Israel launches air attacks intended to destroy Iranian nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, Iran retaliates with missile strikes on Israeli cities, and the world waits to see what comes next – a return to the status quo, neighboring countries drawn into the conflict, or an end to the Iranian theocracy? GoodFellows regulars and Hoover senior fellows Sir Niall Ferguson and former White House national security advisor Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster discuss whether the Israeli goal of ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions is possible without U.S. assistance, how President Trump might respond if asked to directly engage, if the conflict will expand beyond the present bilateral exchanges, plus the outcome of regime change in a culturally diverse Iran (a peaceful transition or Libya 2.0?). After that: in honor of the 250th birthday of the United States Army, H.R. shares the thoughts of a fellow American general tasked with winning a war for liberty.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
>> Benjamin Netanyahu (00:00):
The result that has to be achieved is that Iran does not have
the capacity to develop nuclearweapons to destroy the state of Israel
as they promised to do whilethey're negotiating to create
a missile ballistic missile arsenal thatis equivalent to several atomic bombs.
While they're negotiating.
That's not going to happen.
And of course, to continue the proxywar that was meant to basically snuff
(00:21):
out the life of the Jewish state,you know, that's we said never again.
This is something we'vesaid since the Holocaust.
The Jewish people have suffered underthe Iranian proxies the worst massacre
since the Holocaust.
Now they're planning a nuclear holocaust.
We're not going to letthem get away with it.
>> Bill Whalen (00:42):
It's Monday, June 16, 2025.
And welcome back to Goodfellows, a HooverInstitution broadcast examining social,
economic, political andgeopolitical concerns.
I'm Bill Whalen.
I'm a Hoover Distinguished Policy Fellow.
I'll be your moderator today.
Before we go any further,
you should know this is an impromptuepisode with GoodFellows.
We did not have this on the books,but events have forced us together.
Joining us today,the historian Sir Niall Ferguson and
(01:04):
Former Presidential National SecurityAdvisor, Lieutenant-General H.R. McMaster.
They're both Hoover Senior Fellows.
As you know, the topic, as you mightguess, we're going to talk about Israel,
Iran, what comes next in the Middle East.
Gentlemen, thanks for coming on the show.
And let's get right to itbecause our time is precious.
Two questions for you to debate.
Number one, the Israeli strategy,which is essentially dunking on Iran.
(01:24):
They control the airspace.
They can bomb whenever,wherever they want to.
They can decapitate leadership HRS ofmilitary strategists, I'm curious if you
think this is a winning strategy if itgets Israel to where it wants to be.
And then the second question for the bothof you, what if Prime Minister Netanyahu
calls the White house and says, Mr.President, we need your help.
We can keep bombing.
(01:45):
But to get to the goal, which is toeradicate the nuclear program and
the ballistic missiles once and for all,
we need bunker busters droppedfrom American bombers.
What do you do, gentlemen?
Take it away.
>> H.R McMaster (01:55):
Hey, I just say, first of all, I mean, it's a winning strategy
because from Israel's perspective,this is an existential threat.
I mean, going Back to the begin doctrine,which was really revealed in
1981 with Israeli strikes againsta nuclear reactor in Iraq,
Israel has been determined thata hostile state like Iran,
who has professed its desire todestroy Israel and kill all the Jews,
(02:20):
cannot have the mostdestructive weapons on Earth.
And of course there's a subsequent strikein Syria in 2007 against a reactor there.
But this is orders andorders of magnitude much more complicated,
much more extensive because of the threatfrom Iran being much more extensive.
The extent of the nuclear programis dispersed and deeply buried.
(02:43):
But this is an operation that hasto have been in the making for
years and to put into placethe intelligence infrastructure,
the ability to initiate many of theseattacks from within the country.
And I think what you've seen isinitial blows which were designed
to set back the nuclear program,but also to cripple Iran's ability
(03:06):
to respond to those initial strikeswith the decapitation of the RGC and
other military leadership andthen to grow that,
to grow that the amount ofdestruction on the nuclear program.
And now Anil,I'd like to hear your view on this.
What do you think the objective is?
It seems like it's shifting almost toregime change where you see attacks
(03:30):
now on economic targets combined withPrime Minister Netanyahu's announcement,
even more recent extension ofthe target set to others rumored,
maybe even the Supreme Leader andso forth.
So I, and, andwill the United States come into it?
I think that what really is at stake hereare really two sites that are deeply
(03:53):
buried and, and, and whether or not the,the United States will come into this,
into this campaign to destroy those,to destroy those sites which
are critical to setting the programback even even further.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (04:08):
Well, of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu has wanted to do
this for years and has for years arguedthat Iran posed the threat to Israel and
that it could never be allowedto acquire nuclear weapons.
And then just a few days ago,the International Atomic Energy Agency
(04:29):
said that Iran was in violation ofits non proliferation commitments.
And the Iranians as good as admittedthat they were accelerating
their enrichment program.
And that provided the cue to forIsraeli action,
the reason it didn't happenbefore Thursday night, Friday,
(04:50):
was that President Trump wanted togive negotiations a final chance.
President Trump is often criticized.
Sometimes we criticize him.
On this show there are members ofthe goodfellas team who aren't fans of his
trade policy.
But it's very difficult to argue,as some do, that he's a kind of warmonger.
(05:11):
On the contrary, Trump is a presidentwho is very reluctant to use
American military force andreluctant to see war happen anywhere.
Think how quickly he acted to try to deescalate the conflict between India and
Pakistan which we talkedabout in previous shows.
So President Trump, who once upon a timewalked away from The Iran nuclear deal
(05:33):
gave the Iranians one last chance.
Then the Iranians blew it,bizarrely failing to realize that Trump
would give Prime Minister Netanyahua green light to hit the nuclear
sites if they didn't movetheir position on enrichment.
So they refused to takethe diplomatic off ramp, and
(05:53):
that was the critical mistake they made.
The other critical mistake theymade was not to rebuild their air
defenses after the very successfulIsraeli strike of October last year,
which really revealed the nakednessof the Iranian regime.
It's amazing to me that they did solittle to repair that damage
(06:15):
that now Israel has completecontrol over Iran's airspace and
can now carry on takingout targets at will.
But Bill, you asked a very specificquestion, and that is what happens if
Prime Minister Netanyahu calls upPresident Trump and says, okay,
now we need your bunker bustingbombs because we cannot take Fordo,
(06:36):
the enrichment facility atFordo out by ourselves?
I find it hard to believe thatPresident Trump will say yes to that.
And here I'd welcome HR's reaction,partly for the reason I gave that he is,
by instinct a trade war guy,not an actual war guy, and
doesn't want to be seen to be thepresident who presides over a sustained
(07:01):
massive bombing campaign of targetsin Iran like the Fordo facility.
But also because President Trump caresa lot about the opinion of the Gulf states
who were his first port of call when hewent on his travels in his second term,
and the Gulf states, particularlythe Saudis, also the Emiratis.
(07:22):
And needless to say,the Qataris don't want a full scale war
involving the United States,even if it's a war against Iran.
Reached a kind of modus vendiwith the Iranians in the last
four years whenPresident Biden was in charge.
So I don't think Trump's gonna do it.
(07:42):
Which means, andthis is the last point I'll make,
that the Israelis need to have a plan B.
And I think that plan B is regime change.
I think plan B is topplethe Islamic Republic.
And then if you have enough chaos onthe ground, then is really special for.
>> Benjamin Netanyahu (07:59):
Forces may be able to take care of Fordo without the need for
bunker-busting bombs in an SAS-typeoperation behind enemy lines.
So I think we're seeing a shifthere away from let's try and
get the US to finish the job off fromthe air to it's never gonna happen.
We better get rid of the regime and
in the ensuing chaos we can reallyfinish off this nuclear program.
(08:21):
What do you think HR?
>> H.R McMaster (08:23):
Yeah, well, I agree with all of that.
I think what may have shiftedthe balance more in favor of us
acting is the success ofthe operation that the United States.
May be convinced that President Trumpmay be convinced that this is really
a window of opportunity thatcould pass the United States by,
(08:44):
kind of like 1994 vis-à-vis North Korea.
I think the other variableof course is what Iran does.
Does this remain a bilateral exchangeessentially between Iran and Israel?
If Iran does have even more successin getting ballistic missiles through
Israeli and US and other air defenses andthere are more Iranian casualties,
(09:08):
I think the likelihood of USaction then goes up as well.
And so I think that also it has todo with whether Iran decides now,
well maybe they will go into somenegotiation with the United States.
You're right, I mean, Neil, it was,I think, Iranian intransigence that
(09:30):
led to President Trump, I think,essentially probably greenlighting this.
Just saying, hey,I'm not gonna stand in your way.
And you remember during these negotiationsthey had said they're gonna actually
open up another site to enrich uranium atthe same time as the IAEA came out and
declared them not no longer in compliancewith the non Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(09:55):
So hey,I think there are a lot of variables.
Obviously, war defies any kindof easy predictions here.
Well, we don't know either really whatother actors might do, Russia and
China, although I suspect they'regonna try to stay out of this.
But does Iran try to shut downshipping in the Straits of Hormuz?
(10:16):
Do they attack the Emiratis andthe Saudis as they said they would, right?
They said, hey, if we get,if Israel attacks us,
we're gonna blow up in the Middle East.
So I guess question one is doesit stay as bilateral exchange?
I don't overall it's unclear.
I think at this stage and as the regimebecomes more desperate, I mean Heck,
(10:40):
I mean Israel has taken out all ofthe IRGC leadership as well as,
I think it's 14 now nuclear scientists.
And so they've demonstrated their abilityto go after leaders very effectively.
And as the regime becomes more desperate,how does it lash out?
>> Bill Whalen (10:58):
It's an amazing illustration not only of what air power
can achieve, butalso what human intelligence can achieve.
Because this operation would not havebeen nearly as successful without
a phenomenal Mossad operation witha great many obviously Iranian
assets on the ground aiding andabetting the targeting.
(11:19):
So it's a remarkable feat, and
we should acknowledge this is anothertriumph of the Israeli way of warfare.
This is a real asymmetry when you considerthat the population of Iran is about nine
times that of the population of Israel.
And yet Israel has been able toachieve what eluded Vladimir Putin,
(11:40):
who could not get dominanceof the skies over Ukraine and
has therefore had to fight a bloody war ofattrition in a very short space of time.
Israel has not only dominance ofthe skies, but it's decapitated the IRGC,
which is really the architectureof the regime these days,
far more than the clergy.
So my sense is that the warhas a finite lifespan because
(12:04):
there is a limited number of missilesleft in the Iranian arsenal.
We don't know how many, because wedon't know how many were destroyed on
the ground, but enough I think reallyto blunt the Iranian retaliation.
But it's also the case that Israel doesn'thave a limitless supply of interceptors,
(12:25):
and it can't fly sorties indefinitely.
So one has a sense that the bilateral,the two sided war probably runs for
a matter of weeks andnot much longer than that.
The key question that you've raised,HR, is whether it can spread.
And that will have to be one of the greatconcerns of the so-called restrainers
inside the Trump administration.
(12:47):
They don't want to find themselvestied up in yet another forever war.
Their phrase in the Middle East, I don'tthink the risks of that are very high,
to be honest.
I think the bigger risk isthe simple unknowability of
what a post-IslamicRepublic Iran would be like.
(13:08):
Let's just imagine thatthe regime does collapse.
Certainly a regime thatcan't defend itself and
is pretty universally disliked byits people isn't in great shape.
But we don't know what would comeafter the Supreme Leader Khamenei,
if he shuffles off this mortalcoil with a bit of Israeli help.
(13:30):
And that's probably the real imponderable.
We don't really know, other than that,it's probably pretty messy, right HR?
>> H.R McMaster (13:38):
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think what you've seen isthe weakness of the Iranian regime.
And but really as ourcolleague Stephen Cochin says,
authoritarian regimes don'thave to be that strong.
They just have to be strongerthan any organized opposition.
So, and he's right about that.
(13:59):
And what they've done is they'vesuppressed their people,
through these various coercive arms,the IRGC, the Basij.
They've also tried to co opt largeportions of the population because their
commercial interests are controlled bythese bunyads mainly the children or
people associated withthe clerical order or the IRGC.
(14:21):
And sothen they also have a very conservative,
mainly rural population that is supportiveof the rule of the jurisprudent or
Valeroflaki, the theocraticdictatorship there.
So, andthen you have a lot of ethnic minorities.
So what you could see is whathappened into Libya after
(14:42):
Gaddafi is gone,except on a much more massive scale.
I mean, you've pointed out, I mean,Iran is a country of what, 80,
90 million people.
Libya was a country of 6 million people,right?
So, I think you could seefragmentation as a scenario.
You could also see though,maybe around the conventional army or
(15:05):
some other organization that hasnever really fully bought in to
the theocratic dictatorship there,and that maybe emerge.
But it would be messy,it would be violent.
I think the things to watchare I think the protests,
sometimes don't deliver what theyseem that they could deliver.
(15:26):
Although it's the nature of the protest,how far it extends,
if there is kind ofanother wave of protests.
But I think what's even moreimportant to watch are maybe strikes.
Like we saw a truckerstrike like two weeks ago.
And then also how some ofthe arms of coercion respond.
I hear that the Basij which is kind ofthe equivalent of like the brown shirts to
(15:50):
suppress the population, have had a reallyhard time recruiting in recent years.
So I think if Israel continues toConfine its strikes against the regime,
against the leadership,that there is a chance,
the population will find,will say, hey, enough of this.
>> Bill Whalen (16:09):
So, Neil, I want to go back to the axis of ill will for a moment.
Iran needs missiles.
Iran needs airplanes.
China has missiles.
China has airplanes.
Iran needs an air defense.
Russia built its airdefense last time around.
Iran wants a nuclear weapon.
North Korea could send them parts fora dirty bomb.
Why don't we see these things in motion?
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (16:28):
Well, one reason that I picked on that axis analogy was
that if you go back to the Original Axisof 1939, 40, Nazi Germany,
Fascist Italy, then imperialist Japan,it's kind of confederacy of rogues.
And such organizations aren't famous fortheir mutual fraternal affection.
(16:52):
So what has happened, it seems to me, isthat the Iranians have supported Russia's
war effort in Ukraine on quite a largescale, supplied a lot of drones
at a critical point before the Russianshad really got their drone game together.
And in return, the Russians are sending,what is it, thoughts and
prayers, not much in the way of ordinance.
I find it astonishing that solittle was done to repair
(17:16):
Iran's air defenses afterthe October Israeli raids.
And I wonder if that's becausethe Iranian regime was simply foolish and
didn't realize that they hadto do something about that or
whether their Russianfriends are really frenemies.
And I somewhat inclinedto the latter theory.
The interesting thing about the Axisas a phenomenon is there really
(17:40):
is no love lost between China,Russia, Iran and North Korea.
The Crinks,as they're sometimes known for short.
They just share a common desire,which is to undermine American primacy and
to undermine neighboring democracies thatthey see aligned with the United States.
But I think it's very interesting howlittle the Russians have done to help
(18:02):
Iran really, since this crisis began,because let's not forget,
it began on October 7, 2023,when Iran's proxies, Hamas and
Palestinian Islamic Jihad,launched their attack on Israel.
That's when this war began,not last Thursday night, Friday morning.
And the Russians, apart from, you know,making the usual offers to act as
(18:23):
intermediaries, have been singularlyunhelpful to the Iranians where it counts,
which is actually supplying them with the.
The hardware that they needto withstand this onslaught.
>> H.R McMaster (18:34):
Hey, just a quick comment on this, Neil.
I think one of the factorsis the lack of capacity in
the Russian defense industry based on.
Based on the, you know, the war, theirwar against Ukraine and their need for
their own air defenses andthe degree to which you know,
kind of a lot of theirequipment just doesn't work.
(18:55):
I mean, you know, the S300 andeven the S400 systems, I think,
are quite inferior to the whole range ofelectromagnetic warfare capabilities,
anti radar capabilities,the suppressive capabilities that,
that Israel has, has demonstrated.
So, you know, I think that's kind ofa message to everybody, like, you know,
(19:15):
India, other countries,if you're using Russian equipment,
it might be time for a change.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (19:21):
Of course, the Chinese have to worry about the oil flow.
And their view of the Middle east isessentially of a gas station run by
various quite crazy people thatyou don't fully understand.
But as long as the oil is flowing andthey've been able to get around US
sanctions to be the principal customer forIranian oil exports, they're fine.
(19:41):
So I think the Chinese will only getseriously interested in all of this if
there's disruption to the flow ofoil through the Strait of Hormuz.
I don't think Prime Minister Netanyahuhas any interest in
sending the price of oil skyrocketing.
That won't make him popular inthe White House where they have to worry
(20:03):
about inflation just as muchas their predecessors did.
Nor do I think that, that the Iraniansare in any great hurry to start escalating
the war in the way that they've threatenedto do, including against Saudi Arabia,
because if they do that,
they increase the probability of USintervention on the Israeli side.
So I think the Chinese will be contentwith the relatively modest spike in
(20:26):
oil prices we've seen so far andwon't become directly involved in this.
>> H.R McMaster (20:32):
And just a quick note, in terms of the axis of aggressors here,
China is underwriting the regimeby purchasing 97% of Iran's oil.
A majority of that flows throughpipelines that go out to the northeast of
the country, which are quitevulnerable to interdiction.
And China is doing everything it canunder the radar to support the Iranians.
(20:53):
So just last week they shippedmassive amounts of the chemical,
I forget the name of it, buta chemical that was critical
to reconstituting Iran'sballistic missile fleet.
It's an additive that's important forthe fuel that propels these missiles.
So I think they are interconnected.
(21:14):
China's doing everything it can, I think,
to underwrite both the Russianwar in Ukraine and to prop up or
continue to prop up the theocraticdictatorship in Iran.
You already alluded to this,Neil, but what you're going to
see the Russians do is posture themselvesas the indispensable peace broker.
And I heard some announcements fromthe White House inviting them to do that.
(21:39):
That would be a huge mistake to play.
And then what they'll do is try toparlay that into getting the Trump
administration to put more pressureon Zelensky and the Ukrainians.
So I think that's where the Russianssee an opportunity here.
>> Bill Whalen (21:55):
I want your both your senses on where you think Iran is
going next.
I see very mixed signals.
One day we see reports that they wantto walk away from nuclear discussions.
Next day we see reportsthey want to reengage.
What do you think is going to happen?
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (22:07):
Well, I thought the Wall Street Journal got a bit overexcited
with its story this morningsuggesting that the Iranians were
sort of coming back tothe negotiating table.
If you read all the way through, yougot to the paragraph where it said they
hadn't in any way altered their position.
Well, that seems to meto be the real headline.
Despite being completely overwhelmedby Israeli airstrikes and
(22:30):
having multiple of theirIRGC commanders killed,
they still haven't shifted theirposition on the nuclear negotiations.
That's the headline.
And as long as that's the case,then Israel can continue to exploit
the advantage that it's established inthe air, and I fully expect it to do so.
Now, at some point,somebody in Tehran may say, you know, we.
(22:54):
We have a choice now, guys.
We either go for it, we try andachieve nuclear breakout, we go.
We go crazy at the risk of inviting theAmericans into this war, or we go back to
the negotiating table, we change ourposition, we say, you know what?
We've thought about it.
And President Trump,you're such a great peacemaker that
we've come to see the wisdom of,of your position.
(23:15):
And Trump will put that on Truth Socialwithin about three seconds.
And I think that would not be at allsurprising because it wouldn't be
the first time an Iranian regime hadlied its way out of a tight spot.
But they're not there yet.
And it's surprising to me thatthey're still hanging tough,
given the incrediblecasualties they're taking.
>> H.R McMaster (23:34):
Yeah, I just think we just don't want to underestimate
the degree to which the Iranian regimereally is driven by an ideology,
the ideology of the revolution.
I mean, the revolutionaries are in charge.
And so I think that will pro, that willlimit the degree to which they'll be able
to make the concessions that.
That could end.
End.
End this.
End this war.
And that really is a very intrusiveinspection verification regime,
(23:58):
but also the super.
Supervised dismantlement of anyof their enrichment capabilities.
I don't see them being able to get therejust from an ideological perspective.
So I think what you'll have is an effortto kind of string along again.
You know, I mean, there's this idea thatthe Iranians are really good negotiators.
They're terrible negotiators.
What they do is they just don't concedeanything and they just watch us make
(24:21):
concession after concession to get toweak agreements that we declare as a,
a diplomatic achievement, but they'rereally kind of a political disaster,
or they just kick the can down the road.
So, you know, I, I think I don'tsee anything, you know, any,
any way to an agreement with them thatwill satisfy, you know, what I think
are President Trump's, you know,red lines associated with enrichment.
(24:42):
So I think this is going to go on forlonger than people think.
The question is, does,does it, does it expand?
You know, does the,does the conflict expand?
And there's a lot that Iran can still do,right?
They could, as I mentioned, they couldtry to attack shipping in, in the Gulf.
They could attack Saudi oil facilities.
I don't know what kind of cybercapability they have left.
(25:04):
You know,they could conduct assassinations or
other terrorist attacks internationally.
I mean, I think it's, it's believedthat they have sleeper cells, you know,
kind of, kind of around the world.
Could they do something short, you know,of, of a race to a nuclear weapon,
like a dirty bomb, some, somehow that is,you know, that they have a cutout.
So, I mean, it's.
(25:24):
The Iranian regime is still dangerousbecause it has some things it can
still do.
And as it gets cornered,what might it do that could shift
this war from this bilateral war betweenIsrael and Iran and a broader conflict?
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (25:41):
Yeah, I guess I'm pondering what the end game is here,
there clearly isn't the air power for
Israel to finish this job on its own.
I think the probability, as I saidearlier, is low that the US Comes in
as a direct combatant to finishoff the Fordo enrichment facility.
(26:07):
The Iranian regime is clearlyin a very vulnerable state.
But how far it's possible forIsrael to topple it is not clear to me.
And indeed it's not even clear tome that it's entirely desirable for
Iran to plunge into the kindof chaos that we've seen in,
(26:28):
in Libya as well as inSyria more recently.
My wife is a greater expert onthe Muslim world than I shall ever be.
And on Friday, after the Israeliraids on Iran had happened.
She handed me a translation of a bookby Abu Bakr Magi with the titled
the Management of Savagery, in whichthis Salafist jihadist argued that it
(26:52):
would in fact be desirable from the pointof view of the Islamists if the entire
region descended into chaos, if all thestate structures fell away, because then
they would be able to build the IslamicState the caliphate of their dreams.
So I think one has to bear in mindthat you're not going to get a liberal
(27:15):
democracy run by secular,liberally leaning Tehran sophisticates
if this regime falls apart andeverybody in, in the neighborhood,
not only the Israelis, butthe many Arab states will have to worry
about what might follow a collapseof the Islamic Republic.
(27:36):
I've yet to hear a really compellingstory about what a post Khamenei regime
would look like.
And that's partly because, as HR said,
opposition movements have been crushed soeffectively.
It's also been a long time.
And so the Iranian exilecommunity doesn't really have
(27:56):
a handle on what might be possiblein a post Islamic Republic Iran.
So for me, the great unknowableis what comes after Khamenei.
He's going to die at some point, evenif it's not taken out by the Israelis.
And there is no succession plan.
So I guess the great unknown is,is, is the future of Iran that,
(28:18):
that I wish I could see more clearly.
>> Bill Whalen (28:20):
And this would also be the argument against going after the political
leadership, Neil, because it seemedyou'd risk turning this into a holy war.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (28:27):
Well, I don't know, HR Whether that would be the response.
It's, it's sohard to gauge the attitudes that,
that people have in Iran today that they.
There's no love lost between the populace,certainly the urban populace and
the regime.
On the other hand, it's hardlylikely that Israeli decapitation of,
(28:49):
of the Iranian governmentbe enormously popular.
So I, I find this the most puzzling,perplexing part of what we see today,
this simple difficulty offoreseeing where Iran goes from
here after what,nearly half a century of theocracy.
>> Bill Whalen (29:10):
But I did mention, I want to mention that, Neil,
because I read a report the other dayas an Iranian state media where a top
official said that the regime wantsto unite with Turkey, Pakistan and
several other countries to createwhat he called an Islamic army.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (29:24):
You know, this sounds like the kind of last desperate
thing you, you send from the bunkerrather than a coherent strategy.
>> Bill Whalen (29:31):
Right. >> Sir Niall Ferguson
scenario, andhere I'm just gonna play the historian,
is that a very Weakened Iran will beeasy pickings for its neighbours.
Remember, one reason that Putin isn't so
forthcoming in his support is thatonce upon a time Stalin dreamt that
he might be able to bring Iran withinthe Soviet sphere of influence.
(29:55):
So I think this neighbourhoodisn't notable for
its, its lack of skullduggery andrealpolitik.
If, if Iran is to be weakened,
then there will be responses fromthe NE to take advantage of that,
just as Iran took advantage of theoverthrow of Saddam Hussein in ways that
American policymakers failedto foresee back in 2003.
>> H.R McMaster (30:19):
And, and hey, let's not forget too, the,
the degree to which the collapseof the Assad regime followed the,
the decapitation, devastating attacksagainst Hezbollah by, by Israel.
And I think all of thatled to where we are today.
And of course you had Turkey who wassupporting really Islamist Sunni Islamist
(30:40):
groups against the Assad regime, theirlong term interests in the region because
Erdogan does fancy him as like the,the modern day Sultan who's going to,
to re establish really Turkish primacy in,in the Middle east that
clashes really with what Iran wastrying to achieve by establishing this
land bridge to the Mediterranean asa precursor to destroying Israel,
(31:04):
which of course now is all rolledback then when you bring in the,
the revanchist agenda of the Russians.
You know, I think that what weare witnessing are really three revanchist
powers who are nostalgic, you know,for, for their old empires and
their, andtheir interests are not aligned.
And I think the more that U.S.
(31:24):
and other diplomats can can play that,I think to our advantage, the, the better.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (31:29):
I think it's worth bringing this conversation back to,
to the United States.
I think that President Trump has infact played rather a, a shrewd game.
He's retained deniability sothat it's been possible for Secretary of
State Rubio to say that Israel actedunilaterally on Thursday night.
(31:51):
But at the same time he,he's been able to argue that the Israeli
strikes happened after his 60 dayultimatum to the Iranians had.
Expired.
I was certainly taken in by the feint thatthere were going to be negotiations on
Sunday in Oman between Steve Witkoff andthe Iranians.
I fell for that hook, line and sinker.
(32:12):
So did the Iranians.
So there's been some deaf diplomacy here.
There's also a kind of interestinginternal politics to this story.
It's clear that the administration hasits restrainers who don't want to get
involved in a war like this, but italso has his hawks who recognize that if
nothing is done, one day Iran willacquire nuclear weapons capability, and
(32:36):
that really can't happen, which is,I think, the President's position.
So I think this has been a veryinteresting development in the history of
the Trump administration.
If you think back to earlier episodes ofGoodfellows, the three of us have spent
a long time finding fault withPresident Trump's trade policy.
It turns out the tradewar was the phony war.
(32:57):
It wasn't really the thingthat was going to matter.
The real war is the one that,that started on Thursday night.
And I must admit,
I wasn't sure that Trump was ever goingto give that green light to the Israelis.
I'd begun to think hewasn't going to do it.
And maybe I read too many Financial Timescolumns about Trump always chickening out,
(33:21):
but on this occasion, he, he didn't.
And Bibi Netanyahu certainly didn't.
>> Bill Whalen (33:26):
HR, were you surprised?
>> H.R McMaster (33:28):
You know, I, I wasn't surprised because, you know, you know,
of course, I, I thought it could be,it could be a ruse, you know, essentially,
you know, the withdrawal of US Dependentsfrom the region, maybe that was to,
to add more impetus to the negotiations.
But I also felt that it wasthis Iranian intransigence.
President Trump doesn't havean infinite amount of patience as,
(33:48):
as you've mentioned, Neil.
Hey, he's definitely notcapricious about the use of force.
You know, he, he always would prefersome sort of a negotiated settlement,
but he also recognizes the need tointegrate the threat of the use of force
with any kind of diplomatic efforts.
And one of the things we didwith him in 2017 and 18, and
I imagine there's still people around,maybe a couple people left on the NSC
(34:12):
staff to do this is to help integrate theperspectives of intelligence agencies and
others to highlight not only the cost andrisk of action,
but, but also the cost and risk ofinaction or passivity in certain cases.
And I think he was convinced byIranian intransigence, I'm sure,
also, you know, maybe conversationswith Prime Minister Netanyahu and
(34:36):
Ron Dermer and others who laid out forhim the latest intelligence,
right, that Iran was kind oftrying to race to weaponization,
that was determined tocontinue enrichment.
And then that combined with kind of the,you know,
the talk to the hand approach thatthe Iranians gave Wyckoff, I think,
(34:57):
I think made the, you know, convincePresident Trump not to stand in the way.
>> Bill Whalen (35:02):
Okay, last question, gentlemen.
Israel currently is involved inhis longest running war in Gaza.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that hiscountry is on a path to victory with Iran,
but he hasn't set a date.
So what is your guess as to howlong that path is for Israel?
We talking days, weeks, months, years?
Neil?>> Sir Niall Ferguson: Well,
I've said already that I think this warbetween Israel and Iran can only run for
(35:25):
weeks because there's just a limit to howmany missiles the Iranians have left,
and there's a limit to how long Israel cancontinue these, these kind of operations.
So that war is not going to begoing on for nearly as long as,
say, the war in Ukraine.
I think it's,it's going to be over relatively swiftly.
(35:46):
The war in Gaza is another matter becausethere's still no real resolution between
the conflicting objectives of the Israeligovernment to destroy Hamas, but
to rescue the hostages.
My sense is that inPrime Minister Netanyahu's mind,
the Iran question has always loomed much,much larger and
has always seemed much more strategicallyimportant than the Palestinian question.
(36:11):
But there is no obvious end game in Gaza,and it's certainly not likely to become
the holiday resort ofPresident Trump's imaginings.
HR.>> H.R McMaster: hey, sadly, Neil, I,
I don't see an end to this war in,in Gaza because there's no space for
an alternative political order toemerge that can, that can enter into,
you know, a ceasefire or some, any kindof enduring peace between Israel and,
(36:36):
and the Palestinian people in Gaza.
And that's because Hamasstill has the guns.
So until there is the ability of the,you know, of the Palestinian people to
temporarily evacuate Gaza anduntil Hamas is destroyed,
I think you're going to see a combinationof a continuation of the war and
continued suffering ofthe civilian population in Gaza.
(36:58):
We've been spending the last half hour or
so talking about matters of war andpeace and H.R. I think
it's worth noting that last Saturday,amidst all the chaos in the Middle East,
the United States celebrated the 250thbirthday of the United States Army.
And I believe that you have somevery great words of wisdom that
you'd like to read.
>> H.R McMaster (37:15):
Of course, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of
the United States Army.
And we celebrated on the occasion thatof the second Continental Congress
approving the recruitment of tencompanies of riflemen to go to Boston.
To support the militias who were layingthat British-controlled city to siege.
(37:38):
And then George Washington was appointedthe next day to our great fortune,
to be the commander of that army.
And then later, of course,to become our first president.
But what I'd like to read to youis a quotation from Washington
when he addressed the Continental army onthe occasion of their enlistments about
to expire.
This is now a year later in 1776.
(38:01):
And he said to his soldiers,the fate of unborn millions
will now depend under God onthe courage and conduct of this army.
And of course, that was a propheticobservation because it is our army and
we should say in alliancewith the French army and
(38:21):
navy during the revolutionthat secured our independence.
And it's the United States army that hasbeen fighting to preserve our freedom
since the revolution.
>> Bill Whalen (38:32):
Wise words.
And we salute General McMaster, you, and
everyone who has worn the uniform ofhis country these past 250 years.
Gentlemen, we're going toend the conversation there.
Thanks for taking time out of yourvery busy schedules to do this.
And I suspect we'll be talking aboutthis very much in the shows ahead.
So take care, both of you,and have a great summer.
[MUSIC]
The result that has to be achieved is that Iran does not have
the capacity to develop nuclearweapons to destroy the state of Israel
as they promised to do whilethey're negotiating to create
a missile ballistic missile arsenal thatis equivalent to several atomic bombs.
While they're negotiating.
That's not going to happen.
And of course, to continue the proxywar that was meant to basically snuff
(00:21):
out the life of the Jewish state,you know, that's we said never again.
This is something we'vesaid since the Holocaust.
The Jewish people have suffered underthe Iranian proxies the worst massacre
since the Holocaust.
Now they're planning a nuclear holocaust.
We're not going to letthem get away with it.
>> Bill Whalen (00:42):
It's Monday, June 16, 2025.
And welcome back to Goodfellows, a HooverInstitution broadcast examining social,
economic, political andgeopolitical concerns.
I'm Bill Whalen.
I'm a Hoover Distinguished Policy Fellow.
I'll be your moderator today.
Before we go any further,
you should know this is an impromptuepisode with GoodFellows.
We did not have this on the books,but events have forced us together.
Joining us today,the historian Sir Niall Ferguson and
(01:04):
Former Presidential National SecurityAdvisor, Lieutenant-General H.R. McMaster.
They're both Hoover Senior Fellows.
As you know, the topic, as you mightguess, we're going to talk about Israel,
Iran, what comes next in the Middle East.
Gentlemen, thanks for coming on the show.
And let's get right to itbecause our time is precious.
Two questions for you to debate.
Number one, the Israeli strategy,which is essentially dunking on Iran.
(01:24):
They control the airspace.
They can bomb whenever,wherever they want to.
They can decapitate leadership HRS ofmilitary strategists, I'm curious if you
think this is a winning strategy if itgets Israel to where it wants to be.
And then the second question for the bothof you, what if Prime Minister Netanyahu
calls the White house and says, Mr.President, we need your help.
We can keep bombing.
(01:45):
But to get to the goal, which is toeradicate the nuclear program and
the ballistic missiles once and for all,
we need bunker busters droppedfrom American bombers.
What do you do, gentlemen?
Take it away.
>> H.R McMaster (01:55):
Hey, I just say, first of all, I mean, it's a winning strategy
because from Israel's perspective,this is an existential threat.
I mean, going Back to the begin doctrine,which was really revealed in
1981 with Israeli strikes againsta nuclear reactor in Iraq,
Israel has been determined thata hostile state like Iran,
who has professed its desire todestroy Israel and kill all the Jews,
(02:20):
cannot have the mostdestructive weapons on Earth.
And of course there's a subsequent strikein Syria in 2007 against a reactor there.
But this is orders andorders of magnitude much more complicated,
much more extensive because of the threatfrom Iran being much more extensive.
The extent of the nuclear programis dispersed and deeply buried.
(02:43):
But this is an operation that hasto have been in the making for
years and to put into placethe intelligence infrastructure,
the ability to initiate many of theseattacks from within the country.
And I think what you've seen isinitial blows which were designed
to set back the nuclear program,but also to cripple Iran's ability
(03:06):
to respond to those initial strikeswith the decapitation of the RGC and
other military leadership andthen to grow that,
to grow that the amount ofdestruction on the nuclear program.
And now Anil,I'd like to hear your view on this.
What do you think the objective is?
It seems like it's shifting almost toregime change where you see attacks
(03:30):
now on economic targets combined withPrime Minister Netanyahu's announcement,
even more recent extension ofthe target set to others rumored,
maybe even the Supreme Leader andso forth.
So I, and, andwill the United States come into it?
I think that what really is at stake hereare really two sites that are deeply
(03:53):
buried and, and, and whether or not the,the United States will come into this,
into this campaign to destroy those,to destroy those sites which
are critical to setting the programback even even further.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (04:08):
Well, of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu has wanted to do
this for years and has for years arguedthat Iran posed the threat to Israel and
that it could never be allowedto acquire nuclear weapons.
And then just a few days ago,the International Atomic Energy Agency
(04:29):
said that Iran was in violation ofits non proliferation commitments.
And the Iranians as good as admittedthat they were accelerating
their enrichment program.
And that provided the cue to forIsraeli action,
the reason it didn't happenbefore Thursday night, Friday,
(04:50):
was that President Trump wanted togive negotiations a final chance.
President Trump is often criticized.
Sometimes we criticize him.
On this show there are members ofthe goodfellas team who aren't fans of his
trade policy.
But it's very difficult to argue,as some do, that he's a kind of warmonger.
(05:11):
On the contrary, Trump is a presidentwho is very reluctant to use
American military force andreluctant to see war happen anywhere.
Think how quickly he acted to try to deescalate the conflict between India and
Pakistan which we talkedabout in previous shows.
So President Trump, who once upon a timewalked away from The Iran nuclear deal
(05:33):
gave the Iranians one last chance.
Then the Iranians blew it,bizarrely failing to realize that Trump
would give Prime Minister Netanyahua green light to hit the nuclear
sites if they didn't movetheir position on enrichment.
So they refused to takethe diplomatic off ramp, and
(05:53):
that was the critical mistake they made.
The other critical mistake theymade was not to rebuild their air
defenses after the very successfulIsraeli strike of October last year,
which really revealed the nakednessof the Iranian regime.
It's amazing to me that they did solittle to repair that damage
(06:15):
that now Israel has completecontrol over Iran's airspace and
can now carry on takingout targets at will.
But Bill, you asked a very specificquestion, and that is what happens if
Prime Minister Netanyahu calls upPresident Trump and says, okay,
now we need your bunker bustingbombs because we cannot take Fordo,
(06:36):
the enrichment facility atFordo out by ourselves?
I find it hard to believe thatPresident Trump will say yes to that.
And here I'd welcome HR's reaction,partly for the reason I gave that he is,
by instinct a trade war guy,not an actual war guy, and
doesn't want to be seen to be thepresident who presides over a sustained
(07:01):
massive bombing campaign of targetsin Iran like the Fordo facility.
But also because President Trump caresa lot about the opinion of the Gulf states
who were his first port of call when hewent on his travels in his second term,
and the Gulf states, particularlythe Saudis, also the Emiratis.
(07:22):
And needless to say,the Qataris don't want a full scale war
involving the United States,even if it's a war against Iran.
Reached a kind of modus vendiwith the Iranians in the last
four years whenPresident Biden was in charge.
So I don't think Trump's gonna do it.
(07:42):
Which means, andthis is the last point I'll make,
that the Israelis need to have a plan B.
And I think that plan B is regime change.
I think plan B is topplethe Islamic Republic.
And then if you have enough chaos onthe ground, then is really special for.
>> Benjamin Netanyahu (07:59):
Forces may be able to take care of Fordo without the need for
bunker-busting bombs in an SAS-typeoperation behind enemy lines.
So I think we're seeing a shifthere away from let's try and
get the US to finish the job off fromthe air to it's never gonna happen.
We better get rid of the regime and
in the ensuing chaos we can reallyfinish off this nuclear program.
(08:21):
What do you think HR?
>> H.R McMaster (08:23):
Yeah, well, I agree with all of that.
I think what may have shiftedthe balance more in favor of us
acting is the success ofthe operation that the United States.
May be convinced that President Trumpmay be convinced that this is really
a window of opportunity thatcould pass the United States by,
(08:44):
kind of like 1994 vis-à-vis North Korea.
I think the other variableof course is what Iran does.
Does this remain a bilateral exchangeessentially between Iran and Israel?
If Iran does have even more successin getting ballistic missiles through
Israeli and US and other air defenses andthere are more Iranian casualties,
(09:08):
I think the likelihood of USaction then goes up as well.
And so I think that also it has todo with whether Iran decides now,
well maybe they will go into somenegotiation with the United States.
You're right, I mean, Neil, it was,I think, Iranian intransigence that
(09:30):
led to President Trump, I think,essentially probably greenlighting this.
Just saying, hey,I'm not gonna stand in your way.
And you remember during these negotiationsthey had said they're gonna actually
open up another site to enrich uranium atthe same time as the IAEA came out and
declared them not no longer in compliancewith the non Non-Proliferation Treaty.
(09:55):
So hey,I think there are a lot of variables.
Obviously, war defies any kindof easy predictions here.
Well, we don't know either really whatother actors might do, Russia and
China, although I suspect they'regonna try to stay out of this.
But does Iran try to shut downshipping in the Straits of Hormuz?
(10:16):
Do they attack the Emiratis andthe Saudis as they said they would, right?
They said, hey, if we get,if Israel attacks us,
we're gonna blow up in the Middle East.
So I guess question one is doesit stay as bilateral exchange?
I don't overall it's unclear.
I think at this stage and as the regimebecomes more desperate, I mean Heck,
(10:40):
I mean Israel has taken out all ofthe IRGC leadership as well as,
I think it's 14 now nuclear scientists.
And so they've demonstrated their abilityto go after leaders very effectively.
And as the regime becomes more desperate,how does it lash out?
>> Bill Whalen (10:58):
It's an amazing illustration not only of what air power
can achieve, butalso what human intelligence can achieve.
Because this operation would not havebeen nearly as successful without
a phenomenal Mossad operation witha great many obviously Iranian
assets on the ground aiding andabetting the targeting.
(11:19):
So it's a remarkable feat, and
we should acknowledge this is anothertriumph of the Israeli way of warfare.
This is a real asymmetry when you considerthat the population of Iran is about nine
times that of the population of Israel.
And yet Israel has been able toachieve what eluded Vladimir Putin,
(11:40):
who could not get dominanceof the skies over Ukraine and
has therefore had to fight a bloody war ofattrition in a very short space of time.
Israel has not only dominance ofthe skies, but it's decapitated the IRGC,
which is really the architectureof the regime these days,
far more than the clergy.
So my sense is that the warhas a finite lifespan because
(12:04):
there is a limited number of missilesleft in the Iranian arsenal.
We don't know how many, because wedon't know how many were destroyed on
the ground, but enough I think reallyto blunt the Iranian retaliation.
But it's also the case that Israel doesn'thave a limitless supply of interceptors,
(12:25):
and it can't fly sorties indefinitely.
So one has a sense that the bilateral,the two sided war probably runs for
a matter of weeks andnot much longer than that.
The key question that you've raised,HR, is whether it can spread.
And that will have to be one of the greatconcerns of the so-called restrainers
inside the Trump administration.
(12:47):
They don't want to find themselvestied up in yet another forever war.
Their phrase in the Middle East, I don'tthink the risks of that are very high,
to be honest.
I think the bigger risk isthe simple unknowability of
what a post-IslamicRepublic Iran would be like.
(13:08):
Let's just imagine thatthe regime does collapse.
Certainly a regime thatcan't defend itself and
is pretty universally disliked byits people isn't in great shape.
But we don't know what would comeafter the Supreme Leader Khamenei,
if he shuffles off this mortalcoil with a bit of Israeli help.
(13:30):
And that's probably the real imponderable.
We don't really know, other than that,it's probably pretty messy, right HR?
>> H.R McMaster (13:38):
Yeah, absolutely.
And I think what you've seen isthe weakness of the Iranian regime.
And but really as ourcolleague Stephen Cochin says,
authoritarian regimes don'thave to be that strong.
They just have to be strongerthan any organized opposition.
So, and he's right about that.
(13:59):
And what they've done is they'vesuppressed their people,
through these various coercive arms,the IRGC, the Basij.
They've also tried to co opt largeportions of the population because their
commercial interests are controlled bythese bunyads mainly the children or
people associated withthe clerical order or the IRGC.
(14:21):
And sothen they also have a very conservative,
mainly rural population that is supportiveof the rule of the jurisprudent or
Valeroflaki, the theocraticdictatorship there.
So, andthen you have a lot of ethnic minorities.
So what you could see is whathappened into Libya after
(14:42):
Gaddafi is gone,except on a much more massive scale.
I mean, you've pointed out, I mean,Iran is a country of what, 80,
90 million people.
Libya was a country of 6 million people,right?
So, I think you could seefragmentation as a scenario.
You could also see though,maybe around the conventional army or
(15:05):
some other organization that hasnever really fully bought in to
the theocratic dictatorship there,and that maybe emerge.
But it would be messy,it would be violent.
I think the things to watchare I think the protests,
sometimes don't deliver what theyseem that they could deliver.
(15:26):
Although it's the nature of the protest,how far it extends,
if there is kind ofanother wave of protests.
But I think what's even moreimportant to watch are maybe strikes.
Like we saw a truckerstrike like two weeks ago.
And then also how some ofthe arms of coercion respond.
I hear that the Basij which is kind ofthe equivalent of like the brown shirts to
(15:50):
suppress the population, have had a reallyhard time recruiting in recent years.
So I think if Israel continues toConfine its strikes against the regime,
against the leadership,that there is a chance,
the population will find,will say, hey, enough of this.
>> Bill Whalen (16:09):
So, Neil, I want to go back to the axis of ill will for a moment.
Iran needs missiles.
Iran needs airplanes.
China has missiles.
China has airplanes.
Iran needs an air defense.
Russia built its airdefense last time around.
Iran wants a nuclear weapon.
North Korea could send them parts fora dirty bomb.
Why don't we see these things in motion?
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (16:28):
Well, one reason that I picked on that axis analogy was
that if you go back to the Original Axisof 1939, 40, Nazi Germany,
Fascist Italy, then imperialist Japan,it's kind of confederacy of rogues.
And such organizations aren't famous fortheir mutual fraternal affection.
(16:52):
So what has happened, it seems to me, isthat the Iranians have supported Russia's
war effort in Ukraine on quite a largescale, supplied a lot of drones
at a critical point before the Russianshad really got their drone game together.
And in return, the Russians are sending,what is it, thoughts and
prayers, not much in the way of ordinance.
I find it astonishing that solittle was done to repair
(17:16):
Iran's air defenses afterthe October Israeli raids.
And I wonder if that's becausethe Iranian regime was simply foolish and
didn't realize that they hadto do something about that or
whether their Russianfriends are really frenemies.
And I somewhat inclinedto the latter theory.
The interesting thing about the Axisas a phenomenon is there really
(17:40):
is no love lost between China,Russia, Iran and North Korea.
The Crinks,as they're sometimes known for short.
They just share a common desire,which is to undermine American primacy and
to undermine neighboring democracies thatthey see aligned with the United States.
But I think it's very interesting howlittle the Russians have done to help
(18:02):
Iran really, since this crisis began,because let's not forget,
it began on October 7, 2023,when Iran's proxies, Hamas and
Palestinian Islamic Jihad,launched their attack on Israel.
That's when this war began,not last Thursday night, Friday morning.
And the Russians, apart from, you know,making the usual offers to act as
(18:23):
intermediaries, have been singularlyunhelpful to the Iranians where it counts,
which is actually supplying them with the.
The hardware that they needto withstand this onslaught.
>> H.R McMaster (18:34):
Hey, just a quick comment on this, Neil.
I think one of the factorsis the lack of capacity in
the Russian defense industry based on.
Based on the, you know, the war, theirwar against Ukraine and their need for
their own air defenses andthe degree to which you know,
kind of a lot of theirequipment just doesn't work.
(18:55):
I mean, you know, the S300 andeven the S400 systems, I think,
are quite inferior to the whole range ofelectromagnetic warfare capabilities,
anti radar capabilities,the suppressive capabilities that,
that Israel has, has demonstrated.
So, you know, I think that's kind ofa message to everybody, like, you know,
(19:15):
India, other countries,if you're using Russian equipment,
it might be time for a change.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (19:21):
Of course, the Chinese have to worry about the oil flow.
And their view of the Middle east isessentially of a gas station run by
various quite crazy people thatyou don't fully understand.
But as long as the oil is flowing andthey've been able to get around US
sanctions to be the principal customer forIranian oil exports, they're fine.
(19:41):
So I think the Chinese will only getseriously interested in all of this if
there's disruption to the flow ofoil through the Strait of Hormuz.
I don't think Prime Minister Netanyahuhas any interest in
sending the price of oil skyrocketing.
That won't make him popular inthe White House where they have to worry
(20:03):
about inflation just as muchas their predecessors did.
Nor do I think that, that the Iraniansare in any great hurry to start escalating
the war in the way that they've threatenedto do, including against Saudi Arabia,
because if they do that,
they increase the probability of USintervention on the Israeli side.
So I think the Chinese will be contentwith the relatively modest spike in
(20:26):
oil prices we've seen so far andwon't become directly involved in this.
>> H.R McMaster (20:32):
And just a quick note, in terms of the axis of aggressors here,
China is underwriting the regimeby purchasing 97% of Iran's oil.
A majority of that flows throughpipelines that go out to the northeast of
the country, which are quitevulnerable to interdiction.
And China is doing everything it canunder the radar to support the Iranians.
(20:53):
So just last week they shippedmassive amounts of the chemical,
I forget the name of it, buta chemical that was critical
to reconstituting Iran'sballistic missile fleet.
It's an additive that's important forthe fuel that propels these missiles.
So I think they are interconnected.
(21:14):
China's doing everything it can, I think,
to underwrite both the Russianwar in Ukraine and to prop up or
continue to prop up the theocraticdictatorship in Iran.
You already alluded to this,Neil, but what you're going to
see the Russians do is posture themselvesas the indispensable peace broker.
And I heard some announcements fromthe White House inviting them to do that.
(21:39):
That would be a huge mistake to play.
And then what they'll do is try toparlay that into getting the Trump
administration to put more pressureon Zelensky and the Ukrainians.
So I think that's where the Russianssee an opportunity here.
>> Bill Whalen (21:55):
I want your both your senses on where you think Iran is
going next.
I see very mixed signals.
One day we see reports that they wantto walk away from nuclear discussions.
Next day we see reportsthey want to reengage.
What do you think is going to happen?
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (22:07):
Well, I thought the Wall Street Journal got a bit overexcited
with its story this morningsuggesting that the Iranians were
sort of coming back tothe negotiating table.
If you read all the way through, yougot to the paragraph where it said they
hadn't in any way altered their position.
Well, that seems to meto be the real headline.
Despite being completely overwhelmedby Israeli airstrikes and
(22:30):
having multiple of theirIRGC commanders killed,
they still haven't shifted theirposition on the nuclear negotiations.
That's the headline.
And as long as that's the case,then Israel can continue to exploit
the advantage that it's established inthe air, and I fully expect it to do so.
Now, at some point,somebody in Tehran may say, you know, we.
(22:54):
We have a choice now, guys.
We either go for it, we try andachieve nuclear breakout, we go.
We go crazy at the risk of inviting theAmericans into this war, or we go back to
the negotiating table, we change ourposition, we say, you know what?
We've thought about it.
And President Trump,you're such a great peacemaker that
we've come to see the wisdom of,of your position.
(23:15):
And Trump will put that on Truth Socialwithin about three seconds.
And I think that would not be at allsurprising because it wouldn't be
the first time an Iranian regime hadlied its way out of a tight spot.
But they're not there yet.
And it's surprising to me thatthey're still hanging tough,
given the incrediblecasualties they're taking.
>> H.R McMaster (23:34):
Yeah, I just think we just don't want to underestimate
the degree to which the Iranian regimereally is driven by an ideology,
the ideology of the revolution.
I mean, the revolutionaries are in charge.
And so I think that will pro, that willlimit the degree to which they'll be able
to make the concessions that.
That could end.
End.
End this.
End this war.
And that really is a very intrusiveinspection verification regime,
(23:58):
but also the super.
Supervised dismantlement of anyof their enrichment capabilities.
I don't see them being able to get therejust from an ideological perspective.
So I think what you'll have is an effortto kind of string along again.
You know, I mean, there's this idea thatthe Iranians are really good negotiators.
They're terrible negotiators.
What they do is they just don't concedeanything and they just watch us make
(24:21):
concession after concession to get toweak agreements that we declare as a,
a diplomatic achievement, but they'rereally kind of a political disaster,
or they just kick the can down the road.
So, you know, I, I think I don'tsee anything, you know, any,
any way to an agreement with them thatwill satisfy, you know, what I think
are President Trump's, you know,red lines associated with enrichment.
(24:42):
So I think this is going to go on forlonger than people think.
The question is, does,does it, does it expand?
You know, does the,does the conflict expand?
And there's a lot that Iran can still do,right?
They could, as I mentioned, they couldtry to attack shipping in, in the Gulf.
They could attack Saudi oil facilities.
I don't know what kind of cybercapability they have left.
(25:04):
You know,they could conduct assassinations or
other terrorist attacks internationally.
I mean, I think it's, it's believedthat they have sleeper cells, you know,
kind of, kind of around the world.
Could they do something short, you know,of, of a race to a nuclear weapon,
like a dirty bomb, some, somehow that is,you know, that they have a cutout.
So, I mean, it's.
(25:24):
The Iranian regime is still dangerousbecause it has some things it can
still do.
And as it gets cornered,what might it do that could shift
this war from this bilateral war betweenIsrael and Iran and a broader conflict?
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (25:41):
Yeah, I guess I'm pondering what the end game is here,
there clearly isn't the air power for
Israel to finish this job on its own.
I think the probability, as I saidearlier, is low that the US Comes in
as a direct combatant to finishoff the Fordo enrichment facility.
(26:07):
The Iranian regime is clearlyin a very vulnerable state.
But how far it's possible forIsrael to topple it is not clear to me.
And indeed it's not even clear tome that it's entirely desirable for
Iran to plunge into the kindof chaos that we've seen in,
(26:28):
in Libya as well as inSyria more recently.
My wife is a greater expert onthe Muslim world than I shall ever be.
And on Friday, after the Israeliraids on Iran had happened.
She handed me a translation of a bookby Abu Bakr Magi with the titled
the Management of Savagery, in whichthis Salafist jihadist argued that it
(26:52):
would in fact be desirable from the pointof view of the Islamists if the entire
region descended into chaos, if all thestate structures fell away, because then
they would be able to build the IslamicState the caliphate of their dreams.
So I think one has to bear in mindthat you're not going to get a liberal
(27:15):
democracy run by secular,liberally leaning Tehran sophisticates
if this regime falls apart andeverybody in, in the neighborhood,
not only the Israelis, butthe many Arab states will have to worry
about what might follow a collapseof the Islamic Republic.
(27:36):
I've yet to hear a really compellingstory about what a post Khamenei regime
would look like.
And that's partly because, as HR said,
opposition movements have been crushed soeffectively.
It's also been a long time.
And so the Iranian exilecommunity doesn't really have
(27:56):
a handle on what might be possiblein a post Islamic Republic Iran.
So for me, the great unknowableis what comes after Khamenei.
He's going to die at some point, evenif it's not taken out by the Israelis.
And there is no succession plan.
So I guess the great unknown is,is, is the future of Iran that,
(28:18):
that I wish I could see more clearly.
>> Bill Whalen (28:20):
And this would also be the argument against going after the political
leadership, Neil, because it seemedyou'd risk turning this into a holy war.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (28:27):
Well, I don't know, HR Whether that would be the response.
It's, it's sohard to gauge the attitudes that,
that people have in Iran today that they.
There's no love lost between the populace,certainly the urban populace and
the regime.
On the other hand, it's hardlylikely that Israeli decapitation of,
(28:49):
of the Iranian governmentbe enormously popular.
So I, I find this the most puzzling,perplexing part of what we see today,
this simple difficulty offoreseeing where Iran goes from
here after what,nearly half a century of theocracy.
>> Bill Whalen (29:10):
But I did mention, I want to mention that, Neil,
because I read a report the other dayas an Iranian state media where a top
official said that the regime wantsto unite with Turkey, Pakistan and
several other countries to createwhat he called an Islamic army.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (29:24):
You know, this sounds like the kind of last desperate
thing you, you send from the bunkerrather than a coherent strategy.
>> Bill Whalen (29:31):
Right. >> Sir Niall Ferguson
scenario, andhere I'm just gonna play the historian,
is that a very Weakened Iran will beeasy pickings for its neighbours.
Remember, one reason that Putin isn't so
forthcoming in his support is thatonce upon a time Stalin dreamt that
he might be able to bring Iran withinthe Soviet sphere of influence.
(29:55):
So I think this neighbourhoodisn't notable for
its, its lack of skullduggery andrealpolitik.
If, if Iran is to be weakened,
then there will be responses fromthe NE to take advantage of that,
just as Iran took advantage of theoverthrow of Saddam Hussein in ways that
American policymakers failedto foresee back in 2003.
>> H.R McMaster (30:19):
And, and hey, let's not forget too, the,
the degree to which the collapseof the Assad regime followed the,
the decapitation, devastating attacksagainst Hezbollah by, by Israel.
And I think all of thatled to where we are today.
And of course you had Turkey who wassupporting really Islamist Sunni Islamist
(30:40):
groups against the Assad regime, theirlong term interests in the region because
Erdogan does fancy him as like the,the modern day Sultan who's going to,
to re establish really Turkish primacy in,in the Middle east that
clashes really with what Iran wastrying to achieve by establishing this
land bridge to the Mediterranean asa precursor to destroying Israel,
(31:04):
which of course now is all rolledback then when you bring in the,
the revanchist agenda of the Russians.
You know, I think that what weare witnessing are really three revanchist
powers who are nostalgic, you know,for, for their old empires and
their, andtheir interests are not aligned.
And I think the more that U.S.
(31:24):
and other diplomats can can play that,I think to our advantage, the, the better.
>> Sir Niall Ferguson (31:29):
I think it's worth bringing this conversation back to,
to the United States.
I think that President Trump has infact played rather a, a shrewd game.
He's retained deniability sothat it's been possible for Secretary of
State Rubio to say that Israel actedunilaterally on Thursday night.
(31:51):
But at the same time he,he's been able to argue that the Israeli
strikes happened after his 60 dayultimatum to the Iranians had.
Expired.
I was certainly taken in by the feint thatthere were going to be negotiations on
Sunday in Oman between Steve Witkoff andthe Iranians.
I fell for that hook, line and sinker.
(32:12):
So did the Iranians.
So there's been some deaf diplomacy here.
There's also a kind of interestinginternal politics to this story.
It's clear that the administration hasits restrainers who don't want to get
involved in a war like this, but italso has his hawks who recognize that if
nothing is done, one day Iran willacquire nuclear weapons capability, and
(32:36):
that really can't happen, which is,I think, the President's position.
So I think this has been a veryinteresting development in the history of
the Trump administration.
If you think back to earlier episodes ofGoodfellows, the three of us have spent
a long time finding fault withPresident Trump's trade policy.
It turns out the tradewar was the phony war.
(32:57):
It wasn't really the thingthat was going to matter.
The real war is the one that,that started on Thursday night.
And I must admit,
I wasn't sure that Trump was ever goingto give that green light to the Israelis.
I'd begun to think hewasn't going to do it.
And maybe I read too many Financial Timescolumns about Trump always chickening out,
(33:21):
but on this occasion, he, he didn't.
And Bibi Netanyahu certainly didn't.
>> Bill Whalen (33:26):
HR, were you surprised?
>> H.R McMaster (33:28):
You know, I, I wasn't surprised because, you know, you know,
of course, I, I thought it could be,it could be a ruse, you know, essentially,
you know, the withdrawal of US Dependentsfrom the region, maybe that was to,
to add more impetus to the negotiations.
But I also felt that it wasthis Iranian intransigence.
President Trump doesn't havean infinite amount of patience as,
(33:48):
as you've mentioned, Neil.
Hey, he's definitely notcapricious about the use of force.
You know, he, he always would prefersome sort of a negotiated settlement,
but he also recognizes the need tointegrate the threat of the use of force
with any kind of diplomatic efforts.
And one of the things we didwith him in 2017 and 18, and
I imagine there's still people around,maybe a couple people left on the NSC
(34:12):
staff to do this is to help integrate theperspectives of intelligence agencies and
others to highlight not only the cost andrisk of action,
but, but also the cost and risk ofinaction or passivity in certain cases.
And I think he was convinced byIranian intransigence, I'm sure,
also, you know, maybe conversationswith Prime Minister Netanyahu and
(34:36):
Ron Dermer and others who laid out forhim the latest intelligence,
right, that Iran was kind oftrying to race to weaponization,
that was determined tocontinue enrichment.
And then that combined with kind of the,you know,
the talk to the hand approach thatthe Iranians gave Wyckoff, I think,
(34:57):
I think made the, you know, convincePresident Trump not to stand in the way.
>> Bill Whalen (35:02):
Okay, last question, gentlemen.
Israel currently is involved inhis longest running war in Gaza.
Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that hiscountry is on a path to victory with Iran,
but he hasn't set a date.
So what is your guess as to howlong that path is for Israel?
We talking days, weeks, months, years?
Neil?>> Sir Niall Ferguson: Well,
I've said already that I think this warbetween Israel and Iran can only run for
(35:25):
weeks because there's just a limit to howmany missiles the Iranians have left,
and there's a limit to how long Israel cancontinue these, these kind of operations.
So that war is not going to begoing on for nearly as long as,
say, the war in Ukraine.
I think it's,it's going to be over relatively swiftly.
(35:46):
The war in Gaza is another matter becausethere's still no real resolution between
the conflicting objectives of the Israeligovernment to destroy Hamas, but
to rescue the hostages.
My sense is that inPrime Minister Netanyahu's mind,
the Iran question has always loomed much,much larger and
has always seemed much more strategicallyimportant than the Palestinian question.
(36:11):
But there is no obvious end game in Gaza,and it's certainly not likely to become
the holiday resort ofPresident Trump's imaginings.
HR.>> H.R McMaster: hey, sadly, Neil, I,
I don't see an end to this war in,in Gaza because there's no space for
an alternative political order toemerge that can, that can enter into,
you know, a ceasefire or some, any kindof enduring peace between Israel and,
(36:36):
and the Palestinian people in Gaza.
And that's because Hamasstill has the guns.
So until there is the ability of the,you know, of the Palestinian people to
temporarily evacuate Gaza anduntil Hamas is destroyed,
I think you're going to see a combinationof a continuation of the war and
continued suffering ofthe civilian population in Gaza.
(36:58):
We've been spending the last half hour or
so talking about matters of war andpeace and H.R. I think
it's worth noting that last Saturday,amidst all the chaos in the Middle East,
the United States celebrated the 250thbirthday of the United States Army.
And I believe that you have somevery great words of wisdom that
you'd like to read.
>> H.R McMaster (37:15):
Of course, we celebrated the 250th anniversary of
the United States Army.
And we celebrated on the occasion thatof the second Continental Congress
approving the recruitment of tencompanies of riflemen to go to Boston.
To support the militias who were layingthat British-controlled city to siege.
(37:38):
And then George Washington was appointedthe next day to our great fortune,
to be the commander of that army.
And then later, of course,to become our first president.
But what I'd like to read to youis a quotation from Washington
when he addressed the Continental army onthe occasion of their enlistments about
to expire.
This is now a year later in 1776.
(38:01):
And he said to his soldiers,the fate of unborn millions
will now depend under God onthe courage and conduct of this army.
And of course, that was a propheticobservation because it is our army and
we should say in alliancewith the French army and
(38:21):
navy during the revolutionthat secured our independence.
And it's the United States army that hasbeen fighting to preserve our freedom
since the revolution.
>> Bill Whalen (38:32):
Wise words.
And we salute General McMaster, you, and
everyone who has worn the uniform ofhis country these past 250 years.
Gentlemen, we're going toend the conversation there.
Thanks for taking time out of yourvery busy schedules to do this.
And I suspect we'll be talking aboutthis very much in the shows ahead.
So take care, both of you,and have a great summer.
[MUSIC]
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.