October 1, 2024 • 12 mins
On Tuesday evening, Iran launched hundreds of ballistic missiles at Israel in what appears to be a direct response to Israel's actions in Lebanon over the past week. What are the consequences of the attack? How great is the danger of further escalation into a regional conflict? And what impact might these events have on next month’s U.S. presidential election? In this episode, Jacob Heilbrunn speaks with former ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. Khalilzad served as U.S. Special Representative for Afghanistan Reconciliation from 2018 to 2021 and before that held multiple posts in the George W. Bush administration as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations (2007-09), to Iraq (2005-07), and to Afghanistan (2004-05).
Music by Aleksey Chistilin from Pixabay
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Hi, I'm Jacob Heilbrunn, the editor of The National Interest, and my guest today is Zalmay Khalilzad,
(00:29):
the former ambassador to both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the United Nations.
And he is the perfect person today to talk to about the events in the Middle East.
Zalmay, what do you think the consequences will be of the Iranian regime launching what appears to be
(00:50):
several hundred ballistic missiles at Israel in response to its actions in Lebanon over the past
week or so? The recent developments in the Middle East, particularly the summation of the leadership
of Hezbollah, a group that has been very important in advancing Iran's regional agenda, which has
(01:13):
become the preeminent regional power and connectivity from Iran through Iraq, Syria,
and Lebanon to the Mediterranean, and to play an important role in deterring Israeli attacks
against Iran by placing a lot of ballistic and other missiles and systems that could, from Lebanon,
(01:39):
adjacent to Israel, threaten Israeli homeland, it has created a situation of uncertainty, concern,
fear in Iran. And the question has been for the Iranians the last few days, what should they do
if they don't respond? It could cause internal issues because the hard line are those who are
(02:03):
even more hard lined than some who are in the government now might challenge the system,
the government could be from the security forces and will undermine their credibility in the region
as well, given that they have left their, the perception would be left their proxies to be
(02:26):
devastated. But then on the other hand, if they respond big, would they invite a retaliation? And
they are quite shaken by the Israeli intelligence on Iran and Iranian proxies hitting
Hania in Tehran, then what has happened to Nasrallah and some of his key commanders in Lebanon,
(02:51):
whether the same might happen to them. So survival, riding out the current crisis
has been the priority, but it seems, you know, we are in the middle of what's going on right now.
So if the attack doesn't do much damage, if it was signaled already what kind of an attack it would
(03:17):
be and people were prepared to intercept so that they can claim they did something without doing
damage, it will have different consequences depending on what the damage is, if any, to Israel.
But the situation is quite volatile. How great do you think the danger is of escalation, even
(03:44):
at its most extreme, a World War I scenario where you have an Israeli response, let's say they
target the Iranian nuclear facilities, then we enter into a full-scale war, the United States
gets dragged in, we've moved several thousand troops into the area. What's your estimation
(04:05):
of where things are headed? It is my judgment that Iran is not at this stage. It's in a shaken
situation, doesn't want escalation, is pleading with the United States to use its influence to
restrain, as they see it, Israel to have a ceasefire, both in Lebanon and in Gaza. But
(04:26):
the ball is really in Netanyahu's court. Does he see an opportunity to do more than perhaps he
anticipated in the case of Isabella? Maybe he knew the vulnerability or it may have come very late
in the game. Some may have existed before, others may have appeared after the initial operations.
(04:51):
But in any case, does he feel that he has the advantage right now and he could do more than
decimating Isabella and achieving his objective in Gaza? And my judgment is that the administration
in Washington doesn't want escalation, doesn't want the risks that you enumerated to be actualized.
(05:15):
But we are in an election year and I don't know how much the administration's influence is
diminished because the president is not running for office. There will be a new administration.
So it's a difficult situation where I think the president Biden doesn't want escalation,
Iranians don't want escalation, but they are also would like a ceasefire in Lebanon and in Gaza and
(05:41):
Israel may have a different plan and a different game. And Netanyahu has generally appeared to
persist in what he's after. So we actually, we really don't know. So the risk is there.
It's true that we don't know, but Fox in Washington and in Israel, including Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who you've talked about, have for a long time been saying that the
(06:06):
only way to end this is to go at a minimum for eliminating the Iranian nuclear facilities
and perhaps even engaging in regime change in Tehran itself. Do you think that this is an
opportune moment from that perspective or would it be an overreach?
(06:27):
I think regime change would be an overreach in my judgment. We've seen the consequences of
a regime change in complex places like Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a lot tougher and the consequences
that are unanticipated challenges that arises. Who will take responsibility assuming you could do it,
(06:51):
which is a question mark. But the nuclear issue is, I think, a serious and a different issue.
And it could be dealt with through agreement or through military action to be paradoxically,
if Iran feels itself vulnerable at the leadership level to strikes and there is a risk of regime
(07:12):
change coming or precipitated from outside, the importance of nuclear weapons may increase.
And therefore, as Iranians debate right now inside their decision-making circles,
however, given the security circumstances being done, they may look at the nuclear option,
(07:33):
accelerating it, but they have to also probably worry that if they do accelerate, will they
precipitate an attack? And therefore, if they could have their way, they may want to get an agreement
with the United States. But that may not be practical. But the nuclear issue needs to be
(07:53):
focused on because I think it may come into play for a decision that the Iranians may very well
be considering right now. I'd like to ask you about Biden administration policy, because in October,
President Biden's national security adviser published an interesting essay in Foreign Affairs
(08:14):
saying that the Middle East has never been quieter nor more stable. Promptly, a few days later,
after the appearance of his essay, October 7th occurred and the entire region was engulfed or
is on the road to warfare. How much responsibility do you think Biden administration policy deserves
(08:35):
for this turn of events? Well, you always get the blame and the credit, whether you have a lot to
do with it or not. And I'm sure Jake regrets, you might not say it, what he wrote then. Certainly,
and the crisis has not gone in the direction that benefits the United States. And we have been shown
(09:02):
to have very significant limits to at least at exercise the American power exercised by this
administration that there has been, shall we say, not a sterling record of success. But it is
in the last few months of an administration, although it was the last year, people didn't know
that the president was not going to run again early on when the crisis started. But over time,
(09:29):
its influence is diminished in the calculation of local players. They are looking beyond the
current president, establishing contacts for the future. And what signal they receive may depend
on their preference in terms of who might get elected or wishful thinking. And therefore,
(09:50):
it has been a difficult period for the administration. Final question. You remember
America in 1979. You were had studied in the 70s at the University of Chicago with Albert
Wohlstedter. Indeed. 1979 was a pivotal year for the Carter administration. Right. Had the seizure
(10:12):
of the American embassy in Tehran. Right. The national humiliation. Right. And then you had
the failed rescue of the hostages. Also had the Soviet invasion of Kabul. Right. Your country,
you were born and grew up in, in Afghanistan. Right. Do you think we are possibly at a similar
(10:33):
moment today with the United States where this will actually redound to Donald Trump's benefit?
Because you have multiple crises abroad in Ukraine and in the Middle East that have been
festering and that have now erupted under the Biden administration's watch. I think it is not
(10:56):
similar to 79. We don't have the risk of a great power war. Just was the Cold War. And it turned
out what towards the final phases of the Cold War, but we didn't know it. In fact, people thought
the Soviets had the advantage in the Cold War. And some were talking about a second place for
(11:16):
the United States. And it turned out that what the Soviet did was a terrible mistake. And America
won the Cold War and emerged as the preeminent world power. And now, however, the situation is
that there is, it looks like a world out of control, multiple crises, disorder spreading
(11:38):
rather than order. And it could, in my view, although foreign policy generally doesn't play
a big role in elections, it's mostly economic and domestic issues. But it could, if it plays any
role, it could be beneficial to the former president because there is a general dissatisfaction
with a disorder and the challenges that are spreading. Well, Sami, thank you for these
(12:03):
excellent points. I know you have an airplane to catch and I would not want to take culpability
for your missing your important flight. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I hope we can do this
again sometime. Thank you. All the best, Jacob.
(12:44):
Thank you.
Hi, I'm Jacob Heilbrunn, the editor of The National Interest, and my guest today is Zalmay Khalilzad,
(00:29):
the former ambassador to both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the United Nations.
And he is the perfect person today to talk to about the events in the Middle East.
Zalmay, what do you think the consequences will be of the Iranian regime launching what appears to be
(00:50):
several hundred ballistic missiles at Israel in response to its actions in Lebanon over the past
week or so? The recent developments in the Middle East, particularly the summation of the leadership
of Hezbollah, a group that has been very important in advancing Iran's regional agenda, which has
(01:13):
become the preeminent regional power and connectivity from Iran through Iraq, Syria,
and Lebanon to the Mediterranean, and to play an important role in deterring Israeli attacks
against Iran by placing a lot of ballistic and other missiles and systems that could, from Lebanon,
(01:39):
adjacent to Israel, threaten Israeli homeland, it has created a situation of uncertainty, concern,
fear in Iran. And the question has been for the Iranians the last few days, what should they do
if they don't respond? It could cause internal issues because the hard line are those who are
(02:03):
even more hard lined than some who are in the government now might challenge the system,
the government could be from the security forces and will undermine their credibility in the region
as well, given that they have left their, the perception would be left their proxies to be
(02:26):
devastated. But then on the other hand, if they respond big, would they invite a retaliation? And
they are quite shaken by the Israeli intelligence on Iran and Iranian proxies hitting
Hania in Tehran, then what has happened to Nasrallah and some of his key commanders in Lebanon,
(02:51):
whether the same might happen to them. So survival, riding out the current crisis
has been the priority, but it seems, you know, we are in the middle of what's going on right now.
So if the attack doesn't do much damage, if it was signaled already what kind of an attack it would
(03:17):
be and people were prepared to intercept so that they can claim they did something without doing
damage, it will have different consequences depending on what the damage is, if any, to Israel.
But the situation is quite volatile. How great do you think the danger is of escalation, even
(03:44):
at its most extreme, a World War I scenario where you have an Israeli response, let's say they
target the Iranian nuclear facilities, then we enter into a full-scale war, the United States
gets dragged in, we've moved several thousand troops into the area. What's your estimation
(04:05):
of where things are headed? It is my judgment that Iran is not at this stage. It's in a shaken
situation, doesn't want escalation, is pleading with the United States to use its influence to
restrain, as they see it, Israel to have a ceasefire, both in Lebanon and in Gaza. But
(04:26):
the ball is really in Netanyahu's court. Does he see an opportunity to do more than perhaps he
anticipated in the case of Isabella? Maybe he knew the vulnerability or it may have come very late
in the game. Some may have existed before, others may have appeared after the initial operations.
(04:51):
But in any case, does he feel that he has the advantage right now and he could do more than
decimating Isabella and achieving his objective in Gaza? And my judgment is that the administration
in Washington doesn't want escalation, doesn't want the risks that you enumerated to be actualized.
(05:15):
But we are in an election year and I don't know how much the administration's influence is
diminished because the president is not running for office. There will be a new administration.
So it's a difficult situation where I think the president Biden doesn't want escalation,
Iranians don't want escalation, but they are also would like a ceasefire in Lebanon and in Gaza and
(05:41):
Israel may have a different plan and a different game. And Netanyahu has generally appeared to
persist in what he's after. So we actually, we really don't know. So the risk is there.
It's true that we don't know, but Fox in Washington and in Israel, including Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who you've talked about, have for a long time been saying that the
(06:06):
only way to end this is to go at a minimum for eliminating the Iranian nuclear facilities
and perhaps even engaging in regime change in Tehran itself. Do you think that this is an
opportune moment from that perspective or would it be an overreach?
(06:27):
I think regime change would be an overreach in my judgment. We've seen the consequences of
a regime change in complex places like Afghanistan and Iraq. It's a lot tougher and the consequences
that are unanticipated challenges that arises. Who will take responsibility assuming you could do it,
(06:51):
which is a question mark. But the nuclear issue is, I think, a serious and a different issue.
And it could be dealt with through agreement or through military action to be paradoxically,
if Iran feels itself vulnerable at the leadership level to strikes and there is a risk of regime
(07:12):
change coming or precipitated from outside, the importance of nuclear weapons may increase.
And therefore, as Iranians debate right now inside their decision-making circles,
however, given the security circumstances being done, they may look at the nuclear option,
(07:33):
accelerating it, but they have to also probably worry that if they do accelerate, will they
precipitate an attack? And therefore, if they could have their way, they may want to get an agreement
with the United States. But that may not be practical. But the nuclear issue needs to be
(07:53):
focused on because I think it may come into play for a decision that the Iranians may very well
be considering right now. I'd like to ask you about Biden administration policy, because in October,
President Biden's national security adviser published an interesting essay in Foreign Affairs
(08:14):
saying that the Middle East has never been quieter nor more stable. Promptly, a few days later,
after the appearance of his essay, October 7th occurred and the entire region was engulfed or
is on the road to warfare. How much responsibility do you think Biden administration policy deserves
(08:35):
for this turn of events? Well, you always get the blame and the credit, whether you have a lot to
do with it or not. And I'm sure Jake regrets, you might not say it, what he wrote then. Certainly,
and the crisis has not gone in the direction that benefits the United States. And we have been shown
(09:02):
to have very significant limits to at least at exercise the American power exercised by this
administration that there has been, shall we say, not a sterling record of success. But it is
in the last few months of an administration, although it was the last year, people didn't know
that the president was not going to run again early on when the crisis started. But over time,
(09:29):
its influence is diminished in the calculation of local players. They are looking beyond the
current president, establishing contacts for the future. And what signal they receive may depend
on their preference in terms of who might get elected or wishful thinking. And therefore,
(09:50):
it has been a difficult period for the administration. Final question. You remember
America in 1979. You were had studied in the 70s at the University of Chicago with Albert
Wohlstedter. Indeed. 1979 was a pivotal year for the Carter administration. Right. Had the seizure
(10:12):
of the American embassy in Tehran. Right. The national humiliation. Right. And then you had
the failed rescue of the hostages. Also had the Soviet invasion of Kabul. Right. Your country,
you were born and grew up in, in Afghanistan. Right. Do you think we are possibly at a similar
(10:33):
moment today with the United States where this will actually redound to Donald Trump's benefit?
Because you have multiple crises abroad in Ukraine and in the Middle East that have been
festering and that have now erupted under the Biden administration's watch. I think it is not
(10:56):
similar to 79. We don't have the risk of a great power war. Just was the Cold War. And it turned
out what towards the final phases of the Cold War, but we didn't know it. In fact, people thought
the Soviets had the advantage in the Cold War. And some were talking about a second place for
(11:16):
the United States. And it turned out that what the Soviet did was a terrible mistake. And America
won the Cold War and emerged as the preeminent world power. And now, however, the situation is
that there is, it looks like a world out of control, multiple crises, disorder spreading
(11:38):
rather than order. And it could, in my view, although foreign policy generally doesn't play
a big role in elections, it's mostly economic and domestic issues. But it could, if it plays any
role, it could be beneficial to the former president because there is a general dissatisfaction
with a disorder and the challenges that are spreading. Well, Sami, thank you for these
(12:03):
excellent points. I know you have an airplane to catch and I would not want to take culpability
for your missing your important flight. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I hope we can do this
again sometime. Thank you. All the best, Jacob.
(12:44):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
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.
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
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!