Ukraine, Gaza, Iran: Geopolitics & Intel Under Fire

This week, we unpack another complex week around the globe, from the grinding war in Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, to the delicate nuclear talks with Iran and a deeply concerning intelligence controversy in Washington. Tune in for your essential download on the global stories making headlines!
------

This Week Explained is presented by our new friends over at BetterHelp. Helping you build the mental resilience to navigate a complex world! Talk it out, with BetterHelp! Visit our link - BetterHelp.com/THISWEEK. Using this link acts as your promo code THISWEEK for 10% off your first month!
-------
This Week Explained is presented by our new friends over at Fresh Roasted Coffee & Positively Tea. Have a cup of the best tasting coffee that gets Tiana & Kervin through breaking down the latest geopolitics news! Visit our link - https://lddy.no/1lc0u & use our promo code THISWEEK for 20% off your first purchase!
Enjoyed this episode? Don’t forget to subscribe, leave a review, and share it with your network! Follow us @thisweekexplained for more.
-------------
Disclaimer:The views and opinions expressed on the podcast 'This Week Explained' are those of the hosts and guests and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization or entity. The information provided on the podcast is for general informational purposes only and should not be considered professional advice or a substitute for independent research and analysis. Each individual listener should research and identify their own opinions based on facts and logic before making any decisions based on the information provided on the podcast. The podcast hosts and guests are not responsible for any actions taken by individuals based on the information provided on the podcast.

Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/this-week-explained--6199515/support.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:06):
Hello, and welcome to this week Explained, your essential download
on the global stories making headlines. We're ready to unpack
hit another complex week from around the globe. But before
we dive in, just a quick reminder. If you want
to get alerted to new episodes as they are released,
make sure you're following or subscribed wherever you're listening right now.
It's the easiest way to stay updated. And hey, if

(00:28):
you're enjoying the show and want to help others discover it,
leaving a quick rating or review on Apple Podcasts or
Spotify really makes a difference. Also, did you know that
Spotify allows comments? This is a great way to get
involved with the podcast. Others can view those comments, and
now Spotify is allowing others to interact with your comments.

(00:49):
This keeps the conversation going long after the episode airs. Okay,
big news for us, because this week we are excited
to announce that this show is now sponsored by Betterhelp.
Let's pause for a moment and talk about something very important.
Life has its pressures for everyone, and we often carry
the immense weight of expectation to never show weakness, to

(01:11):
hide our true feelings and believe that asking for support
somehow makes us less of a person. But bottling things
up isn't the answer. It can often lead to feeling down, burnout,
or other unhealthy habits. We want to normalize the idea
that it's okay to struggle. Real strength actually comes from
opening up about what you're carrying and doing something about

(01:32):
it so you can be your best self for everyone
in your life. If you're feeling the weight of the world,
or even if things just feel a bit off. I
can't stress enough the value of talking to someone. It
could be a friend, a loved one, or a therapist.
We here at This Week Explained believe that therapy can
be incredibly valuable. Whether you've been in therapy personally or not,

(01:54):
the broader benefits are clear. It's so helpful for learning
positive coping skills, under standing how to set healthy boundaries,
and it really empowers you to be the best version
of yourself. And it's important to remember that therapy isn't
just for those who've experienced combat or major trauma. It's
a tool for anyone looking to improve their mental well
being and navigate life's challenges. That's why we're thrilled that

(02:18):
This Week Explained is now sponsored by Betterhelp with over
thirty five thousand therapists worldwide. Betterhelp is the world's largest
online therapy platform, having served over five million people globally,
and it clearly resonates with users, boasting an app store
rating of four point nine out of five stars based
on over one point seven million client reviews. It's also

(02:40):
incredibly convenient. You can connect with a therapist at the
click of a button, helping you fit therapy into your
busy life, and you can even switch therapists at any
time if you feel it's not the right fit. And
here's something special for our listeners. As the largest online
therapy provider in the world, Betterhelp can provide access to
mental health professionals with a diverse variety of expertise. Talk

(03:03):
it out with Betterhelp. Our listeners get ten percent off
their first month at betterhelp dot com. Slash this week.
That's better h e lp dot com slash this week. Finally,
remember that This Week Explained is part of the awesome
Leon Media network. You can discover more great podcasts over

(03:23):
at leonmedianetwork dot com. All right, let's get to why
you guys are really here. Let's talk about all those
stories that are shaping our world. This week, we're breaking
down the latest on the wars in Ukraine and the
Middle East, the latest on US talks with iron about
their nuclear program, and and under the radar intelligence story
that I think we'll have Kurban hopping up on his

(03:44):
soapbox once again, so you don't want to miss that.
Let's start the discussion in Ukraine, where it feels like
the situation has taken another particularly dark turn. This past
week we saw significant Russian drone attacks on Kiev early Sunday,
injuring people sitting apartment buildings on fire and you know,
just causing general destruction in Mayhem. So what's your read

(04:08):
on this continued targeting of the capitol.

Speaker 2 (04:11):
Yeah, look, it's it's brutal. There's there's no going around
that this sustained pressure campaign that's coming from Russia is
just devastating. That we saw more than a dozen Russian
drones utilized in this attack, and that wasn't the start
of it. That was only after they had an even
bigger assault a day earlier where they saw fourteen ballistic

(04:34):
missiles and two hundred and fifty attack drones used. Now,
fifteen people were injured in that attack. It's one of
the biggest assaults on Kiv that we've seen in over
three years of this war.

Speaker 1 (04:45):
And it's not just Kiev, right, we heard about thirteen
civilians killed across the southeast and north of Ukraine. Odessa's
port infrastructure was hit yet again, with Russia claiming they
targeted military equipment. But oops, it just accidentally hit hit
but the port.

Speaker 2 (05:02):
Yeah, it hit infrastructure, critical infrastructure, which they said they
weren't going to do anymore. He had agreed not to do, right.

Speaker 1 (05:09):
But it was an accident. So anyways, Karkieve also saw
drone attacks. This feels relentless. And I think you were
right because I think you mentioned last week that it
was all a distraction, all of their goodwill kind of
you know, willing to engage in talks and stuff. You
implied that it was a distraction.

Speaker 2 (05:32):
Yeah, absolutely, and you were absolutely right that the word
here is relentless, and it is something that Russia was
trying to do a couple of weeks ago in order
to set up for these attacks. So, hey, we're gonna,
you know, go over here do these piece talks, not
with Putin, but we'll put our third string in Turkey.

(05:53):
Let them go talk so you can distract the world
about what's really going on. And now this week we're
seeing all of these attacks. The Russians are also claiming
that they're making advances on the Eastern Front. They said
that they captured settlements in Donetsk, they even had one
settlement in Sumai. Now Ukraine, of course, they're not gonna

(06:14):
acknowledge these losses. That's just you know, how war works.
So I say, Russia is saying that they did this,
Ukraine's saying, we're not gonna comment on that. So it's
kind of hard to get independent confirmation without purchasing millions
of dollars in satellite images and trying to go through that.
So I'm not gonna be doing that. I'll wait for

(06:36):
them to come out in the in the open market
for free. So we've got all this happening, and it
kind of paints a picture of this grinding, brutal offensive push,
but it's not. You know, it's not just Russia. There's
another side fighting this, and they are fighting. Russia's reported

(06:59):
that Ukraine sent over one hundred drones over Russian territory.
Russia says that they downed all of those, but there
were some injuries in a fire and a chemical plant
in Toola, Russia, but that plant also makes explosives for
the Russian military.

Speaker 1 (07:17):
The international reaction has been very strong, at least in words.
Of course, the UK Foreign secretary called it quote another
night of terror end quote, and the EU's ambassador described
it as horrific. President Zelenski himself said these attacks show
Moscow is just quote prolonging the war end quote, and
is calling for more sanctions because those have worked so

(07:39):
well thus far. But there's also this undercurrent of frustration,
isn't there. I mean, European leaders seem to be despondent
over Trump's refusal to impose more sanctions, over Russia's consistent
rejection of a ceasefire. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (07:54):
Look, words are one thing. I think effective action is
a totally different thing. And that's what we're not seeing.
You know, on this podcast, we actually think very little
of sanctions, especially within Russia. We just don't think it works.
It's this slow, bleached strategy that they're trying to inflict,

(08:16):
and if there's no unified, crushing pressure to Russia, then
the immediate impact is quite limited. That's what we're seeing
right now now from Rosiel's perspective, if they can withstand
the current level of sanctions while making military gains on
the ground, or at least inflicting significant pain on Ukraine,

(08:36):
why are they going to stop this war? So Lenski's right,
this does look like the prolonging of a war, grinding
Ukraine down, wanting them to surrender.

Speaker 1 (08:47):
Amidst all this violence. Though there was this significant prisoner exchange,
hundreds from each side, soldiers and notably a large number
of civilians. This was agreed to in Istanbul, the first
direct talks in a very long time. So what do
you make of this? I mean good news.

Speaker 2 (09:06):
Finally, Yah, it's definitely a rare positive development, at least
for the individuals involved and their families. That we're talking
three hundred and ninety people from each side. There were
two hundred and seventy servicemen and then one hundred and
twenty civilians that were released. That's the biggest since this
full scale invasion started, and there is talk of more.

(09:28):
They're looking at one thousand released in total. That's added
on to the number that was already released, and that's substantial.
You can only imagine the relief of all of those families,
and some of these soldiers have been held for three
years now.

Speaker 1 (09:44):
It's heartbreaking to think of what these people have been through.
The Russian Defense Ministry showed images of their guys too,
taken to Belarus for checks. So there's this humanitarian aspect.
But then almost in the same breath, Russian Foreign Minister
Lavrov says that Russia will be ready to hand Ukraine

(10:04):
a draft peace accord once this exchange is completed.

Speaker 2 (10:09):
Yeah, yeah, you have the time. This is classic Russian maneuvering, right.
We see this sliver of goodwill with the prisoner exchange, which,
by the way, that was agreed in Turkey. When the
low level delegations met for just two hours, they made
zero progress on a ceasefire. Then we have this explosion

(10:30):
of offensives toward Kiev, and now there's this what Labrov
calls a prospect of a peace document.

Speaker 1 (10:39):
Is it because they're hoping they grind Ukraine down enough
that they're willing to capitulate to all of their demands,
you know, like allowing them to keep all the territories
that they have they're trying to annex.

Speaker 2 (10:50):
Is that yeah, I mean, look, that's that's going to
be part of it. I think it's again you had another,
yet another distraction, okay, And I've said this for a
couple of months now, and it's something another analyst had
been talking about that Putin doesn't want to stop this war.
He's in a wartime economy. So the more that is
spent on the military in fighting this conflict, the greater

(11:14):
the Russian economy can be. So that's why the sanctions
aren't working. And there's no need for him unless he
has a full outright victory in Ukraine. He doesn't need
to agree to a ceasefire, okay.

Speaker 1 (11:29):
So what about the contents, or at least the conditions
that are being hinted at in this agreement. Russian Foreign
mister Sergei Lavrov has stated that Russia is committed to
the principles of the Istanbul agreements, and he suggests that
a new draft proposal would lay the groundwork for what
he calls a quote reliable, long term agreement end quote. However,

(11:50):
there's a bit of a mixed message here. In the
same breath, Lavrov accuses Ukraine of launching a significant number
of drone attacks, claiming as many as eight hundred in
just three days, and then he then says that these
drone attacks were encouraged by European Union countries. Lavrov says
the aim of this was to undermine peace efforts, particularly

(12:11):
any initiatives supposedly being led by President Donald Trump. But
we know Ukraine has already agreed to face to face
talks with President Putin and Russia continues to stall that meeting.
So what is going on here in your view, Well.

Speaker 2 (12:28):
This is just strategic posturing. Once again, it's a familiar
playbook from the Russian Federation under President Putin. This was
happening even before this latest invasion. Moscow's attempting to project
itself as the party earnestly seeking a peaceful resolution, even
as its military offensive continues unabated. Now, critically, these narratives

(12:50):
are beginning to creep into the mainstream. That's a problem.
We saw this just a few weeks ago with comments
from President Donald Trump. It seemed to ecoes go the
Russian assertion that it's actually Ukraine that bears responsibility for
initiating the conflict. So labrov specific mention of Trump is

(13:10):
strategically significant. I think it's calculated to resignate, to resonate
with segments of the American electorate that continue to question
the scale and nature of this unwavering US support for Ukraine.
Then we have Labrov's other recent statements. He's talked about
the illegitimate presidency narrative. He reiterated Moscow's position that presidential

(13:33):
Lenski lacks legitimacy and that new Ukrainian elections would be
a precondition for any substantive peace agreement.

Speaker 1 (13:41):
Okay, so we have all this talk about wanting peace
and putting forth a ceasefire deal from the Russian side,
But how can you negotiate a peace deal with a
leader who's legitimacy you publicly deny. It sounds very problematic.

Speaker 2 (13:56):
Yeah, problematic, that's an understatement there. Look, it's a non
starter for Kief essentially demands capitulation before negotiation. We have
Ukraine's foreign minister who said Kiev is waiting for Russia's
proposals on the form of talks and a ceasefire, and
even suggested a leader's meeting that could include President Trump.

(14:17):
But Zelenski also accused Putin of quote trying to bite
I'm end quote, And that's probably the more realistic assessment.
That's when we discussed on this very podcast. We probably
for over a year now, we've talked about this trying
to buy time tactic from Putin, but putincyes a war
of attrition as a benefit to the Russian military.

Speaker 1 (14:38):
Now, Trump himself congratulated them on the prisoner swap, posting quote,
this could lead to something big. Quote. He also said
earlier in the week after a call with Putin that
they'd immediately start negotiating a ceasefire. So what is going
on with that?

Speaker 2 (14:55):
Yeah, I'd say any move that reduces suffering, like the
prisoner exchange here that it's welcome, but much Listen, it's
just like the Oval Office debacle. These interventions from the
US often create more noise than signal peace. It's not
like Russia is rushing to sign a deal. We've got

(15:15):
Italy's Prime Minister Maloney. She's seen as a Trump supporter
in the international community, and she offered up a negotiation
that will be broker by the Vatican. That was immediately
dismissed by Lav Roth as what he said, quote not
a very realistic option end quote. If Russia is going

(15:35):
to say a lot of things, but it seems they
want to dictate the terms based on the realities they
were trying to create on the battlefield, not what's actually
going on. They want an agreement that ensures Russia's security.
Ukraine wants an agreement that ensures their own security, and
I think the details of that security by both countries
are vastly different.

Speaker 1 (15:57):
So a glimmer of hope with the prison returning home
overshadowed by intense fighting and very tough talk on the
diplomatic front. It feels like one step forward, two steps back.
For now, I want to shift the focus into some
deeply troubling reports out of the war in Gaza, So
let's start with Hamas. There's a report out of a

(16:18):
London based Arabic daily news organization painting an extremely grim picture.
They're saying Hamas is facing perhaps its most difficult crisis
since it was founded.

Speaker 2 (16:29):
Yes, this is actually very significant, Tienna. From what I'm
seeing in that report plus other intelligence that I've seen
in the open source, AMAS is facing a multifaceted crisis.
We're talking about a severe cash crunch. They're finding it
hard to pay their own operatives, let alone government employees
in DASA. Maybe this is some lack of cash flow

(16:52):
because there's no more aid to steal because Israel's not
letting let aid in anymore, or more likely, maybe Iran
is cracking down on its unfettered cash flow to the group.
But there are reports that Hamas fires have not been
paid in three months. That bights hard into morale and
operational capability. Could you imagine Tianna while I was deployed,

(17:17):
not having payments for three months, that is, that would
be devastating to our morale. Then there's also this relentless
Israeli military offensive, and.

Speaker 1 (17:29):
It's not just financial and military is it? Like the
report mentions a drop in popular support too, which it's
about time, honestly. Operatives not being paid in three months,
Gaza government employees getting just around two hundred fifty dollars
a month, and services tied to the Hamas government are
reportedly decimated largely unable to function. So does this also

(17:55):
impact the civilian population directly?

Speaker 2 (17:59):
Yeah? Absolutely. When the entity, even the terror organization that's
trying to govern a particular place, when they cannot provide
basic services or salaries, public frustration is going to mount.
This is how revolutions start. Military pressure eroads resources, which

(18:19):
erodes governance, which erodes popular support or at least makes
it much harder to maintain popular support. From an analytical standpoint,
this weakens Hamas significantly.

Speaker 1 (18:31):
Yet Hamas sources cited claims that even though conditions are disastrous,
they believe that the group will be able to slowly
recover once the war ends. Whenever that's going to be
knowing what you know about their resilience and well their history, Curvin,
is that realistic or just bravado?

Speaker 2 (18:51):
Don't make me say it, Tienna.

Speaker 1 (18:54):
Two things Gonta be true at the same time.

Speaker 2 (18:58):
Yes, my favorite line, but I think it's true. Two
things can be true at the same time. And look,
Hamas has proven to be incredibly resilient in the past.
They've weathered intense storms. Their ideology is deeply entrenched for
a core part of their base, So underestimating their ability

(19:21):
to regroup to some extent that's going to be a mistake.
But quote slowly recover, that's the operative phrase here. The
scale of death station in Gossa, the depth of the
financial crisis we're seeing there, and the potential for a
changed post war political landscape. That means any recovery would

(19:44):
be incredibly challenging and likely you look very different from
their previous periods of control. I really like the line
once the war ends. That's very interesting to me because,
just like you said, when when's it going to end?
But also how is it going to end? And when
it does end, what does the day after look like?

(20:06):
That's going to be crucial.

Speaker 1 (20:08):
Yeah, we all know what it would look like if
Israel had their way. Yes, it's definitely a bleak outlook.
And speaking of bleak curven, there's another deeply disturbing report,
this one from the Associated Press, and it alleges the
widespread use of Palestinians as human shields by not just
Hamas but Israeli soldiers in Gaza. We're talking about accounts

(20:31):
from Palestinians and even more Israeli soldiers themselves. What the f.

Speaker 2 (20:40):
Yeah, So you know, I would dismiss this as some
sort of Hammas propaganda if not for the fact that appears,
just like you said, some Israeli soldiers at least partially
admitted to doing this. Look, make no mistake, this is
an incredibly serious allegation. The forcing of civilians into buildings

(21:02):
are tunnels to check for bombs or gunmen. If this
is happening as described, This is a blatant violation of
international law. As a vetteran somebody who has been in
a combat zone, this very concept is abhorrent. But the
fog of war is thick and sometimes false accusations fly.

(21:24):
But when you have soldiers reportedly corroborating such practices over
a nineteen month period, I think we have to talk
about it.

Speaker 1 (21:33):
I want to pull from the writings of the ap
so we don't muddy the waters further. They spoke with
seven Palestinians and two members of Israel's military who said
they engaged in the practice, and in response, the Israeli
military says it strictly prohibits using civilians as shields and
that quote all such orders are routinely, routinely emphasized to

(21:54):
the forces end quote. They also say they're investigating several cases.
So what do you make of that disconnect? Do you
think it's just the Israeli military train to say face.

Speaker 2 (22:06):
Yeah, oh well, that's I think that's part of it.
I mean, there's it's classic battlefield dilemma. You've got a
social policy and then you've got on the ground reality,
and it's magnified by the intensity of a conflict like this. Now, militaries,
especially democratic ones. We would call Israel a democratic military.

(22:28):
It's aligned with the United States. You're always going to
have these policies against actions like this. For me personally, before, during,
and after every deployment, we would have mandatory rules of
engagement training we call ROE. We needed to know the
Geneva Conventions, brunt to back, back to front, up and down.

(22:50):
The entire thing. This was mandatory. That does I say
all of that, but it doesn't preclude a commander or
platoon sergeant or someone from the E for mafia from
doing something that goes against those mandates. For me, the
question is how are these policies being enforced? So what
happens when soldiers are in extreme threat situations? Does a culture,

(23:14):
official or unofficial emerge that tolerates or actually encourages these
tactics to minifize their own force casualties.

Speaker 1 (23:24):
The report also mentions that writes groups say Israel has
used Palestinians as shields for decades, and that even though
the Israeli Supreme Court outlawed the practice in two thousand
and five, what only in two thousand and five they
outlawed the practice that is wild. They say that violations

(23:45):
are continuing to be documented despite the outlaw of this practice.
Experts are saying this war is the first time in
decades the practice and the debate around it has been
so widespread.

Speaker 2 (24:00):
I want to touch on the two thousand and five
for just saying, that coincides directly with the movement of
Palestinians in directly into Gaza. Right, so Palestine took over
the strip governed by Hamas, and so that kind of
coincides with that with the Israeli Supreme Court saying you
cannot use those Palestinians as human shields. Should it have

(24:24):
just been a law wherever, Yes, quite honestly, because Palestinians
had been living there the whole time. Now, I think
the historical context is vital, especially because Israel. Israel has
this narrative that Hamas uses human shields. They're the evil ones.

(24:46):
But they've been doing it before two thousand and five,
and apparently continue to do it over the next decades
after two thousand and five. Now, the two thousand and
five Supreme Court ruling was a landmark decision. The rights
groups of documented continue violations and now we're hearing from
idea soldiers and on the ground experts that it's widespread

(25:06):
in this conflict. This suggests a systemic issue that official
prohibitions have not been eradicated. But the why now, why
so widespread question that's troubling. It could point to the
nature of this specific urban warfare environment or the duration

(25:29):
of the conflict. Something that comes to mind for me
is maybe we're seeing the idea of just you know,
desensitized to the suffering of the Palestinian people. They just
don't care. I know some people, especially all through social media,
that's their belief that the Israelis are so desensitized to
this that they don't care that they're doing it, or

(25:52):
that it's happening. Or could we even see that there
are actual orders from leadership filtering down despite these official
denials that it's happening. Now, the military does say it's investigating,
but they're not providing details to the AP about the
reach or any orders from commanders. Now. I know that

(26:15):
looks like a lack of transparency, but it is very
much like a court case. You don't want to put
the information out there until you have all of the
facts in place. But we've talked about the trust issue
in this region, and so with trust already thrown out
the window, that lack of transparency does not help build confidence.

Speaker 1 (26:34):
And it's all happening amidst a catastrophic humanitarian situation. I mean,
the UN is practically screaming for more aid. UN Secretary
General Guts said Palestinians are enduring the cruelest phase of
the war, and he mentioned more than a dozen food
trucks were looted after a partial easing of the Israeli blockade,

(26:57):
and the Israeli Army reported eighty three AID trucks entered
via Karem Shalam on Friday. But Ocha, the UNS Humanitarian Office,
says that these small amounts are nowhere near enough because
it's millions of people.

Speaker 2 (27:13):
A million, two millions of people, two millions of people,
So they get two million Palestinians eighty three AID trucks.
It's a disaster, plain and simple. Look, the looting is tragic.
Saw video today of Hamas looting all of these. I

(27:35):
saw videos of Palestinians suffering and running to the trucks
and trying. I don't call that looting, I'm sorry. I
call that people suffering trying to get stuff to save
their family and themselves.

Speaker 1 (27:46):
Yeah, that's not looting. They are in a dire situation
and they're desperate, and they aren't getting the help that
they're supposed to be getting.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yep. And when people are starving, societal order breaks down.
And the backdrop to all of this Israel's offensive grinds
on the civilian suffering is deepening every day. In these
allegations of human shield use, that adds another layer of war.
This is not what I was expecting for this week,

(28:17):
but when I saw this come up, we had to
talk about it.

Speaker 1 (28:20):
Absolutely. I appreciate you bringing it up, and it is
a lot to process and not the kind of conversation
that ends with easy answers, So thank you so much
for breaking it down. As always, we'll continue tracking this war,
but for now, let's shift our focus to an update
on Iran's nuclear program. But before we dive in, we
need to take a quick break for a message from

(28:41):
our sponsors, So stay with us. We'll be right back.
Welcome back, listeners. As we hinted at before the break,
this week, the world witnessed another round of talks, the fifth,
I believe, between Iran and the United States, this time
in Rome with Oman mediating. So, oh, lut's snow curbon.

(29:01):
What is the headline coming out of this round of talks?
Are we any closer to anything at all?

Speaker 2 (29:09):
Yeah? The headline is some but not conclusive progress, which,
as you know from covering these things for the podcast,
that's diplomatic speak for quote, we talked, nobody stormed out
of the room, but all the big issues there's still
big issues, right.

Speaker 1 (29:28):
Some but not conclusive. It does sound familiar. So what's
the not conclusive part? Still the same sticking points we
discussed countless times on previous episodes.

Speaker 2 (29:40):
Yeah, you nailed it. You got it exactly right. So
it all boils down to uranium enrichment. The American demand
is pretty stark now. Iran needs to stop enriching uranium period,
and Tehran is just as insistent that its program, including enrichment,
is a sovereign right and it has to continue. That's

(30:00):
the chasm that they're trying to bridge.

Speaker 1 (30:02):
And these talks are happening directly or is it still
that proximity talk dance? Like what am I trying to ask?
What I'm trying to ask here is who is in
the room? For the United States.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
No, it's a mixed bag, that's to be sure. It's
on the US side had Mid East donvoy Steve Witcoff.
They also had Michael Anton. It's the State Department's policy
planning character and they're engaging, but that core disagreement on
enrichment is the toughest nut to crack here. Interestingly, the

(30:38):
US position on enrichment seems to have hardened over the
last few months. There was this time Witcoff apparently suggested
that Iran could enrich to three point sixty seven percent.
Now the new line is all Iranian enrichment has got

(30:58):
to stop immediately.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
So at least both sides are talking. Auran's foreign ministers
said their Almanei hosts presented some ideas that they will
take back quote without creating any commitments end quote. He
also said it's too complex for just a few meetings,
but that he's hopeful. The US side, though, through an

(31:21):
anonymous senior official, said that the talks were constructive and
that they made further progress. So, I mean it sounds
cautiously optimistic but with very low expectations.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
Yeah, I think that's a good way to put it. Constructive.
That's the go to word when you don't want to
say things are falling apart, but you can't announce a breakthrough.
So diplomacy, as we know doing this podcast, there's this
delicate dance that they're doing.

Speaker 1 (31:54):
And while this dance is happening, Iran's nuclear program isn't
exactly hitting pause, is it. I mean I saw a
US Defense Intelligence Agency reports say about as much as that.
And you've lived and breathed this stuff for decades, deployed
in multiple hotspots. So how concerned should we be about
their actual capabilities right now?

Speaker 2 (32:16):
I'd say extremely worried. I've been extremely worried about Iran's
progress since the Obama deal that happened over a decade ago. Now,
this report that you talked about, it's soapering. It states
Iran has activities that I want to quote them here
quote better position it to produce in quote nuclear weapons

(32:38):
if they choose to. Crucially, it says the time required
to produce enough weapons grade uranium for a first nuclear
device is probably less than one week.

Speaker 1 (32:52):
Less than a week.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
Wow.

Speaker 1 (32:54):
But producing the material is different from having a deliverable weapon, right.

Speaker 2 (32:59):
Yeah, absolutely. I want to clarify that experts are saying
that it would still likely take Iran months to actually
make a working bomb. But we're talking about months, not years,
not you know, a few decades. You're having that fistle
material on hand, or at least the ability to get
it that quickly, that changes the entire strategic calculation. Iran,

(33:21):
for its part, they insist, look, we're not producing this
uranium for weapons. This is for the people of our country.

Speaker 1 (33:30):
So with that kind of capability in their back pocket
and their firm stance on continuing enrichment, what's pushing them
to the negotiating table at all? I mean, they seem
to be holding some strong cards program wise. Is it
the sanctions or an internal situation?

Speaker 2 (33:47):
Yeah, there's a few reasons here, but the goal for
Iran in these talks is ultimately the lifting of those
economic sanctions and they need that relief. Now. Internally things
are tense. The mandatory hits job issue that continues to
inflame politics. Women are still defying that law and they're
still being beaten for it. There are rumors about potential

(34:11):
increases in subsidized gasoline costs, which, as we've seen before,
that can spark nationwide protests. Now Iran may see internally,
the ignitting of a widespread revolution that could topple the regime.
And you and I both know the US loves to
fan the flames of regime change.

Speaker 1 (34:31):
And their currency, the real has been in free fall recently.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
Incorrect, Actually, yeah, that's that's exactly right. It it hit
over a million reals of one US dollar. That was
back in April. Now there's been some improvement with these
talks and a little bit of a rally, which Tehran
desperately hopes is going to continue. Now, further collapse could
really provide that spark for economic unrest. And then there's

(34:58):
the regional picture.

Speaker 1 (35:00):
First of all, I just want to reiterate one million
re all to one US dollar. Holy molly, that is
that's not a very good exchange rate at all. So anyways,
back to what we need to talk about. You were
talking about their axis of resistance, right, Yeah.

Speaker 2 (35:22):
Since the October seventh attack on Israel, the axis of
resistance has been in tatters. The fall of Asides government
in Syria and December that was a massive blow that
stripped Iran of a key ally. And all this while
the Trump administration continues two levy new sanctions just this
week they target any sale of sodium perchlorate who we

(35:44):
Iran so chemical reportedly received from China and linked to
that huge, unexplained explosion at the Shahid Raje port in Iran.

Speaker 1 (35:55):
And then there's Israel, always a major factor in this equation.
They've consistently said they won't allow Iran to get a
nuclear weapon and have threatened to strike Iran's facilities. So
how is that playing into these already delicate negotiations.

Speaker 2 (36:11):
I mean, it's a massive complication. I think it's part
of the reason you're seeing the strain between the United
States and Israel, or President Trump and Benjamin net Yahoo.
Now Israel's threats are taken very seriously. Iran recently warned
I would take special measures to defend its nuclear facilities

(36:31):
if Israel continues its threats. They even had Iranian student
it's forming a human chain at an underground in Richmond site.
It's an area built into a mountain specifically to defend
against air strikes. And Iran's also warned the US it
would view Washington Washington, DC as complicit in any Israeli attack.

Speaker 1 (36:55):
So with the US demanding no enrichment and Iran insisting
on it. Are there any potential compromises being floated, any
creative off.

Speaker 2 (37:02):
Ramps, Yes, I mean some ideas have been tossed around.
One is a potential group from within the Mid East
that would be backed by regional countries and the United States.
They could maybe supply uranium to Iran. There are also
other countries in the International Atomic Energy Agency of the
IEA who's offering low enriched uranium for peaceful purposes, but

(37:28):
Iran's foreign ministry has been adamant that enrichment must come
from within Iran's borders. A similar fuel swap proposal did
fail to gain traction. That was way back in twenty ten,
so there is a history of skepticism here from Tehran.

Speaker 1 (37:45):
So some progress, but the core disagreements remain and the
external pressures and threats are only intensifying. Sounds like we'll
be circling back to this topic again soon. Time to
get to our final topic of the week, and it
involves an advisor to Director of National Intelligence, Tulci Gabbard,
and some pretty significant pressure on the US intelligence community

(38:08):
regarding Venezuela and the trend Aragua gang. Here we go,
So Curbin, let's start with the basics, who is this
advisor and what specific intelligence report are we talking about,
and what are these accusations based on.

Speaker 2 (38:28):
So we're talking about Joe Ken. He's currently the chief
of staff to the Director of National Intelligence, just like
you said, Tulci Gabbard. He was nominated by President Trump
back in February to lead the National counter Terrorism Center,
the NCTC, and this is a very significant role. Now.
The controversy centers around a National Intelligence Council memorandum assessing

(38:50):
the links between between the Venezuelan government and the criminal
Gangren de Aragua or TDA is what I'm going to
call them. Emails primarily obtained by the New York Times
but also CBS, and I've reviewed these with my own eyes.
I had to see them myself before I could comment
on them. They were dated around early April of the year,

(39:13):
and it reportedly showed Kent asking for a rewriting of
this intelligence memo.

Speaker 1 (39:21):
A rewriting, I mean that's some significant Like what exactly
was he asking to be changed? Was it a pretty
substantial portion of it? And why why was he asking
for this?

Speaker 2 (39:34):
Well, the emails, and I went right to the emails
to get this out. It shows that he was concerned
the initial draft was, in his words, weak ice speak.
That was a quote from him in the email. Now
this happens a lot uh week. I see speak weak
intelligence community speak. It's usually brought up when an analyst

(39:57):
doesn't want to make an accusation one way or another.
They're trying to take an easy way out of it.
They'll use possible as a broad term in the entire report.
They won't make a firm decision on something.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
No.

Speaker 2 (40:08):
Mister Ken apparently wanted the assessment to more closely align
with the Trump administration's policies. Specifically, he pushed for it
to include references critical of Biden era immigration programs. He
argued that the previous administration should also take some blame
for this crisis. He then urged analysts to push to
the top the analysis that Venezuela, as an adversary to

(40:32):
the United States, knew about tda's activities and did not
stop them. He also tried to make what some might
call quote common sense end quote connections between TDA and
the Venezuelan government. For instance, he explicitly criticized the draft

(40:53):
for leading with an assessment that they could not prove
with smoking gun intelligence that the Venezuelan government directing TDA,
which he felt made it sound like the government had
nothing to do with this gang. He also stated, quote here,
another major issue I have with the analysis in this
piece is its lack of context about the status of

(41:16):
our border and immigration policy over the last four years.

Speaker 1 (41:20):
And he suggested specific language regarding immigration.

Speaker 2 (41:25):
Yeah. For example, he made one suggest edit quote. The
IC also recognizes that between January twenty twenty one and
January twenty twenty five, of the United States immigration policies
and border security posture made migration from Venezuela to the
United States so easy that the government of Venezuela did

(41:47):
not need to push migrants to the United States. United
States immigration policy served as its own pulling factor. End
quote from him. He later approved another suggestion that quote
increased flow of irregular migration could be attributed to a

(42:07):
wide perception of lacks US immigration policies and a lack
of screening at the border between twenty twenty one and
twenty twenty five into quote.

Speaker 1 (42:18):
And this is all happening in a specific policy context,
Isn't it like the Trump administration has taken a strong
stance on groups like TDA.

Speaker 2 (42:29):
Yeah, they are now terror organizations. And Trump himself had
invoked the seldom used Alien Enemies Act of seventeen ninety
eight in March he designated suspected gang members as wartime
enemies now shortly after, the administration used this act to
remove one hundred and thirty seven Venezuelans from the United States.

(42:52):
So an intelligence assessment that downplayed direct Venezuelan government control
over TD eight might complicate this pol justification. It is
worth noting the final memo, dated April seventh, and later
declassified on May fifth, did assert the maduro Re theme
quote probably does not have a policy of cooperating with

(43:14):
TDA and is not directing TDA movements to and operations
in the United States end quote. But it did include
an FBI assessment that some Venezuelan government officials facilitate TDA
members migration.

Speaker 1 (43:32):
Curvin, I want to go deeper into the nature of
these alleged requests. From your experience, there's a world of
difference between a leader asking for an intelligent report to
be clearer or better formatted, and asking for the analysis
itself to be reframed to fit a certain narrative to
bolster a policy that the current administration is trying to

(43:55):
float right now, So how do you see the actions
described in these emails in that context? Like, is this
what some might call a slippery sloop yatyena.

Speaker 2 (44:06):
It absolutely is, And from an intelligence standpoint, this is
where it becomes incredibly concerning. I want to be clear,
having a leader demand changes to an intelligence report based
on formatting, asking for clarifying remore, like you need to
clarify this, or even moving paragraphs around for better impact.

(44:27):
That's extremely common that happens day today. Look, it's a
lot like if you think about an editor asking a
rewrite of an article to a journalist. That's part of
the process to ensure clarity and utility. But what seems
to be described here, based on the emails that I saw,
this is different. It appears to me to be a

(44:50):
direct effort not just to polish the report or this memo,
but to direct an analyst to reframe their analysis based
on political or ideological biases. The goal seems to have
been to write the assessment in such a way that
the previous administration also ticks blame in this crisis. Also

(45:11):
to push to the top the analysis that Venezuela as
an adversary, knew what TDA was doing and didn't stop it,
and frankly, to make common sense connections between TDA and
the Venezuelan government, perhaps even when the hard intelligence might
have been more nuanced or lacking that smoking gun I

(45:31):
talked about in the email itself. Mister Kent even admits
that this could be viewed as political. So I do
think this was completely political. He went on to say
that he didn't see it that way, but just to
mention it. In the back of his mind, he knew

(45:52):
this was a political move.

Speaker 1 (45:55):
Okay. So you've drawn a very clear and critical line
between routine editorial reviews of intelligence products and what appears
to be in this instance, with the Joe Kent emails,
pressure to reframe substantive analysis for potentially political ends, to
assign blame connect dots, perhaps more assertively than the raw
intel might warrant or align with specific policy narratives. This

(46:17):
distinction feels incredibly important. So drilling down on that from
your expertise as an analyst who has navigated these environments,
could you impact for our listeners the full spectrum of
dangers here like, what are the inherent risks when this
line is crossed? What does it mean not just for
the integrity of a single report, but for the analytical
process itself, for the trust placed in the intelligence community,

(46:41):
and ultimately for the quality of decision making that impacts
our national security.

Speaker 2 (46:48):
The danger is profound to direct an analyst to reframe
their analysis to fit a particular political agenda, or to
push for conclusions that align with policy preferences rather than
raw intelligence. That is dangerous. No one could certainly argue
it degrades national security because it means policymakers might not

(47:09):
be getting the unvarnished truth they need to make critical decisions.
What can't be argued is that it fundamentally goes against
the core principles of intelligence reporting, which must be objective
and free from such policy driven bias. Now, when intelligence
is shaped to put a narrative, it loses its integrity

(47:29):
and it loses its value. Just like you said, it
erodes trust not just between analysts and their leadership, but
also between the intelligence community and the policy makers that
they serve, and ultimately the public. Now, I can tell
you in the past, I have seen situations where analysts
myself included, have had to stand firm on our analysis.

(47:51):
I even had times where I had to make it
difficult for my reports to be altered once I send
it in to leadership because I didn't want my integrity compromised.
That looks bad on me, but then it also is
poor intelligence and it could lead to someone's death. Now,

(48:12):
this kind of pressure to analysts in an incredibly difficult position, Well, thank.

Speaker 1 (48:18):
You for clarifying and for that very stark warning. So
with that in mind, what has been the fallout from
these email revelations, Like, how have the OD and I
and Kent himself responded and what's the view from Capitol Hill.

Speaker 2 (48:35):
Well, the OD and I, after being contacted by CBS News,
offered to share a selection of Kent's declassified, partially redacted emails.
These are ones that I saw because they did put
that in and CBS News did put out these just
in PDF form, these emails. I read them now. Kent

(48:56):
himself posted a statement on Twitter defending his actions. He
said that quote, I'm honored to do my part end quote.
Interesting lee. Since this came to light, Director of National
Intelligence Gabbert did fire the acting chair of the National
Intelligence Council. That's Michael Collins also his deputy Maria Langan Rikoff. Now,

(49:19):
both were recipients of Kent's emails. So when you look
at the email, it's the back and forth there email
from Joe Kent to these individ jewels and those individuals
replying back to him. So most likely because they were fired,
because that's where the New York Times got this story from. Now,

(49:41):
Kent's own deputies stated on x that these quote Biden
holdovers were being dismissed because they politicized intelligent. It's end quote.

Speaker 1 (49:52):
Pot meat cattle. What is he talking about?

Speaker 2 (49:55):
All right, that's what he was trying to do.

Speaker 1 (49:58):
Politicizing intelligen Okay, whatever. He's just mad that they had
a conscience and leaked the emails and he thought it
was going to stay on the hush hush, but oh wow,
that's what happened sometimes, Okay. So I mean that it's
such a very direct counter accusation, essentially turning the charge

(50:20):
of politicization back into these dismissed officials from the National
Intelligence Council, and it certainly adds another layer of complexity
to this situation. Amidst these yeah, internal od and I
my mouth is like cotton right now. I have had
I keep drinking water and it's not doing anything anyways.

(50:41):
Amidst these internal od and I dynamics and such strong statements,
what has been the reaction from Congress to these developments,
including the firings.

Speaker 2 (50:51):
I know they probably don't well yeah, well, I mean,
and that's all politicized as well, right, because it's the
democratic leadership of the House and Senate intelligence committees that
have raised the serious alarms. Senator Mark Warner he called
it a blatant attempt to politicize national security. He said
the Senate should quote immediately halt consideration end quote of

(51:14):
Kent's NCTC nomination. Now. A representative of Jim Hines stated
that quote, seeking to strong arm analysts to suit the
agenda of the president is a road to national security
disaster in quote, so he believes what we're saying, this
is a national security issue, but it's not a universally
held few. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he believes

(51:38):
the IC was wrong in its assessment of TDA and
agreed one hundred percent with the FBI's findings, which, as
we noted, had a slightly different emphasis.

Speaker 1 (51:49):
I'm surprised Marco Rubio had time to give his his
take on this with his five friggin jobs that EAT's whole. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (51:59):
I just saw in well, and I wasn't a conference.
It was I Senate hearing with him, and he was
having a back and forth with the Democratic leader and
they were doing just that, just what you said, Sanna.
He was like asking Secretary of State Rubio, I guess
that I'll call him that because that's his highest position, right, Like,
how do you find time in the day to do

(52:21):
all of your work? And Marco Rupio basically told him, well,
it's not easy, and it makes it even more difficult
when I'm having to sit here and answer your questions
when I could be off doing good things in other
agencies that I lead.

Speaker 1 (52:36):
All twelve agencies.

Speaker 2 (52:38):
Yeah, so he kind of threw a back on him.
Why am I here?

Speaker 1 (52:43):
Anyways? I know this entire thing is a critical issue
for you. That's what the foundation of your career has been.
Intelligence bias and politicizing intelligence analysis is something you are
vehemently against. Thank you for breaking this down for us
with such clarity and drawing on your own perspective and experience.

(53:07):
Within the I see, Is there anything else you would
like to discuss? Uh?

Speaker 2 (53:13):
Nope, I think that is it for my side for now.
Do you have anything you want to talk about? No?

Speaker 1 (53:21):
Good?

Speaker 2 (53:21):
Got okay.

Speaker 1 (53:22):
Thank you so much for listening to This Week Explained.
We hope you found it both informative and engaging, and
if you have any feedback or suggestions for future episodes,
we'd love to hear from you. For more in depth
coverage of these stories and more, be sure to follow
us on social media at This Week Explained Tianna.

Speaker 2 (53:40):
Thank you so much, and until next week, stay safe
out there