June 23, 2025 • 16 mins
It’s the kind of war he’s promised for years to avoid. Then just last week, Donald Trump said he’d take the fortnight to consider his options. But on Sunday, under the cover of darkness, the US president announced American forces had struck Iran.
The secret and brutal assault on three of Iran’s nuclear facilities, using so-called "bunker buster" bombs, brought the United States directly into the conflict between Israel and Iran.
While Trump has certainly claimed the total obliteration of Iran’s nuclear capability, the full extent of the damage remains unclear – so too how the Islamic Republic may retaliate, including a potential move to choke the world’s oil supplies.
Today, North America correspondent Michael Koziol on the fast-escalating developments in the Middle East.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Chris Payne, filling in
for Samantha Salinger. Morris. It's Monday, June 23rd. It's the
kind of war he's promised for years to avoid. Then,
just last week, Donald Trump said he'd take the fortnight
(00:22):
to consider his options. But on Sunday, under the cover
of darkness, the US president announced American forces had struck Iran.
The secret and brutal assault on three of Iran's nuclear facilities,
using so-called bunker buster bombs, brought the United States directly
(00:43):
into the conflict between Israel and Iran. While Trump has
certainly claimed the total obliteration of Iran's nuclear capability, the
full extent of the damage remains unclear. So to how
the Islamic Republic may retaliate, including a potential move to
choke the world's oil supplies today. North America correspondent Michael
(01:07):
Koziol on the fast, escalating developments in the Middle East. Michael,
America's move to join this war is an astonishing development,
and it is certainly fast moving. As of Monday morning
in Australia, what can you tell us?
S2 (01:25):
Well, the US is certainly claiming that this has been
an extraordinarily successful attack.
S3 (01:32):
The United States has officially entered Israel's war with Iran.
S4 (01:37):
The Pentagon says it has obliterated Iran's nuclear program in
Operation Midnight Hammer.
S5 (01:42):
A stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's
number one state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report
to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success.
S2 (01:57):
We heard in a briefing earlier today, which is Sunday
in the US from the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth.
S6 (02:06):
Last night on President Trump's orders. U.S. Central Command conducted
a precision strike in the middle of the night against
three nuclear facilities in Iran.
S2 (02:17):
Who said that this attack had sort of obliterated Iran's
nuclear program?
S6 (02:23):
Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his
commitment to peace through strength. Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
S2 (02:33):
Now, look, there's a bit of conjecture about how much
damage this attack has actually done and how much we
can know at this point. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
Dan Raisin Cain, was sort of a little bit more cautious, saying,
you know, the damage assessment is is still being done,
but they're pretty confident that they did a lot of damage.
S7 (02:54):
I know that battle damage is of great interest. Final
battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage
assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage
and destruction. More than one.
S2 (03:10):
And that's to three sites. Fordo being the main one.
Probably the one everyone's heard the most about. It was
Fordow and Natanz that they dropped the really big bombs on.
And then another site where there was a lot of
sort of nuclear uranium enrichment and storage taking place, uh,
that got hit by Tomahawk missiles fired from a US submarine.
(03:33):
Donald Trump, who's been pretty quiet today and sort of
left his vice president and secretary of state to do
most of the talking, uh, now sort of trying to
flick the switch to diplomacy and saying he doesn't foresee
any further military strikes and that now it's time for
Iran to come back to the negotiating table and do
the deal that he's sort of been saying for the
(03:53):
last few months that they should have done in the
first place.
S1 (04:00):
Can you tell us a bit more about this damage assessment?
Trump certainly came out and claimed complete total obliteration. But
that language certainly seems to have tempered today. Why is that?
S2 (04:12):
Well, I don't know what the US government knows and
can tell from its intelligence and from from its satellites
about what damage they've done. We've heard just some brief
kind of comments that were pretty general from the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the head of the agency at
(04:32):
the United Nations, which has just sort of convened an
emergency meeting today in New York. And they did confirm
that there were, you know, obviously visible craters, um, at
the Fordo site, which indicates that, you know, some sort
of damage has been done, but they weren't able to say, uh,
you know, what damage had been done underground. So I
(04:53):
think it'll be up to the Pentagon, really, whether they
tell us and provide the evidence of what destruction has
happened underground. But we know that the bombs that they
fired are these, you know, Pound bunker busting bombs, or
what are known as massive ordnance penetrators, are capable of
(05:13):
doing significant damage quite deep underground. So they have the
capability to do this, but they also haven't been used before.
We're told today by the Pentagon that this was the
first time that they had used them. Uh, so there's
a bit of an unknown about, you know, exactly what
kind of damage they're capable of doing and what was done.
S1 (05:34):
So let's just go back a bit. A few days ago,
just a few days ago, the white House came out
and said Trump will make a decision within two weeks. Then,
just 36 hours after that, he attacks. Seems as though
it was somewhat of an ambush, a surprise attack. What
do you think the calculation in all of this was
for Donald Trump?
S2 (05:55):
Well, I mean, there's certainly some reporting starting to come
out of US media that he decided on Thursday. So
on the very day that he sort of said, oh, yeah,
you know, they've got up to two weeks, which would indicate,
you know, that that was a bit of a ruse
from the beginning. Now then, you know, there are there
are some people now, um, kind of joining the dots
and saying that this entire sort of attack on Iran,
(06:18):
which was, of course, started by Israel, was done in
coordination with the US, leading towards this strike, that the
whole thing was coordinated rather than, you know, and that
Donald Trump hasn't acknowledged that. But he did say in
his video message in the hours after the bombing that
the US and Israel have kind of worked together as
closely as anyone could work together on this.
S5 (06:39):
I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
We worked as a team like perhaps no team has
ever worked before, and we've gone a long way to
erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank.
S2 (06:54):
So certainly kind of suggesting that this was a plan
put in place from the outset. And so Donald Trump, who,
of course, came to office saying that he was the
guy who doesn't get the US involved in wars. He's
the guy who gets the US out of wars, has
obviously made the calculation that he can essentially get away
(07:17):
with this, that, uh, having inflicted this damage, uh, on
Iran's nuclear facilities, he will be able to force them
back to the negotiating table without, you know, getting the
US involved into another protracted conflict in the Middle East.
S1 (07:34):
So do you think Trump actually wants regime change here?
What do you think his his actual end game?
S2 (07:40):
Well, we don't know for sure. But I mean, I
would be surprised if regime change was what he had
in mind. I mean, we just had, you know, only
hours ago, the vice president, JD Vance, Secretary of State
Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth saying emphatically, uh,
in multiple interviews that regime change was not the aim here. Now,
(08:03):
of course, Donald Trump, you know, on his phone, on
his social media accounts, is sort of now saying, oh, well,
you know, regime change, if they can't make Iran great again,
then why wouldn't they be regime change? Look, I think
you can probably put that down to it's something that
they would contemplate as a possible outcome from some sort of,
(08:23):
you know, grassroots movement against a weakened Iranian regime. It's
something that Trump, you know, kind of he likes to
throw things out there. I wouldn't necessarily be reading it
as like, that's the underlying strategy here. But, you know, certainly,
I mean, in a way he's stating the obvious. It's like, well, uh,
(08:44):
you know, the Iranian regime has run this nuclear program
for decades, has been an adversary of the US for decades.
You know, why wouldn't the US welcome regime change if
it happened? That's still a bit different than saying the
US is pursuing regime change through its military activity, which
I don't think you can say yet.
S1 (09:08):
We'll be right back. I want to ask you about
Iran's options, specifically, a potential move towards blocking the Strait
of Hormuz and effectively creating a choke point on global
oil supply. How devastating would this be?
S2 (09:27):
Well, it would be pretty devastating because about a fifth
of the world's oil supply moves through that narrow channel.
And any move from Iran to kind of close that off, which,
you know, they are reportedly considering, would, you know, be
a very, uh, bad for global oil prices? It would
be yet another shock to global shipping. We've seen the
(09:51):
Iranian parliament reportedly agreed to do this, but it's ultimately
a decision that rests with the country's National Security Council,
and that hasn't happened yet, as far as I know.
Ships are still, at least at the time that we're talking.
Ships are still passing through there, nonetheless. Look, it's one
option that remains available to Iran. They've said that they're
going to retaliate somehow. Its options are pretty risky because
(10:17):
they do risk essentially entering, whether it's an all out war, um, or,
you know, sort of tit for tat retaliation with the
most powerful military in the world. Or, you know, their
option is to say, all right, we will reconsider some
form of the deal that Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy,
(10:38):
put on the table a couple of months ago. Now,
that would be humiliating option for Tehran. But they may
decide in the end that some form of limited retaliation, um,
plus agreeing to go back to the negotiating table is
their best option. So we'll see what happens on that front.
S1 (10:57):
There's been a focus on Iran's potential nuclear threat for decades.
This is not a new thing. But what do we
know of the regime's actual nuclear weapons capability? What was
the threat level going into this?
S8 (11:10):
Yeah, it's difficult to.
S2 (11:12):
Say for sure. I mean, we know Iran since 1970
has been a signatory to the to the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty,
and yet it has enriched uranium to concerning levels, you know, 60%
at least. Um, some reports say as high as 83%. Now,
(11:33):
I'm no nuclear scientist, but my understanding from my reading
about this is that, you know, to go from 60%
to 90%, um, which is the level that you need
for a nuclear weapon is, in the scheme of things,
not that big a ask that once you can go
to 60%, you can probably go to 90%. And that's why,
(11:53):
you know, people like Donald Trump have spoken about Iran
being like weeks or maybe a month or two away
from from being able to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Nonetheless,
you know, I mean, Iran denies that they're doing this.
And even the International Atomic Energy Agency, they are unable
to say for sure, but they're also blocked from full
access to Iran's facilities. And that was one of the
(12:15):
things that kind of came out of the meeting at
the Security Council today was a call for the IAEA
to be given full and proper access to those facilities
or what's left of them. Uh, so look, again, the
intelligence comes out of the US to a large degree.
We have to say, all right, we treat seriously what
(12:36):
the US is saying when they say they've got intelligence
that this is only weeks away. At the same time,
the US itself has been divided on this question. I mean,
it was only a few months ago in March that
Kristi Noem, Donald Trump's homeland security secretary, told a Senate
hearing that the US intelligence community did not believe Iran
was seriously developing a nuclear weapon. Now, Donald Trump in
(12:59):
the last few days has plainly said that is wrong.
S9 (13:02):
What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a
nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community has said they have no
evidence that they are at this point.
S10 (13:09):
Well, then my intelligence community is wrong.
S2 (13:12):
So it's hard to be able to say with absolute certainty.
S1 (13:16):
So what about Israel? You mentioned the Non-Proliferation treaty. We
know Israel is not a signatory to that, and it's
chosen to be somewhat ambiguous about its own nuclear weapons capabilities.
So is this a double standard?
S2 (13:30):
Yeah. I mean, again, this is one of those situations
where it's kind of, you know, an open secret that
Israel it's widely believed to have. I think the number
is up to about 90 nuclear warheads. Again, it officially
denies this, but it's sort of widely believed among global
intelligence communities that that's the capability that they have. Is
that a double standard? Well, arguably, yes. We would probably
(13:53):
be a little bit more sympathetic to a country like
Israel that is a democracy as opposed to, um, or,
you know, is at least ticks most of the boxes
for a democracy. Um, I know some people would quibble
with that compared to, you know, a pariah state like
Iran that is a state sponsor of terrorism. And that is,
of course, a longtime enemy of the United States. But
(14:14):
there will be plenty of people out there who say, well, yeah,
you know, look here, you've got a country that doesn't
even sign the treaty, let alone allows weapons inspectors and
is prepared to give an open and honest account of
their nuclear capabilities.
S1 (14:28):
Lastly, Michael, what do you think comes next? Here?
S2 (14:31):
We have to see what Iran does. Its foreign minister
is travelling to what is already in Moscow to meet
with Vladimir Putin, which is an interesting development. Although, you know,
Iran and Russia do have a relationship, we call them allies.
We probably would to a degree. In the last week,
Putin said he doesn't really want to take a direct
(14:53):
role here, but that may change now that this US
strike has happened. So we have to see what he does.
We have to see to what extent Iran retaliates, and
we have to see whether they're prepared to come back
to the negotiating table. Until then, you know, it's anyone's guess.
S1 (15:10):
Michael, thank you for joining the morning Edition.
S2 (15:12):
No problem.
S1 (15:23):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Kai
Wong with technical assistance from Josh towers. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills. Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you
(15:44):
listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered by subscriptions, so
to support independent journalism, visit the page or SMS. And
to stay up to date. Sign up for our Morning
Edition newsletter to receive a summary of the day's most
(16:05):
important news in your inbox every morning. Links are in
the show. Notes. I'm Chris Payne. This is the morning edition.
Thanks for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Chris Payne, filling in
for Samantha Salinger. Morris. It's Monday, June 23rd. It's the
kind of war he's promised for years to avoid. Then,
just last week, Donald Trump said he'd take the fortnight
(00:22):
to consider his options. But on Sunday, under the cover
of darkness, the US president announced American forces had struck Iran.
The secret and brutal assault on three of Iran's nuclear facilities,
using so-called bunker buster bombs, brought the United States directly
(00:43):
into the conflict between Israel and Iran. While Trump has
certainly claimed the total obliteration of Iran's nuclear capability, the
full extent of the damage remains unclear. So to how
the Islamic Republic may retaliate, including a potential move to
choke the world's oil supplies today. North America correspondent Michael
(01:07):
Koziol on the fast, escalating developments in the Middle East. Michael,
America's move to join this war is an astonishing development,
and it is certainly fast moving. As of Monday morning
in Australia, what can you tell us?
S2 (01:25):
Well, the US is certainly claiming that this has been
an extraordinarily successful attack.
S3 (01:32):
The United States has officially entered Israel's war with Iran.
S4 (01:37):
The Pentagon says it has obliterated Iran's nuclear program in
Operation Midnight Hammer.
S5 (01:42):
A stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world's
number one state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report
to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success.
S2 (01:57):
We heard in a briefing earlier today, which is Sunday
in the US from the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth.
S6 (02:06):
Last night on President Trump's orders. U.S. Central Command conducted
a precision strike in the middle of the night against
three nuclear facilities in Iran.
S2 (02:17):
Who said that this attack had sort of obliterated Iran's
nuclear program?
S6 (02:23):
Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his
commitment to peace through strength. Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
S2 (02:33):
Now, look, there's a bit of conjecture about how much
damage this attack has actually done and how much we
can know at this point. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs,
Dan Raisin Cain, was sort of a little bit more cautious, saying,
you know, the damage assessment is is still being done,
but they're pretty confident that they did a lot of damage.
S7 (02:54):
I know that battle damage is of great interest. Final
battle damage will take some time, but initial battle damage
assessments indicate that all three sites sustained extremely severe damage
and destruction. More than one.
S2 (03:10):
And that's to three sites. Fordo being the main one.
Probably the one everyone's heard the most about. It was
Fordow and Natanz that they dropped the really big bombs on.
And then another site where there was a lot of
sort of nuclear uranium enrichment and storage taking place, uh,
that got hit by Tomahawk missiles fired from a US submarine.
(03:33):
Donald Trump, who's been pretty quiet today and sort of
left his vice president and secretary of state to do
most of the talking, uh, now sort of trying to
flick the switch to diplomacy and saying he doesn't foresee
any further military strikes and that now it's time for
Iran to come back to the negotiating table and do
the deal that he's sort of been saying for the
(03:53):
last few months that they should have done in the
first place.
S1 (04:00):
Can you tell us a bit more about this damage assessment?
Trump certainly came out and claimed complete total obliteration. But
that language certainly seems to have tempered today. Why is that?
S2 (04:12):
Well, I don't know what the US government knows and
can tell from its intelligence and from from its satellites
about what damage they've done. We've heard just some brief
kind of comments that were pretty general from the International
Atomic Energy Agency and the head of the agency at
(04:32):
the United Nations, which has just sort of convened an
emergency meeting today in New York. And they did confirm
that there were, you know, obviously visible craters, um, at
the Fordo site, which indicates that, you know, some sort
of damage has been done, but they weren't able to say, uh,
you know, what damage had been done underground. So I
(04:53):
think it'll be up to the Pentagon, really, whether they
tell us and provide the evidence of what destruction has
happened underground. But we know that the bombs that they
fired are these, you know, Pound bunker busting bombs, or
what are known as massive ordnance penetrators, are capable of
(05:13):
doing significant damage quite deep underground. So they have the
capability to do this, but they also haven't been used before.
We're told today by the Pentagon that this was the
first time that they had used them. Uh, so there's
a bit of an unknown about, you know, exactly what
kind of damage they're capable of doing and what was done.
S1 (05:34):
So let's just go back a bit. A few days ago,
just a few days ago, the white House came out
and said Trump will make a decision within two weeks. Then,
just 36 hours after that, he attacks. Seems as though
it was somewhat of an ambush, a surprise attack. What
do you think the calculation in all of this was
for Donald Trump?
S2 (05:55):
Well, I mean, there's certainly some reporting starting to come
out of US media that he decided on Thursday. So
on the very day that he sort of said, oh, yeah,
you know, they've got up to two weeks, which would indicate,
you know, that that was a bit of a ruse
from the beginning. Now then, you know, there are there
are some people now, um, kind of joining the dots
and saying that this entire sort of attack on Iran,
(06:18):
which was, of course, started by Israel, was done in
coordination with the US, leading towards this strike, that the
whole thing was coordinated rather than, you know, and that
Donald Trump hasn't acknowledged that. But he did say in
his video message in the hours after the bombing that
the US and Israel have kind of worked together as
closely as anyone could work together on this.
S5 (06:39):
I want to thank and congratulate Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu.
We worked as a team like perhaps no team has
ever worked before, and we've gone a long way to
erasing this horrible threat to Israel. I want to thank.
S2 (06:54):
So certainly kind of suggesting that this was a plan
put in place from the outset. And so Donald Trump, who,
of course, came to office saying that he was the
guy who doesn't get the US involved in wars. He's
the guy who gets the US out of wars, has
obviously made the calculation that he can essentially get away
(07:17):
with this, that, uh, having inflicted this damage, uh, on
Iran's nuclear facilities, he will be able to force them
back to the negotiating table without, you know, getting the
US involved into another protracted conflict in the Middle East.
S1 (07:34):
So do you think Trump actually wants regime change here?
What do you think his his actual end game?
S2 (07:40):
Well, we don't know for sure. But I mean, I
would be surprised if regime change was what he had
in mind. I mean, we just had, you know, only
hours ago, the vice president, JD Vance, Secretary of State
Marco Rubio, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth saying emphatically, uh,
in multiple interviews that regime change was not the aim here. Now,
(08:03):
of course, Donald Trump, you know, on his phone, on
his social media accounts, is sort of now saying, oh, well,
you know, regime change, if they can't make Iran great again,
then why wouldn't they be regime change? Look, I think
you can probably put that down to it's something that
they would contemplate as a possible outcome from some sort of,
(08:23):
you know, grassroots movement against a weakened Iranian regime. It's
something that Trump, you know, kind of he likes to
throw things out there. I wouldn't necessarily be reading it
as like, that's the underlying strategy here. But, you know, certainly,
I mean, in a way he's stating the obvious. It's like, well, uh,
(08:44):
you know, the Iranian regime has run this nuclear program
for decades, has been an adversary of the US for decades.
You know, why wouldn't the US welcome regime change if
it happened? That's still a bit different than saying the
US is pursuing regime change through its military activity, which
I don't think you can say yet.
S1 (09:08):
We'll be right back. I want to ask you about
Iran's options, specifically, a potential move towards blocking the Strait
of Hormuz and effectively creating a choke point on global
oil supply. How devastating would this be?
S2 (09:27):
Well, it would be pretty devastating because about a fifth
of the world's oil supply moves through that narrow channel.
And any move from Iran to kind of close that off, which,
you know, they are reportedly considering, would, you know, be
a very, uh, bad for global oil prices? It would
be yet another shock to global shipping. We've seen the
(09:51):
Iranian parliament reportedly agreed to do this, but it's ultimately
a decision that rests with the country's National Security Council,
and that hasn't happened yet, as far as I know.
Ships are still, at least at the time that we're talking.
Ships are still passing through there, nonetheless. Look, it's one
option that remains available to Iran. They've said that they're
going to retaliate somehow. Its options are pretty risky because
(10:17):
they do risk essentially entering, whether it's an all out war, um, or,
you know, sort of tit for tat retaliation with the
most powerful military in the world. Or, you know, their
option is to say, all right, we will reconsider some
form of the deal that Steve Witkoff, Trump's special envoy,
(10:38):
put on the table a couple of months ago. Now,
that would be humiliating option for Tehran. But they may
decide in the end that some form of limited retaliation, um,
plus agreeing to go back to the negotiating table is
their best option. So we'll see what happens on that front.
S1 (10:57):
There's been a focus on Iran's potential nuclear threat for decades.
This is not a new thing. But what do we
know of the regime's actual nuclear weapons capability? What was
the threat level going into this?
S8 (11:10):
Yeah, it's difficult to.
S2 (11:12):
Say for sure. I mean, we know Iran since 1970
has been a signatory to the to the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty,
and yet it has enriched uranium to concerning levels, you know, 60%
at least. Um, some reports say as high as 83%. Now,
(11:33):
I'm no nuclear scientist, but my understanding from my reading
about this is that, you know, to go from 60%
to 90%, um, which is the level that you need
for a nuclear weapon is, in the scheme of things,
not that big a ask that once you can go
to 60%, you can probably go to 90%. And that's why,
(11:53):
you know, people like Donald Trump have spoken about Iran
being like weeks or maybe a month or two away
from from being able to enrich uranium to weapons grade. Nonetheless,
you know, I mean, Iran denies that they're doing this.
And even the International Atomic Energy Agency, they are unable
to say for sure, but they're also blocked from full
access to Iran's facilities. And that was one of the
(12:15):
things that kind of came out of the meeting at
the Security Council today was a call for the IAEA
to be given full and proper access to those facilities
or what's left of them. Uh, so look, again, the
intelligence comes out of the US to a large degree.
We have to say, all right, we treat seriously what
(12:36):
the US is saying when they say they've got intelligence
that this is only weeks away. At the same time,
the US itself has been divided on this question. I mean,
it was only a few months ago in March that
Kristi Noem, Donald Trump's homeland security secretary, told a Senate
hearing that the US intelligence community did not believe Iran
was seriously developing a nuclear weapon. Now, Donald Trump in
(12:59):
the last few days has plainly said that is wrong.
S9 (13:02):
What intelligence do you have that Iran is building a
nuclear weapon? Your intelligence community has said they have no
evidence that they are at this point.
S10 (13:09):
Well, then my intelligence community is wrong.
S2 (13:12):
So it's hard to be able to say with absolute certainty.
S1 (13:16):
So what about Israel? You mentioned the Non-Proliferation treaty. We
know Israel is not a signatory to that, and it's
chosen to be somewhat ambiguous about its own nuclear weapons capabilities.
So is this a double standard?
S2 (13:30):
Yeah. I mean, again, this is one of those situations
where it's kind of, you know, an open secret that
Israel it's widely believed to have. I think the number
is up to about 90 nuclear warheads. Again, it officially
denies this, but it's sort of widely believed among global
intelligence communities that that's the capability that they have. Is
that a double standard? Well, arguably, yes. We would probably
(13:53):
be a little bit more sympathetic to a country like
Israel that is a democracy as opposed to, um, or,
you know, is at least ticks most of the boxes
for a democracy. Um, I know some people would quibble
with that compared to, you know, a pariah state like
Iran that is a state sponsor of terrorism. And that is,
of course, a longtime enemy of the United States. But
(14:14):
there will be plenty of people out there who say, well, yeah,
you know, look here, you've got a country that doesn't
even sign the treaty, let alone allows weapons inspectors and
is prepared to give an open and honest account of
their nuclear capabilities.
S1 (14:28):
Lastly, Michael, what do you think comes next? Here?
S2 (14:31):
We have to see what Iran does. Its foreign minister
is travelling to what is already in Moscow to meet
with Vladimir Putin, which is an interesting development. Although, you know,
Iran and Russia do have a relationship, we call them allies.
We probably would to a degree. In the last week,
Putin said he doesn't really want to take a direct
(14:53):
role here, but that may change now that this US
strike has happened. So we have to see what he does.
We have to see to what extent Iran retaliates, and
we have to see whether they're prepared to come back
to the negotiating table. Until then, you know, it's anyone's guess.
S1 (15:10):
Michael, thank you for joining the morning Edition.
S2 (15:12):
No problem.
S1 (15:23):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Kai
Wong with technical assistance from Josh towers. Our executive producer
is Tammy Mills. Tom McKendrick is our head of audio.
To listen to our episodes as soon as they drop,
follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you
(15:44):
listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered by subscriptions, so
to support independent journalism, visit the page or SMS. And
to stay up to date. Sign up for our Morning
Edition newsletter to receive a summary of the day's most
(16:05):
important news in your inbox every morning. Links are in
the show. Notes. I'm Chris Payne. This is the morning edition.
Thanks for listening.
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