably means that on the one hand they will explore what diplomacy can do but more importantly they will not take down their guard because they will probably expect that perhaps these two weeks are more designed to prepare the united states for war with iran do force protection move things out of bases in the region rather than actually giving diplomacy a chance now um

We don't know which exactly is the truth. I think there is an element in Trump's thinking here that he does want to have a deal. But if he wants to have a deal, I think it's important for us to understand why things actually turn in this negative direction.

And what I think happened is that Trump actually came in a rather constructive position. He said his only red line is weaponization, that he doesn't want to see an Iranian nuclear weapon. And that actually works because that's exactly what happened under the Obama negotiations.

It meant that you would find ways to restrict the Iranian program and prevent them from building weapons. And the Iranians had agreed to that in the past. Then halfway through, he abandoned this American red line and adopted the Israeli red line, which is no enrichment, zero enrichment, complete dismantlement of the program.

The United States has tried that for more than 25 years. It leads absolutely nowhere. I think the Israelis knew very well that once Trump would adopt that position, the talks would stall, as they predictably did. And then they went to him and say, we can help unlock the situation, give us a green light or allow us to

bomb the Iranians and then they will come begging for a deal with you and they will surrender the nuclear program, knowing very well that that is absolutely not what the Iranians would do. And then within 48 hours, the Israelis came back to Trump and said, you know what? Why don't you come into this war and finish this for us? If he comes back to the table,

And if the Iranians agree to engage, which I really hope they do, then I think it's critical for him to go back to the American red line of no weaponization rather than the Israeli red line. Otherwise, this will just repeat itself. The Iranians have had this position in which they refuse to give up what they believe is their right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes already since the 1970s. For Trump, this is a red line he adopted six weeks ago.

Well, you know, we have a question from Michael on Blue Sky who asks, at this point, what would keep Iran from targeting Israel's nuclear facility in the Negev? Robin? You know, I...

Who knows what their targeting capabilities are? I think yesterday Iran hit a hospital, injuring several, and Iran claimed it was trying to go for an intelligence facility nearby. So, you know, missiles are not always precise, and missiles at that distance are not more precise especially. So, you know, I think...

One of the big questions really is more about creating economic turmoil in Israel, going after the electricity grid, closing the airspace, constantly forcing Israelis to go underground and bunker buster, bunker to protect themselves. You know, there's a psychological aspect to every war. At what point do people kind of say to their governments, enough?

And so I think that's what Iran is gaming because clearly it is far inferior to Israel in terms of the weaponry, especially when it comes to the airspace. Israel has total control over Iran.

uh iran's airspace at the moment so maybe it goes after a nuclear cape uh israel's nuclear facility but i you know that goes another step in terms of escalation well let's go to that add something on this oh yes please treat it go ahead uh what the iranians have signaled and we don't know if it's true or not because as robin said um

There's a lot of deception, misinformation and disinformation that happens in any war with a tremendous amount of psychological warfare as well. But what they seem to have signaled is that an attack on Fordo would be responded to by the Iranians with an attack on Dimona.

So far, Fordow, which is their most entrenched site, 800 meters, half a mile underground, has not been attacked. And the Israelis do not have the capacity of destroying that from here. The U.S. might have it. It's not entirely clear. But I think it's very important to understand here.

that an attack on Fordow, the attacks that the Israelis already have conducted against Iraq and Natanz and other facilities, and an Iranian attack against Dimona would be a clear violation of international law. Article 56 of the Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention that prohibits

these form of attacks on nuclear facilities. When the Russians did that to Ukrainian facilities, Europe and the United States rightfully condemned it. There has been now several attacks by the Israelis on Iran's nuclear facilities. There have been no condemnation. Instead, these tired statements that Israel has a right to defend itself, even though it was an attack.

But this will then come back and haunt us if then there is an attack on Dimona by the Iranians. So it's very dangerous what we've seen in the last two years in which systematically international law, the

The norms around the use of force, international humanitarian law has essentially been erased. And perhaps there's been a calculation that in the tactical sense that will give one party some sort of a benefit. But in the long run, it actually makes everyone less safe. Well, let's go to the phones. Seth from San Francisco, welcome to Forum. Thank you. What's your comment about what's happening? Sure.

Yeah, I mean, I think it's really unfortunate for your listeners to have had this situation so really decontextualized by your guests who have a lot of information to add. I mean, I think Iran has very clearly been responsible for more deaths of American citizens than any other country.

uh... entity uh... over the past decades with the with the possible exception of al qaeda but if you think about their proxies through his block uh... you know certainly in lebanon uh... through hamas uh... through some of the other two people teach to some of their other proxies they've been conducting terror operations in the united states on european soil not to mention throughout the middle east

they've been very clear in their in their uh... desire to put it to possess nuclear weapons to be able to further project their power to protect their to protect the regime so we didn't in the united states is on self-interest

not as a lapdog of the Israelis, as I think your guests have sort of been implying, but really in the United States, it's in our own interest to ensure that Iran doesn't achieve nuclear capability and that there is a legitimate interest here, that it's not simply something that's being forced by the hands of the Israelis. Well, thanks for your comment and your question. I mean, Robin, is there a legitimate interest for the United States to stop Iran's nuclear capability? I think that is something that has been said, right?

Absolutely. The U.S., under both Republican and Democratic presidents, have said Iran will never get a nuclear weapon. So he's your your listener is absolutely correct on that. And frankly, he's right on the fact that Iran has been behind more U.S. deaths. I lived in Lebanon for five years, including the period when Iran's allies went after Iran.

the U.S. peacekeepers and two U.S. embassies in Beirut, leading to hundreds of deaths there. Iran has also been behind supporting the Taliban during the years of the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. There's no question of the terrorist attacks

operations that Iran has been behind. Now, the one thing I think we need to be clear about is Iran has not said it wants a nuclear bomb. It says it wants a civilian program for peaceful energy, which it has a right to as a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. What the whole world is concerned about, including me, is whether it diverts that

those capabilities into a weapon program that endangers everybody. So I think we need to be clear about where Iran is at this moment, even though we are all concerned and have been for decades about whether Iran has a covert nuclear weapons program capable of making a bomb that would target anybody.

Can I add something to this as well? Yes, please. So there is definitely an ability from the American side to point to all kinds of transgressions that the Iranians have committed. The caller pointed to some. Some of them are not true. There's no terrorist activities on U.S. ground. To the best of my knowledge, it has occurred. That has been al-Qaeda, sponsored by other countries in the region that otherwise are deemed to be U.S. allies.

And the Iranians can do the same thing. They can point to 1953 when the United States overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran. They can point to the support that the United States provided Saddam Hussein that killed far more Iranians than Iranians have killed Americans. And we can go at this. And there's really no end in sight instead of just death and destruction.

What is actually in the U.S. interest, instead of having these short-term, you know, they did this to us, so we need to go to war, is to find a way that actually serves U.S. interests. What serves U.S. interests is to make sure that the United States does not get dragged into unnecessary wars in the Middle East, such as Iraq, such as Afghanistan, such as interventions in Syria, Libya, and other places that have been devastating for the region, impoverished the United States, enabled other countries to gain tremendous amount of influence at the U.S.'s expense.

And this is the path we're about to go down again, instead, if we don't take a step back and realize that the actual objectives that we want to achieve can be achieved through

through diplomacy if we pursue it seriously, instead of just once again getting down the path of these endless wars. The very same endless wars that Trump promised his base and the voters that he would not only not start, he would end the ones that existed. Well, Robin, I wanted to shift a little bit to this idea of regime change. When Netanyahu announced these missile strikes last week, he addressed the Iranian people directly. Here he is. The time has come for you to unite around your flag.

You hear at the end there that Netanyahu is using Farsi to refer to previous public demonstrations against the Iranian regime

You know, today, the Iranian news sources published demonstrations against Israel and the United States and in support of their government. I mean, have these missile strikes have had their intended effect of rallying the troops against the regime? Well, I've talked to my friend's political scientists in Iran about this. And there is a sense that the vast majority of the population opposes this.

the government. There have been sporadic protests that have grown ever larger since 2017. But it's also striking that while 80% of the population may dislike the regime, like to prefer something else in terms of a system or a leadership,

that Iranians also don't want any other country to decide who rules them or how they're ruled. And I've been struck by the number of people in Iran who are major figures and who've been critical of the theocracy and yet have come out publicly to stand behind it. And I think that the prospect of an Israeli government

inspired regime change are really low. Whether something happens down the road that is indigenous, led by Iranians, that's a different question. But at the moment, there's also no viable opposition group inside the country or even outside the country capable of providing leadership, providing a specific alternative with a game plan or manifesto,

that we're looking at an idea

that Prime Minister Netanyahu has put forward, but not a plan or not an option that seems very visible at the moment anyway. Well, we're talking about the war between Israel and Iran, which is now in its eighth day. We have Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft with us. Also, Robin Wright, a contributing writer and columnist for The New Yorker.

She's also the author of The Last Great Revolution, Turmoil and Transformation in Iran. And we want to hear from you. What are your questions about the conflict in Israel and Iran? What role do you think the U.S. should play in the war? You can give us a call now at 866-733-6786.

That's 866-733-6786. You can email your comments and questions to forum at kqed.org or find us on social media, Blue Sky, Instagram. We're at KQED Forum or join us on our Discord community.

Yvonne writes, the U.S. absolutely must stay out of the fighting. I doubt Trump is up to the task, but we should try to help broker peace negotiations. Another listener on Discord writes, the title of today's show should be Trump Ways Whether the U.S.'s Greater Involvement in a Middle East War Would Be Good for Him. You can't expect a man of his qualities to act as if there ever could be any other criteria worth considering.

More on this topic when we come back from the break. I'm Grace Wan, in for Alexis Magical.

Support for Forum comes from the University of San Francisco School of Management. Celebrating 100 years of partnership with the Bay Area business community, the USF School of Management connects students to the city's vibrant culture, hands-on internships, and a wealth of career opportunities. Where AI and sustainability are integrated into every facet of business education.

and where students bring innovation, ethics, and entrepreneurial leadership to a planet in need. The University of San Francisco School of Management. Change the world from here. Greetings, Boomtown. The Xfinity Wi-Fi is booming! Xfinity combines the power of internet and mobile. So we've all got lightning-fast speeds at home and on the go. That's where our producers got the idea to mash our radio shows together. Xfinity!

Through June 23rd, new customers can get 400 megabit Xfinity internet and get one unlimited mobile line included, all for $40 a month for one year. Visit Xfinity.com to learn more. With paperless billing and auto-pay with store bank account, restrictions apply. Xfinity internet required. Taxes fees extra. After one year, rate increases to $110 a month. After two years, regular rates apply. Actual speeds vary. Welcome back to Forum. I'm Grace Wan, in for Alexis Madrigal. And we're talking about the war between Israel and Iran. And before the break, Trita, we were talking about regime change. And Robin had mentioned that, you know, they're really interested

isn't a clear-cut group that might take the place of the current regime. And I wanted to ask you that, you know, before these missile strikes, I mean, the Iranian government was viewed as weak or weakened. What would replace or what could replace the current regime if it was to topple?

So I think Robin is absolutely right. This is a deeply, deeply unpopular regime. Its depth of unpopularity is actually probably in just the last few years, particularly around the protests against how they killed that young woman, Massa, for not wearing the hijab properly.

Having said that, I have to say that I am a bit surprised by the depth of the rallying around the flag phenomenon that we're seeing right now in Iran. Not again because I didn't think it would happen, but precisely because the regime is so unpopular. I didn't think it was going to be as strong as it is. And I want to emphasize, though, I see similarities here with what happened in Israel, because it's more of a rally around the land and the flag than rallying around the government. Right.

We saw that in Israel as well after October 7th. Remember, preceding October 7th was years of protests against Netanyahu for his judicial reform and grabbing more power, etc. But once Israel was under attack, the population rallied around the flag, around the country, but not rallying around Netanyahu. And I think we're seeing a similar phenomenon in Iran right now.

If the regime were to fall, and it's clear that the Israelis at least have tried that with seeing some sort of a regime decapitation. And I think it's important to understand it's not regime change as much as regime collapse. Regime change is when you actually go in and you install a different government. That's what the U.S. did in Iraq. And then you're responsible for what happens afterwards. Regime collapse is when you just destroy the state and you let chaos fester.

And you don't take responsibility. And I think that's where they're going. Because if you want to have regime change, you actually have to go in with the ground troops. There's no examples of a successful regime change operation through air war alone. But let's say that the regime collapses. The most likely replacement, if there is any replacement at all in the short term, is some other element from within the same regime, the same security apparatus. It's not going to be some peaceful NGOs that are going to take over the country.

Similar to what happened in the revolution, in which, as one American diplomat said at the time, the people that are winning the revolution in 1971 were the ones who were willing to throw acid in the face of their opponents. So I don't see a scenario in which out of a war of aggression of this kind, a peaceful, democratic, liberal-oriented democracy would flourish in Iran just as much as it didn't in Afghanistan, in Iraq, or in other places that we've had this type of approach.

Well, you know, you're bringing up this idea of this idea of a forever war and how it's so difficult to install a new regime. We saw that in Iraq with George W. Bush. And we're also seeing fissures in the Republican Party in terms of how it's addressing these changes. And I want to play a cut between two Republican stalwarts, Senator Ted Cruz and Tucker Carlson. How many people live in Iran, by the way?

I don't know the population. At all? I don't sit around memorizing population tables. Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government. Why is it relevant whether it's 90 million or 80 million or 100 million? Why is that relevant? Because if you don't know anything about the country... I didn't say I don't know anything about the country. Okay, what's the ethnic mix of Iran?

They are Persians and predominantly Shia. OK, this is you don't know anything about Iran. So, OK, I am not the Tucker Carlson expert on Iran. You're a senator who's calling for the overthrow of the government. You're the one who claims you don't know anything about the country. Trita, you remarked that you had great pain watching this clip and some sympathy, which surprised you for Ted Cruz. I mean, what does this exchange tell us about diverging views in the Republican Party about participating in this war?

It says something profoundly important, which is that a very large part, the core of Trump's base, who he managed to bring to his side largely back, what is it now, eight or whatever years ago, 12 years ago, when he first came onto the political scene, by being one of the few politicians that was willing to channel the anti-war sentiments that were very strong in the country and were growing on the Republican side.

that that has now grown so strong that it is not going to essentially be subordinated with whatever Trump decides. If you take a look at the opinion polls back in 2003, before the invasion of Iraq, roughly 21 percent, sorry, back then about 71 percent of the American public supported invading Iraq and about 91 percent of the Republicans at the time.

Today, the polls that you have come out with show that there's no more than about 20, 21 percent support for this and more than 50 percent opposition. Back then, it took two years before Republicans in Congress had the guts to come out and openly criticize the war and speak out against that.

Today, you're seeing them screaming on top of their lungs, embarrassing senators like Ted Cruz, even before the war has started. So I think at a minimum, it shows that the political dimension of this, the political cost of

of this for Trump, if he follows the Israelis on this, is going to be much more devastating, most likely, than it was even for George Bush. And in the view of many people on the right in the United States, George Bush's presidency was destroyed by the invasion of Iraq.

Well, let's go to Margaret in Sunnyvale on this. Margaret, welcome to Forum. Hi, thank you. I have a comment. Although history is important, my concern is the present. I have top three reasons that the U.S. needs to not get involved in the war between Israel and Iran. One is that Trump needs to honor his campaign promise. Two,

His lack of diplomacy, as witnessed on live national TV with his disrespect of President Zelensky and his erratic behavior. He can't be trusted as a president, as a world leader and as a man. Well, thanks for that comment, Margaret. And Robin, I wanted to pick up something there about the erratic nature of Trump's approach to foreign policy.

Does that play in Iran or Israel as, you know, the strongman who will do anything? He's just crazy enough to do anything. So we need to listen to what he has to say. Or does that mean that the United States gets dismissed at the table? Well, I think President Trump's

whether you call it erratic or uncertain behavior, is always a factor because no one is quite certain what he might do. There was decided momentum behind attacking just two days ago, and now he's given two weeks to attempt diplomacy.

I thought on one of her comments, lacking diplomacy was kind of important for us to understand. The original nuclear deal took two years of sometimes tortured diplomacy to get to what was called nuclear.

the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA. It ended up as a 159-page document with annexes and involved many nuclear scientists to look at the minutiae of how you limit centrifuges and enriching uranium and other aspects of a nuclear program. What's striking about President Trump's diplomacy is that he gave Iran 60 days to

to agree to a deal and Iran was about to provide its responses to that deal on the Sunday where the two countries were expected to meet so you know the idea of getting a a new deal in 60 days in negotiations led by a man who's a real estate developer um it what to me was you know unrealistic

And so I think, you know, those are both legitimate concerns. Well, Jennifer writes, have the Iranians actually demonstrated or delivered any civilian applications of nuclear energy? From what I've heard from interviewed Iranians, they don't even have electricity 24-7. If Iranians have been working on peaceful uses since President Obama was in office, what is there to show for it? Trita? Yeah.

You know, the Iranians are producing their own electricity and they have done that for quite some time. In fact, it

It was the United States that convinced Iran back in the 1960s that Iran needs to have a nuclear energy program in order to become a great power. Two particular Americans that were deeply involved in that process were a gentleman by the name of Donald Rumsfeld and Big Cheney, who served in the Ford administration at the time. And they wanted Iran to build its nuclear program for energy purposes based on American reactors, Westinghouse and others.

So they have had that. It's also true what the, it's however true what the caller said, that they've been suffering from a lot of shortages this past summer. Whether that is because of sabotages taking place, et cetera, is unclear at this point. But the Iranians do have a civilian nuclear program. The IEA just confirmed once again, they have absolutely no evidence for weaponization taking place in Iran. And it is also the assessment of the American intelligence services. And we've already talked about that.

that there is no active nuclear weapons program in Iran. Well, Rivka asks, who are the allies for Iran and will they help Iran in the war against Israel? Robin?

So Iran has a close alliance with Russia. They are unlikely bedfellows, very different political systems, but they have a common enemy in the United States. So Iran has provided hundreds, maybe even thousands of drones to Russia for its war in Ukraine with devastating impact. Iran has important economic resources.

with China. China has been one of probably the largest importer illegally of Iranian oil in defiance of U.S. sanctions. I wanted to add one point to the previous conversation, and that is

Iran needs nuclear energy because its facilities have been so degraded over the years. A lot of their oil installations rely on American technology. And secondly, its population has mushroomed. In the early days of the revolution, the clerics called on Iranian women to breed an Islamic generation, and they did. And the population doubled in almost a decade. And now,

Iran has 92 million people and it simply doesn't have the capacity needed to provide, whether it's heat or fuel or air conditioning or any source of energy for daily life or for development of its economy. So there are a lot of issues at play here. And Iran does have the right to nuclear energy. So again, this is such a complicated issue.

issue that is being handled in the way of, you know, a sentence here, a sentence there, and a lot of glib or flippant language about regime change and, you know, bunker buster bombs. And it's not going to be resolved simply. And I don't think it's going to be resolved militarily. At the end of the day, every war has to end with some kind of arrangement that ensures there's no renewed cycle of violence. Let's hear from Paul at Mill Valley. Paul, welcome to Forum.

Thanks for taking my call, and thank you to Robin and Trita. I wanted to look ahead to the future a bit and also the global architecture around controlling and managing nuclear weapons. You've touched on this a bit with respect to the JCPOA, which was a multilateral organization.

agreement, although it wasn't a treaty like the Non-Proliferation Treaty, what has governed nuclear weapons for the last 55 years has been what's called the NPT, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I would describe it as

highly endangered. And so I'd like to ask Trita and Robin what they think about, say, five to eight years out might be the health of the nonproliferation regime. One final note, it's really interesting to note, Israel is not a member of the nonproliferation treaty, and yet they have nuclear weapons. Iran is a member of the nonproliferation treaty.

And the JCPOA had intrusive inspection requirements. I'm not saying they're great guys. It's a terrible regime. But that, I think, is important to point out. So I'd love to hear your comments about the future of the global regime for controlling nuclear weapons. Oh, Trita, why don't you take that?

I think that's a great question. And I think we should, as much as the caller correctly pointed out, that Israel is not a party to it, which needs to be reminded. Israel has nuclear weapons. We're faced here with a situation in which a nuclear-equipped country that is not part of the NPT undertook an act of aggression against a country that isn't NPT, does not have a nuclear weapons program or nuclear weapons, and was in the midst of negotiations.

What does this then do to the NPT and the future? And that's a very, very good question. I think we also have to remind ourselves

Had it not been for the NPT, there's a very significant risk that we would have had 10 or 20 more nuclear weapons states today. And by and large, it is viewed as one of the most successful international agreements. At the time, there was some skepticism as to whether it would work. And there were predictions that we would have 20 or so nuclear weapons states today. And we don't. And it's to a very large extent because of the NPT.

But if this is allowed to stand, and if you have European countries such as the Germans legitimizing what the Israelis have done, I think you are making, that's a huge blow to the NPT. There's already a significant risk that the Iranians will walk out of the NPT altogether throughout all of the inspectors and turn their program completely dark.

And the manner in which the rest of the world, particularly the West, reacts to this is going to be crucial. We've already seen that in the course of the last two years, over what is happening in Gaza right now, the mass law and the genocide, that Western powers have completely set aside international norms and laws after talking a big game about the rules-based order when it was an attack on Ukraine. And that has really tanked Western credibility.

If this continues, I fear that we may also see the NPT become a victim of this. You know, I want to shift in the few minutes that we have left about oil and what oil will do in playing as a negotiation chip to maybe...

to end this conflict. And Robin, as you noted in your piece in The New Yorker, the price of U.S. crude jumped 7% in the first 24 hours of the conflict. And Iran has the world's third largest oil reserves. What role do you think that and its geographic placement near the Strait of Hormuz, which is how China gets a lot of its oil, how is that going to play out in determining when and where this conflict will end?

Well, Iran's strategy may be partly based on the leverage it has when it comes to the energy market. And Iran's strategy may kind of calculate that if oil prices increase or if the Strait of Hormuz becomes impassable, affecting a fifth of the world's oil supplies every day, that the international market will put enough pressure on President Trump to be the one to say, OK, Israel, stop.

I think that's kind of unrealistic, but it's certainly the feeling inside Iran that it does have some leverage to play. Remember in the

1980s during the Iranian war with Iraq. After Iraq attacked Iranian ships, Iran began dropping mines in the Persian Gulf. And in the end, the United States deployed the Navy to protect some of the tankers going through. It became very complicated. And so Iran remembers that vividly. I think probably Americans don't.

But that was a moment that really rattled the international community, saw oil prices increase. And so we haven't really factored that in and into kind of the trajectory of what the potential is.

in the region or to the world is. Well, we've been talking about the war between Israel and Iran now in its eighth day. We were joined by Trita Parsi, co-founder and executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. Thank you so much for joining us today, Trita.

Thank you so much. We also heard from Robin Wright, contributing writer and columnist for The New Yorker. Her latest piece for the magazine is titled, What is Israel's Endgame with Iran? Robin, thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you. The 9 o'clock hour of form is produced by me, Grace Wan, Blanca Torres, and Kiana Mogadam. Our interns are Brian Vo and Jesse Fisher. Jennifer Eng is our engagement producer. Francesca Fenzi is our digital community producer. Judy Campbell is lead producer. Danny Bringer is our engineer. Katie Springer is the operations manager of KQED Podcasts. Our vice president of news is Ethan Tovin-Lindsey. And our chief content officer is Holly Kernan.

I'm Grace Wan, in today for Alexis Madrigal. Stay tuned for another hour of Forum Ahead with guest host Leslie McClurg. Funds for the production of Forum are provided by the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Generosity Foundation, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

Support for Forum comes from the University of San Francisco School of Management. Celebrating 100 years of partnership with the Bay Area business community, the USF School of Management connects students to the city's vibrant culture, hands-on internships, and a wealth of career opportunities. Where AI and sustainability are integrated into every facet of business education.

and where students bring innovation, ethics, and entrepreneurial leadership to a planet in need.

The University of San Francisco School of Management. Change the world from here. Support for KQED podcasts comes from Earthjustice. As a national legal nonprofit, Earthjustice has more than 200 full-time lawyers who fight for a healthy environment. They wield the power of the law to protect people's health, preserve magnificent places and wildlife, and advance clean energy to combat climate change. Earthjustice fights in court because the Earth needs a good lawyer.

Learn more about how you can get involved and become a supporter at earthjustice.org. Most of our media are owned by a handful of tech billionaires, but there's one place that still operates like the internet was never invented. On the new season of The Divided Dial from On the Media, we're exploring shortwave radio, where prayer and propaganda coexist with news and conspiracy theories.

And where an existential battle for the public airwaves is playing out right now. Listen to On The Media wherever you get your podcasts.