June 27, 2025 • 50 mins
On this episode of The Middle, we ask you what your thoughts are on U.S. involvement in Iran. Jeremy is joined by Fox News chief political correspondent Jennifer Griffin, and General Phillip Breedlove, Distinguished Professor of the Practice in Georgia Tech's Sam Nunn School of International Affairs and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe. DJ Tolliver joins as well, plus calls from around the country. #Iran #Israel #Trump #military #nuclear #middleeast #Fordo #Khameini #Netanyahu
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:06):
Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson along with our
house DJ Tolliver and Tolliver. First off, we are now
the first Place audience Engagement show. Thank you to the
Public Media Journalists Association for that award.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Why see, you never tell me anything. I don't know
we won an award. I'm wearing joggers. Man, you gotta
let me know.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
You should have been wearing a tuxedo for this one. Also,
I hate to say it, but Generation Z has been
screwed again because we were going to do our show
about the challenges of gen Z this hour, but now
we're going to talk about Iran instead.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
You know, they're distracted, they're on TikTok. They don't care.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
We'll fight maybe, Okay, we'll find out next time when
we do that show. We are going to do that
later this summer. But as you know, in the past
week or so, the US entered a war between Israel
and Iran with airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran struck
back with a strike on an American military base in Kataro,
though no one was injured, and then President Trump announced
a ceasefire and since then has been defending the strikes
(00:59):
after leaked US intelligence assessment found they may not have
set back Iran's nuclear program by all that much. With
all that said, we want to know this hour how
you feel about the US getting involved in a war
with Iran. Tolliver. Tell people how they can get in touch.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Yeah, you can call us at eight four four four
Middle that's eight four four four six four three three
five three, or you can write to us at Listen
to the Middle dot com. You can also comment on
our live stream on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, all.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
The places, all right, joining me this hour, Fox News
Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin. Jennifer is great to
have you on the show.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Thank you so much. Jeremy, great to be.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Back with you.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
And General Philip breedlove Is willis with us as well,
Distinguished Professor of the Practice in Georgia's Tech's Sam Nunn
School of International Affairs and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
General Breedlove great to have you back on as well.
Speaker 5 (01:48):
It's good to be back. I love this format.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Well, thank you so much. And before we get to
the phones, Jennifer, the Trump administration is pretty angry about
the intelligence assessment that was leaked that found the strikes
didn't obliterate Iran's nuclear program as Trump had claimed. What
do we know at this point about the effectiveness of
the US action in Iran?
Speaker 6 (02:09):
Well, let's talk about that leaked intelligence assessment. It came
from the Defense Intelligence AGENCYEE. That's the main military intelligence branch,
if you will, one of seventeen intelligence agencies, and they
would be one of the principal lead groups that would
work on bomb damage assessment.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
What we know about this.
Speaker 6 (02:32):
Intelligence report is that it was deemed to have low confidence,
but it did say something that got people's attention that
within the first twenty four hours this intelligence was basically
went till about nine pm Eastern on Sunday night, so
a little over twenty four hours after the strikes. The
initial assessment, again with low confidence, was that they may
(02:55):
have set back the program anywhere from a few months
up to a year. That's a big range, and it's
not the final word. There're going to be other intelligence
agencies and also parts of the intelligence community that weigh
in and it will then be compiled through the OD
and I and given to President Trump. So this is
(03:15):
not the final word, but it certainly gives some indication.
I don't think they would just say that for without
having any evidence. And so it does raise some questions,
particularly when you look back at some of the things
that Iron told the IAEA that you are going to
do before the strikes, and also some of the satellite
imagery of the site at four Doh that showed a
(03:39):
lot of trucks, about a thousand trucks two days before
the strikes, and the question was what were those trucks doing.
Could some of them have been taking some of the
near weapons highly enriched uranium out of that right, and
did some of that highly enrichedanium survive?
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yeah, General Love, what do you think whether the strikes
were as effective as Trump said, which he said they
obliterated the nuclear program, or as ineffective as the worst
assessment that came out, the sort of lowest assessment that
came out of that intelligence assessment. What is the significance
of the US getting involved in the way that it did.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
Well, let me just add a thought to Jennifer's excellent
thoughts on this. You know, battle damage assessment is an art,
not a science. There is a lot of science involved
in one of the things we learn as commanders who
have not only flown these missions, but led these missions
(04:41):
and then commanded these missions. Battle damage assessment is the
classic for the statement you've heard a lot. It's never
as good or as bad as you first hear, and
most of the time what you get immediately after a
strike is later refined. We will say that. And so, yeah,
(05:04):
this first leaked document or leaked report was a preliminary one,
and I think one of the reasons they labeled it
of low confidence is because it was made so quickly.
And what we're finding out day by day now is
more facts that talk to these things, and so you know,
(05:25):
this will continue to refine, and at some point we'll
bring in some of the very highly technical things that
some we could talk about on this program, others that
are not, and they will look at air sampling in
all manner of things to determine what went on under
the ground, and we will get to a very good conclusion.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
But General Breedlove, there are many presidents that have looked
at the situation in Iran and considered military action. They
didn't take it. Trump took it. Is their consequence of that.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
Well, the fact of the matter is a lot of
those presidents didn't have a MOP. You know. The son
of MOP that we've been dropping for many years and
we understand and learn how this worked is the Bluey
one O nine And we dropped Bluey one O nine's
in several of our wars, and we learned how the
physics of this kind of weapon works. And so only
(06:19):
recently have we come to the MOP. And remember that
this is the very first time it's used. That's another
time another reason why we have to be very introspective
when we look at what happened, because it's the first
combat use of the weapon.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Jennifer, what are your sources telling you about potential retaliation
on the part of Iran. Was that attack on the
US base in Qatar all that's going to happen or
are people expecting more?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well?
Speaker 6 (06:48):
I think what if you look at the history of Iran,
usually they don't fight a conventional war. You know, they
know they're overmatched with the United States, and so that
is why they alerted through Oman or Cutter. They gave
a sense that of what the scope of what they
were going to fire, so that the US could be ready.
There were some incredible details during the press briefing at
(07:09):
the Pentagon today in which we learned that there were
just forty four young soldiers between the age of twenty
one and twenty eight who stood by two Patriot missile
batteries and shot down those fourteen ballistic missiles which take
less than two minutes to fly from Iran towards America's
largest base in the Middle East. That's aluded and Cutter.
(07:32):
It is quite extraordinary. The Patriot missile performed incredibly well.
Those soldiers performed incredibly well. I think General Breedlove would
agree with me that if you look back at the
mission itself and what was accomplished by the military, let's
not talk about whether it destroyed everything or the entire
nuclear program has taken offline. That we can't say at
this point. But what we can say is that what
(07:54):
the US military was asked to do and the mission
that they were given, it went off on the flawlessly
to have B two bombers take off from Whiteman Air
Force Space in Missouri and fly a round trip thirty
seven hours, refueled along the way by fifty air refueling
planes that were positioned across the Mediterranean and Middle East,
(08:16):
and then to drop what we learned today more details
about At four Dough. They dropped twelve of those mop
bunker buster bombs that General Breedlove talked about. They're thirty
thousand pound bombs. They dropped the first bomb into two
There were two air ventilation shafts, if you will, in
four Dough, and there was some debate before that as
(08:36):
to whether they had cratered the entrances. But all along
the plan was to send those mop bombs down the shafts,
and they had to use the first mop to take
the concrete that had been laid in the last few
days by the arians over the shaft. They used that
to remove that, and then five successive GPS positioned thirty
(09:00):
pound bombs were sent down those shafts. That's why they
feel pretty confident that they were able to take all
those centrifuges offline down below at four Doh. That doesn't
deal necessarily with the highly in geranium which could have
been removed. But in terms of that Mifton, and we
can't forget the Navy. The Navy was involved as well.
(09:22):
You had a submarine that was four hundred miles away
that fired thirty Tomahawk missiles at Isfahan, another very very
important site there, and they all were done with synchronicity
and general Bridlove can talk about how hard that is
since he was in the Air.
Speaker 5 (09:38):
Force right soyl just a superior mission. And as the
Chairman laid out lots of things that he said, some
of us wondered if we could say so now we
could talk about these things. But we had the combination
of what we call target hearing. These guys that were
(09:59):
developing this target had been doing it for fifteen years
and they watched it built and they watched how it worked.
Then we had some great targeteering. The MOP, as good
as it is, was not going to go straight through
the mountain into the mission space. As Jennifer laid out,
we had to find a different way to get blast
(10:21):
and over pressure into the mission space, and that was
by going down these shafts. And the beauty of the
MOP is it is able to penetrate to a certain
depth and then cook off. And so these bombs were
set to go down until they intersected with the halls
that went into the mission space, and then they went
(10:44):
off and all of that blast and over pressure went
up into the mountain into the spaces and did the.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
One so clearly very impressive operation, and I'm sure we're
going to get to this in the calls. I just
want to ask, just briefly, very briefly, Jennifer Breedlove, before
we take a quick break, are you worried about the
US getting sucked into another conflict? Though, even if it
is an impressive operation.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
I think Jeremy, that the fact that the President.
Speaker 6 (11:11):
Was actually successfully able to drop those bombs not leave
too much time for and once they knew that the
Iranian response was going to be kind of one and done,
and to basically declare victory and get out that I
think will present prevent a larger conflict right now for
(11:31):
the US military.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
We shall see, Tolliver, you know that the strikes on
the facilities were actually not the first time President Trump
has ordered an attack on Iran.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Yeah, back in twenty twenty, near the end of his
first term, he ordered the assassination of top Iranian general
because sim Sulamani, who was in Iraq at the time.
Speaker 5 (11:47):
We took action last night to stop a war.
Speaker 7 (11:52):
We did not take action to start a war. I
have deep respect for the Iranian people. They are a
remarkable people with an incredible heritage and unlimited potential.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
We do not seek regime change.
Speaker 7 (12:08):
However, the Iranian regime's aggression and the region, including the
use of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbors, must end,
and it must end now.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
He said he didn't support regime change, then kind of
changed his tune in recent days on social as people do,
as people sometimes do. We'll be right back with more
of your calls on the Middle. This is the Middle.
I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just tuning, in the Middle
is a national call in show. We're focused on elevating
voices from the Middle geographically, politically, and philosophically, or maybe
(12:40):
you just want to meet in the Middle. This hour,
we're asking for your thoughts on US involvement in Iran. Tolliver,
what is the number to call in?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three through five three. You can also
write to us at Listen to the Middle dot com
or on social media. And I'll just say one more time,
if you write six paragraphs, it's tough for me to
get that on air.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Okay, sure it does not to be heard by others.
I'm joined by Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer
Griffin and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Phillip
Breedlove and the phone lines are completely full, So let's
go to Dan, who's in Kansas City. Dan, your thoughts
on US involvement in Iran.
Speaker 8 (13:17):
Good evening.
Speaker 9 (13:17):
I'm a long time three time Trump voter, which means
in the urban libertal milieu of Kansas City, I've paid
a pretty high social price among friends and family, and
I really do not like these strikes at all. It's
not a red line for me because I believe it's
(13:38):
domestic agenda is so important. But if we get sucked
into a boots on the ground Iraq style regime change war,
I will be right out hand in hand by liberal
friends in the streets and I'll be done. That's not
in America First foreign policy. I don't care what kind
of regime Iran has. They haven't committed any act that
(14:00):
could be construed as an active war against US. And nukes,
I mean, Pakistan's much less stable. We give them billions
of dollars, they have nukes. Israel, unlike Iran, isn't part
a member of the Non Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. They
have a secret, illegal nuclear program. They started that by
(14:20):
stealing the enriched uranium from US. They've got the Sampson
option where they've threatened friend and foe alike if they
get in a tight spot.
Speaker 8 (14:28):
And I just.
Speaker 9 (14:31):
We have no business over there. And I'm really worried,
Like how the net and Yahu. It's like the tail
lagging the dog. The Israel lobby is so powerful it
makes people confused about what Americans interests really are.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Dan, I really appreciate your call. And Jennifer Griffin. We've
heard already from people like Marjorie Taylor Green, a very
conservative Republican member of Congress, Thomas Massey, a conservative Republican
member of Congress. Both of them have articulated what Dan
did there and saying that they are they're Republicans, they're
Trump supporters, but they're not in favor of what's happening.
Speaker 6 (15:06):
Well, I think every American should agree and would agree
that the US does not want to be involved in
another forever war. If you will in the Middle East
or find itself sucked in, and we all know how
this goes, you can do something that is a perfect
military operation in the I remember the thunder run into
Baghdad seemed pretty perfect, and then you know, in the
(15:27):
months that followed, you found yourself in the middle of
a very very complicated war involving regime change. I think
the President was very clear he didn't he drew a
red line. He had some mixed messaging for a little while,
frankly in those initial days about regime change, and toyed
with it a little bit, but it was very clear,
and frankly, the Israelis were frustrated that they had to
(15:47):
stop before they were going to go on, and they
knew where the Supreme Leader was and they were probably
going for regime change, but the President stopped that. I
think right now that the real question is what did
we accomplish by using the military in the way that
we just did, bombing a country that we are not
(16:08):
at war with. And there are issues about the War
Powers Act, and they should be debated in Congress, frankly,
but I think right now, I think all things considered,
it does seem like the President was able to carry
out the strikes, stop, called for a ceasefire, and then
get the American military back to a more relaxed posture.
(16:29):
That being said, the Iranians get a final say, and
they typically do things like terrorism and assassinations. They have
long memories and they've been finding the US basically since
nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
Well in general breedlove. Even if the nuclear program wasn't obliterated,
Iran has already now lost several key military leaders. They're
not getting the help that they want from Russia or China.
Their proxies like Hesbal and Hamas have been weakened. Is
the regime at risk of collapse?
Speaker 5 (17:00):
I wouldn't want to make the judgment about whether the
regime is at risk of collapse, but I think there's
some facts that we can consider about the status of
the theocracy and how much it controls its future. And
that is one of the things that's not discussed here
is that Israel went in an established air supremacy over
(17:25):
half of Iran and was defeating Iran's military in detail,
plinking their high value assets, taking things away from them.
And I think that's a reason why Iran brought back
a very very measured response towards Alu d And if
(17:49):
you believe the reporting, they even warned us that attack
was coming, et cetera, et cetera, And so internally the
theocracy is representing that there's a great strike and we're
going to do we did great damage. But externally, I
think they were actually messaging us that they're ready to
(18:09):
stop the big kinetics because let's just say it one
more time, when another nation owns the airspace over your country,
you are in a very very bad way. And I
think that theocracy understood that and was trying to get
out of this problem before they lost all their military capability.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Let's go to Brian, who's in Tampa, Florida. Brian, welcome
to the middle Go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 8 (18:39):
Well, I am generally not a Trump supporter. I got
against him every time I can, but he's got a
point a few times. I think he's right on this attack.
Why think we needed to perform our adversaries. I hope
that Ukraine wins in their war are like to see
(19:03):
him get more aggressive towards Russia in our adversaries. I
almost believe at this point that we might have been
better taking Patent's advice wipe them out while we can.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
Are you worried at all, Brian about unintended consequences about
the US getting sucked into a war having to send
troops into Iran. Uh maybe, Brian, Brian maybe.
Speaker 8 (19:35):
Yeah, Yeah, I'm thinking about it. Well, I'd rather not,
but I'm barn with Sandon planes.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Yeah, I was sending planes. Okay, Jennifer Griffin. As you
hear that that that is, that's one view of supportive
wants to confront America's adversaries.
Speaker 6 (20:00):
Well, I think what's interesting to hear is that there
is a feeling of support even among well many Americans
would like to see the president be tougher with Russia
in Ukraine. So this was kind of a releveling, if
you will. And because it ended so quickly and if
(20:21):
it is done for now, which it does sort of
feel that way, if you know, at the Pentagon and elsewhere,
is that it was did send a really strong deterrent
message to China, in particular as they look toward Taiwan,
because really, the American military performed incredibly well and showed
that they could kind of reach out and touch their
(20:43):
adversaries very far around the world without them even seeing
them coming. With self technology, now that would be a
different situation with China. But I still think that president
she was watching the US military and it would perhaps
give him pause in terms of using his own military
anytime soon. I wish the president, like your collar said,
(21:04):
would get tougher with Putin over Ukraine, because Ukraine, like Israel,
is an ally of the United States. Ukraine has I mean,
one of the reasons the Patriot missiles worked so well
is that they have been used in Ukraine and the
data that they've been able to glean and use. They've
improved the software so much that they're incredibly accurate thanks
(21:28):
to the Ukrainians. So the Ukrainian model is using a
proxy ally like Ukraine to fend off an adversary and
US troops not getting involved. So I think nobody has
the stomach for US troops getting involved involved anywhere per se.
But using military might properly to send a message and
(21:50):
to say you've crossed a line, it does tend to
have a deterrent effect.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
Yeah, it's interesting how all of these things are connected, Tolliver,
what's coming in online?
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Robert from Boise says, I'm curious about the status of
the enriched uranium the Iranians had already. Where is it
if it didn't get moved, proud of the strikes. Can
it be recovered? If it is recovered, can be used
in other smaller attacks not needing nuclear missiles. What about
a dirty backpack style of weapon? And Amy in Rochester,
Minnesota been there, says my husband escaped from Iran. We,
like many or most Iranians within an outside of Iran,
(22:21):
long for the end of this regime. This attack was
not only from the air, but also from the ground. Moreover,
the banks were also successfully targeted. My husband is very hopeful.
What was accomplished in Iran was and is encouragement to
the vast majority of Iranians and discouragement to the fanatics.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
In Iran general. Breed love On that first point, what
about the enriched uranium? I mean, the reason that we
care about this is because Iran could have a nuclear
weapon that may affect the United States or other allies.
Do we know where the enriched uranium is at this point?
Speaker 5 (22:52):
So I don't think that it has been revealed or
maybe we don't know. But here's something that I think
people are just flat overlooking. We were in a state
of what we call in the military persistent stare at
this target. We were using all manner of technical ability
(23:13):
to watch what was going on around this target, and
the trucks are being presented as a mystery. I don't
think there's any mystery of those trucks. We will eventually
find out, something will be revealed. I don't think we've
been given all the data and knowledge we know about
(23:35):
those trucks, but I will bet you that we watched
them from the minute they pulled up to the minute
they left with various methods, and we will eventually know
more about what happened there. So I don't share the
concern of the mystery. I think will will eventually be
(23:56):
allowed to understand what we know about those trucks.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Let's go to share it a greed love.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Don't you agree that once we find.
Speaker 6 (24:04):
Out where that highly enriched uranium at sixty percent enriched
and it's nine hundred pounds worth enough for nine or
ten bombs, it's not weapons great yet, but it's a
short centrifuge cycle away that it will still take negotiations,
and it will take inspectors, and it will take the
IEA being allowed back in and leaving it as is.
(24:28):
You can't strike at something like this and then just
leave it. You do have to stay engaged with Iran,
And I'm not sure that I have a strong sense
that the president wants to remain engaged with this problem.
Speaker 5 (24:40):
Well, I think it was Clausewitz that said, you know,
war is politics by other means. So we have both
more possibly quote unquote war in front of us, and
we certainly have more politics in front of us. And
you're right, we're going to have to figure out where
this stuff is. Lots of voices now saying it's still
(25:02):
in the whole, lots of voices questioning that, And I
think that'll play out over time.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Yeah, Sharon is calling from Erie, Colorado. Sharon, what are
your thoughts about US involvement in Iran?
Speaker 10 (25:16):
Well, aside from our fascination and our budget, where their
ability with our weapons and our brilliant ability to drop bombs.
I remember Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction and
the lies that were told to the American people to
go over and basically destroy Iraq. I believe the US
(25:37):
and Israel are committing war crimes while we've been watching
a live stream genocide for the last two years. Since
the Israel bombed Iran, they have continued to increase the
slaughter of starving Palestinian people, all while we're all looking
at Iran and talking about our brilliant military moves. The
(25:58):
US had no business bombing in Iran. We were not
at war with them, and our own intelligence told us
that there was no threat. Iran was in compliance. And
it makes us look like Israel's lap dog. Israel has
been proven to repeatedly lie every accusation they've made, as
there turned out to be a confession. And now we're
(26:19):
bombing Iran on their behalf. And you know who's gonna
enlist for this?
Speaker 8 (26:25):
Yeah, let me that thing.
Speaker 10 (26:26):
Where's the red line for Israel? Where's the red line
for Israel?
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Sharon, thank you for that call, General breed Love. Let
me let me pick up on the point that Sharon
just made about the US being Israel's lap dog. Some
people are looking at this and saying Israel was the
one who started this. They put the Trump administration in
a position where they really didn't have a choice and
had to had to do what they did. Do you
think that net and Yahoo is the one sort of
(26:52):
leading and Trump is following or the other way around.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Right now, I'm not going to answer that. I'm gonna
I'm gonna go back a little further in this history
and just restart the conversation. Israel has never said we
are about eliminating Iran and everything about Iran and eliminating
them as a country. Iran has said over and over
(27:19):
and over that their goal is to eliminate Israel, and
they have developed weapons programs to enable them to do that.
So I think while I understand the passion of the caller,
there are many things that were said that I don't
agree with and the impetus for Israel responding. If you
(27:43):
go really back to the beginning of what Iran is
trying to do to Israel, you might see it in
a different light.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
General breed Love.
Speaker 6 (27:50):
I would just add also that if you look at
the bombing that the US carried out, which lasted a
couple of hours, as it involved thirty five munitions, is
we have not heard any casually told from that.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
It's not like they were carpet bombing.
Speaker 6 (28:08):
Cities or these were isolated targets in mountains, and I
can't say that nobody was killed, but it is not
like what we saw what we have seen in Gaza,
and that is a very different problem set exactly what
we're talking about here.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
You're exactly right, and I think that, separating from the
conversation of Gaza, if you look at the bombing that
Iran was doing into Israel, almost every aim point was
a civilian aim point. Now, I don't know that the
(28:45):
accuracy of the Iranian missiles are good enough to really
say they were aiming at the things they were hitting,
but the fact of the matter is all of their
strikes went almost completely into civilian areas. As you pointed out, Jennifer,
the strikes that went back into Iran were absolutely one
(29:07):
hundred percent focused on nuclear facilities and not not civilians.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
But Jennifer, we did hear just briefly, we did here
the other day a lot of frustration from President Trump
and used the F word to talk about Israel and
Iran not knowing what they're doing.
Speaker 6 (29:26):
Well, absolutely, and I think you felt that frustration from
the President. But I also you know, I lived in
Israel for seven years covering the Second Indefada, and so
I'm very, very familiar and still have a lot of
great sources inside Israel, and they were frustrated too with
the White House. They don't want to say it now,
and of course, everybody's papering over those differences, but I
(29:49):
would say that relations might be a little bit strained
right now. That's why BBDT Yahoo, the Prime Minister is
making his way to the White House, I think next week,
and he wants to make nice right now with the
President because he knows that Israel needs the United States.
I think it was interesting watching President Trump actually wield
(30:09):
a power that most American presidents have not been willing
to or able to over Israel. So on the one hand,
he might have got pushed into a more accelerated timeline
to getting involved and taking military action against Iran's nuclear
program because of Bob Ntnia, who because of the Israeli strikes.
On the other hand, it was him who told them
(30:32):
to stop.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
And they had to well, Tolliver.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
As we've heard, the US relationship with Iran has been
in a bad place for decades. The Obama administration tried diplomacy.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Yeah, that very famous nuclear deal that Trump pulled out of,
even though I thought he liked deals. Here's President Obama
announcing it back in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 11 (30:50):
Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together
were international partners, has achieved something that decades of animas
has not a comprehensive, long term deal with Iran that
will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal
demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change,
(31:14):
change that makes our country and the world safer and
more secure.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
Well, a lot can change in ten years, Tulliver.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
I mean, look at my hair, man.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
I didn't know you ten years ago. So was your
hair very different then?
Speaker 5 (31:26):
Flat?
Speaker 8 (31:29):
Much?
Speaker 1 (31:29):
It's better now. I think we'll be right back with
more on the middle. This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
In this hour, we're asking you for your thoughts on
US involvement in Iran. You can call us at eight
four four four Middle. That's eight four four four six
four three three five three, or you can reach out
to listen to the Middle dot com. I always feel
bad when I give the phone number and all the
lines are full, but you can leave a message. Listen
(31:52):
to it.
Speaker 5 (31:52):
Message me.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
I'm joined by a former NATA Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
General Philip Breedlove and Fox New Chief International Correspondentational Security
correspondent Jennifer Griffin. And let's go back to the phones.
And Dino is in Wassaw, Wisconsin. Idno your thoughts on
US involvement in Iran?
Speaker 12 (32:12):
Yes, thank you so much for taking my call. I
wanted the State General Brieloved restated an excellent point that
the airspace in Tehran was wide open, I mean because
they Israel did clear it out. So it made the
mission for the American plans to go in there and
complete the mission. But what really took me back was
(32:36):
what when the National Security press conference with Pete Hegseth,
how angry he was. He was so angry that that
he was saying that people were questioning the mission that
was accomplished. You know that it did a job, It
did a job. Did they just did they blow up
(32:59):
the mountain or did they actually get to where they
you know what was No, I know we don't understand,
we don't know yet what what the result was about. Yes,
but it just created doubt in my mind a lot
that Pete HEGXSS was so angry that people didn't agree
(33:20):
with with the with the mission. Yeah, and it kind
of you will be created doubt.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
I'm glad you brought that up, Dina, I'm glad you
brought that up. Dona because it is the elephant in
the room this hour, because we've got Jennifer Griffin and
Pete Hegseth uh went after Jennifer Griffin, who's a long
time reporter there the Pentagon, and Jennifer Griffin went right
back and stood stood for herself. And she's been praised
across the media, rightfully so, for being an excellent journalist.
(33:46):
But Jennifer, what do you think about just the anger
that was clear and obvious by Pete Hegseth and other
members of the administration that people are not celebrating what
happened as much as they would like.
Speaker 6 (33:58):
Well, well, I think the anger and the motion. I mean,
he was very emotional at the press briefing. Really comes
from the fact that he doesn't like to be questioned
and he wants people to just take this leaked report
started to get in the way of a night nice,
neat and tidy narrative. And as we know, with military
operations and with intelligence and with the Middle East, it's
(34:21):
never neat and tidy. And it is our job as
reporters to ask questions, and we were asking questions that
frankly Americans were asking, and he didn't want to answer
those questions, and he instead goes on offense against the
press and blames the press and says that, you know,
we're not patriotic and this, that and the other. And
I just find it very rich and a bit ironic,
(34:42):
given the fact that one of the reasons he's Defense
Secretary is a feeling that the American people were lied
in the lead up to the Iraq War, and he,
who served over there honorably had, you know, he and
his the other fellow veteran and have a lot of
questions about the Iraq War, and wanted the press to
(35:04):
do a much better job of questioning the Defense Department,
the State Department, the intelligence community, and the lead up
to that war. So I find it a bit rich
and a bit ironic that he doesn't want any questions
and just wants the press and the American people to
take their word for it. That's not how it works
in America. That's not how it works under the First Amendment.
And that's why reporters were pressing him today and he
(35:26):
got very upset.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
Well, in general, what do you think I mean, doesn't
the tone of the administration when dealing with any war
or any military action matter in terms of public support
and public perception of what's going on.
Speaker 5 (35:41):
So Jeremy, I've spent thirty nine years remaining a political
and I'm not going to answer that question because it's
decidedly a political question. Let me, however, point out that
the Chairman went on to I think hit a five
hundred foot home run with his presentation. I'm not denigrating
(36:03):
what or even commenting on what the Secretary did, but
the Chairman nailed it. And the he opened up by
wrapping himself in the flag a little bit, but that
was because he was really proud of the brave work
of all the people out there. And but then he
went on to, I think get to some first penncipal
(36:25):
facts about the targeteering, weaponeering execution and expectations, and now
we will develop the proof or the proof of the
putting of the expectations. So I think he really nailed it.
Speaker 6 (36:43):
General, we'd love The one thing I would add to that,
and it is a point of criticism, is that General
Kine said at one point that we don't do battle
damage assessment BDA, and that's just simply not true.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
The intelligence.
Speaker 6 (37:02):
Agencies, there are three that fall under the Pentagon the NSA,
the National Geospatial Agency, and the DA and they absolutely
report to the chairman. So to wash his hands of
any questions of the battle damage assessment I thought was
disingenuous and I think was not actually truthful because he
(37:26):
may not want to reveal the battle damage assessment at
this point. It may be preliminary, and he's been saying
from the get go it would take days, if not
weeks to know more. But therefore, then a lot of
the press were asking, well, how is it that you
that the political leadership is saying that this is a
completely destroyed the program. It's it's obliterated, was the term
(37:49):
they use, which is not a term that intelligence officers
would use. And then to say wipe your hands of
it and say, well, we don't do BDA. That's for
the intelligence community. That's not totally accurate.
Speaker 5 (38:01):
Yeah, I think Jennifer, as I listened to that, there
are a lot of people that sort of had a
stop and think moment when he said that. I think
his context was operators don't do intel. Intel people do intel.
But you're right, there are multiple military intel people and
having been in run an AOC and Beta jfat it
(38:26):
is it is something that the operators helped gather and
set the stage for the analysis that intel people do.
But as you correctly state, many of those intel people
actually live and breathe in the joint and the DoD environment.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
So they love their acronyms in the military. I've heard
more in the last few minutes. And also, Jennifer, I
have to say I had never heard of the National
Geospatial Agency is that's one of them.
Speaker 6 (38:55):
One of the most interesting and secretive and most extraordinary
intelligence assets that we have. They're the ones who do
all the satellite imagery and reading, and they can do
a lot of special stuff and they're pretty impressive.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
Well, they've never had a TV show about them, so
that we're waiting for that. Let's let's go. Let's go.
Speaker 5 (39:15):
That's a good thing.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
We want them very quiet, but they are the best.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
Hubert is calling from Boston. Hubert, what do you think
about us involved in any run?
Speaker 4 (39:27):
I don't think we should do it.
Speaker 13 (39:28):
A reason why because we already had an agreement on
paper that he threw out. Now that's a president throughout
now he wants to put us back to where we
were already at number.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
We also.
Speaker 4 (39:41):
Got to realize that our president.
Speaker 13 (39:43):
Is saying this country into into a form of government
that is authoritarian, and he's following these authoritarians, and.
Speaker 4 (39:53):
We have to be careful who were following. I mean,
not to degrade his rule. But Israel knocked off a
super weapon. They killed uh an American scientist who was
helping the Kuwait who's helping the Racks build a super
weapon way way back. Now Iran gets a bomb, or
(40:16):
was supposed to be getting a bomb. Now now we're now,
with our help, we're supposed to knock that out. Well,
So now where we're gonna go next? Saudi Arabia, then Jordan's,
then Kuwait. I mean, as all these countries have money
and they can do the same thing, a launch a
nuclear program. I mean, will is it going to stop?
Speaker 14 (40:38):
I mean?
Speaker 4 (40:38):
And plus with following authoritarianism, Israel is under an authoritarian regime.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Okay, they have let me. Let me get a response
to what you've just said to from from from there's
a lot there. But what about the very first part
of that, Jennifer, the the nuclear deal that we heard
Obama talking about that was signed ten years ago. Trump
pulled out of that deal, but now he wants to
have a conversation next week, potentially with Iran's with Iranian leaders,
(41:10):
do you expect that any deal that they reach is
going to be pretty similar to the one that already
existed before.
Speaker 6 (41:16):
Well, let me back up on one point. Israel is
a democracy. It's not an authoritarian and so. But the
caller's concerns about authoritarianism and authoritarian leaders around the world
is valid, but not in terms of Israel. In terms
of the JCPOA, the nuclear deal that President Obama signed
(41:39):
that was negotiated for two years. One of the criticisms
of that deal was that it did not deal with
the ballistic missile program that Iran, which we've now seen
in the last year, the extent to which they were
building ballistic missiles to threaten not just Israel but also
the Middle East. And what I would say is one
(41:59):
of the problems and one of the reasons I think
we got to a military moment where the President decided
to use the military is he was extremely frustrated after
sixty days of being sort of, you know, run around
by the Iranians.
Speaker 3 (42:14):
They're very good.
Speaker 6 (42:14):
Negotiators and they're good at giving the run around. He
didn't feel like he was getting the deal, any deal
that was a any better than the JCPOA which he had
ripped up, and it may have.
Speaker 3 (42:25):
Been even worse.
Speaker 6 (42:26):
So now I think it's hopeful that at least I
would be much I would be very concerned if they
weren't going back to negotiations next week. I just don't
know how serious the Iranians are about it, and I
don't know how much bandwidth the president has to pursue
negotiations at.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
This A lot of other things going on right now.
Speaker 5 (42:45):
Yeah, I can add on that. And some of our
very best friends were a part of developing the I
call it the Jick POA, and and although they are
esteemed colleagues of mine, we can disagree. And I would
add to Jennifer's point about what the President was not
(43:08):
happy about, and many of us were not happy about,
is the inspection regime under the Jick POA was in
many minds questionable. I used three words earlier in the
show and I'll use them again. What if we have
a new agreement with Iran, we need pervasive, persistent, intrusive
(43:33):
inspections because Iran was able to keep an awful lot
of what they were doing, and they just wanted us
to trust them in that old agreement, and so again
some of my very most esteemed colleagues and I don't
agree on this, but I believe that any new agreement
(43:56):
has to address the concerns of inspections, and I don't
think the Iranians are going to sign up to that.
This's going to be a hard thing to move forward
on because they want to even if they don't have
a program now and it has been destroyed, they want
to keep the world worried about it, concerned about it,
and confused about the facts. They need that to keep
(44:19):
their regiem intact.
Speaker 1 (44:21):
Let me go to Dennis, who's in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Hi, Dennis,
your thoughts on US involvement in Iran Yeah.
Speaker 14 (44:29):
Well, first of all, I must say, being in the
middle here in Wisconsin, I really appreciate your show. I'm
about as gainst Trump as possible, but I have been
so disturbed by what the Iranians have done and so on,
and given that it would take maybe somebody as chaotic
(44:54):
the kind of the chaos that Trump can pull something
like this off. Because what the Democrats had been doing
and approaching other areas, it just seemed like when you
have bullies around. There was nothing from that democratic approach
that was going to put a little fear in them.
(45:14):
And so that's one way I can support Trump.
Speaker 1 (45:18):
Yeah. Interesting, thank you Dennis for that, Jennifer. I was
speaking with somebody the other day who is not a
Trump supporter, but said, you know the same thing. Maybe
the chaos is actually useful in this case.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
Well, it's interesting. It's not just in the Middle East.
Speaker 6 (45:32):
He just came back from NATO and he got I
think nearly all except Spain to agree. And I think
General Breedlove will be able to expand on this. But
to spend five percent of their GDP on defense. Now,
there's still a long ways from doing that the NATO allies,
But the fact of the matter is nobody but Trump
has been able to get the NATO allies to increase
(45:56):
their spending. Now, Vladimir Putin has you Arguably they wouldn't
be doing it if they hadn't invaded Ukraine. But President
Trump's been very effective of getting the Europeans to sort
of wake up to the danger on their doorstep and
start and pushing them to invest more in their defense.
And that is significant, and that is because of his
chaotic way, as the caller described it, of negotiating and
(46:20):
sort of being very unpredictable.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
And the NATO allies were supposed to be spending two
percent on defense of their GDP, and he finally got
many of them to do that, almost all of them,
maybe all of them to do that, And now he's
saying five percent is the new number. Jennifer Brelove.
Speaker 5 (46:35):
Yeah, So actually the numbers are that he got going
into this, about twenty eight of the nations, thirty two
were hitting the two percent, but all not all, thirty
two were. Spain was going to be a hold out, Jennifer,
but they signed it, so Spain came on board. I
think there was some negotiating that was done behind closed.
(47:00):
There's rumors out there in the press about what the
president used to get to them there, but Spain is there.
But may I just say that that, yes, for all
the quote unquote mean tweets and things in the first
administration and for all of the tough love in this administration,
whether you like his techniques or not, we have to
(47:22):
agree with what Jennifer said. This is the first president
in the history of NATO to get NATO to improve
their spending. I'm not getting political here and supporting anybody,
but it is a fact he's the only president that
got NATO to increase its spending.
Speaker 1 (47:40):
Let me just finally come back as we close out
this hour or two, this question about US involvement and
Jennifer if because of any of these actions from the US,
from Israel or from an uprising in Iran, the regime falls,
are there conversations taking place about what the US responsibility
would be at that point in terms of, you know,
(48:02):
building a new Iran, getting getting in with whoever is
going to take power there.
Speaker 6 (48:06):
I think the model that you should look to is
the way the President decided to start relations again with
the Syrian leader that you know, after Bashar Asad fell
in Syria quite suddenly and fled to Russia. And you
had this new leader, al Shara, who had really been
on the US terrorI list.
Speaker 3 (48:25):
He may still be on the list, but he had an.
Speaker 6 (48:28):
Al Qaeda ish background, and the President decided, Hey, if
Syria is going to have a shot at you know,
we'll engage them. We're not going to go and do
nation building and we're not going to have our military
on the ground there. But I think if the Iranian
people rose up and a better leader came forward than
(48:50):
the current theocracy there, I think you would be very
nimble diplomacy. But the US, I think the President has
really sent a lot of messages to the iran In
people that he wants them to have a big, beautiful
economy and start trading with the United States. But right now, unfortunately,
and this is Israel's argument, they stop short of regime change,
(49:12):
which obviously every American that sence shudders through their spines
after the experience in Iraq. But I think that we
don't know how this plays out. But I cannot see
the American military being involved there, but I could see
trade relations and promises of support diplomamatically.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
Great great note to end on, I want to thank
my guests so much Fox News Chief National Security correspondent
Jennifer Griffin and General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander
of Europe for NATO. Thank you both so much for
joining us. Thank you, thank you, good night, and don't
forget the Middle is available as a podcast in partnership
with iHeart Podcasts. On the iHeart Apple rere you listen
to podcasts where you can also listen to our weekly podcast,
(49:53):
Extra One Thing Trump Did.
Speaker 2 (49:55):
As always. You can call us at eight four four
four Middle. That's eight four four four six four three
three five three. You can reach out to us at
Listen to the Middle dot com. You can also sign
up for our free weekly newsletter and support us with
a text adaptable contribution.
Speaker 1 (50:06):
The Middle is brought to you by Longnook Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media and Urbana Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmasdas, John Barth, Anika Deshler,
and Brandon Condritz. Our technical director is Steve Mork. Thanks
to our satellite radio listeners, our podcast audience, and the
hundreds of public radio stations that are making it possible
for people across the country to listen to the Middle.
(50:27):
I'm Jeremy Hobson, and I will talk to you next week.
Welcome to the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson along with our
house DJ Tolliver and Tolliver. First off, we are now
the first Place audience Engagement show. Thank you to the
Public Media Journalists Association for that award.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Why see, you never tell me anything. I don't know
we won an award. I'm wearing joggers. Man, you gotta
let me know.
Speaker 1 (00:23):
You should have been wearing a tuxedo for this one. Also,
I hate to say it, but Generation Z has been
screwed again because we were going to do our show
about the challenges of gen Z this hour, but now
we're going to talk about Iran instead.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
You know, they're distracted, they're on TikTok. They don't care.
Speaker 1 (00:37):
We'll fight maybe, Okay, we'll find out next time when
we do that show. We are going to do that
later this summer. But as you know, in the past
week or so, the US entered a war between Israel
and Iran with airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. Iran struck
back with a strike on an American military base in Kataro,
though no one was injured, and then President Trump announced
a ceasefire and since then has been defending the strikes
(00:59):
after leaked US intelligence assessment found they may not have
set back Iran's nuclear program by all that much. With
all that said, we want to know this hour how
you feel about the US getting involved in a war
with Iran. Tolliver. Tell people how they can get in touch.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Yeah, you can call us at eight four four four
Middle that's eight four four four six four three three
five three, or you can write to us at Listen
to the Middle dot com. You can also comment on
our live stream on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, all.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
The places, all right, joining me this hour, Fox News
Chief National Security Correspondent Jennifer Griffin. Jennifer is great to
have you on the show.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
Thank you so much. Jeremy, great to be.
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Back with you.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
And General Philip breedlove Is willis with us as well,
Distinguished Professor of the Practice in Georgia's Tech's Sam Nunn
School of International Affairs and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe.
General Breedlove great to have you back on as well.
Speaker 5 (01:48):
It's good to be back. I love this format.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
Well, thank you so much. And before we get to
the phones, Jennifer, the Trump administration is pretty angry about
the intelligence assessment that was leaked that found the strikes
didn't obliterate Iran's nuclear program as Trump had claimed. What
do we know at this point about the effectiveness of
the US action in Iran?
Speaker 6 (02:09):
Well, let's talk about that leaked intelligence assessment. It came
from the Defense Intelligence AGENCYEE. That's the main military intelligence branch,
if you will, one of seventeen intelligence agencies, and they
would be one of the principal lead groups that would
work on bomb damage assessment.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
What we know about this.
Speaker 6 (02:32):
Intelligence report is that it was deemed to have low confidence,
but it did say something that got people's attention that
within the first twenty four hours this intelligence was basically
went till about nine pm Eastern on Sunday night, so
a little over twenty four hours after the strikes. The
initial assessment, again with low confidence, was that they may
(02:55):
have set back the program anywhere from a few months
up to a year. That's a big range, and it's
not the final word. There're going to be other intelligence
agencies and also parts of the intelligence community that weigh
in and it will then be compiled through the OD
and I and given to President Trump. So this is
(03:15):
not the final word, but it certainly gives some indication.
I don't think they would just say that for without
having any evidence. And so it does raise some questions,
particularly when you look back at some of the things
that Iron told the IAEA that you are going to
do before the strikes, and also some of the satellite
imagery of the site at four Doh that showed a
(03:39):
lot of trucks, about a thousand trucks two days before
the strikes, and the question was what were those trucks doing.
Could some of them have been taking some of the
near weapons highly enriched uranium out of that right, and
did some of that highly enrichedanium survive?
Speaker 1 (03:58):
Yeah, General Love, what do you think whether the strikes
were as effective as Trump said, which he said they
obliterated the nuclear program, or as ineffective as the worst
assessment that came out, the sort of lowest assessment that
came out of that intelligence assessment. What is the significance
of the US getting involved in the way that it did.
Speaker 5 (04:21):
Well, let me just add a thought to Jennifer's excellent
thoughts on this. You know, battle damage assessment is an art,
not a science. There is a lot of science involved
in one of the things we learn as commanders who
have not only flown these missions, but led these missions
(04:41):
and then commanded these missions. Battle damage assessment is the
classic for the statement you've heard a lot. It's never
as good or as bad as you first hear, and
most of the time what you get immediately after a
strike is later refined. We will say that. And so, yeah,
(05:04):
this first leaked document or leaked report was a preliminary one,
and I think one of the reasons they labeled it
of low confidence is because it was made so quickly.
And what we're finding out day by day now is
more facts that talk to these things, and so you know,
(05:25):
this will continue to refine, and at some point we'll
bring in some of the very highly technical things that
some we could talk about on this program, others that
are not, and they will look at air sampling in
all manner of things to determine what went on under
the ground, and we will get to a very good conclusion.
Speaker 1 (05:47):
But General Breedlove, there are many presidents that have looked
at the situation in Iran and considered military action. They
didn't take it. Trump took it. Is their consequence of that.
Speaker 5 (05:57):
Well, the fact of the matter is a lot of
those presidents didn't have a MOP. You know. The son
of MOP that we've been dropping for many years and
we understand and learn how this worked is the Bluey
one O nine And we dropped Bluey one O nine's
in several of our wars, and we learned how the
physics of this kind of weapon works. And so only
(06:19):
recently have we come to the MOP. And remember that
this is the very first time it's used. That's another
time another reason why we have to be very introspective
when we look at what happened, because it's the first
combat use of the weapon.
Speaker 1 (06:36):
Jennifer, what are your sources telling you about potential retaliation
on the part of Iran. Was that attack on the
US base in Qatar all that's going to happen or
are people expecting more?
Speaker 3 (06:48):
Well?
Speaker 6 (06:48):
I think what if you look at the history of Iran,
usually they don't fight a conventional war. You know, they
know they're overmatched with the United States, and so that
is why they alerted through Oman or Cutter. They gave
a sense that of what the scope of what they
were going to fire, so that the US could be ready.
There were some incredible details during the press briefing at
(07:09):
the Pentagon today in which we learned that there were
just forty four young soldiers between the age of twenty
one and twenty eight who stood by two Patriot missile
batteries and shot down those fourteen ballistic missiles which take
less than two minutes to fly from Iran towards America's
largest base in the Middle East. That's aluded and Cutter.
(07:32):
It is quite extraordinary. The Patriot missile performed incredibly well.
Those soldiers performed incredibly well. I think General Breedlove would
agree with me that if you look back at the
mission itself and what was accomplished by the military, let's
not talk about whether it destroyed everything or the entire
nuclear program has taken offline. That we can't say at
this point. But what we can say is that what
(07:54):
the US military was asked to do and the mission
that they were given, it went off on the flawlessly
to have B two bombers take off from Whiteman Air
Force Space in Missouri and fly a round trip thirty
seven hours, refueled along the way by fifty air refueling
planes that were positioned across the Mediterranean and Middle East,
(08:16):
and then to drop what we learned today more details
about At four Dough. They dropped twelve of those mop
bunker buster bombs that General Breedlove talked about. They're thirty
thousand pound bombs. They dropped the first bomb into two
There were two air ventilation shafts, if you will, in
four Dough, and there was some debate before that as
(08:36):
to whether they had cratered the entrances. But all along
the plan was to send those mop bombs down the shafts,
and they had to use the first mop to take
the concrete that had been laid in the last few
days by the arians over the shaft. They used that
to remove that, and then five successive GPS positioned thirty
(09:00):
pound bombs were sent down those shafts. That's why they
feel pretty confident that they were able to take all
those centrifuges offline down below at four Doh. That doesn't
deal necessarily with the highly in geranium which could have
been removed. But in terms of that Mifton, and we
can't forget the Navy. The Navy was involved as well.
(09:22):
You had a submarine that was four hundred miles away
that fired thirty Tomahawk missiles at Isfahan, another very very
important site there, and they all were done with synchronicity
and general Bridlove can talk about how hard that is
since he was in the Air.
Speaker 5 (09:38):
Force right soyl just a superior mission. And as the
Chairman laid out lots of things that he said, some
of us wondered if we could say so now we
could talk about these things. But we had the combination
of what we call target hearing. These guys that were
(09:59):
developing this target had been doing it for fifteen years
and they watched it built and they watched how it worked.
Then we had some great targeteering. The MOP, as good
as it is, was not going to go straight through
the mountain into the mission space. As Jennifer laid out,
we had to find a different way to get blast
(10:21):
and over pressure into the mission space, and that was
by going down these shafts. And the beauty of the
MOP is it is able to penetrate to a certain
depth and then cook off. And so these bombs were
set to go down until they intersected with the halls
that went into the mission space, and then they went
(10:44):
off and all of that blast and over pressure went
up into the mountain into the spaces and did the.
Speaker 1 (10:51):
One so clearly very impressive operation, and I'm sure we're
going to get to this in the calls. I just
want to ask, just briefly, very briefly, Jennifer Breedlove, before
we take a quick break, are you worried about the
US getting sucked into another conflict? Though, even if it
is an impressive operation.
Speaker 3 (11:07):
I think Jeremy, that the fact that the President.
Speaker 6 (11:11):
Was actually successfully able to drop those bombs not leave
too much time for and once they knew that the
Iranian response was going to be kind of one and done,
and to basically declare victory and get out that I
think will present prevent a larger conflict right now for
(11:31):
the US military.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
We shall see, Tolliver, you know that the strikes on
the facilities were actually not the first time President Trump
has ordered an attack on Iran.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
Yeah, back in twenty twenty, near the end of his
first term, he ordered the assassination of top Iranian general
because sim Sulamani, who was in Iraq at the time.
Speaker 5 (11:47):
We took action last night to stop a war.
Speaker 7 (11:52):
We did not take action to start a war. I
have deep respect for the Iranian people. They are a
remarkable people with an incredible heritage and unlimited potential.
Speaker 5 (12:06):
We do not seek regime change.
Speaker 7 (12:08):
However, the Iranian regime's aggression and the region, including the
use of proxy fighters to destabilize its neighbors, must end,
and it must end now.
Speaker 1 (12:18):
He said he didn't support regime change, then kind of
changed his tune in recent days on social as people do,
as people sometimes do. We'll be right back with more
of your calls on the Middle. This is the Middle.
I'm Jeremy Hobson. If you're just tuning, in the Middle
is a national call in show. We're focused on elevating
voices from the Middle geographically, politically, and philosophically, or maybe
(12:40):
you just want to meet in the Middle. This hour,
we're asking for your thoughts on US involvement in Iran. Tolliver,
what is the number to call in?
Speaker 2 (12:46):
It's eight four four four Middle. That's eight four four
four six four three through five three. You can also
write to us at Listen to the Middle dot com
or on social media. And I'll just say one more time,
if you write six paragraphs, it's tough for me to
get that on air.
Speaker 1 (12:58):
Okay, sure it does not to be heard by others.
I'm joined by Fox News Chief National Security correspondent Jennifer
Griffin and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Phillip
Breedlove and the phone lines are completely full, So let's
go to Dan, who's in Kansas City. Dan, your thoughts
on US involvement in Iran.
Speaker 8 (13:17):
Good evening.
Speaker 9 (13:17):
I'm a long time three time Trump voter, which means
in the urban libertal milieu of Kansas City, I've paid
a pretty high social price among friends and family, and
I really do not like these strikes at all. It's
not a red line for me because I believe it's
(13:38):
domestic agenda is so important. But if we get sucked
into a boots on the ground Iraq style regime change war,
I will be right out hand in hand by liberal
friends in the streets and I'll be done. That's not
in America First foreign policy. I don't care what kind
of regime Iran has. They haven't committed any act that
(14:00):
could be construed as an active war against US. And nukes,
I mean, Pakistan's much less stable. We give them billions
of dollars, they have nukes. Israel, unlike Iran, isn't part
a member of the Non Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. They
have a secret, illegal nuclear program. They started that by
(14:20):
stealing the enriched uranium from US. They've got the Sampson
option where they've threatened friend and foe alike if they
get in a tight spot.
Speaker 8 (14:28):
And I just.
Speaker 9 (14:31):
We have no business over there. And I'm really worried,
Like how the net and Yahu. It's like the tail
lagging the dog. The Israel lobby is so powerful it
makes people confused about what Americans interests really are.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Dan, I really appreciate your call. And Jennifer Griffin. We've
heard already from people like Marjorie Taylor Green, a very
conservative Republican member of Congress, Thomas Massey, a conservative Republican
member of Congress. Both of them have articulated what Dan
did there and saying that they are they're Republicans, they're
Trump supporters, but they're not in favor of what's happening.
Speaker 6 (15:06):
Well, I think every American should agree and would agree
that the US does not want to be involved in
another forever war. If you will in the Middle East
or find itself sucked in, and we all know how
this goes, you can do something that is a perfect
military operation in the I remember the thunder run into
Baghdad seemed pretty perfect, and then you know, in the
(15:27):
months that followed, you found yourself in the middle of
a very very complicated war involving regime change. I think
the President was very clear he didn't he drew a
red line. He had some mixed messaging for a little while,
frankly in those initial days about regime change, and toyed
with it a little bit, but it was very clear,
and frankly, the Israelis were frustrated that they had to
(15:47):
stop before they were going to go on, and they
knew where the Supreme Leader was and they were probably
going for regime change, but the President stopped that. I
think right now that the real question is what did
we accomplish by using the military in the way that
we just did, bombing a country that we are not
(16:08):
at war with. And there are issues about the War
Powers Act, and they should be debated in Congress, frankly,
but I think right now, I think all things considered,
it does seem like the President was able to carry
out the strikes, stop, called for a ceasefire, and then
get the American military back to a more relaxed posture.
(16:29):
That being said, the Iranians get a final say, and
they typically do things like terrorism and assassinations. They have
long memories and they've been finding the US basically since
nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 1 (16:43):
Well in general breedlove. Even if the nuclear program wasn't obliterated,
Iran has already now lost several key military leaders. They're
not getting the help that they want from Russia or China.
Their proxies like Hesbal and Hamas have been weakened. Is
the regime at risk of collapse?
Speaker 5 (17:00):
I wouldn't want to make the judgment about whether the
regime is at risk of collapse, but I think there's
some facts that we can consider about the status of
the theocracy and how much it controls its future. And
that is one of the things that's not discussed here
is that Israel went in an established air supremacy over
(17:25):
half of Iran and was defeating Iran's military in detail,
plinking their high value assets, taking things away from them.
And I think that's a reason why Iran brought back
a very very measured response towards Alu d And if
(17:49):
you believe the reporting, they even warned us that attack
was coming, et cetera, et cetera, And so internally the
theocracy is representing that there's a great strike and we're
going to do we did great damage. But externally, I
think they were actually messaging us that they're ready to
(18:09):
stop the big kinetics because let's just say it one
more time, when another nation owns the airspace over your country,
you are in a very very bad way. And I
think that theocracy understood that and was trying to get
out of this problem before they lost all their military capability.
Speaker 1 (18:32):
Let's go to Brian, who's in Tampa, Florida. Brian, welcome
to the middle Go ahead with your thoughts.
Speaker 8 (18:39):
Well, I am generally not a Trump supporter. I got
against him every time I can, but he's got a
point a few times. I think he's right on this attack.
Why think we needed to perform our adversaries. I hope
that Ukraine wins in their war are like to see
(19:03):
him get more aggressive towards Russia in our adversaries. I
almost believe at this point that we might have been
better taking Patent's advice wipe them out while we can.
Speaker 1 (19:18):
Are you worried at all, Brian about unintended consequences about
the US getting sucked into a war having to send
troops into Iran. Uh maybe, Brian, Brian maybe.
Speaker 8 (19:35):
Yeah, Yeah, I'm thinking about it. Well, I'd rather not,
but I'm barn with Sandon planes.
Speaker 1 (19:46):
Yeah, I was sending planes. Okay, Jennifer Griffin. As you
hear that that that is, that's one view of supportive
wants to confront America's adversaries.
Speaker 6 (20:00):
Well, I think what's interesting to hear is that there
is a feeling of support even among well many Americans
would like to see the president be tougher with Russia
in Ukraine. So this was kind of a releveling, if
you will. And because it ended so quickly and if
(20:21):
it is done for now, which it does sort of
feel that way, if you know, at the Pentagon and elsewhere,
is that it was did send a really strong deterrent
message to China, in particular as they look toward Taiwan,
because really, the American military performed incredibly well and showed
that they could kind of reach out and touch their
(20:43):
adversaries very far around the world without them even seeing
them coming. With self technology, now that would be a
different situation with China. But I still think that president
she was watching the US military and it would perhaps
give him pause in terms of using his own military
anytime soon. I wish the president, like your collar said,
(21:04):
would get tougher with Putin over Ukraine, because Ukraine, like Israel,
is an ally of the United States. Ukraine has I mean,
one of the reasons the Patriot missiles worked so well
is that they have been used in Ukraine and the
data that they've been able to glean and use. They've
improved the software so much that they're incredibly accurate thanks
(21:28):
to the Ukrainians. So the Ukrainian model is using a
proxy ally like Ukraine to fend off an adversary and
US troops not getting involved. So I think nobody has
the stomach for US troops getting involved involved anywhere per se.
But using military might properly to send a message and
(21:50):
to say you've crossed a line, it does tend to
have a deterrent effect.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
Yeah, it's interesting how all of these things are connected, Tolliver,
what's coming in online?
Speaker 2 (22:00):
Robert from Boise says, I'm curious about the status of
the enriched uranium the Iranians had already. Where is it
if it didn't get moved, proud of the strikes. Can
it be recovered? If it is recovered, can be used
in other smaller attacks not needing nuclear missiles. What about
a dirty backpack style of weapon? And Amy in Rochester,
Minnesota been there, says my husband escaped from Iran. We,
like many or most Iranians within an outside of Iran,
(22:21):
long for the end of this regime. This attack was
not only from the air, but also from the ground. Moreover,
the banks were also successfully targeted. My husband is very hopeful.
What was accomplished in Iran was and is encouragement to
the vast majority of Iranians and discouragement to the fanatics.
Speaker 1 (22:36):
In Iran general. Breed love On that first point, what
about the enriched uranium? I mean, the reason that we
care about this is because Iran could have a nuclear
weapon that may affect the United States or other allies.
Do we know where the enriched uranium is at this point?
Speaker 5 (22:52):
So I don't think that it has been revealed or
maybe we don't know. But here's something that I think
people are just flat overlooking. We were in a state
of what we call in the military persistent stare at
this target. We were using all manner of technical ability
(23:13):
to watch what was going on around this target, and
the trucks are being presented as a mystery. I don't
think there's any mystery of those trucks. We will eventually
find out, something will be revealed. I don't think we've
been given all the data and knowledge we know about
(23:35):
those trucks, but I will bet you that we watched
them from the minute they pulled up to the minute
they left with various methods, and we will eventually know
more about what happened there. So I don't share the
concern of the mystery. I think will will eventually be
(23:56):
allowed to understand what we know about those trucks.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Let's go to share it a greed love.
Speaker 3 (24:02):
Don't you agree that once we find.
Speaker 6 (24:04):
Out where that highly enriched uranium at sixty percent enriched
and it's nine hundred pounds worth enough for nine or
ten bombs, it's not weapons great yet, but it's a
short centrifuge cycle away that it will still take negotiations,
and it will take inspectors, and it will take the
IEA being allowed back in and leaving it as is.
(24:28):
You can't strike at something like this and then just
leave it. You do have to stay engaged with Iran,
And I'm not sure that I have a strong sense
that the president wants to remain engaged with this problem.
Speaker 5 (24:40):
Well, I think it was Clausewitz that said, you know,
war is politics by other means. So we have both
more possibly quote unquote war in front of us, and
we certainly have more politics in front of us. And
you're right, we're going to have to figure out where
this stuff is. Lots of voices now saying it's still
(25:02):
in the whole, lots of voices questioning that, And I
think that'll play out over time.
Speaker 1 (25:09):
Yeah, Sharon is calling from Erie, Colorado. Sharon, what are
your thoughts about US involvement in Iran?
Speaker 10 (25:16):
Well, aside from our fascination and our budget, where their
ability with our weapons and our brilliant ability to drop bombs.
I remember Iraq and their weapons of mass destruction and
the lies that were told to the American people to
go over and basically destroy Iraq. I believe the US
(25:37):
and Israel are committing war crimes while we've been watching
a live stream genocide for the last two years. Since
the Israel bombed Iran, they have continued to increase the
slaughter of starving Palestinian people, all while we're all looking
at Iran and talking about our brilliant military moves. The
(25:58):
US had no business bombing in Iran. We were not
at war with them, and our own intelligence told us
that there was no threat. Iran was in compliance. And
it makes us look like Israel's lap dog. Israel has
been proven to repeatedly lie every accusation they've made, as
there turned out to be a confession. And now we're
(26:19):
bombing Iran on their behalf. And you know who's gonna
enlist for this?
Speaker 8 (26:25):
Yeah, let me that thing.
Speaker 10 (26:26):
Where's the red line for Israel? Where's the red line
for Israel?
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Sharon, thank you for that call, General breed Love. Let
me let me pick up on the point that Sharon
just made about the US being Israel's lap dog. Some
people are looking at this and saying Israel was the
one who started this. They put the Trump administration in
a position where they really didn't have a choice and
had to had to do what they did. Do you
think that net and Yahoo is the one sort of
(26:52):
leading and Trump is following or the other way around.
Speaker 5 (26:55):
Right now, I'm not going to answer that. I'm gonna
I'm gonna go back a little further in this history
and just restart the conversation. Israel has never said we
are about eliminating Iran and everything about Iran and eliminating
them as a country. Iran has said over and over
(27:19):
and over that their goal is to eliminate Israel, and
they have developed weapons programs to enable them to do that.
So I think while I understand the passion of the caller,
there are many things that were said that I don't
agree with and the impetus for Israel responding. If you
(27:43):
go really back to the beginning of what Iran is
trying to do to Israel, you might see it in
a different light.
Speaker 3 (27:50):
General breed Love.
Speaker 6 (27:50):
I would just add also that if you look at
the bombing that the US carried out, which lasted a
couple of hours, as it involved thirty five munitions, is
we have not heard any casually told from that.
Speaker 3 (28:06):
It's not like they were carpet bombing.
Speaker 6 (28:08):
Cities or these were isolated targets in mountains, and I
can't say that nobody was killed, but it is not
like what we saw what we have seen in Gaza,
and that is a very different problem set exactly what
we're talking about here.
Speaker 5 (28:25):
You're exactly right, and I think that, separating from the
conversation of Gaza, if you look at the bombing that
Iran was doing into Israel, almost every aim point was
a civilian aim point. Now, I don't know that the
(28:45):
accuracy of the Iranian missiles are good enough to really
say they were aiming at the things they were hitting,
but the fact of the matter is all of their
strikes went almost completely into civilian areas. As you pointed out, Jennifer,
the strikes that went back into Iran were absolutely one
(29:07):
hundred percent focused on nuclear facilities and not not civilians.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
But Jennifer, we did hear just briefly, we did here
the other day a lot of frustration from President Trump
and used the F word to talk about Israel and
Iran not knowing what they're doing.
Speaker 6 (29:26):
Well, absolutely, and I think you felt that frustration from
the President. But I also you know, I lived in
Israel for seven years covering the Second Indefada, and so
I'm very, very familiar and still have a lot of
great sources inside Israel, and they were frustrated too with
the White House. They don't want to say it now,
and of course, everybody's papering over those differences, but I
(29:49):
would say that relations might be a little bit strained
right now. That's why BBDT Yahoo, the Prime Minister is
making his way to the White House, I think next week,
and he wants to make nice right now with the
President because he knows that Israel needs the United States.
I think it was interesting watching President Trump actually wield
(30:09):
a power that most American presidents have not been willing
to or able to over Israel. So on the one hand,
he might have got pushed into a more accelerated timeline
to getting involved and taking military action against Iran's nuclear
program because of Bob Ntnia, who because of the Israeli strikes.
On the other hand, it was him who told them
(30:32):
to stop.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
And they had to well, Tolliver.
Speaker 1 (30:35):
As we've heard, the US relationship with Iran has been
in a bad place for decades. The Obama administration tried diplomacy.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
Yeah, that very famous nuclear deal that Trump pulled out of,
even though I thought he liked deals. Here's President Obama
announcing it back in twenty fifteen.
Speaker 11 (30:50):
Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together
were international partners, has achieved something that decades of animas
has not a comprehensive, long term deal with Iran that
will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal
demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change,
(31:14):
change that makes our country and the world safer and
more secure.
Speaker 1 (31:18):
Well, a lot can change in ten years, Tulliver.
Speaker 2 (31:21):
I mean, look at my hair, man.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
I didn't know you ten years ago. So was your
hair very different then?
Speaker 5 (31:26):
Flat?
Speaker 8 (31:29):
Much?
Speaker 1 (31:29):
It's better now. I think we'll be right back with
more on the middle. This is the Middle. I'm Jeremy Hobson.
In this hour, we're asking you for your thoughts on
US involvement in Iran. You can call us at eight
four four four Middle. That's eight four four four six
four three three five three, or you can reach out
to listen to the Middle dot com. I always feel
bad when I give the phone number and all the
lines are full, but you can leave a message. Listen
(31:52):
to it.
Speaker 5 (31:52):
Message me.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
I'm joined by a former NATA Supreme Allied Commander, Europe
General Philip Breedlove and Fox New Chief International Correspondentational Security
correspondent Jennifer Griffin. And let's go back to the phones.
And Dino is in Wassaw, Wisconsin. Idno your thoughts on
US involvement in Iran?
Speaker 12 (32:12):
Yes, thank you so much for taking my call. I
wanted the State General Brieloved restated an excellent point that
the airspace in Tehran was wide open, I mean because
they Israel did clear it out. So it made the
mission for the American plans to go in there and
complete the mission. But what really took me back was
(32:36):
what when the National Security press conference with Pete Hegseth,
how angry he was. He was so angry that that
he was saying that people were questioning the mission that
was accomplished. You know that it did a job, It
did a job. Did they just did they blow up
(32:59):
the mountain or did they actually get to where they
you know what was No, I know we don't understand,
we don't know yet what what the result was about. Yes,
but it just created doubt in my mind a lot
that Pete HEGXSS was so angry that people didn't agree
(33:20):
with with the with the mission. Yeah, and it kind
of you will be created doubt.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
I'm glad you brought that up, Dina, I'm glad you
brought that up. Dona because it is the elephant in
the room this hour, because we've got Jennifer Griffin and
Pete Hegseth uh went after Jennifer Griffin, who's a long
time reporter there the Pentagon, and Jennifer Griffin went right
back and stood stood for herself. And she's been praised
across the media, rightfully so, for being an excellent journalist.
(33:46):
But Jennifer, what do you think about just the anger
that was clear and obvious by Pete Hegseth and other
members of the administration that people are not celebrating what
happened as much as they would like.
Speaker 6 (33:58):
Well, well, I think the anger and the motion. I mean,
he was very emotional at the press briefing. Really comes
from the fact that he doesn't like to be questioned
and he wants people to just take this leaked report
started to get in the way of a night nice,
neat and tidy narrative. And as we know, with military
operations and with intelligence and with the Middle East, it's
(34:21):
never neat and tidy. And it is our job as
reporters to ask questions, and we were asking questions that
frankly Americans were asking, and he didn't want to answer
those questions, and he instead goes on offense against the
press and blames the press and says that, you know,
we're not patriotic and this, that and the other. And
I just find it very rich and a bit ironic,
(34:42):
given the fact that one of the reasons he's Defense
Secretary is a feeling that the American people were lied
in the lead up to the Iraq War, and he,
who served over there honorably had, you know, he and
his the other fellow veteran and have a lot of
questions about the Iraq War, and wanted the press to
(35:04):
do a much better job of questioning the Defense Department,
the State Department, the intelligence community, and the lead up
to that war. So I find it a bit rich
and a bit ironic that he doesn't want any questions
and just wants the press and the American people to
take their word for it. That's not how it works
in America. That's not how it works under the First Amendment.
And that's why reporters were pressing him today and he
(35:26):
got very upset.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
Well, in general, what do you think I mean, doesn't
the tone of the administration when dealing with any war
or any military action matter in terms of public support
and public perception of what's going on.
Speaker 5 (35:41):
So Jeremy, I've spent thirty nine years remaining a political
and I'm not going to answer that question because it's
decidedly a political question. Let me, however, point out that
the Chairman went on to I think hit a five
hundred foot home run with his presentation. I'm not denigrating
(36:03):
what or even commenting on what the Secretary did, but
the Chairman nailed it. And the he opened up by
wrapping himself in the flag a little bit, but that
was because he was really proud of the brave work
of all the people out there. And but then he
went on to, I think get to some first penncipal
(36:25):
facts about the targeteering, weaponeering execution and expectations, and now
we will develop the proof or the proof of the
putting of the expectations. So I think he really nailed it.
Speaker 6 (36:43):
General, we'd love The one thing I would add to that,
and it is a point of criticism, is that General
Kine said at one point that we don't do battle
damage assessment BDA, and that's just simply not true.
Speaker 3 (36:59):
The intelligence.
Speaker 6 (37:02):
Agencies, there are three that fall under the Pentagon the NSA,
the National Geospatial Agency, and the DA and they absolutely
report to the chairman. So to wash his hands of
any questions of the battle damage assessment I thought was
disingenuous and I think was not actually truthful because he
(37:26):
may not want to reveal the battle damage assessment at
this point. It may be preliminary, and he's been saying
from the get go it would take days, if not
weeks to know more. But therefore, then a lot of
the press were asking, well, how is it that you
that the political leadership is saying that this is a
completely destroyed the program. It's it's obliterated, was the term
(37:49):
they use, which is not a term that intelligence officers
would use. And then to say wipe your hands of
it and say, well, we don't do BDA. That's for
the intelligence community. That's not totally accurate.
Speaker 5 (38:01):
Yeah, I think Jennifer, as I listened to that, there
are a lot of people that sort of had a
stop and think moment when he said that. I think
his context was operators don't do intel. Intel people do intel.
But you're right, there are multiple military intel people and
having been in run an AOC and Beta jfat it
(38:26):
is it is something that the operators helped gather and
set the stage for the analysis that intel people do.
But as you correctly state, many of those intel people
actually live and breathe in the joint and the DoD environment.
Speaker 1 (38:44):
So they love their acronyms in the military. I've heard
more in the last few minutes. And also, Jennifer, I
have to say I had never heard of the National
Geospatial Agency is that's one of them.
Speaker 6 (38:55):
One of the most interesting and secretive and most extraordinary
intelligence assets that we have. They're the ones who do
all the satellite imagery and reading, and they can do
a lot of special stuff and they're pretty impressive.
Speaker 1 (39:10):
Well, they've never had a TV show about them, so
that we're waiting for that. Let's let's go. Let's go.
Speaker 5 (39:15):
That's a good thing.
Speaker 3 (39:17):
We want them very quiet, but they are the best.
Speaker 1 (39:20):
Hubert is calling from Boston. Hubert, what do you think
about us involved in any run?
Speaker 4 (39:27):
I don't think we should do it.
Speaker 13 (39:28):
A reason why because we already had an agreement on
paper that he threw out. Now that's a president throughout
now he wants to put us back to where we
were already at number.
Speaker 1 (39:38):
We also.
Speaker 4 (39:41):
Got to realize that our president.
Speaker 13 (39:43):
Is saying this country into into a form of government
that is authoritarian, and he's following these authoritarians, and.
Speaker 4 (39:53):
We have to be careful who were following. I mean,
not to degrade his rule. But Israel knocked off a
super weapon. They killed uh an American scientist who was
helping the Kuwait who's helping the Racks build a super
weapon way way back. Now Iran gets a bomb, or
(40:16):
was supposed to be getting a bomb. Now now we're now,
with our help, we're supposed to knock that out. Well,
So now where we're gonna go next? Saudi Arabia, then Jordan's,
then Kuwait. I mean, as all these countries have money
and they can do the same thing, a launch a
nuclear program. I mean, will is it going to stop?
Speaker 14 (40:38):
I mean?
Speaker 4 (40:38):
And plus with following authoritarianism, Israel is under an authoritarian regime.
Speaker 1 (40:45):
Okay, they have let me. Let me get a response
to what you've just said to from from from there's
a lot there. But what about the very first part
of that, Jennifer, the the nuclear deal that we heard
Obama talking about that was signed ten years ago. Trump
pulled out of that deal, but now he wants to
have a conversation next week, potentially with Iran's with Iranian leaders,
(41:10):
do you expect that any deal that they reach is
going to be pretty similar to the one that already
existed before.
Speaker 6 (41:16):
Well, let me back up on one point. Israel is
a democracy. It's not an authoritarian and so. But the
caller's concerns about authoritarianism and authoritarian leaders around the world
is valid, but not in terms of Israel. In terms
of the JCPOA, the nuclear deal that President Obama signed
(41:39):
that was negotiated for two years. One of the criticisms
of that deal was that it did not deal with
the ballistic missile program that Iran, which we've now seen
in the last year, the extent to which they were
building ballistic missiles to threaten not just Israel but also
the Middle East. And what I would say is one
(41:59):
of the problems and one of the reasons I think
we got to a military moment where the President decided
to use the military is he was extremely frustrated after
sixty days of being sort of, you know, run around
by the Iranians.
Speaker 3 (42:14):
They're very good.
Speaker 6 (42:14):
Negotiators and they're good at giving the run around. He
didn't feel like he was getting the deal, any deal
that was a any better than the JCPOA which he had
ripped up, and it may have.
Speaker 3 (42:25):
Been even worse.
Speaker 6 (42:26):
So now I think it's hopeful that at least I
would be much I would be very concerned if they
weren't going back to negotiations next week. I just don't
know how serious the Iranians are about it, and I
don't know how much bandwidth the president has to pursue
negotiations at.
Speaker 1 (42:43):
This A lot of other things going on right now.
Speaker 5 (42:45):
Yeah, I can add on that. And some of our
very best friends were a part of developing the I
call it the Jick POA, and and although they are
esteemed colleagues of mine, we can disagree. And I would
add to Jennifer's point about what the President was not
(43:08):
happy about, and many of us were not happy about,
is the inspection regime under the Jick POA was in
many minds questionable. I used three words earlier in the
show and I'll use them again. What if we have
a new agreement with Iran, we need pervasive, persistent, intrusive
(43:33):
inspections because Iran was able to keep an awful lot
of what they were doing, and they just wanted us
to trust them in that old agreement, and so again
some of my very most esteemed colleagues and I don't
agree on this, but I believe that any new agreement
(43:56):
has to address the concerns of inspections, and I don't
think the Iranians are going to sign up to that.
This's going to be a hard thing to move forward
on because they want to even if they don't have
a program now and it has been destroyed, they want
to keep the world worried about it, concerned about it,
and confused about the facts. They need that to keep
(44:19):
their regiem intact.
Speaker 1 (44:21):
Let me go to Dennis, who's in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Hi, Dennis,
your thoughts on US involvement in Iran Yeah.
Speaker 14 (44:29):
Well, first of all, I must say, being in the
middle here in Wisconsin, I really appreciate your show. I'm
about as gainst Trump as possible, but I have been
so disturbed by what the Iranians have done and so on,
and given that it would take maybe somebody as chaotic
(44:54):
the kind of the chaos that Trump can pull something
like this off. Because what the Democrats had been doing
and approaching other areas, it just seemed like when you
have bullies around. There was nothing from that democratic approach
that was going to put a little fear in them.
(45:14):
And so that's one way I can support Trump.
Speaker 1 (45:18):
Yeah. Interesting, thank you Dennis for that, Jennifer. I was
speaking with somebody the other day who is not a
Trump supporter, but said, you know the same thing. Maybe
the chaos is actually useful in this case.
Speaker 3 (45:30):
Well, it's interesting. It's not just in the Middle East.
Speaker 6 (45:32):
He just came back from NATO and he got I
think nearly all except Spain to agree. And I think
General Breedlove will be able to expand on this. But
to spend five percent of their GDP on defense. Now,
there's still a long ways from doing that the NATO allies,
But the fact of the matter is nobody but Trump
has been able to get the NATO allies to increase
(45:56):
their spending. Now, Vladimir Putin has you Arguably they wouldn't
be doing it if they hadn't invaded Ukraine. But President
Trump's been very effective of getting the Europeans to sort
of wake up to the danger on their doorstep and
start and pushing them to invest more in their defense.
And that is significant, and that is because of his
chaotic way, as the caller described it, of negotiating and
(46:20):
sort of being very unpredictable.
Speaker 1 (46:23):
And the NATO allies were supposed to be spending two
percent on defense of their GDP, and he finally got
many of them to do that, almost all of them,
maybe all of them to do that, And now he's
saying five percent is the new number. Jennifer Brelove.
Speaker 5 (46:35):
Yeah, So actually the numbers are that he got going
into this, about twenty eight of the nations, thirty two
were hitting the two percent, but all not all, thirty
two were. Spain was going to be a hold out, Jennifer,
but they signed it, so Spain came on board. I
think there was some negotiating that was done behind closed.
(47:00):
There's rumors out there in the press about what the
president used to get to them there, but Spain is there.
But may I just say that that, yes, for all
the quote unquote mean tweets and things in the first
administration and for all of the tough love in this administration,
whether you like his techniques or not, we have to
(47:22):
agree with what Jennifer said. This is the first president
in the history of NATO to get NATO to improve
their spending. I'm not getting political here and supporting anybody,
but it is a fact he's the only president that
got NATO to increase its spending.
Speaker 1 (47:40):
Let me just finally come back as we close out
this hour or two, this question about US involvement and
Jennifer if because of any of these actions from the US,
from Israel or from an uprising in Iran, the regime falls,
are there conversations taking place about what the US responsibility
would be at that point in terms of, you know,
(48:02):
building a new Iran, getting getting in with whoever is
going to take power there.
Speaker 6 (48:06):
I think the model that you should look to is
the way the President decided to start relations again with
the Syrian leader that you know, after Bashar Asad fell
in Syria quite suddenly and fled to Russia. And you
had this new leader, al Shara, who had really been
on the US terrorI list.
Speaker 3 (48:25):
He may still be on the list, but he had an.
Speaker 6 (48:28):
Al Qaeda ish background, and the President decided, Hey, if
Syria is going to have a shot at you know,
we'll engage them. We're not going to go and do
nation building and we're not going to have our military
on the ground there. But I think if the Iranian
people rose up and a better leader came forward than
(48:50):
the current theocracy there, I think you would be very
nimble diplomacy. But the US, I think the President has
really sent a lot of messages to the iran In
people that he wants them to have a big, beautiful
economy and start trading with the United States. But right now, unfortunately,
and this is Israel's argument, they stop short of regime change,
(49:12):
which obviously every American that sence shudders through their spines
after the experience in Iraq. But I think that we
don't know how this plays out. But I cannot see
the American military being involved there, but I could see
trade relations and promises of support diplomamatically.
Speaker 1 (49:31):
Great great note to end on, I want to thank
my guests so much Fox News Chief National Security correspondent
Jennifer Griffin and General Philip Breedlove, former Supreme Allied Commander
of Europe for NATO. Thank you both so much for
joining us. Thank you, thank you, good night, and don't
forget the Middle is available as a podcast in partnership
with iHeart Podcasts. On the iHeart Apple rere you listen
to podcasts where you can also listen to our weekly podcast,
(49:53):
Extra One Thing Trump Did.
Speaker 2 (49:55):
As always. You can call us at eight four four
four Middle. That's eight four four four six four three
three five three. You can reach out to us at
Listen to the Middle dot com. You can also sign
up for our free weekly newsletter and support us with
a text adaptable contribution.
Speaker 1 (50:06):
The Middle is brought to you by Longnook Media, distributed
by Illinois Public Media and Urbana Illinois, and produced by
Harrison Patino, Danny Alexander, Sam Burmasdas, John Barth, Anika Deshler,
and Brandon Condritz. Our technical director is Steve Mork. Thanks
to our satellite radio listeners, our podcast audience, and the
hundreds of public radio stations that are making it possible
for people across the country to listen to the Middle.
(50:27):
I'm Jeremy Hobson, and I will talk to you next week.
Host
Jeremy Hobson
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com