June 23, 2025 • 15 mins
America’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear sites over the weekend mark a terrifying turning point.
Donald Trump has taken the US into direct conflict with Iran – and risked what the UN secretary-general is calling a “rathole of retaliation”.
US Secretary of Defence Pete Hegseth claims that Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been obliterated, but questions remain about the extent of the damage, and whether the attack will only strengthen Iran’s resolve to rebuild. Moreover, Trump’s calls for regime change suggest that peace may take much longer.
Today, author of The Permanent Crisis: Iran’s Nuclear Trajectory and defence editor at The Economist Shashank Joshi, on what Iran will do next.
If you enjoy 7am, the best way you can support us is by making a contribution at 7ampodcast.com.au/support.
Socials: Stay in touch with us on Instagram
Guest: Author of The Permanent Crisis: Iran’s Nuclear Trajectory and defence editor at The Economist, Shashank Joshi
Photo: Hindustan Times/Sipa USA
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 (00:01):
From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AM.
America's attacks on Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend mark
a terrifying turning point. Donald Trump has taken the US
into direct conflict with Iran and risked what the UN
(00:21):
Secretary General is calling a rat hole of retaliation. In
an address at the Pentagon, the U s Secretary of
Defense Pete Hegseth claimed Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated,
but questions remain about the extent of the damage and
whether the attack will only strengthen Iran's resolve to rebuild. Today.
Author of the Permanent Crisis, Iran's Nuclear Trajectory and defense
(00:44):
editor at The Economists, Shashek Joshi on what Iran will
do next and what Donald Trump, calling for regime change
says about how far we are from peace. It's Tuesday,
June twenty four.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Last night, on President Trump's orders, US Central Command conducted
a precision strike in the middle of the night against
three nuclear facilities in Iran, for Doeaux, Natan's, and Svahan
in order to destroy or severely degrade Iran's nuclear program.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Shishang, thank you for speaking with me. The United States
Secretary for Defense Pete Hegseth said in a press conference
at the Pentagon that Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his
commitment to peace through strength. Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Is that true? We don't know. We know that America
has dropped some of the very biggest bombs in its
arsenal on this mountain side in Four Daux, and we
can have confidence that that's probably caused damage to any
of the centrifuge machines inside the facility, which are typically
very very centif to any kind of disruption or vibration,
(02:02):
and obviously, dropping a thirty thousand bomb on a mountain
causes more than a little bit of vibration. We also
know that America struck Esfahan and Tans to other nuclear
sites where Iran has been conversing uranium into different forms
in a way that you might need for a weapon
down the line. But and there's a very big butt.
We don't know exactly how much damage has been done
(02:24):
to Four Dough. Even the Iranians may not be aware
of it, because they may not be able to enter
the facility safely, given all the rubble, given all the
contamination that may be inside. We don't know as well
where exactly Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium is. That
is uranium enrich to about sixty percent, which is a
very very short distance from weapons grade. It used to
(02:47):
be stored at Esfahan, where it was inspected by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA no longer has any
visibility into that stockpile. Iran said it has moved some
of the stocks away from facilities that are known to
the US and others, and in the days prior to
these US strikes, satellite images also showed trucks and vehicles
(03:10):
at some of these sites. So that's the problem. We
do not know if Iran's stockpile of uranium has been destroyed,
and if it hasn't, of course, that is a problem
that could be used as the basis for an effort
towards bomb in other secret clandestine sites.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterira said that the war
risks sinking into a rat hole of retaliation from.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
The outset of the crisis. I have repeatedly condemned any
military escalation in the Middle East. The people of the
region cannot endure another cycle of destruction, and yet we
now risk descending into a ref hole of retaliation.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Iran has promised everlasting consequences to the series of attacks
against it, So what type of retaliation do you anticipate.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
You know that Iran, for example, could attempt to close
the Strait of Hormuz, and Hormuz is a very important
waterway in the Persian Gulf. It's effectively the kind of
point at which lots of key oil traffic flows. It's
the only passage from the Persian Gulf to the open Sea.
And if Iran were place minds, for example, that could
cause real disruption to the energy market. However, I think
(04:23):
it's pretty important that we separate Iran's rhetoric from its
real situation, which is that it's deeply wounded. It is
lost very senior commanders, it's lost a great number of
its missile launchers, perhaps two thirds of them according to
some Israeli accounts, and the regime is afraid. It's afraid
that the regime itself may be a target of strikes
(04:44):
in the coming days, and so they will be seeking
to save face to sort of strike back in a
way that preserves their honor without provoking a huge retaliation
of the kind that Donald Trump has threatened. And I
would cast your mind back to twenty twenty when America
killed Cassam Sulimani, who was a very senior Irani in general,
(05:06):
and Iran responded by conducting missile strikes against a US
based in Iraq. But it was a very calibrated retaliation.
They effectively gave America noticed that it would happen. They
showed them where the missiles were landing, and it was
a way of showing that they had done something very
robust and strong without actually trying to kill very large
(05:27):
numbers of Americans. And I think that that is along
the lines of what you could see in the coming
days if Iran is trying to keep tensions within limits.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
And Donald Trump made this decision to attack Iran after
saying that he would be considering whether or not to
do it within the next two weeks. So what was
behind that statement. Can you talk to me about the
calculations within his administration to misdirect the public when they
were ultimately obviously planning this attack.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Well, had Iran turned up to those diplomatic talks with
France and Germany in Geneva for the weekend and said, actually,
we're willing to completely dismantle our nuclear program and give up.
Perhaps Donald Trump would have canceled these strikes, although that's
difficult to say. It does look as though he was
(06:14):
using both diplomacy and his own statements about making a
decision within two weeks as a smokescreen to deceive Iran
while preparations were being made for these strikes. And the
reason preparations have to be made is because the journey
to Iran for the B two Stealth Comma, that is
the only plane that can carry these huge bombs. It
(06:37):
is a thirty seven hour round trip. It's enormous, and
you need refueling planes along the way to keep these
bombers in the air. And you also need intelligence to
be gathered about exactly what you're hitting. You know, who's
in the area, what's the weather like, because that affects
the movement of these gravity bombs dropped from these planes.
So that he would have been using that time to
(06:58):
prepare this attack as well as I think to prepare
US military facilities in the area to cope with any
subsequent retaliation, for example, evacuating families from military bases in
places like Bahrain and Katar. So I suspect the deception
was largely aimed at buying time to prepare and at
making American facilities more secure. And then finally there was
(07:22):
that last little feint of sending some B twos effectively
the wrong way. A couple of decoy B twos taking
off and heading west, spotted over the Pacific to make
it look as though they were heading in a completely
different direction.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Shank In announcing the attacks, Pete Hegseth said that Donald
Trump seeks peace. In your view, does this decision by
the US to strike Iran bring anyone any closer to peace?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
I think, in this narrow sense that it may accelerate
the Israeli campaign, because the Israeli campaign has largely been
about destroying around nuclear program, although there have been some
other interest slightly stabilizing the Iranian state. And with that
in mind, because Fodeaux is now probably neutralized to some
large degree, and Iran's nuclear program has been weakened very substantially,
(08:15):
it makes it easier for Israel to stop the conflict. However,
we don't know the false scope of Iran's retaliation, and
if that retaliation is more expansive than I have suggested.
For example, if they launch a bunch of missiles at
a US based in the Middle East in ways it
kill marines and kill soldiers or kill airmen, that could
(08:35):
quite easily drag America straight back in to go hit
political targets into Iran. We don't know, And so whether
or not this move brings piece closer I think is
really dependent on the Iranian retaliation as much as anything else.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Coming up after the break. What America's strike on Iran
says about its strategy in the Middle East?
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Shashank.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
The United States has adopted Israel's frame, being that these
attacks were necessary to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.
So has there been any intelligence or any evidence presented
to back that up.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
We haven't seen clear evidence in public. We've seen claims
by Israel in public on the very first day of
the war that Iran was accelerating its progress towards what
we call weaponization, that is, elements of the bomb making process,
in particular that it was quite publicly racking up huge
quantities of highly enriched uranium. But it was also working.
They say on the neutron initiators that you need to
(09:42):
trigger a bomb, as well as the plastic explosives that
go around it, and the uranium core itself, the round
spherical bit of fissile material that goes at the very
heart of a bomb. But we haven't seen detailed documentation
or intelligence to support that. My colleagues at the Economist
have been told that Iran was taking some steps, for example,
(10:05):
about initiate a meeting of its missile forces in ways
that would help them mate a potential warhead to a
missile down the line, But by and large Western officials
appear to be much more skeptical of some of these claims.
And whilst they all agree Iran was doing concerning things
with weapons related technology, that it had not decided to
finally manufacture a bomb. And I can see no sign
(10:28):
from outside countries that they agree Iran was racing its
way towards that outcome at all.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
And what does this strike on Iran say to you
about America's plans in the Middle East, given such a
large part of Trump's base is anti interventionist, and getting
involved in this way is indirect conflict with how Trump campaigned.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
I think it shows you the problem that so many
administrations have had, which is, how do you keep away
from the quagmire of the Middle East when you were
trying desperately to try to effectively pivot to Asia and
focus on the challenge post by China. And it's a
problem that confronted Barack Obama and his pivot to Asia.
In twenty fourteen, he was dragged in to supporting the
(11:09):
European military campaign in Libya. It's a problem that the
devil Trump in his first term he had, you know,
he bombed Syria, he nearly bombed Iran. It's a problem
that afflicted Joe Biden, who ended up having to fire
at the Huthis and was pulled into the war in
the Middle East as well after October seventh. And I
think that there will be many in the Pentagon saying
(11:29):
we did this, We did it once. But what's imperative
now is that we do not let this become an
open ended campaign of the kind that we have criticized
so often in the past. And that will be fine,
But of course the thing to remember us we've discussed
is that the enemy gets a vote, and Iran will
have a determinant in the question as to whether how
bad this could eventually get and how far America may
(11:52):
against its will have to be pulled.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Back in right, and what is the longer term strategy
here if the US does have one.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I think the longer term US strategy is still to
try to limit its involvement in them, at least to
avoid getting sucked into a very high degree. I think
that they realize the military balance in the Pacific against
China has been eroding. They must focus on sort of
building up forces there. And you know, just look at
the munitions you're spending. They fired scores of Tomahawk land
(12:20):
attack missiles yesterday, cruise missiles. These are weapons that the
Indo Pacific Command in the Pentagon believes would be vital
for any conflict with China, and they just chewed through
more of them, having chewed through many others in the
campaign against the HUFIS earlier this year. So there will
be many military officers focused on the Pacific who will
have their head in their hands saying this is terrible.
(12:42):
So I think in the longer run, this administration is
still going to try its best to be disciplined if
it can, and to try to avoid committing itself in
a part of the world, in a region that it
feels has been effectively a graveyard for American resources and
lives for the last twenty five years.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
And Trump is now talking very directly about regime change.
He's saying on truth Social I'll quote, it's not politically
correct to use the term regime change. But if the
current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again,
why wouldn't there be regime change? So my question, I suppose,
(13:22):
is how likely is that outcome?
Speaker 3 (13:26):
I think it's still unlikely. I think that he is
Donald Trump likes campaigns that are successful and strong, and
he didn't want this war in the first place. But
once Israel showed that it was succeeding, that appealed to him,
and it pulled him in. Israel is now flirting with
the idea of regime change, and that may also be
influencing mister Trump. But I think that his advisors will
(13:49):
be much more skeptical at any kind of effort at
political change than they will at what was seen as
a one off strike against Fourdeaux and other nuclear sites.
I think, in a way, the way we should think
about this is that Trump is holding out this political
threat as a way of trying to influence the current
debate inside Iran, in inside its leadership over how to
(14:11):
retaliate and how severely to do so. And what it
says is, if you kill Americans and you retaliate in
a big way, I'm willing to come back and topple
your government. But if you don't do that, I'm willing
to stay out of this. That I think is more
likely to be the signal that he's sending. Although with
Donald Trump, of course, you know you never quite know
what's happening in his head.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Shashang, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
You're very welcome. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Also in the news today, Foreign Minister Penny Wong says
the government is continuing to work with Australians stranded in
Iran and Israel. Senator Wong says thirteen hundred Australians in
Israel and three thousand in Iran have registered with the
Department of Foreign Affairs is wanting to leave. However, evacuation
attempts in Iran are particularly complicated. The Department of Foreign
(15:07):
Affairs says Australia has deployed support of the Azerbaijani border
to help those able to make it there, and the
federal government is being urged by the Greens to disclose
whether the satellite surveillance base at Pine Gap in the
Northern Territory was used in the US strikes against Iran.
Green's defense spokesperson David Tchubridge says Australia should take immediate
(15:28):
steps to distance itself from the US over the strikes,
describing the development as a dangerous escalation. I'm Ruby Jones.
This is seven am. Thanks for listening.
From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AM.
America's attacks on Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend mark
a terrifying turning point. Donald Trump has taken the US
into direct conflict with Iran and risked what the UN
(00:21):
Secretary General is calling a rat hole of retaliation. In
an address at the Pentagon, the U s Secretary of
Defense Pete Hegseth claimed Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated,
but questions remain about the extent of the damage and
whether the attack will only strengthen Iran's resolve to rebuild. Today.
Author of the Permanent Crisis, Iran's Nuclear Trajectory and defense
(00:44):
editor at The Economists, Shashek Joshi on what Iran will
do next and what Donald Trump, calling for regime change
says about how far we are from peace. It's Tuesday,
June twenty four.
Speaker 2 (01:03):
Last night, on President Trump's orders, US Central Command conducted
a precision strike in the middle of the night against
three nuclear facilities in Iran, for Doeaux, Natan's, and Svahan
in order to destroy or severely degrade Iran's nuclear program.
Speaker 1 (01:21):
Shishang, thank you for speaking with me. The United States
Secretary for Defense Pete Hegseth said in a press conference
at the Pentagon that Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
Speaker 2 (01:32):
Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his
commitment to peace through strength. Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Is that true? We don't know. We know that America
has dropped some of the very biggest bombs in its
arsenal on this mountain side in Four Daux, and we
can have confidence that that's probably caused damage to any
of the centrifuge machines inside the facility, which are typically
very very centif to any kind of disruption or vibration,
(02:02):
and obviously, dropping a thirty thousand bomb on a mountain
causes more than a little bit of vibration. We also
know that America struck Esfahan and Tans to other nuclear
sites where Iran has been conversing uranium into different forms
in a way that you might need for a weapon
down the line. But and there's a very big butt.
We don't know exactly how much damage has been done
(02:24):
to Four Dough. Even the Iranians may not be aware
of it, because they may not be able to enter
the facility safely, given all the rubble, given all the
contamination that may be inside. We don't know as well
where exactly Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium is. That
is uranium enrich to about sixty percent, which is a
very very short distance from weapons grade. It used to
(02:47):
be stored at Esfahan, where it was inspected by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA no longer has any
visibility into that stockpile. Iran said it has moved some
of the stocks away from facilities that are known to
the US and others, and in the days prior to
these US strikes, satellite images also showed trucks and vehicles
(03:10):
at some of these sites. So that's the problem. We
do not know if Iran's stockpile of uranium has been destroyed,
and if it hasn't, of course, that is a problem
that could be used as the basis for an effort
towards bomb in other secret clandestine sites.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterira said that the war
risks sinking into a rat hole of retaliation from.
Speaker 4 (03:32):
The outset of the crisis. I have repeatedly condemned any
military escalation in the Middle East. The people of the
region cannot endure another cycle of destruction, and yet we
now risk descending into a ref hole of retaliation.
Speaker 1 (03:50):
Iran has promised everlasting consequences to the series of attacks
against it, So what type of retaliation do you anticipate.
Speaker 3 (04:00):
You know that Iran, for example, could attempt to close
the Strait of Hormuz, and Hormuz is a very important
waterway in the Persian Gulf. It's effectively the kind of
point at which lots of key oil traffic flows. It's
the only passage from the Persian Gulf to the open Sea.
And if Iran were place minds, for example, that could
cause real disruption to the energy market. However, I think
(04:23):
it's pretty important that we separate Iran's rhetoric from its
real situation, which is that it's deeply wounded. It is
lost very senior commanders, it's lost a great number of
its missile launchers, perhaps two thirds of them according to
some Israeli accounts, and the regime is afraid. It's afraid
that the regime itself may be a target of strikes
(04:44):
in the coming days, and so they will be seeking
to save face to sort of strike back in a
way that preserves their honor without provoking a huge retaliation
of the kind that Donald Trump has threatened. And I
would cast your mind back to twenty twenty when America
killed Cassam Sulimani, who was a very senior Irani in general,
(05:06):
and Iran responded by conducting missile strikes against a US
based in Iraq. But it was a very calibrated retaliation.
They effectively gave America noticed that it would happen. They
showed them where the missiles were landing, and it was
a way of showing that they had done something very
robust and strong without actually trying to kill very large
(05:27):
numbers of Americans. And I think that that is along
the lines of what you could see in the coming
days if Iran is trying to keep tensions within limits.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
And Donald Trump made this decision to attack Iran after
saying that he would be considering whether or not to
do it within the next two weeks. So what was
behind that statement. Can you talk to me about the
calculations within his administration to misdirect the public when they
were ultimately obviously planning this attack.
Speaker 3 (05:54):
Well, had Iran turned up to those diplomatic talks with
France and Germany in Geneva for the weekend and said, actually,
we're willing to completely dismantle our nuclear program and give up.
Perhaps Donald Trump would have canceled these strikes, although that's
difficult to say. It does look as though he was
(06:14):
using both diplomacy and his own statements about making a
decision within two weeks as a smokescreen to deceive Iran
while preparations were being made for these strikes. And the
reason preparations have to be made is because the journey
to Iran for the B two Stealth Comma, that is
the only plane that can carry these huge bombs. It
(06:37):
is a thirty seven hour round trip. It's enormous, and
you need refueling planes along the way to keep these
bombers in the air. And you also need intelligence to
be gathered about exactly what you're hitting. You know, who's
in the area, what's the weather like, because that affects
the movement of these gravity bombs dropped from these planes.
So that he would have been using that time to
(06:58):
prepare this attack as well as I think to prepare
US military facilities in the area to cope with any
subsequent retaliation, for example, evacuating families from military bases in
places like Bahrain and Katar. So I suspect the deception
was largely aimed at buying time to prepare and at
making American facilities more secure. And then finally there was
(07:22):
that last little feint of sending some B twos effectively
the wrong way. A couple of decoy B twos taking
off and heading west, spotted over the Pacific to make
it look as though they were heading in a completely
different direction.
Speaker 1 (07:36):
Shank In announcing the attacks, Pete Hegseth said that Donald
Trump seeks peace. In your view, does this decision by
the US to strike Iran bring anyone any closer to peace?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
I think, in this narrow sense that it may accelerate
the Israeli campaign, because the Israeli campaign has largely been
about destroying around nuclear program, although there have been some
other interest slightly stabilizing the Iranian state. And with that
in mind, because Fodeaux is now probably neutralized to some
large degree, and Iran's nuclear program has been weakened very substantially,
(08:15):
it makes it easier for Israel to stop the conflict. However,
we don't know the false scope of Iran's retaliation, and
if that retaliation is more expansive than I have suggested.
For example, if they launch a bunch of missiles at
a US based in the Middle East in ways it
kill marines and kill soldiers or kill airmen, that could
(08:35):
quite easily drag America straight back in to go hit
political targets into Iran. We don't know, And so whether
or not this move brings piece closer I think is
really dependent on the Iranian retaliation as much as anything else.
Speaker 1 (08:51):
Coming up after the break. What America's strike on Iran
says about its strategy in the Middle East?
Speaker 3 (09:03):
Shashank.
Speaker 1 (09:03):
The United States has adopted Israel's frame, being that these
attacks were necessary to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.
So has there been any intelligence or any evidence presented
to back that up.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
We haven't seen clear evidence in public. We've seen claims
by Israel in public on the very first day of
the war that Iran was accelerating its progress towards what
we call weaponization, that is, elements of the bomb making process,
in particular that it was quite publicly racking up huge
quantities of highly enriched uranium. But it was also working.
They say on the neutron initiators that you need to
(09:42):
trigger a bomb, as well as the plastic explosives that
go around it, and the uranium core itself, the round
spherical bit of fissile material that goes at the very
heart of a bomb. But we haven't seen detailed documentation
or intelligence to support that. My colleagues at the Economist
have been told that Iran was taking some steps, for example,
(10:05):
about initiate a meeting of its missile forces in ways
that would help them mate a potential warhead to a
missile down the line, But by and large Western officials
appear to be much more skeptical of some of these claims.
And whilst they all agree Iran was doing concerning things
with weapons related technology, that it had not decided to
finally manufacture a bomb. And I can see no sign
(10:28):
from outside countries that they agree Iran was racing its
way towards that outcome at all.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
And what does this strike on Iran say to you
about America's plans in the Middle East, given such a
large part of Trump's base is anti interventionist, and getting
involved in this way is indirect conflict with how Trump campaigned.
Speaker 3 (10:48):
I think it shows you the problem that so many
administrations have had, which is, how do you keep away
from the quagmire of the Middle East when you were
trying desperately to try to effectively pivot to Asia and
focus on the challenge post by China. And it's a
problem that confronted Barack Obama and his pivot to Asia.
In twenty fourteen, he was dragged in to supporting the
(11:09):
European military campaign in Libya. It's a problem that the
devil Trump in his first term he had, you know,
he bombed Syria, he nearly bombed Iran. It's a problem
that afflicted Joe Biden, who ended up having to fire
at the Huthis and was pulled into the war in
the Middle East as well after October seventh. And I
think that there will be many in the Pentagon saying
(11:29):
we did this, We did it once. But what's imperative
now is that we do not let this become an
open ended campaign of the kind that we have criticized
so often in the past. And that will be fine,
But of course the thing to remember us we've discussed
is that the enemy gets a vote, and Iran will
have a determinant in the question as to whether how
bad this could eventually get and how far America may
(11:52):
against its will have to be pulled.
Speaker 1 (11:53):
Back in right, and what is the longer term strategy
here if the US does have one.
Speaker 3 (11:59):
I think the longer term US strategy is still to
try to limit its involvement in them, at least to
avoid getting sucked into a very high degree. I think
that they realize the military balance in the Pacific against
China has been eroding. They must focus on sort of
building up forces there. And you know, just look at
the munitions you're spending. They fired scores of Tomahawk land
(12:20):
attack missiles yesterday, cruise missiles. These are weapons that the
Indo Pacific Command in the Pentagon believes would be vital
for any conflict with China, and they just chewed through
more of them, having chewed through many others in the
campaign against the HUFIS earlier this year. So there will
be many military officers focused on the Pacific who will
have their head in their hands saying this is terrible.
(12:42):
So I think in the longer run, this administration is
still going to try its best to be disciplined if
it can, and to try to avoid committing itself in
a part of the world, in a region that it
feels has been effectively a graveyard for American resources and
lives for the last twenty five years.
Speaker 1 (12:59):
And Trump is now talking very directly about regime change.
He's saying on truth Social I'll quote, it's not politically
correct to use the term regime change. But if the
current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again,
why wouldn't there be regime change? So my question, I suppose,
(13:22):
is how likely is that outcome?
Speaker 3 (13:26):
I think it's still unlikely. I think that he is
Donald Trump likes campaigns that are successful and strong, and
he didn't want this war in the first place. But
once Israel showed that it was succeeding, that appealed to him,
and it pulled him in. Israel is now flirting with
the idea of regime change, and that may also be
influencing mister Trump. But I think that his advisors will
(13:49):
be much more skeptical at any kind of effort at
political change than they will at what was seen as
a one off strike against Fourdeaux and other nuclear sites.
I think, in a way, the way we should think
about this is that Trump is holding out this political
threat as a way of trying to influence the current
debate inside Iran, in inside its leadership over how to
(14:11):
retaliate and how severely to do so. And what it
says is, if you kill Americans and you retaliate in
a big way, I'm willing to come back and topple
your government. But if you don't do that, I'm willing
to stay out of this. That I think is more
likely to be the signal that he's sending. Although with
Donald Trump, of course, you know you never quite know
what's happening in his head.
Speaker 1 (14:33):
Shashang, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3 (14:36):
You're very welcome. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1 (14:47):
Also in the news today, Foreign Minister Penny Wong says
the government is continuing to work with Australians stranded in
Iran and Israel. Senator Wong says thirteen hundred Australians in
Israel and three thousand in Iran have registered with the
Department of Foreign Affairs is wanting to leave. However, evacuation
attempts in Iran are particularly complicated. The Department of Foreign
(15:07):
Affairs says Australia has deployed support of the Azerbaijani border
to help those able to make it there, and the
federal government is being urged by the Greens to disclose
whether the satellite surveillance base at Pine Gap in the
Northern Territory was used in the US strikes against Iran.
Green's defense spokesperson David Tchubridge says Australia should take immediate
(15:28):
steps to distance itself from the US over the strikes,
describing the development as a dangerous escalation. I'm Ruby Jones.
This is seven am. Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
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
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.