Trump considers his Iran military options
10:27 Share

BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30-second ad to remind you, right now, wherever you are, to unclench your jaw, relax your shoulders, take a deep breath in and out.

Feels better, right? That's 15 seconds of self-care. Imagine what you could do with more. Visit BetterHelp.com slash Random Podcast for 10% off your first month of therapy. No pressure, just help. But for now, just relax.

So move on to Monday.com.

Welcome to The World in 10. In an increasingly uncertain world, this is The Times' daily podcast dedicated to global security. I'm Toby Gillis, joined by Stuart Willey. Donald Trump's messaging to Iran is increasingly hostile. Some believe that his claims that Iran may feel the full might of the US military might not merely be posturing. On Monday, reports suggested the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz was heading from the South China Sea to the Middle East.

while Mr Trump took to social media to tell the population of Tehran to evacuate from the city. But what would an American assault on Iran look like? Elizabeth Braw is a senior fellow with the Atlantic Council's Transatlantic Security Initiative. Elizabeth, how likely do you believe Donald Trump is to use the military to bring an end to Iran's nuclear problem, as he puts it? It will require a lot of military force to...

and Iran's nuclear program. And the question is, whose military force it will require? Just Israel or the United States as well? And if it's going to require the United States military, then we are talking about a completely new dimension of this conflict. An armed conflict between the United States and Iran is very different than an armed conflict between Israel and Iran.

So that seems unlikely. But of course, the usual caveat applies that things that would ordinarily seem unlikely may not turn out to be unlikely in the world led by Trump. He is the dealmaker, isn't he? And we know that.

That reputation is important to him. Iran must know that. So might they assume this is noise in order to force a deal rather than a real threat?

So there are, so to speak, three partners in this marriage. So Iran, Israel and the United States, and they all want different things. And Israel and the United States, the presumptive allies in this alliance or in this configuration, as it were, they want different things. The question is whose objectives win or who wins in this tug of war between Israel

Israel and the United States when it comes to what to do about Iran. Israel very clearly wants an end to Iran's nuclear program. That is the stated objective. But the United States or Donald Trump wants a nuclear deal. Remember, one of his big things is that he hated the nuclear deal negotiated by Obama or by the Obama administration. He called it the worst deal ever. But he thinks that he can deliver a better deal. So it

That is very different from wanting to bomb Iran's nuclear capabilities away. Who wins? That is what we'll see. Elizabeth, you said if America's forces get involved, this changes things dramatically in the region. What does that look like? Are we talking Tehran being flattened like Gaza?

I don't think anybody knows what it would look like simply because the United States is not in the business of attacking powerful countries. It has obviously invaded in recent years. It has invaded Iraq. It has invaded Afghanistan, where they are very different from Iran. Iran is a powerful nation. It's a

Populous nation, it's also powerful militarily, scientifically. As a result, attacking it would be a way bigger risk than attacking Iraq or Afghanistan. And I think America has emerged somewhat chastened, to put it diplomatically, from the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. And there is another thing. Trump is an isolationist, unlike Trump.

many hardcore Republicans in past decades and indeed in past years, he doesn't believe very much in military intervention. He's an isolationist who wants to focus efforts on America, on the homeland, and he also wants to strike trade deals famously.

So getting into a war with Iran would not be something that would be expected from somebody with his mindset. But then again, he is so unpredictable that it can't be ruled out. But we should remember that what we have seen in the past few weeks with the military getting involved at home, quelling protests, that was seen as a

an effort by Trump to show that I care more about the homeland. This is how we're going to use our resources and to then potentially use military resources against Iran. I just think for a man of his mindset, that is unlikely. Elizabeth, Iran is not a global superpower, a regional one, sure, but not global. So when you talk about the risks America would be taking by bringing military action, what are those risks?

It is a regional power and it's also a tenacious regime in many ways, quite sophisticated when it comes to the way the whole military system is set up. It also used to have a very sophisticated system of proxies. That system has, let's say, crumbled a bit in recent months. But nevertheless, it is a sophisticated regime, a powerful regime militarily speaking.

And again, scientifically very different from Iraq and especially Afghanistan. And with any war, you choose when you start a war, but you don't choose when you end it because that depends as much on the other side as America has had to painfully learn in recent years, as Russia is learning as we speak. So you have to be...

truly convinced that you will overpower the country that you're planning to attack unless you want to have your forces bogged down for a very long time. Let's look at the possibility of a nuclear deal. What do you think Trump will be looking to negotiate within that? And would Iran ever agree to it?

I think the tragedy of the original Iran nuclear deal was that it was a good deal. And in fact, it worked so well that the EU remained committed to it together with Iran, even after the United States under Trump in his first term walked away from it. I don't see how a

a new Iran nuclear deal could be very different on substance. The main difference would be that it would be a bilateral deal between the United States and Iran rather than a multilateral deal, which the previous one was. And that would be the main difference. But I think from a European perspective, it also makes it...

make such a deal less secure because the more countries who have involved in an agreement, the better it is. But this is the world, this is the situation we have to accept now. The original Iran nuclear deal is not going to come back. If we're going to have a second one, it will be a US-Iran bilateral deal.

Do you think the only thing Trump cares about is a nuclear deal? Wouldn't regime change be a more permanent, less fragile and safer target?

It might be, but regime change is incredibly difficult. America has tried it so many times and each time it has turned into a very unsuccessful enterprise simply because it's very difficult and unpredictable to try to tell another country how to be governed.

I don't see how it could succeed on the 10th or 11th or 12th time of trying when it hasn't succeeded in the past. And we should remember that Iran is a powerful country and it's not the sort of maybe weak, unsophisticated country that Western countries would consider manageable and where they could apply their power to the point that regime change exists.

ought to be possible. I don't think it's possible even in such circumstances, but maybe, maybe. But with a country like Iran, how would that work? That is too ambitious an objective. The objective of ending Iran's nuclear program, I think, is a realistic one. And again, the question is how to end it. Elizabeth, there were reports Iran has looked to the Gulf states to press Trump into using his influence on Israel to bring a ceasefire.

What I think is conspicuous by its absence is support for Iran by them, or indeed the wider Arab states, even with Israel as the adversary. Why do you think that is? Well, Iran is a bit of an outlier in the Middle East since it's not a natural ally of the Arab states in the region. That said, the Arab states in the region have been remarkably or noticeably muted

on this conflict. They haven't issued strong condemnations either way. And we should remember that Saudi Arabia and Iran now maintain closer relations than they have in the past. So even though Iran has lost some of the power of its proxies,

it's not as uniformly negative as it could be but then again the reality remains that loyalties alliances are different in the Middle East compared to what they are here in Europe for example

Okay, Elizabeth Braw, Senior Fellow with the Atlantic Council's Transatlantic Security Initiative. Thank you so much for joining us. A nuclear deal with Iran isn't the only one Donald Trump is reviewing at the moment. On Thursday last week, we looked at the Nuclear Submarine Development Agreement signed with Australia.

and the UK by Joe Biden, and whether it fits with President Trump's America First agenda. Scroll back to June the 12th to listen. For now, thank you for taking 10 minutes to stay on top of the world with the help of The Times. See you tomorrow.

which is why you can count on Grainger for professional-grade products and next-day delivery so you have everything you need to get the job done. Call 1-800-GRAINGER, click Grainger.com, or just stop by. Grainger, for the ones who get it done.