Shownotes Transcript
Breaking news coming in from Bet365, and it's no surprise. Same game parlay from Bet365 just keeps getting better. Well, it's even easier to make a bet. Choose from the most popular markets like hits, run line, totals, and home runs. So many to choose from. Download the app, start building your bet, and see why it's never ordinary at Bet365.
Gambling problem? Call 1-800-NEXT-STEP. 21 plus only. Must be physically located in Arizona. TNCs apply. Welcome to the World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. Today with me, Stuart Willey.
A second round of indirect nuclear talks between the United States and Iran took place over the weekend, with both sides again hailing good progress and promising more talks next Saturday. There's also been a flurry of diplomacy going on in the background. The Saudi defence minister meeting with Ayatollah Khamenei and Iran's president, while Iran's foreign minister has met Russia's President Putin. He also heads to consult with Beijing on Tuesday. But what happens if all of this diplomacy fails?
Today, I'm joined by Samer Al-Atrush, The Times' Middle East correspondent. Samer, if we don't see a deal by that 60-day deadline Donald Trump wants...
What will the Americans do? Well, Trump's been quite open about that. And we've seen a buildup of U.S. military pieces in the region. So the idea is that if Iran doesn't do a deal, they will face action by both the U.S. and Israel. And as Trump said, Israel would be leading the action.
They've been planning this for years. They have a lot of intelligence penetration of Iran. They've already conducted several operations in Iran
including putting boots on the ground in a commando operation. So that's a very real threat. At the same time, I think Trump would prefer to see a deal. He would certainly prefer to have one to his name. And, you know, he's definitely pushing for that. Israel, I think, on the other hand, has been quite disappointed with the announcement for the new negotiations they were chasing to strike Iran.
So fairly well telegraphed military threats from Donald Trump. Does Israel have the ability to end Iran's nuclear program rather than just set it back, as you say, considerably? Yeah.
That's a matter for debate. Conventional wisdom is that it would be very, very hard to take care of the nuclear program through airstrikes or even boots on the ground. The facilities are spread across the country. Many of them are very, very deep underground. So as the conventional wisdom goes, you can't resolve this militarily. Now, that conventional wisdom obviously relies on what we know of Israeli capabilities and
And what we've seen in the past, there's clearly a lot that we don't know. You know, the Israeli military knows, the Israeli intelligence knows, but we don't know. We don't know what tactics they would use, what methods that they would use. I mean, yes, it would be airstrikes, but what type of bombs and how many bombs? You know, to give an example, in Hassan Nasrallah's assassination last year, he was in a bunker and
in Beirut, again, conventionalism would have been that, you know, you can't kill him in that bunker. Certainly one or two bombs couldn't, which is what normally is dropped on a bunker. Israel dropped eight bombs.
in the span of two minutes. So, you know, but still, it would be very hard, no matter what they use, to eradicate Iran's nuclear program. The know-how is there. You know, they can always rebuild things after an airstrike. They can go deeper underground. They can take more precautions. So I think those are some of the reasons why Trump would prefer a negotiated agreement, but
And they've been sending out some fairly flexible signals to Iran. I mean, on the one hand, yes, they are threatening serious military action. On the other hand, they're lowering their demands. Initially, they'd gone into this saying,
Iran has to completely dismantle its nuclear program. It cannot reach uranium. It has to put curbs on its missile production program. It has to put curbs on its support for militia in the region, the so-called Iran Axis of Resistance. And in recent weeks, it's been much more flexible. And as the lead U.S. negotiator, Steve Witkoff, said, the U.S. could try to find a compromise.
Samer, in the absence of that compromise, what's your sense as to how likely Trump will keep to those threats of military action? And would it just be Israel carrying those out? Yeah, I mean, I think if Iran spurns Donald Trump, then strikes are very much a likelihood.
I think, you know, Israel is hoping that these talks fail because they think that talks aren't going to lead to, you know, security guarantee when it comes to their nuclear program. So if Trump would have been on side, you know,
the idea of military action in the first place, he would be so much more on side, you know, if, you know, he's seen as having offered Iran a deal and they refused. So yes, likelihood is that there will be military action. The U.S. would have to take a lead. Although, you know, despite what Trump said, you know, Israel doesn't have some of the munitions that may well be needed for these types of strikes. You know, I'm talking about these
really massive conventional bombs that the Americans have, they would obviously need American support in defending themselves against any Iranian retaliation. So we've seen the Americans move in more air defense support to the Israelis, including Assad's system in recent weeks.
So that would be their second in Israel that they've moved there. Obviously, they'll, you know, they'll rely on the U.S. to provide the umbrella of support for Israel itself, but also for some of the actions in Iran. It would need an American, you know, input, I think. Just how ready would Iran's military be to retaliate or even resist those kind of strikes?
They don't have any strength to resist it. Israel's already wiped out their air defenses in a wave of airstrikes last year. You know, what we've seen over the past two years is
It was always, you know, the truth, but I don't think we appreciated it necessarily, is that, you know, there's a vast, vast disparity between Israel, Iran and the Iranian-backed militia like Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis in Yemen. We're talking about one of the most advanced militaries in the world against Beshara.
best case, you know, mid-tier 70s power, military power. You know, they have outdated weaponry. You know, they do have a lot of rockets and they certainly fired a lot of rockets against Israel. But, you know, they couldn't do much damage. I mean, yes, they damaged an air base in Israel. They almost got the Mossad headquarters. But it's not really the sort of power projection that would...
I think, severely dent or dissuade Israel or the United States. The other danger, obviously, is that American troops come under attack in the region. We've seen them come under attack over the past two years by Iranian-backed militia using Iranian-supplied munitions and rockets. And in one case, three servicemen were killed in a base in Syria. So those are really the two main things. I mean, the main deterrent that Iran used to have against particularly Israel was Hezbollah.
That was kind of the gun that they had held to Israel's head. And Hezbollah is in no shape to fight. You know, they're in no shape to conduct any war. You know, at best, you know, they could fire a few of the remaining missiles, but they also have to consider their own position domestically in Lebanon, which is very precarious right now. Other Iranian tactics could be to, you know, kind of doomsday scenario would be to start targeting oil fields in the region.
Saudi Arabia and other countries. But again, that's a very difficult thing for Iran to do because unlike the last decade, this decade, Iran's had rapprochements with Saudi Arabia. They've come closer to Saudi Arabia. They've come closer to the United Arab Emirates. And that would just completely isolate them, the region, again. They don't want to be isolated. So
Iran just simply, I mean, they don't have much leverage at this point. And I think that's why they will probably, despite their rhetoric, they'll have to settle for less than what they did for under Barack Obama. And that's what I think Trump wants to take advantage of. We keep hearing these warnings about just how close Iran might be to getting nuclear weapons capability. Does that perhaps give Tehran some leverage? What's the risk here?
For Iran itself, you know, they can build a bomb anytime, the Iranians. I mean, it would take them several months to build a bomb. It would be a rudimentary bomb. That's the assessment of the United Nations, of Israel, of other countries. And the Iranians have said that if they come under attack by Israel, they will build a bomb. Or they could, the way they put it is that they could revise their thinking about their nuclear program, which they claim is for peaceful purposes. So, you know, they can build a bomb.
you know, that's something that they could have done for years, really. It's not some new capability that they've had. They have enough uranium and they have the technology to equip a warhead and to build a bomb. Now, the problem for the Iranians is that once they do that, you know, there'll be no turning back. And, you know, I don't think the US or Israel would sit aside and watch them. So that could trigger an attack and it would isolate them further internationally. And I mean, the thing about Iran is that, you know, they're fighting...
The regime is fighting two wars, really. They're both wars for their survival as the regime, as we know it. I mean, one of them is the external conflict with Israel, the United States, and the other is the internal conflict with their public, which overwhelmingly dislikes the regime and has to be kept in place through the use of force on a daily basis.
In this scenario, I think they can't really afford to isolate themselves more internationally, more sanctions, their economy is squeezed. It's a terrible situation for them right now. So building a bomb might not get them the deterrence that they want. And also further sanctions, further isolation, would just put more pressure on Iranians to possibly rise up against them. So I think those are the calculations generally that they're having to look at.
Samer, thank you. Samer Al-Atrush is The Times' Middle East correspondent. Last week, we looked at the start of these negotiations and how the US president's desire to get America out of the Middle East is driving progress. Go back and listen if you can. The episode was called Trump's big bet on Iran nukes might just work. That's it from us for today. Thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times. See you tomorrow.