Podcasts about jcpoa

From Munich 1938, to the JCPOA in 2015, to Parshat Balak, Rabbi Dunner explores how not being present can be devastating—or not, when divine intervention steps in as human diplomacy falls short. A powerful reflection on unseen protection, ancient patterns, and why absence doesn't necessarily mean you've been forgotten.

On June 13th, Israel launched attacks on several military and nuclear facilities in Iran, marking the beginning of a 12-day war between the two countries. The United States followed with targeted strikes on Iranian nuclear sites to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power and posing a threat to regional and global stability. China's involvement in the conflict was limited to condemning the Israeli and US use of military force and calling for de-escalation. Beijing offered only rhetorical support for Tehran. To discuss what the Israel-Iran war reveals about China's relationship with Iran, its evolving strategy in the Middle East, and the broader implications for US-China competition, we are joined by Yun Sun on the podcast today. Yun is a Senior Fellow, co-Director of the East Asia Program and Director of the China Program at the Stimson Center. Her recent piece in The Wire China entitled “How China Sees Iran's Future” offers provides a nuanced take on Beijing's calculus during and after the war. Timestamps[00:00] Start[01:34] China's Diplomatic Strategy Toward the Middle East[05:00] A Limited Chinese Response and China's Regional Role[08:19] Chinese Perceptions of Iran's External Strategic Blunders[15:00] Trickling Chinese Investment into Iran[20:10] Chinese Concerns About a Nuclearized Iran[25:09] Implications of the Israel-Iran War for China's Energy Security[32:04] Trump's Response Shaping Chinese Views of the United States 

As the world watches Gaza burn, Iran tremble, and diplomacy stall, what if the real war isn't between nations—but within them? In this powerful episode, Maz is joined once again by Lebanese economist and seasoned political analyst Nadim Shehadi to explore the often-overlooked internal fractures driving conflict in the Middle East.

Thu, 03 Jul 2025 16:50:08 +0000 https://jung-naiv.podigee.io/1085-769-iran-expertin-azadeh-zamirirad-uber-das-atomprogramm-krieg-mit-israelusa 05a2e2d6c9616fc77af456b6ebbfc587 Politik für Desinteressierte Zu Gast im Studio: Azadeh Zamirirad, stellvertretende Leiterin Naher/Mittlerer Osten & Afrika. Azadeh ist in Iran geboren und hat ihre politikwissenschaftliche Ausbildung an der Uni Potsdam genossen. Ein Gespräch über die letzten kriegerischen Auseinandersetzungen zwischen Iran, Israel und Israel, das Atom-Abkommen (JCPOA) mit Iran von 2015, den Ausstieg der USA aus dem JCPOA unter Trump, iranische Verstöße des Abkommens, das iranische Recht auf Uran-Anreichung, die Frage, wie nah Iran tatsächlich kurz vor dem Besitz von Atomwaffen war und ist, Iran als nuklearer "Schwellenstaat", die Fatwa des Ayatollahs, die Verhandlungen der Amerikaner sowie Europäer mit dem iranischen Regime, den Blick auf geopolitische und hegemoniale Interessen in der Region von Iran, Israel, Saudis und Amerikanern, die Druckmittel der Iraner, die Nachfolge des Obersten Führers Ali Chamenei, das Schicksal der Frauenbewegung ("Frauen, Leben, Freiheit") sowie die Rolle des Sohns des Schahs im Exil + eure Fragen via Hans Bitte unterstützt unsere Arbeit finanziell: Konto: Jung & Naiv IBAN: DE854 3060 967 104 779 2900 GLS Gemeinschaftsbank PayPal ► http://www.paypal.me/JungNaiv Link: Azadeh zu Iran bei Jung & Naiv, Folge 456 (Februar 2020) full Politik für Desinteressierte no iran,israel,saudi arabien,usa,atomprogramm,regime change,geopolitik,analyse,krieg

Note: There's a little bit of crackle in the audio in this episode. Attempts were made to remove crackle as much as possible, but it remains at some point. Hopefully it does not pose too much of a problem for listening.

LAURA ROCKWOOD: Retired Gen. Counsel for Vienna's International Atomic Energy Agency. Expert on Iranian nuclear capabilities.SummaryIn this conversation, Laura Rockwood, a former senior legal advisor at the IAEA, shares her extensive experience in nuclear nonproliferation, particularly in relation to Iran and Iraq. The discussion covers the complexities of negotiating in the Middle East, the challenges of verifying nuclear capabilities, and the impact of false intelligence on the Iraq War. Rockwood emphasizes the importance of diplomacy in addressing nuclear threats and the need for a collective approach to global stability. The conversation also touches on the moral implications of military actions against nuclear facilities and the role of leadership in shaping public sentiment and international relations.TakeawaysLaura Rockwood has over 40 years of experience in nuclear nonproliferation.Negotiating in the Middle East can be challenging, but gender does not hinder respect.The IAEA's role is to verify, not prevent, nuclear weapons development.False intelligence significantly impacted the justification for the Iraq War.Iran's nuclear program is complex and requires careful monitoring.Diplomacy is essential for resolving nuclear tensions and conflicts.Military actions against nuclear facilities raise moral and legal questions.The Non-Proliferation Treaty aims to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons.Public sentiment can be influenced by leadership decisions and actions.Addressing root causes of instability is crucial for global peace.Chapters00:00 Introduction and Setup01:06 The Aftermath of the Iraq War and Intelligence Failures02:29 Navigating Nuclear Inspections in Iraq04:56 The IAEA's Role and False Intelligence06:28 Technical Challenges and Communication Issues06:46 Revisiting Iraq: Inspections and Cooperation08:29 The U.S. Justification for War10:29 The Impact of Forgeries on Intelligence12:06 Understanding Enrichment and Transportation12:41 Historical Context of Iran's Nuclear Ambitions14:29 The Role of the JCPOA in Iran's Nuclear Strategy16:39 Diplomatic Solutions and Future Negotiations18:24 The Morality of Military Action20:33 The Global Nuclear Landscape22:20 The Influence of Domestic Politics on Foreign Policy24:20 The Threat of Non-State Actors26:31 The Future of Nuclear Proliferation28:22 The Role of the NPT and Global Governance30:23 The Impact of U.S. Foreign Policy on Global Stability32:38 The Complexity of International Relations34:28 The Role of Leadership in Nuclear Decisions36:18 The Importance of Diplomacy38:28 The Human Cost of War40:24 The Technical Aspects of Nuclear Weapons42:25 The Future of U.S.-Iran Relations44:22 The Role of Public Perception in Policy46:19 The Intersection of Politics and Nuclear Strategy48:11 The Human Element in Nuclear Proliferation50:16 The Legacy of Nuclear Weapons52:29 The Future of Global Security54:11 The Path Forward for Nuclear Non-ProliferationSound Bites"I have never felt disrespected by...""We reported that to the Security Council...""Iraq never reached that stage."

Have a comment? Send us a text! (We read all of them but can't reply). Email us: Will@faithfulpoliticspodcast.comWhy would the U.S. strike Iran's nuclear facilities—and what does it mean for global stability?In this episode, former U.S. diplomat and Middle East expert Ethan Chorin returns to break down the escalating tensions between Iran, Israel, and the U.S. Chorin, author of Benghazi and writer of The Middle East Told Slant, gives a nuanced view of how the region arrived at this inflection point—from the JCPOA withdrawal to the October 7 Hamas attack and the long shadow of the Abraham Accords.With deep knowledge of regional proxy wars, U.S. foreign policy, and Iran's theocratic regime, Chorin explores how power, ideology, and politics collide across borders. He unpacks why Iran's nuclear ambitions are so destabilizing, how Israel's strategy has evolved, and what the American public often misunderstands about both allies and adversaries.

John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, joins guest host Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, to break down Israel's high-stakes strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and the U.S. decision to enter the fight. With Iran's terror proxy network reportedly dismantled and its nuclear program set back by years, Spencer explains how Israel achieved total air superiority, why a wider regional war never materialized, and whether the fragile ceasefire will hold. He also critiques the international media's coverage and warns of the global consequences if Iran's ambitions are left unchecked. Take Action: Take 15 seconds and urge your elected leaders to send a clear, united message: We stand with Israel. Take action now. Resources and Analysis: Israel, Iran, and a Reshaped Middle East: AJC Global Experts on What Comes Next AJC Advocacy Anywhere - U.S. Strikes in Iran and What Comes Next  Iranian Regime's War on America: Four Decades of Targeting U.S. Forces and Citizens AJC Global Forum 2025: John Spencer Breaks Down Israel's War and Media Misinformation Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran's Nuclear Program Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Casey Kustin:   Hi, I'm Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, and I have the pleasure of guest hosting this week's episode. As of the start of this recording on Wednesday, June 25, it's been 13 days since Israel launched precision airstrikes aimed at dismantling the Iranian regime's nuclear infrastructure and degrading its ballistic missile capabilities to help us understand what transpired and where we are now, I'm here with John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point, co-director of the Urban Warfare Project and Executive Director of the Urban Warfare Institute.  John, welcome to People of the Pod. John Spencer:   Hey, Casey, it's good to see you again.  Casey Kustin:   Thanks so much for joining us. John, you described Israel's campaign as one of the most sophisticated preemptive strike campaigns in modern history, and certainly the scope and precision was impressive. What specific operational capabilities enabled Israel to dominate the Iranian airspace so completely? John Spencer:   Yeah, that's a great question, and I do believe it basically rewrote the book, much like after the 1973 Yom Kippur War, where Israel did the unthinkable, the United States military conducted 27 different studies, and it fundamentally changed the way we fight warfare. It's called Air-Land Battle. I think similarly with Operation Rising Lion, just the opening campaign rewrote what we would call, you know, Shock and Awe, Joint Forcible Entry, things like that. And the capabilities that enabled it, of course, were years of planning and preparation. Just the deep intelligence infiltration that Israel did before the first round was dropped. The Mossad agents texting the high command of the IRGC to have a meeting, all of them believing the texts. And it was a meeting about Israel. They all coming together. And then Israel blew up that meeting and killed, you know, in the opening 72 hours, killed over 25 senior commanders, nine nuclear scientists, all of that before the first bomb was dropped.  But even in the opening campaign, Israel put up over 200 aircrafts, almost the entire Israeli air force in the sky over Iran, dominating and immediately achieving what we call air supremacy. Again, through years of work, almost like a science fiction story, infiltrating drone parts and short range missiles into Iran, then having agents put those next to air defense radars and ballistic air defense missile systems. So that as soon as this was about to begin, those drones lost low cost drones and short range missiles attacked Iranian air defense capabilities to give the window for all of the Israeli F-35 Eyes that they've improved for the US military since October 7 and other aircraft.  Doing one of the longest operations, seconded only to one other mission that Israel has done in their history, to do this just paralyzing operation in the opening moment, and then they didn't stop. So it was a combination of the infiltration intelligence, the low-tech, like the drones, high-tech, advanced radar, missiles, things like that. And it was all put together and synchronized, right? So this is the really important thing that people kind of miss in military operations, is how hard it is to synchronize every bit of that, right? So the attack on the generals, the attack on the air defenses, all of that synchronized. Hundreds of assets in a matter of minutes, all working together. There's so much chance for error, but this was perfection. Casey Kustin:   So this wasn't just an operational success, it was really strategic dominance, and given that Iran failed to down a single Israeli Aircraft or cause any significant damage to any of Israel's assets. What does that tell us about the effectiveness of Iran's military capabilities, their Russian built air defenses that they have touted for so long? John Spencer:   Absolutely. And some people say, I over emphasize tactics. But of course, there's some famous sayings about this. At the strategic level, Israel, one, demonstrated their military superiority. A small nation going against a Goliath, a David against a Goliath. It penetrated the Iranian myth of invincibility. And I also failed to mention about how Israel, during this opening of the campaign, weakened Iran's ability to respond. So they targeted ballistic missile launchers and ballistic missile storages, so Iran was really weakened Iran's ability to respond. But you're right, this sent a signal around the Middle East that this paper tiger could be, not just hit, it could be dominated. And from the opening moments of the operation until the ceasefire was agreed to, Israel eventually achieved air supremacy and could dominate the skies, like you said, without losing a single aircraft, with his really historic as well. And hit what they wanted with what they wanted, all the military infrastructure, all the senior leaders. I mean, eventually they assigned a new commander of the IRGC, and Israel found that guy, despite him running around in caves and things.  It definitely had a strategic impact on the signal to the world on Israel's capabilities. And this isn't just about aircraft and airstrikes. Israel's complete dominance of Iran and the weakness, like you said. Although Israel also taught the world back when they responded to Iran's attack in April of last year, and in October of last year, is that you probably shouldn't be buying Russian air defense systems like S-300s. But Iran still, that was the backbone of their air defense capabilities, and Israel showed that that's a really bad idea. Casey Kustin:   You mentioned the component of this that was not just about going after infrastructure sites, but targeting Iranian military leadership and over 20 senior military and nuclear figures, according to public reporting. This was really a central part of this campaign as well. How does this kind of decapitation strategy alter the regime's military capability now, both in this immediate short term, but also in the long term, when you take out that kind of leadership? John Spencer:   Yeah, absolutely. I mean, much like when the United States took out Qasem Soleimani, the head of the Quds Force, who had been decades of leadership of the Quds Force, the terror proxies, which I'm sure we'll talk about, overseeing those to include the ones in Iraq, killing my soldiers. It had a ripple effect that was, it's hard to measure, but that's decades of relationships and leadership, and people following them. So there is that aspect of all of these. Now we know over 25 senior IRGC and Iranian basically leadership, because they killed a police chief in Tehran and others. Yet that, of course, will ripple across.  It paralyzed the leadership in many ways during the operation, which is the psychological element of this, right? The psychological warfare, to do that on the opening day and then keep it up. That no general could trust, much like Hezbollah, like nobody's volunteering to be the next guy, because Israel finds him and kills him. On the nuclear though, right, which all wars the pursuit of political goals. We can never forget what Israel said the political goals were – to roll back Iran's imminent breakout of a nuclear weapon, which would not only serve to destroy Israel, because that's what they said they wanted to do with it, but it also gives a nuclear umbrella, which is what they want, to their exporting of terrorism, and the Ring of Fire, the proxy networks that have all been defanged thanks to Israel. That's the reason they wanted. So in taking out these scientists.So now it's up to 15 named nuclear scientists. On top of the nuclear infrastructure and all the weaponization components. So it's not just about the three nuclear enrichment sites that we all talked about in the news, you know, Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. It's about that complete, decades-long architecture of the scientists, the senior scientists at each of the factories and things like that, that does send about, and I know we're in right now, as we're talking, they're debating about how far the program was set back. It holistically sets back that definitely the timeline.  Just like they destroyed the Tehran clock. I'm sure you've heard this, which was the doomsday clock that Iran had in Tehran, which is the countdown to the destruction of Israel. Israel stopped that clock, both literally and figuratively. Could they find another clock and restart it? Absolutely. But for now, that damage to all those personnel sets everything back. Of course, they'll find new commanders. I argue that you can't find those same level of you know, an Oppenheimer or the Kahn guy in Pakistan. Like some of those guys are irreplaceable. Casey Kustin:   So a hallmark of Israeli defense policy has always been that Israel will take care of itself by itself. It never asks the United States to get involved on its behalf. And before President Trump decided to undertake US strikes, there was considerable public discussion, debate as to whether the US should transfer B2s or 30,000 pound bunker busters to Israel. From purely a military perspective, can you help us understand the calculus that would go into why the US would decide to take the action itself, rather than, say, transfer these assets to Israel to take the action? John Spencer:   Sure. It's a complex political question, but actually, from the military perspective, it's very straightforward. The B2 stealth fire fighter, one of our most advanced, only long range bomber that can do this mission right, safely under radar, all this stuff. Nobody else has it. Nobody else has a pilot that could do it. So you couldn't just loan this to Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East, and let them do the operation. As well as the bomb. This is the only aircraft with the fuselage capable of carrying this side. Even the B-52 stratomaster doesn't have the ability to carry this one, although it can push big things out the back of it. So just from a logistics perspective, it wouldn't work.  And then there's the classification. And there's many issues with, like, the somebody thinking that would have been the easiest, and even if it was possible, there's no way to train an Israeli pilot, all the logistics to it, to do it. The Israel Begin Doctrine about, you know, taking into their own hands like they did in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007, is still in full effect, and was shown to be literally, a part of Israel's survival is this ability to, look, I understand that allies are important. And I argue strongly that Israel can never go at it alone, and we should never want it to. The strength of any nation is its allies.  And the fact that even during this operation, you saw immense amounts of American military resources pushed into the Middle East to help defend Israel and US bases but Patriot systems on the ground before this operation, THAAD systems on the ground before the system. These are the advanced US army air defense systems that can take down ballistic missiles. You had Jordan knocking down drones. You had the new Assad replacement guy, it's complex, agreeing to shoot things down over their airspace. That is part of Israel's strength, is its allies.  I mean, the fact that you have, you know, all the Arab nations that have been helping and defending Israel is, I think, can't be underscored under Israel doesn't, shouldn't need to go it alone, and it will act. And that's the Begin Doctrine like this case. And I do believe that the United States had the only weapon, the only capability to deliver something that the entire world can get behind, which is nuclear proliferation, not, you know, stopping it.  So we don't want a terror regime like the Islamic regime, for so many different reasons, to have a nuclear weapon close to breakout. So United States, even the G7, the United Nations, all agree, like, you can't have a nuclear weapon. So the United States doing that limited strike and midnight hammer, I think, was more than just about capabilities. It was about leadership in saying, look, Iran's double play that the economic sanctions, or whatever, the JCPOA agreement, like all these things, have failed. Conclusively, not just the IAEA statement that they're 20 years that now they're in violation of enrichment to all the different intelligence sources. It was not working. So this operation was vital to Israel's survival, but also vital for the world and that too, really won in this operation. Casey Kustin:   Vital both in this operation, in the defense of Israel, back in April 2024 when Iran was firing missiles and we saw other countries in the region assist in shooting them down. How vital is Israel's integration into CENTCOM to making that all work? John Spencer:   Oh, I mean, it's life saving. And General Carrillo, the CENTCOM Commander, has visited Israel so much in. The last 20 months, you might as well have an apartment in Tel Aviv. It's vital, because, again, Israel is a small nation that does spend exponential amounts of its GDP in its defense. But Iran, you know this, 90 million much greater resources, just with the ballistic missile program. Why that, and why that was so critical to set that back, could overwhelm Israel's air defense systems. Could. There's so much to this, but that coordination. And from a military to military perspective, and this is where I come and get involved, like I know, it's decades long, it's very strong. It's apolitical on purpose. It's hidden. Most people don't know it, but it's vital to the survival of our greatest ally in the Middle East. So it meets American interest, and, of course, meets Israel's interest. Casey Kustin:   Can you help us understand the Iranian response targeting Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, because this seemed like a very deliberate way for the regime to save face and then de-escalate. But if the ceasefire falls apart, what are the vulnerabilities for us, troops and assets in the region. How well positioned are our bases in Qatar, Al Dhafra in the UAE, our naval assets in Bahrain, our bases in Iraq? How well positioned are we to absorb and deter a real retaliatory response? John Spencer:   Yeah, it's a great question. I mean, first and foremost, you know, there is a bit of active defense. So, of course, all of our US bases are heavily defended. A lot of times, you can see things are about to happen, and you can, just like they did, they moved to naval aircraft that would have been even vulnerable in some of these locations, out to sea, so they can't be touched. Heavily defended. But really, active defense is absolutely important, but really deterrence is the greatest protection. So that has to be demonstrated by the capability, right? So the capability to defend, but also the capability to attack and the willingness to use it.  This is why I think that supposedly symbolic to the 14 bunker busters that the United States dropped during Operation Midnight Hammer. Iran sent 14 missiles. President Trump says, thanks for the heads up. You know, all of it was evacuated, very symbolic, clearly, to save face and they had a parade, I guess, to say they won something. It's ludicrous, but sometimes you can't get inside the heads of irrational actors who are just doing things for their own population.  Our bases, the force protection is heavy. I mean, there's never 100% just like we saw with all the air defenses of Israel, still about 5% or if not less, of the ballistic missiles got through one one drone out of 1000 got through. You can never be 100% but it is the deterrence, and I think that's what people miss in this operation. It set a new doctrine for everyone, for the United States, that we will use force with limited objectives, to send an immense amount of strength.  And when somebody says there's a red line now that you should believe that, like if you would have injured a single American in the Middle East, Iran would have felt immense amount of American power against that, and they were very careful not to so clearly, they're deterred. This also sent a new red line for Israel, like Israel will act just like it did in other cases against even Iran, if they start to rebuild the program. War is the pursuit of political objectives, but you always have to look at the strategic on down. Casey Kustin:   On that last point, do you think we have entered a new phase in Israeli military doctrine, where, instead of sort of a more covert shadow war with Iran, we will now see open confrontation going forward, if necessary? John Spencer:   Well, you always hope that it will not be necessary, but absolutely this event will create, creates a new doctrine. You can see, see almost everything since October 7, and really there were just things that were unconceivable. Having studied and talked to Israeil senior leaders from the beginning of this. Everybody thought, if you attacked Hezbollah, Iran, was going to attack and cause immense amounts of destruction in Israel. Even when Israel started this operation, their estimates of what the damage they would incur was immense. And that it didn't is a miracle, but it's a miracle built in alliances and friendships with the United States and capabilities built in Israel.  Of course, Israel has learned a lot since October 7 that will fundamentally change everything about not just the military doctrine, but also intelligence services and many aspects that are still happening as they're fighting, still to this day in Gaza to achieve the realistic, measurable goal there. Yes, it absolutely has set forth that the old ways of doing things are gone, the you know, having these terror armies, the ring of fire that Israel has defanged, if not for Hamas dismantled and destroyed.  It sets a new complete peace in the Middle East. But also a doctrine of, Israel is adapting. I mean, there's still some elements about the reserve forces, the reigning doctrine, that are evolving based on the magnitude of the war since October 7. But absolutely you're right about they will, which has been the doctrine, but now they've demonstrated the capability to do it to any threat, to include the great, you know, myth of Iran. Casey Kustin:   So when you talk about this defanging of the Iranian proxy network obviously, Israel undertook significant operations against Hezbollah. Over the last year, they've been in active conflict with the Houthis. How does this operation now alter the way that Iran interacts with those proxies and its capacity to wage war against Israel through these proxies? John Spencer:   Yeah, cripples it, right? So Iran's nuclear ambition and its terror campaign are literally in ruins right now, both literally and figuratively. Hezbollah was defanged, the leadership, even taking out Nasrallah was believed to have caused catastrophic consequences, and it didn't. So, absolutely for Iran, also during this operation, is sniffing because all of his proxies were silent. I think the Houthis launched two missiles because thanks to Israel and the United States, the Houthi capabilities that should never have been allowed to amass, you know, this pirate terror empire. They didn't make those greatest shore to sea arsenal out of falafels. It got it straight from Iran, and that pipeline has already been cut off, let alone the capabilities.  Same thing with Hezbollah, which relied heavily on pipelines and infrastructure of missiles and everything being fed to it by Iran. That's been cut. The Assad regime being the drug empire, support of Hezbollah to rule basically, in Lebanon, has been cut. Hezbollah couldn't come to the aid of Assad. All of these variables. And of course, Hamas will never be able to do anything again, period. It all causes Iran to have to rethink everything. From, you know, not only their own national defense, right air defense capabilities and all this, but their terror campaign, it isn't just in ruins. There's a new doctrine, like it's not acceptable.  Now, of course, that's going to be hard to fully reign in. You have Shia backed groups in Iraq, you have a lot of bad things going on, but the Quds Force, which is its job, it's all shattered. Of course, they'll try to rebuild it. But the fact that these terror proxies were already so weakened by Israel that they couldn't do anything and remain silent. Hezbollah just was silent basically during this, is very significant to the peace going forward. I mean, there, there's still a lot of war here, but Israel and the United States have rewritten the map of the Middle East. Casey Kustin:   in the hours days that followed the US deciding to engage here. A lot of the conversation focused on the possibility of triggering now broader regional escalation, but we didn't see that, and it sort of shattered that myth that if Israel or the US were to go after Iran, that it would spiral into a broader Middle East conflict. Why did we not see that happen? Why did this remain so controlled? John Spencer:   So many reasons that really go back a few months, if not years? Mean going back to the first the Abraham Accords, President Trump's recent tour of the Gulf states and his story. Turic financial deals Israel's like we talked about with the Arab nations that were part of protecting it, the fact that the so on, that very geopolitical aspect. And we saw Iran turn to Russia, because there's always geopolitical considerations. Iran turned to Russia. Said, you're going to help us out. We signed this security agreement last year. We've been helping you in Ukraine do the awful things you're doing there.  And Russia said, No, that's not what we said. And it called called President Trump. President Trump says, how about you worry about mediating a ceasefire in Ukraine? And well, so they turned to China and the fact that there was nobody again, and that all the work that had been done with all the people that also disagree, nation states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, all those others. Those are many of the contributing factors.  But war also, I wrote this piece about, this isn't Iraq, this isn't Afghanistan, this isn't Libya. I really hate the lazy comparisons. This was contained and not able to spill out by constant communication from day one of what the goals were. Limited objective to roll back a threat to the world nuclear program and the ballistic program as well. That prevents the ability for even the Islamic regime to say, you know, my survival is at risk, I need to escalate this, right? So, being clear, having strategic clarity from Israel, and when the United States assisted, from the United States. You know, war is a contest of wills, not just between the military is fighting it, but the political element and the population element. So, you know, being able to communicate to the population in Israel and like, what's the goal here? Like, how long are we gonna have to do this? And to the United States. Like, what are our interests? Keeping it the goal limited, which all parties did.  And even, in fact, you had the G7 meeting during this and they signed an agreement, we agree Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon. That is a big part of how you permit the spill out. But it does have many contextual elements of the broader, this isn't black and white between Israel and Iran. It's much bigger than that. And that, and we saw all that work that has been done to show strength through peace, or peace through strength, in all the forms of national power that have been rallied against what is chaos that the Islamic regime wants in the Middle East. Casey Kustin:   So now that we've had a few days to begin to assess the impact of both the US and the Israeli strikes based on what's publicly available. I think you wrote that the nuclear timeline has been pushed back years. We saw some reporting in the New York Times yesterday saying it's only set back months. It seems this morning, the US is concurring with the Israeli assessment that it's been set back years. A lot of talk about where certain Where did certain stockpiles of enriched uranium, and how confident can we be at this point in any of these assessments? John Spencer:   So yes, as we're talking, people are trying to make it political. This should be a non partisan, non political issue. I'm an objective analyst of war. If you just write down all the things that Israel destroyed, validated by satellite imagery. then the fact that somebody And even the spinning of words where like we saw with that leaked report, which was the preliminary thoughts about something, it isn't comprehensive, right?  So one, BDA has never come that fast. Two, we do know, and Iran has validated, like all these scientists dead, all these generals dead, all these components of the nuclear program, damaged or destroyed. The idea that somebody would say, well, you only set it back a couple months to me, it's just anti-intellectual. Look, Natanz, Esfahan, Fordo, we can debate about how much stuff is inside of that mountain that was destroyed, although 14 of the world's best bunker buster munitions, 30,000 pounds punching through.  I just think, it's not a silly argument, because this is very serious. And yes, there could be, you know, hundreds of pounds of enriched uranium up there, a certain percentage that got floated around. That's not the, the things that set the timeline of breakout. Breakout included all the components of the knowledge and capability to reach breakout and then weaponization of a nuclear bomb. There's nobody, I think, who can comprehensively, without nuancing the words say that Israel wasn't very effective, and the United States assistance in only what the United States could do, at setting this program back and actually stopping the immediate danger. Of course, Iran is still a danger. The program is still a danger, but I just think it's so political that they're trying to say that, well, you only said it back a couple months. That's like, that's ridiculous. Casey Kustin:   So as an objective analyst of war, but also as someone who's really been a voice of moral clarity and has called out the international media over the last 18 months for a lot of this disinformation, misinformation, bias reporting. Before we go, John, what is one consequence of this operation that the international media is just missing? John Spencer:   One is that, I think the international media who are debating whether Iran was literally using an opposing opinion against global thought that Iran was close to a nuclear bomb, they missed that completely and tried to politicize it to where, just giving disinformation agents that tidbit of a headline that they need. I do believe in journalistic standards, fact checking, those elements and holding those people accountable. I live in the world of experts. People on the platform X who think they're experts.  But when you have national media running headlines for sensationalism, for clicks, for you know, struggling for opposition to just political administration, we should learn to really question a single report as valid when there's overwhelming opposition. I don't know how to put that succinctly, but you think we would learn over the last, you know, 20 months of this lies, disinformation, statistical warfare, the things like that that, yeah, it's just crazy that that somebody would think in any way this wasn't an overwhelming success for the world, that this program was set back and a new doctrine for treating the program was established. Casey Kustin:   Finally, John, before we wrap up here, the question on everyone's mind: can the ceasefire really hold? John Spencer:   So, you know, I don't do predictions, because I understand wars uncertainty. It's human. It's political. It looks by all signs, because of how Iran was dominated, and how the United States showed that if it isn't contained, then immense amounts of force and of course, Israel's superiority, I believe that the ceasefire will hold. It was normal. And I made some some posts about the historical examples of wars coming to an end, from the Korean War, to the Yom Kippur war, Bosnia War, where you had this transition period where you're rolling back forces and everything. But the by the fact that Iran has said, Yeah, we agreed. We have stopped our operation. All signs for me are saying that this ceasefire will hold, and now the world's in a better place. Casey Kustin:   John, thank you so much for the insight, for, as I said, your moral clarity that you bring to this conversation. We appreciate you joining us today on People of the Pod. John Spencer:   Thank you so much.   

Renowned Israeli historian Benny Morris joins The Winston Marshall Show for a piercing and provocative conversation on the origins of the historic conflict between Israel and Iran — and why the West still doesn't understand it.Morris dismantles the popular narrative that Zionism was a colonial project, explaining how Jewish statehood was born out of historical necessity, persecution, and repeated rejection by Arab leaders. He charts the trajectory from 1948 to October 7th, tracing a consistent refusal to accept Israel's existence.They explore the role of religion in the conflict, the enduring power of jihadist ideology, and the failure of peace processes built on Western illusions.All this — Middle East myths, Hamas, U.S. naivety, and why history keeps repeating itself in the Holy Land…See the extended conversation here: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:Substack: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/X: https://twitter.com/mrwinmarshallInsta: https://www.instagram.com/winstonmarshallLinktree: https://linktr.ee/winstonmarshall----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapters0:00 Introduction 2:05 Iranian Regime's Messianic Outlook and Historical Context 10:33 Islamic Conquests and Jewish Communities 15:59 Shia Islam and Relationship with Jews 20:05 Iranian Revolution and Relations with Israel 30:08 Development of Iranian Proxies 39:14 JCPOA Deal and Its Implications 50:57 Trump's Withdrawal from the JCPOA 55:26 Impact of the 2023 Conflict on Iranian Proxies 1:13:26 Future of Hamas and Palestinian Resistance 1:24:00 Netanyahu's Image and Israel's Conflict with Iran 1:26:33 The Hostage Situation and Hamas' Ideology 1:29:31 Hamas' Demands and Netanyahu's Response 1:30:56 Hezbollah's Weakened Position and Israeli Operations 1:33:30 Potential Outcomes of the War with Iran1:36:20 Regime Change and Future Relations with the Islamic World Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

مناسبة تصريحات ميرتس - مستشار ألمانيا الجديد - عن الأعمال القذرة اللي بتنفذها إسرائيل لصالح الغرب،تعرف إن ألمانيا هي اللي عملت أول مفاعل نووي إيراني؟وإن أجهزة الطرد المركزي لتخصيب اليورانيوم، أصلاً ألمانية؟!طيب تعرف إن ألمانيا عندها علاقة اقتصادية قوية بإيران، وقبلها علاقة سياسية، وعرقية كمان؟كمان الحرب بين إسرائيل وإيران مش مجرد حرب عسكرية، دي حرب سيبرانية كمان، وألمانيا داخلة فيها من ساعة هجوم ستاكس نت؟ونرحب بدعمكم للقناة مادياً كذلك عن طريق الاشتراك.

Former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren joins The Winston Marshall Show for a sweeping conversation on Iran-Israel war — and why the West keeps failing to see the bigger picture.Oren warns that the missile attacks from Iran are just the surface of a much deeper, ideological war—one in which Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and others act as Tehran's proxies in a global jihadist strategy. He explains why the West misreads the region, mistaking economic grievances for religious zeal, and how this blindness has led to years of appeasement and strategic failure.Oren discusses historic missteps, the illusion of moderation, and the rising threat of a direct Iran–Israel confrontation that could drag the world into war.All this—Iran's global network, the myth of proportionality, jihadist ideology, and the price of Western naivety…-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------To see more exclusive content and interviews consider subscribing to my substack here: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:Substack: https://www.winstonmarshall.co.uk/X: https://twitter.com/mrwinmarshallInsta: https://www.instagram.com/winstonmarshallLinktree: https://linktr.ee/winstonmarshall----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Chapters 00:00 Introduction 07:32 The Obama Administration's Approach to Iran 20:06 The Trump Administration's Perspective 25:00 The Biden Administration's Approach and the JCPOA's Violations 34:47 The Military Capabilities and Strategy of Operation Lion's Roar 45:28 The Potential for Regime Change in Iran 57:43 The Role of the U.S. and International Support 1:00:10 The Impact of British and Canadian Actions on Israel 1:04:03 The Historical and Geopolitical Context of the Conflict Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Eskandar Sadeghi-Boroujerdi is a professor of history at York University, England and author of "Revolution and its Discontents" and is a recognized scholar of Iran . . . and today Bob had a great talk with him about the current attacks and threats of a larger war coming from Israel and the U.S.They discussed the possible reasons for the current crisis, the role of Iran's nuclear program and the JCPOA, the Axis of Resistance, Israeli losses and potential vulnerabilities, what the regional environment is like, and Iran's domestic political situation. It's an analysis you're not likely to hear elsewhere. Eskandar Sadeghi has written extensively on this topic, including at "Iran and the 'Axis of Resistance': A Brief History" and "Culmination" in NLR's "Sidecar" ------------------Outro- "Green and Red Blues" by MoodyLinks//+ Iran and the 'Axis of Resistance': A Brief History (https://bit.ly/3SYkA4T)+ Culmination (Reviewed in New Left Review "Sidecar") (https://bit.ly/40fPyt0)Follow Green and Red// +G&R Linktree: ⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/greenandredpodcast⁠⁠⁠ +Our rad website: ⁠⁠⁠https://greenandredpodcast.org/⁠⁠⁠ + Join our Discord community (https://discord.gg/3a6AX7Qy)+Follow us on Substack (https://greenandredpodcast.substack.com)+Follow us on Bluesky (https://bsky.app/profile/podcastgreenred.bsky.social)Support the Green and Red Podcast// +Become a Patron at https://www.patreon.com/greenredpodcast +Or make a one time donation here: ⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/DonateGandR⁠⁠⁠ Our Networks// +We're part of the Labor Podcast Network: ⁠⁠⁠https://www.laborradionetwork.org/⁠⁠ +We're part of the Anti-Capitalist Podcast Network: linktr.ee/anticapitalistpodcastnetwork +Listen to us on WAMF (90.3 FM) in New Orleans (https://wamf.org/) + Check us out! We made it into the top 100 Progressive Podcasts lists (#68) (https://bit.ly/432XNJT) This is a Green and Red Podcast (@PodcastGreenRed) production. Produced by Bob (@bobbuzzanco) and Scott (@sparki1969). Edited by Scott.

On Friday's Mark Levin Show, President Trump is neither an isolationist nor an appeaser, unlike critics like Chatsworth Osborne Jr. (Tucker Carlson), who push confused ideologies. Trump transformed the Republican Party, but he and his supporters reject isolationism, which would mean yielding to Iran's terrorist regime that threatens the U.S. and its allies. Pacifist and unilateral disarmament policies, particularly opposing Israel's moves against Iran's nuclear program, are to be condemned.  What is the isolationist's plan to deal with Iran? They don't have one. Also, Daily Wire's Ben Shapiro calls in to address criticisms from Isolationists claiming to represent the MAGA movement, who oppose U.S. involvement in Israel's conflict with Iran. These groups misrepresent MAGA, as Trump has consistently opposed the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), criticized Iran's ballistic missile program, and supported Israel and Saudi Arabia against Iranian aggression. Most Americans, especially Republicans, support Israel's actions against Iran. Later, WABC's Sid Rosenberg called in to express his strong support for Israel's military actions against Iran, crediting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's leadership and asserting that Trump gave the "green light" for the operation. Rosenberg recounted a conversation with Trump two months prior, where he suggested Iran needed to "feel pain," and now views Israel's strikes as a response to Iran's non-compliance with a 60-day deadline. The Trump-Netanyahu partnership is a historic "one-two punch" for the U.S. and Israel. Afterward, Ambassador Michael Leiter calls in with an update on Israel's strike on Iran. He reports that Israel has eliminated key IRGC leadership. The operation also destroyed much of Iran's military leadership, ground-to-air defenses, the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, and a nuclear fuel conversion center, significantly disrupting Iran's nuclear weapons program. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Israel attacked Iran in an aggressive act of war. The US government supported the strikes, providing intelligence and planning with Netanyahu. Donald Trump cynically used nuclear negotiations with Tehran as cover, as he oversaw the joint US-Israeli operation. Ben Norton reviews the evidence. VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0s7O8RU9V0 Topics 0:00 USA supported Israeli attacks 1:38 Trump's fake "peace talks" with Iran 3:13 USA provided Israel intelligence 3:49 Trump gave Israel green light 5:07 US military helped Israel 6:01 Marco Rubio's lies 6:40 Israel: unsinkable US aircraft carrier 7:15 Netanyahu is an American 8:07 USA arms Israel 8:45 USA protects Israel at UN 9:37 ICC charges Netanyahu 10:34 Trump threatens Iran 12:41 Trump's 60 day deadline 13:37 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) 15:24 Lessons from Libya 17:24 Israel's nuclear weapons 18:37 Nuclear weapon free zone 19:20 Alliance with apartheid South Africa 20:26 Germany condemns Iran 21:37 Western neo-colonialism 22:20 France's Macron criticizes Iran 23:07 Iranian civilian victims 24:11 Human shields 27:29 US & Israel: imperial bullies 28:44 Iran hits back 29:13 US military aid to Israel 29:55 Outro

“Sicherheitshalber” ist der Podcast zur sicherheitspolitischen Lage in Deutschland, Europa und der Welt. In Folge 96 diskutieren Thomas Wiegold, Ulrike Franke, Frank Sauer und Carlo Masala zuerst über einen Aspekt der ukrainischen Operation Spinnennetz, der etwas weniger mediale Aufmerksamkeit erfahren hat: die Nutzung von KI-gestützter Objekterkennung in Drohnen und das, was man “Autonomie in Waffensystemen” nennt. Es geht in diesem Zusammenhang auch um die von der Bundeswehr avisierte Beschaffung von “Strike Drohnen” bzw. “Loitering Munitions”. Im zweiten Teil wenden die vier Podcaster sich dem Thema Personal bei der Bundeswehr zu. Gespeist wird das Gespräch von vielen Erfahrungsberichten, die Hörerinnen und Hörer eingesandt haben. Wie kann die Bundeswehr hier das eine oder andere besser machen? Wir würden gerne auch von all jenen hören, die dafür in den entsprechenden Stellen Verantwortung tragen! Abschließend wie immer der “Sicherheitshinweis”, der kurze Fingerzeig auf aktuelle, sicherheitspolitisch einschlägige Themen und Entwicklungen - diesmal mit JCPOA, aber bei Wish bestellt, der Frage nach der Rolle des Datenschutz beim Aufbau der Reserve, Drohnentests in der Ostsee sowie Italiens Plan, einen nuklear angetriebenen Flugzeugträger zu bauen. KI: 00:02:40 Personal: 00:42:02 Fazit: 01:08:42 Sicherheitshinweise: 01:11:11 Mail: mail@sicherheitspod.de Web: https://sicherheitspod.de/ Shop: https://sicherheitshalbershop.myspreadshop.de/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/sicherheitspod Bitte beachten! Neues Spendenkonto: Sicherheitshalber Podcast IBAN DE81 1001 8000 0995 7654 77 FNOMDEB2 Finom Komplette Shownotes unter: https://sicherheitspod.de/2025/06/10/folge-96-spinnennetz-oder-was-ki-militaerisch-kann-bundeswehr-und-personal-wunsch-vs-wirklichkeit/

Eric and Eliot discuss this week's jackassery (Joni Ernst's dismissive attitude towards Medicaid cuts, Trump's obsessive posting on Truth Social and his disconnection from reality) before moving into a discussion of the Ukrainian drone attack on Russian Long-Range Aviation and the degree to which it represents an inflexion point in military affairs. How much will future wars in different parts of the world look like what we witnessed this past weekend? How will autonomy and AI combine to change the character of war? They also discuss the situation in Gaza, the difficulty of discerning a political objective in Israeli military operations, Israeli policy in Syria which may be self-defeating and its potential impact on how Bibi responds to what may be a Trump Iran deal that looks an awful lot like President Obama's JCPOA. Eliot's Latest in The Atlantic: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/06/ghosts-haunt-strategy/683004/ Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia.

While the Trump administration was eager to jettison the Obama-era Iran nuclear deal in its first term, it now seems serious about negotiating another agreement in its second. And Iran, though wary of that seriousness and fearful of U.S. military action, appears willing to give negotiations a chance.   What are the prospects for success and the appetite for meaningful engagement with Iran? How would an agreement differ from the 2015 Iran nuclear deal? And if diplomacy fails, is American and Israeli military action against Iranian nuclear sites inevitable?  Join Aaron David Miller as he engages Suzanne Maloney, the vice president and director of the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, and Vali Nasr, the Majid Khadduri Professor of International Affairs and Middle East Studies at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, on these and other issues on the next Carnegie Connects. 

Conversations on Groong - May 27, 2025TopicsUS-Iran Nuclear TalksRussia and UkraineArmenia Azerbaijan TalksArmenian Elections in 2026GuestLevon ZourabianHostsHovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 439 | Recorded: May 23, 2025SHOW NOTES: https://podcasts.groong.org/439VIDEO: https://youtu.be/CSmca-IgTaESubscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

Iran Amidst Geopolitical TensionsTopicsUS-Iran Nuclear TalksPezeshkian Visit to BakuIran-Armenia RelationsAbraham Accords for the South CaucasusGuestEhsan Movahedian - TW/@ultra_ehsanHostsHovik Manucharyan - TW/@HovikYerevanAsbed Bedrossian - TW/@qubriqEpisode 437 | Recorded: May 16, 2025Subscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

“This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you,” said one attendee following a powerful live conversation at AJC Global Forum 2025. This exclusive episode of AJC's People of the Pod, presented by AJC's Women's Global Leadership Network, features a candid discussion on the critical impact of Jewish women leaders in global diplomacy and conflict resolution. Casey Kustin, AJC's Chief Impact and Operations Officer, joins former U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Mira Resnick and Dana Stroul, Research Director and Kassen Family Senior Fellow at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, to share how they've navigated the corridors of power, shaped international policy from the Middle East to Europe and beyond, and opened doors for the next generation of women in foreign affairs. ___ Resources– AJC Global Forum 2025 News and Video AJC Global Forum 2026 returns to Washington, D.C. Will you be in the room? Listen – AJC Podcasts: Most Recent Episodes: A United Front: U.S. Colleges and AJC Commit to Fighting Campus Antisemitism What is Pope Francis' Legacy with the Jewish People? Why TikTok is the Place to Talk about Antisemitism: With Holocaust Survivor Tova Friedman The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the PodFollow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Interview Transcript: Manya Brachear Pashman:  Live from AJC Global Forum 2025, welcome to People of the Pod. For audience members who are not in this room, you are listening to a show that was recorded in front of a live studio audience on April 29 at AJC Global Forum 2025 in New York. I'm your host, Manya Brachear Pashman. Thank you all for being here. In countries around the world, women are working more than ever before. But compared to men, they are not earning as much or being afforded an equal voice – at work, at home, or in the community. In no country in the world do women have an equal role. Let me repeat that. In no country in the world, do women have an equal role–when it comes to setting policy agendas, allocating resources, or leading companies.  With us today are three modern-day Miriams who have raised their voices and earned unprecedented roles that recognize the intellect and compassion they bring to international diplomacy. To my left is AJC Chief Impact and Operations Officer, Casey Kustin. Casey served as the staff director of the Middle East, North Africa, and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee on the House Foreign Affairs Committee for 10 years. She has worked on political campaigns at the state and national level, including on Jewish outreach for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Welcome, Casey.  To Casey's left is Dana Strohl. She is the Director of Research for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. She was the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East. In this role, she led the development of U.S. Department of Defense policy and strategy for Bahrain, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Iraq–I'm not done–Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Prior to that, she also served on Capitol Hill as the senior professional staff member for the Middle East on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Welcome, Dana. And last but not least, Mira Resnick. Mira was the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Israeli and Palestinian Affairs and Arabian Peninsula Affairs, in which she handled two crucial Middle East portfolios, usually helmed by two separate people. Previously, she oversaw the Department's Office of regional security and arms transfers, where she managed foreign arms sales and shepherded the Biden administration's military assistance to Ukraine and Israel after Russia's invasion and after the October 7 Hamas attacks. Like Casey, Mira has also served as a senior professional staff member with the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, focusing on the Middle East and North Africa. Thank you for being here, Mira.  Welcome to all of you, to People of the Pod.  I think it's safe to say, this panel right here, and all the knowledge and experience it represents could solve the Middle East conflict in one day, if given the chance. Casey, you served for a decade as staff director for the Middle East, North Africa and Global Counterterrorism Subcommittee. A decade, wow. You witnessed a lot of transition, but what were the constants when it came to regional cooperation and security needs?  Casey Kustin: What's the saying? The enemy of my enemy is my friend. And that's the world that we're all trying to build. So, you know, from an American perspective, which we all came from in our government work, it was trying to find those shared interests, and trying to cultivate, where we could, points of common interest. And even with the challenges of October 7 now, perhaps stalling some of those areas of progress, you still see that the Abraham Accords haven't fallen apart. You saw when Iran launched missiles at Israel. You saw other countries in the region come to, maybe they wouldn't say Israel's defense. It was their airspace defense. But you saw that still working. You see that still working now. And it's every day when we come to work at AJC, we're thinking about how to increase and strengthen Israel's place in the world. Manya Brachear Pashman:  So Mira, your role encompassed both Israel and the Gulf for the first time, right? Mira Resnick:   That was the first time at my level. Yes.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Okay, so whose idea was that, and did that put you or the US in a position to work for the good of the neighborhood, rather than just Israel, or just the Gulf States? Mira Resnick:   Yeah, this was an opportunity for the State Department to be able to see all of the different threads that were coming throughout the region. This is something that Dana did on a daily basis. This is something that our colleagues at the NSC did on a daily basis. The Secretary, of course, needs to be able to manage multiple threads at the same time. When I was overseeing arms sales, of course, I would have to consider Israel and the Gulf at the same time.  So this wasn't a new idea, that our interests can be aligned within one portfolio, but it was particularly important timing for the United States to be able to see and to talk to and to hear our Gulf partners and our Israeli partners at the same time within the same prism, to be able to truly understand what the trends were in the region at that particularly critical moment, post-October 7. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Dana, in your role as Assistant Deputy Secretary of Defense, you met with military leaders in the Middle East, around the world, and you were often the only woman at the table. What do women contribute to international conflict resolution that's missing when they're not given a seat at the table? Dana Strohl:   Well, let me start out by stating the obvious, which is that women make up 50% of the global population of the world. So if 50% of the world is missing from the negotiating table, from the peacemaking table, from conflict prevention mechanisms, then you're missing 50% of the critical voices. There's evidence, clear evidence, that when women are part of peace processes, when they are part of negotiations, the outcomes on the other side are 35% more sustainable. So we have evidence and data to back up the contention that women must be at the table if we are going to have sustainable outcomes.  When I think about the necessity, the imperative, of women being included, I think about the full range of conflict. So there's preventing it, managing it, and then transitioning to peace and political processes in a post-war or post-conflict situation. In every part of that, there's a critical role for women. As examples, I always think about, when you make policy, when you have a memo, when there's a statement that's really nice, in the big capital of some country, or in a fancy, beautiful palace somewhere in the Middle East or in Europe.  But peace only happens if it's implemented at a local level. Everyone in the world wants the same things. They want a better life for their kids. They want safety. They want access to basic services, school, health, clean water and some sort of future which requires jobs. Confidence you can turn the light on. You can drive your car on a road without potholes. Those are details that often are not included in the big sweeping statements of peace, usually between men, that require really significant compromises.  But peace gets implemented at a very local level. And at the local level, at the family level, at the community level, at the school level, it's women. So how those big things get implemented requires women to champion them, to advance them. And I will also just say, you know, generally we should aspire to prevent conflict from happening. There's data to suggest that in countries with higher levels of gender equality, they are less likely to descend into conflict in the first place.  Manya Brachear Pashman:   Can you recall a particularly consequential moment during your tenure, when you were at the table and it mattered? Dana Strohl:   So my view on this is that it was important for me to be at the table as a woman, just to make the point. That women can serve, just like men. Do the same job. And frankly, a lot of the times I felt like I was doing a better job. So what was really important to me, and I can also just say sitting up here with Mira and Casey, is that all of us have worked together now for more than a decade, at different stages of, getting married, thinking through having kids, getting pregnant, taking parental leave, and then transitioning back to work. And all of us have been able to manage our careers at the same time. That only happens in supportive communities, in ecosystems, and I don't just mean having a really supportive partner.  My friends up here know, I ask my mom for a lot of help. I do have a partner who really supported me, but it also means normalizing parenthood and being a woman, and having other obligations in the office space. I would make a point of talking about being a parent or talking about being a woman. To normalize that women can be there. And often there were women, really across the whole Middle East, there were always women in the room. They were just on the back wall, not at the table. And I could see them looking at me.  And so I thought it was really important to make the point that, one, a woman can be up here, but I don't have to be like the men at the table. I can actually talk about, well, I can't stay for an extra day because I have a kindergarten, you know, theater thing, and I have to run back and do that.  Or there were many times actually, I think Mira was Zooming for parent teacher conferences after we were having the official meeting. But I think it's important to actually say that, at the table, I'm going to leave now and go back to my hotel room because I'm making a parent teacher conference. Or, I have to be back by Friday because I'm taking a kid to a doctor's appointment.  So all the women that come after us can see that you can do both, and the men at the table can understand that women have a right to be here. Can do the jobs just as effectively and professionally as the men, and do this other absolutely critical thing. Manya Brachear Pashman:   But your point about, it requires a supportive network, a supportive work community. You told me a story before we got up here about just how supportive your colleagues were in the Department of Defense.  Dana Strohl:   I will give a shout out to Lloyd Austin, the Secretary of Defense. So one of the things you do in our positions is travel with the Secretary of State or the Secretary of Defense. And these are not the kind of things where they get on a plane and you land in whatever country. There's a tremendous amount of planning that goes into these. So on a particular trip, it was a four country trip, early in 2023. Secretary Austin was going to multiple countries. He had switched the day, not he, but his travel team, of his departure, which then caused us to switch the day of my son's birthday party. And then they switched the time of his departure from Andrews Air Force Base, and we could not change the birthday party.  So I called Secretary Austin's office and said, Listen, I want to be at my son's birthday party. So I've looked and it looks like I can take this commercial flight. So I won't be on the Secretary of Defense's plane, but I can largely land around the same time as you all and still do my job in the region. And to their credit, they said, okay, and then one of the things that you do in my position is you get on the airplane and you talk to the Secretary of Defense about the objectives and the goals and the meetings. So they said, Okay, we'll just change that to earlier. You can do it the day before we depart, so that he can hear from you. You're on the same page. You can make the birthday party. He can do the thing. So we were actually going to Jordan for the first stop. And it turns out, in his itinerary, the first thing we were doing when we landed in Jordan, was going to dinner with the King. And it was very unclear whether I was going to make it or not. And quite a high stakes negotiation.  But the bottom line is this, I finished the birthday party, had my mother come to the birthday party to help me clean up from the birthday party, changed my clothes, went to Dulles, got on the airplane, sort of took a nap, get off the airplane. And there is an entire delegation of people waiting for me as you exit the runway of the airplane, and they said, Well, you need to go to this bathroom right here and change your clothes.  I changed my clothes, put on my suit, ran a brush through my hair, get in a car, and they drove me to the King's palace, and I made the dinner with the king. It's an example of a team, and in particular Secretary Austin, who understood that for women to have the opportunities but also have other obligations, that there has to be an understanding and some flexibility, but we can do both, and it took understanding and accommodation from his team, but also a lot of people who are willing to work with me, to get me to the dinner. And I sat next to him, and it was a very, very good meal. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I find that so encouraging and empowering. Thank you so much. Casey, I want to turn to you. Mira and Dana worked under particular administrations. You worked with members of Congress from different parties. So how did the increasing polarization in politics affect your work, or did it? Casey Kustin:   It's funny, I was traveling last week for an AJC event, and I ended up at the same place with a member of Congress who was on my subcommittee, and I knew pretty well. And he looked at me and he said, the foreign affairs committee, as you know it, is no longer. And that was a really sad moment for me, because people always described our committee as the last bastion of bipartisanship. And the polarization that is seeping through every part of society is really impacting even the foreign policy space now. As you see our colleague, our Managing Director of [AJC] Europe, Simone Rodan[-Benzaquen], who many of you know, just wrote a piece this week talking about how, as Israel has become to the progressive, when Ukraine has become to the far right.  And I think about all the years I spent when Ted Deutch, our CEO, was the top Democrat on the Middle East subcommittee, and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), a great friend of AJC, was the chair of the subcommittee. And Ted and Ileana would travel around together. And when she was the chair, she always made a point of kind of joking like Ted's, my co chair, and we did so many pieces–with Mira's great support of legislation for the US, Israel relationship, for Syria, for Iran, that we worked on together, really together. Like at the table with my staff counterparts, trying to figure out, you know, what can your side swallow? What can your side swallow? And I hear from so many of our former colleagues that those conversations aren't really taking place anymore. And you know, the great thing about AJC is we are nonpartisan, and we try so hard to have both viewpoints at the table. But even that gets harder and harder. And Dana's story about the King of Jordan made me laugh, because I remember a very similar experience where I was on a congressional delegation and Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen, and I was six months pregnant at the time, and I wanted to go on the trip, and the doctor said I could go on the trip. And we were seated around the table having the meeting.  And I, as you won't be able to hear on the podcast, but you in this room know, look very young, despite my age. And you're self conscious about that. And I remember Ileana just being so caring and supportive of me the entire trip. And I wasn't even her staffer, and I remember she announced to the King of Jordan that I was six months pregnant, and you could kind of see him go, okay. That's very like, thank you. That's very nice. But even just having that moment of having the chairwoman on the other side of the aisle. That whole trip. I think I've told some AJC people another funny story of on that same trip, we met with the Greek Orthodox Patriarch in Jerusalem, and she pulled me up to him, and she said to the patriarch, will you bless her unborn child? Knowing I'm Jewish, she leaned over and said to me: Can't hurt. So I hope that we return to a place like that on Capitol Hill. I think there are really good staffers like us who want that to happen, but it is just as hard a space now in foreign policy as you see in other parts of politics. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, I want to ask you another policy related question. How did the Abraham Accords change the dynamics of your combined portfolio, and how could it shape the future? Mira Resnik:   My first, one of my first trips, certainly my first trip to the Middle East, when I was the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Security, overseeing security assistance and security cooperation, was to Dubai, as the State Department representative for the Dubai Airshow. And it is a huge event that showcases the world's technology. And I remember walking into the huge hangar, that every country that has a defense industry was showcasing their most important, their most important munitions, their most important aircraft. And I remember seeing the enormous Israeli pavilion when I was there. And I was staying at a hotel, and I get to the breakfast and they said, Would you like the kosher breakfast or the non-kosher breakfast. And I'm like, Am I in Israel?  And I was blown away by the very warm relationship–in the security space, in the humanitarian space. I agree with Casey that things have gotten a little tougher since October 7, and since the aftermath in Gaza. But what I would also point out is that April and October, during the time when when we witnessed Israel under cover, when we witnessed Iran's missiles and projectiles going toward Israel and going toward other regional airspace, our diplomats, our militaries, our intelligence officials, all had earlier warning because of the work of other Gulf governments, even those who have not joined the Abraham Accords. And that is a prime example of where this security cooperation really matters. It saves lives. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Casey, so much of what AJC does has to do with international diplomacy and maintaining that regional cooperation and security, and that sounds a lot like your previous role. So I'm really curious how much your job truly has changed since you came to AJC? Casey Kustin:   You're absolutely right. There are so many similarities in what we do at AJC and what we did in the government. And the core of that is really those relationships that you build with partners and interlocutors in other countries and other governments, and the foundation, over decades that AJC has laid. Particularly in the Middle East, thanks to 30 years of quiet travel to the region.  It struck me when I first came here, the access that AJC has is nearly the same that we had traveling as members of Congress. And the meetings and the quality and the level of meetings that AJC is afforded in these other countries.  Our missions, which many of you have been on, often feel like congressional delegation trips to me, and the conversations and the candor with which partners speak to AJC is almost the same that was afforded to members of Congress. And that has been comforting, in a way, as you said Manya, Because there feels like there's continuity in the work that we're doing, and it has made me realize that organizations, non-governmental organizations, advocacy organizations, play such a crucial role in supporting the work of a government, of your country's government. And in reinforcing the values and the interests that we as AJC want to communicate that very much dovetail, with hopefully any US administration.  I think that the role that an organization like ours, like AJC, can play in a particular moment, like we're in, where, as we've discussed, there's hyperpartisanship, and we hear a lot, Dana mentioned this. We hear a lot from foreign partners that the way our democracy works with a change in administration every four years is unsettling to some of them, because they don't know if a particular policy or agreement is going to continue the role that we can play, providing some of that continuity and providing a nonpartisan and thoughtful place to have conversations. Because they know that we have that kind of nuanced and thoughtful and nonpartisan insight. Manya Brachear Pashman:   I really appreciate your insights on the roles that you've played, and I think the audience has as well. But I want to pivot back to your role as women. Dana, I mentioned that you were often the only woman at the table. Would you discover that when you arrived at meetings and events? Dana Strohl:   In Washington, DC, and in particular, I'm very proud to have served in the Biden administration, where there were always women at the table. And I will also say that there was a network of women, and it was the same on the Hill. On the hill, there was actually a box of maternity clothes that was kept in then-Senate Leader Harry Reid's office.  And his National Security Advisor called me when she heard I was pregnant the first time, which was during the 2015 JCPOA negotiations on the Hill, which meant that I was super tired and doing all of those congressional hearings and briefings, but there was a network of women who were supporting each other and giving me clothes as I got bigger and bigger. And it continued into the Pentagon and the State Department, where there were always women and when we saw each other at the White House Situation Room or in the different meetings, there was always the quiet pull aside. How are you doing? How are your kids? Are you managing? What's the trade off on your day to day basis? Can I do anything to help you?  And in particular, after October 7, that network of people really kicked into high gear, and we were all checking in with each other. Because it was the most intense, most devastating time to work in the government and try to both support Israel and prevent World War III from breaking out across the Middle East. So that was DC. In the Middle East, I largely assumed that I was going to be the only woman at the table, and so I decided to just own it. There are some great pictures of me always in a pink jacket, but the point you know, was that I expected it, and there were always women, again, against the back walls. I made an effort whenever possible to make sure everyone at the table, regardless of your gender, had an opportunity to speak and participate, but I was also not just the only woman.  A lot of times, I was the co-chair with whatever partner it was in the Middle East, so I had a speaking role, and I felt was incumbent upon me to present a model of leadership and inclusivity in how we engage with our partners, spoke to our partners, listened to our partners concerns, and that that was part of the job. And only once, I remember it very clearly. We were at a dinner after a big meeting, and somebody looks at me, it's a meeting with all, y7all men, all men for a dinner. And they said, Is this what it's like for you all the time? And I said, Yes, it is. And you know, it took two and a half years for somebody to notice, so. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Mira, what have you experienced? And have you ever worried as a woman that you weren't being taken seriously? Mira Resnick:   I think that every woman in one of these jobs has imposter syndrome every so often, and walking into the room and owning it, fake it till you make it right. That's the solution. I will. I agree with Dana wholeheartedly that in Washington, I was really proud to walk into the room and never fear that I was the only woman. And I even remember traveling where another delegation was all women, and our delegation was all women, and how surprising that was, and then how disappointing, how surprising that was, but to take notice of the moment, because they don't happen very often.  I think that in Washington and throughout diplomacy, the goal is to pay it forward to other women. And I wasn't the last person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory, and I wasn't the first person to pump in the Ramallah Coca Cola factory. But that is, that was, like, my moment where I was like, Oh, this is a strange place to be a woman, right?  But I do find that women really bring holistic views into our policy making, and whether it's meeting with civil society, even if your job is strictly security cooperation to understand the human impacts of your security decisions, or making sure that you are nurturing your people, that you are a good leader of people.  I remember post-October 7, I was looking for some way that I could nurture in the personal life. And I see Nadine Binstock here, who goes to my shul, and Stephanie also. Stephanie Guiloff is also in the audience. She's my neighbor, and also goes to my shul. And after October 7, I took on the Kiddush Committee Coordinator at my shul. So that every week, no matter what I was experiencing at the office and no matter where I was in the world, our community would be a little bit more nurtured. And it was a way for me to like to give back to the community, and at the same time be able to continue to do the hard power work of security cooperation. Manya Brachear Pashman:   So Mira, Casey, Dana, thank you so much for joining us, sharing your modern-day Miriam experiences. I want to open it up for questions from the audience. Just raise your hand and someone will bring you a microphone. Audience Member: Hi, I'm Maddie Ingle. I'm a Leaders for Tomorrow alum. What is some advice that any of you have for young women like me in the advocacy space and in general. Casey Kustin:   First of all, thank you for taking the time to come to Global Forum and for joining LFT. You've already taken the first step to better arming yourself as an advocate. I think there is, I wish someone had said to me, probably before I met the two of them who did say it to me, that it was okay to take up space around the table. I remember sitting in secure facilities, getting classified briefings from ambassadors, male ambassadors who were 30 years my senior, and watching the two of you in particular i. Not be scared to challenge the back and forth when I as a probably still, you know, mid 20s, early 30s, did have fear of speaking up.  And I wish someone, when I was your age as a teenager, had, and obviously, I had supportive parents who told me I could do anything, but it's different. It's different than seeing it modeled by people who are in the same space as you, and who are maybe even just a couple years older than you. So I would just say to you not to ever be afraid to use your voice. This is a memory that has stuck with me for 15 years. I was in a meeting, sitting next to my congressman boss, with two men who were probably in their 60s, and a vote was called. And you never know on the Hill when a vote is going to be called. So it interrupts a meeting. And he had to go vote, and he said, Casey will finish the meeting with you. And they looked at him and said, Does she know what we're talking about?  Dana Strohl: We have all been there, Casey. Casey Kustin: We have all been there. So even if you're met with a response like that when you try to use your voice, don't let it deter you. Audience Member: Hi, guys. I'm Jenny. This has been my favorite session of the three days. Thank you guys. My mom is the first female, woman brakeman conductor on Amtrak. So you guys are just so empowering. As a long time Democrat, you guys talked about bipartisan issues. With how the Democratic Party is. I know you guys probably can't go fully into this. Do you have any inspiring words to give us hope when it feels very scary right now, as a Democrat, how divided our party is. Casey Kustin: I work for a nonpartisan organization now, so I'll let them handle that one. Dana Strohl:   I, so were we all on the Hill during the first Trump administration? And there was still bipartisanship. And what I'm looking for right now is the green shoots of our democracy. And I see them. There is thinking through what does it mean to be in this country, to be an American, to live in a democracy? What does democracy do? I think, first of all, it is healthy and okay for Americans to go through times of challenge and questioning. Is this working for us? And you know, the relationship between the government, whether it's legislative, judicial, executive and the people, and it's okay to challenge and question, and I think it's okay for there to be healthy debates inside both the Republican and the Democratic Party about what what this stands for, and what is in the best interest of our country.  And you can see both in polling data and in certain areas where there actually are members of Congress coming together on certain issues, like economic policy, what's in the best interest of our constituents and voters. That there is thinking through what is the right balance between the different branches of our government.  I was talking to somebody the other day who was reminding me this actual, you know, we are, we are in a time of significant transition and debate in our society about the future of our country and the future role of the government and the relationship. But it's not the first time, and it won't be the last. And I found to be that part of my job was to make sure I understood the diversity of voices and views about what the role of the government should be, general views about American foreign policy, which was our job, was just such a humble reminder of democracy and the importance of this back and forth. Audience Member:  [My name is Allie.] My question for you is, what are your hopes and dreams for generation alpha, who will be able to vote in the next election?  Casey Kustin:   I think we all have, all our kids are still in elementary, or Mira, your one is going into middle school now– Mira Resnik: To middle school. Casey Kustin:   So the vast majority of our children are still elementary school age. And for me, I have a very interesting experience of moving my family out of a very diverse community in Washington, DC to Jacksonville, Florida. And it's a very different environment than I thought that my children were going to grow up in, because at the time, we didn't anticipate leaving DC anytime soon, and it's made me realize that I want them to live in a world where no matter what community They are growing up in, they are experiencing a world that gives them different perspectives on life, and I think it's very easy now that I have gone from a city environment to suburbia to live in a bubble, and I just, I hope that every child in this next generation doesn't have to wait until they're adults to learn these kinds of really important lessons. Dana Strohl:   I have two additional things to add. I'm very concerned at what the polling suggests, the apathy of young people toward voting, the power of voting, why it matters. And participation, that you need to be an active citizen in your governments. And you can't just vote every four years in the presidential election, there's actually a ton of voting, including, like the county boards of education, you got to vote all the way up and down you continuously. And that it's okay to have respectful debate, discourse, disagreements in a democracy. So I would like this generation to learn how to have respectful discourse and debate, to believe that their votes matter and just vote. And three, on the YouTube thing, which is terrifying to me, so I'm hoping the educators help me with this is, how to teach our kids to separate the disinformation, the misinformation, and the fiction that they are getting because of YouTube and online. So mine are all elementary schoolers, and I have lost positive control of the information they absorb.  And now I'm trying to teach them well, you know, that's not real. And do I cut off certain things? How do I engage them? How do I use books and when? So they need to not just be active participants in their society, all up and down the ballot, multiple times every year, but they need to know how to inform themselves. Manya Brachear Pashman:   And Mira? Mira Resnick:   I do hope that our children, as they approach voting age, that they see the value in cooperation with each other, that they see the value of face to face conversation. I think that honestly, this is the value of Shabbat in my household. That you take a break from the screens and you have a face to face conversation. My children understand how to have conversations with adults now. Which is, I think, a critical life skill, and that they will use those life skills toward the betterment of their communities, and more broadly, our Jewish community, and more broadly than that, our global community. Manya Brachear Pashman:   Thank you so much. Thank you to everyone.

Friday Focus provides listeners with a focused, half-hour masterclass on the big issues, events and trends driving the news and current events. The show features Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and bestselling author, in conversation with Rudyard Griffiths, Chair and moderator of the Munk Debates. Rudyard and Janice open today's show with their key takeaway from the Canadian election: Mark Carney's functional minority was delivered to him by the Boomers who want to protect their assets and wealth accumulation, often at the expense of the younger generation who are faced with poor job prospects and an inflated housing market. Governments need to address these conflicting demographic interests and provide a pathway to financial security for our young people. In the second half of the show Rudyard and Janice turn to the ongoing nuclear negotiations between the US and Iran. The new agreement being discussed is very similar to Obama's JCPOA, a deal that Trump backed out of in his first term in office. Why does Trump want to pursue a deal with Iran at the expense of the security of their close ally Israel? How are the Saudis influencing Trump's foreign policy in the Middle East? And will Israel be forced to go against Trump and strike Iran's nuclear facilities on their own? To support the Friday Focus podcast consider becoming a donor to the Munk Debates for as little as $25 annually, or $.50 per episode. Canadian donors receive a charitable tax receipt. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue. More information at www.munkdebates.com.

Eliot and Eric welcome Edward Fishman, Senior Research Fellow at the Center on Global Energy Policy and Adjunct Professor of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University's SIPA program and author of Chokepoints: American Power in The Age of Economic Warfare (New York: Portfolio/Penguin, 2025). They discuss the American tradition of reaching for economic sanctions as an alternative to kinetic military action or war and how U.S. policymakers have weaponized the role of the dollar in international finance to U.S. advantage as well as export controls like the Foreign Direct Product rule that weaponize U.S. cutting edge technologies. They discuss how these tools, if used inappropriately, can backfire as they arguably did in the early 1800s with the Non-Intercourse Act and the Embargo under Jefferson and Madison as well as the scrap metal and oil embargoes against Imperial Japan in 1940-1941. They consider the record of economic warfare in bringing Iran to the table for the negotiations on the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), as a deterrent to Russian military action against Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 and then as tools of attrition against the Russian war effort, as well as in the ongoing strategic competition with China. Finally, they consider whether we should see sanctions and economic warfare as limited tools that can achieve limited goals as opposed to fundamentally changing the behavior of America's authoritarian adversaries. Shield of the Republic is a Bulwark podcast co-sponsored by the Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia. Chokepoints: American Power in the Age of Economic Warfare: https://a.co/d/fFkgUq7

Au menu de l'actualité :

Today, Martha, Les, Morgan, and Matt break down the major explosion at Iran's Shahid Rajaee port—a key hub for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that plays a crucial role in supplying proxies and moving sanctionable goods. With at least 40 dead, and early reports linking missile propellant sourced from China to the blast, the incident raises urgent questions about Iran's illicit networks, foreign support, and the growing ties between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing.Will this explosion reshape Iran's ability to supply its proxies? What are the geopolitical implications? As Iran remains weakened, is now the moment for a more aggressive approach to dismantle its nuclear ambitions, or will Trump return to a JCPOA-style deal?Check out the answers to these questions and more in this episode of Fault Lines.Check out these sources which helped shape our Fellows' conversation: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx251yyvwr3o https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/27/russia-sends-help-to-iran-after-deadly-port-explosionhttps://www.jpost.com/middle-east/iran-news/article-851637https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/26/world/middleeast/us-iran-nuclear-talks.htmlFollow our experts on Twitter: @marthamillerdc@lestermunson@morganlroach@WMattHaydenLike what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to follow @masonnatsec on Twitter!We are also on YouTube, and watch today's episode here: https://youtu.be/mau4aw6M94c Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, Christina Ruffini and former MI6 Chief Sir Richard Dearlove unpack the proposed Iran nuclear deal discussed in Rome, following Trump's exit from the JCPOA. They also reflect on Pope Francis's recent death and the Catholic Church's ties to intelligence agencies. Later, Rep. Tim Burchett joins to weigh in on the strategic importance of U.S.-Greenland trade, his views on Putin, and U.S. aid to Ukraine. Episode produced by Situation Room Studios. Original music composed and produced by Leo Sidran.

Unul dintre dosarele deschise de președintele Donald Trump odată cu revenirea sa la Casa Albă este cel cu privire la programul nuclear al Iranului. Sîmbătă va avea loc în Oman a treia întîlnire dintre SUA și Iran pentru negocieri pe această temă. În 2015 a fost încheiat un acord nuclear internaţional între Iran, pe de-o parte, şi SUA, Rusia, China, Marea Britanie, Franța și Germania pe de altă parte (JCPOA). Acordul prevedea suspendarea unor sancțiuni în schimbul renunțării Teheranului la programul său nuclear. În 2018, în timpul primului său mandat, preşedintele Donald Trump a retras Statele Unite din acest acord şi a reintrodus sancţiuni pentru Iran. Care au fost consecinţele retragerii Statelor Unite din acordul nuclear cu Iranul? Cu ce se prezintă acum la negocieri fiecare parte, la ce nu sînt dispuşi să renunţe pe de-o parte americanii, pe de altă parte iranienii? Cum priveşte Israelul apropierea diplomatică dintre SUA şi Iran? Care sînt şansele să vedem un acord între SUA şi Iran? Am întrebat-o pe Ioana Constantin-Bercean, expertă în Orientul Mijlociu, cercetătoare la Institutul de Științe Politice și Relații Internaționale Ion I. C. Brătianu al Academiei Române (ISPRI).De ce a retras Donald Trump Statele Unite din acordul cu Iranul în 2018?Ioana Constantin-Bercean: „Cred că a fost o greşeală strategică a administraţiei Trump, pentru că acel acord controla programul nuclear al Iranului. Republica Islamică Iran, ca stat semnatar al Tratatului de Neproliferare Nucleară, la fel ca România şi toate cele peste 150 de state semnatare ale acestui NPT, au dreptul să-şi dezvolte programe nucleare civile. Singurele state care au legal voie să dezvolte program nuclear militar sînt acelea din grupul P5 (SUA, Rusia, China, Marea Britanie, Franța). Iranul era limitat, prin acel JCPOA, să îmbogăţească uraniu pînă la 3,67%, spre deosebire de toate celelalte state semnatare ale Tratatului de Neproliferare, care pot îmbogăţi uraniu în scop civil pînă la 20%. Acest acord se întindea pe o perioadă de 15 ani. A fost cel mai complex şi mai strict acord de control al programului nuclear semnat vreodată. Dar Donald Trump, pe de-o parte a spus că doreşte să pună pe masă un acord mai bun şi a explicat atunci de ce, în viziunea domniei sale, acel acord – semnat în timpul administraţiei Obama – nu este bun. Şi putem privi şi din perspectiva aceasta, că dorea să facă lucrurile mai bine decît Barack Obama, care primise Premiul Nobel pentru viziunea lui de neproliferare nucleară şi de remodelare pacifistă a Orientului Mijlociu. Dar, pe de altă parte, dacă ne uităm în urmă, în prima administraţie Trump erau foarte mulţi diplomaţi şi oameni politici foarte porniţi împotriva Iranului şi care îşi doreau foarte mult un război cu Iranul, din diverse motive. Influenţat probabil de ce se îtîmpla în jurul lui, influenţat de lobby-ul israelian, nu trebuie să ne ferim să spunem asta, Donald Trump a decis să retragă unilateral SUA din acord, în mai 2018, promiţînd că va pune pe masă un acord mai bun. Dar nu cîştigat un al doilea mandat şi nu a reuşit să facă acest lucru în termenul promis de domnia sa.”Cum se uită acum Israelul la aceste apropieri dintre SUA şi Iran?Ioana Constantin-Bercean: „Este una dintre cele mai bune şi necesare întrebări. Pentru că ştim că Israelul şi, în principal premierul Benjamin Netanyahu, s-a opus de la început semnării unui acord nuclear între SUA şi Iran. Dar să ne amintim de a doua vizită a premierului Netanyahu la Washington, acum două săptămîni şi de discuţia din Biroul Oval cu presa. Atunci a spus ceva foarte important, ceva ce nu a mai declarat niciodată public: a spus că în ceea ce priveşte Iranul este de acord cu o soluţie diplomatică, după modelul libian.”Apasă PLAY pentru a asculta interviul integral!O emisiune de Adela Greceanu şi Matei Martin  Un produs Radio România Cultural  

Ngày 12/04/2025 vừa qua, tức hơn hai tháng kể từ khi Donald Trump trở lại nắm quyền, Iran và Mỹ quyết định nối lại đàm phán để tìm cách đạt được thỏa thuận về một loạt các vấn đề đang khiến căng thẳng song phương có thể biến thành chiến tranh, trong đó căn bản nhất là chương trình hạt nhân quân sự của Iran. Vì sao Mỹ và Iran nhanh chóng nối lại đàm phán ? Đây là lần đầu tiên Mỹ và Iran khởi sự đàm phán kể từ năm 2018, tức là từ khi nước Mỹ - trong nhiệm kỳ Donald Trump đầu tiên - đơn phương rút hỏi Hiệp định về hạt nhân Iran, gọi tắt là JCPOA, ký kết năm 2015 giữa Iran và sáu cường quốc (Mỹ, Anh, Pháp, Đức, Trung Quốc và Nga), với nội dung chủ yếu là dỡ bỏ các trừng phạt quốc tế đổi lấy việc Iran ngừng chương trình phát triển hạt nhân quân sự.Đàm phán vừa được mở lại thông qua trung gian của quốc gia vùng Trung Cận Đông Oman, do Mỹ và Iran đã cắt đứt quan hệ ngoại giao từ 45 năm nay sau cuộc cách mạng Hồi Giáo. Quan điểm của lãnh tụ tối cao Iran là bác bỏ việc đàm phán trực tiếp với Mỹ.Chương trình tên lửa đạn đạo, hay chính sách của Iran đối với các lực lượng vũ trang thân Teheran trong khu vực, mà Mỹ và Israel lo ngại được Iran sử dụng để chống lại các lợi ích của mình tại khu vực, có thể là nội dung của các thương thuyết mà Mỹ muốn gây sức ép để buộc Iran phải có các nhân nhượng. Tuy nhiên, chương trình vũ khí hạt nhân của Iran được coi là điểm then chốt. Trong một phát biểu trên The Wall Street Journal, tổng thống Donald Trump nhấn mạnh « lằn ranh đỏ » của Washington là Iran không được « quân sự hóa năng lực hạt nhân ». Về phần mình, Ali Shamkhani, một cố vấn của thủ lĩnh tối cao Iran, giáo chủ Ali Khamenei, khẳng định : Iran tham gia đàm phán không nhằm mục tiêu « xây dựng hình ảnh », mà hy vọng đạt được « một thỏa thuận nghiêm túc và công bằng ».Trump có thể đã rút được bài học thất bại của nhiệm kỳ đầuTrong một cuộc trả lời phỏng vấn RFI vào thời điểm Iran và Mỹ mở lại đàm phán, ông Thierry Coville, nhà nghiên cứu tại Viện Quan hệ quốc tế và Chiến lược IRIS (Institut des Relations internationales et stratégiques), tác giả cuốn « Iran, une puissance en mouvement » (Nxb Eyrolles), nhận định có thể chính bài học được rút ra từ thất bại trong nhiệm kỳ đầu tiên, khi đơn phương rút khỏi thỏa thuận đã khiến tổng thống Trump nhanh chóng nối lại đàm phán với Iran :« Có thể giả định rằng, mặc dù Trump không thể nói ra nhưng ông đã nhận ra mình đã phạm một sai lầm lớn khi rút khỏi thỏa thuận vào tháng 5/2018. Có lẽ ông đã quá tin tưởng vào các cố vấn như John Bolton hay cựu ngoại trưởng Mike Pompeo, người có lập trường chống Iran rất cực đoan. Chúng ta có thể thấy rõ rằng kể từ khi tái đắc cử, một mặt đe dọa sẽ có hành động quân sự chống Iran, hoặc ban hành các lệnh trừng phạt mới, Trump vẫn liên tục nhắc lại ý muốn đàm phán một thỏa thuận mới với Iran. Vì vậy, tôi nghĩ rằng Trump có thể hiểu về thất bại này, vì Iran đã rút khỏi thỏa thuận và chưa bao giờ tiến gần đến năng lực sản xuất vũ khí nguyên tử như vậy. Rõ ràng là ông đã rút ra bài học từ nhiệm kỳ đầu tiên. »Tình hình khẩn cấp: Lượng Uranium gấp « 41 lần » được phép Theo nhà nghiên cứu Thierry Coville, tình hình căng thẳng hiện tại liên quan đến việc Iran đang tiến gần ngưỡng có uranium được làm giàu đủ mức và đủ lượng để chế tạo vũ khí hạt nhân, trong lúc báo chí Mỹ nói đến việc Teheran có thể sản xuất được vũ khí hạt nhân trong ít tuần lễ, là một lý do chính khiến Mỹ phải ráo riết thúc đẩy đàm phán :  « Iran được cho là có đủ lượng uranium làm giàu để có khả năng chế tạo ít nhất bốn quả bom nguyên tử. Vậy nên, thực sự là mọi người đều lo lắng. Hơn nữa, thỏa thuận trước sẽ hết hạn vào tháng 10/2025. Vì vậy, Hoa Kỳ đã đặt ra hai tháng để đạt được một thỏa thuận mới, đảm bảo rằng Iran không tiến tới chế tạo bom nguyên tử. »Trên làn sóng RFI, ông David Rigoulet-Roze, chuyên gia về Trung Đông và Bán đảo Ả Rập, tổng biên tập tạp chí Orients Stratégiques, giải thích : Hiện tại không có gì ngăn cản Iran về mặt kỹ thuật trong mục tiêu chế tạo được vũ khí hạt nhân. Iran đang bước vào giai đoạn có thể tăng mức làm giàu uranium từ 60% đến 90%, tức từ mức có chuyển sang chế tạo bom nguyên tử là rất nhanh chóng.Iran chưa rút hẳn khỏi Thỏa thuận hạt nhân 2015, cho dù Mỹ đơn phương rút. Nhưng hành động của Washington đã ảnh hưởng lớn đến việc Thỏa thuận được Iran tuân thủ theo các điều khoản ban đầu. Theo một báo cáo mật của Cơ quan Năng lượng Nguyên tử Quốc tế (AIEA), được France 24 trích dẫn hồi cuối tháng 2/2025, lượng dự trữ Uranium được làm giàu ở mức 60% trong hiện tại gấp đến « 41 lần » mức Hiệp định 2015 cho phép.Tính đến ngày 8/2, Iran sở hữu tổng cộng 274,8 kg, so với 182,3 kg ba tháng trước đó. Tốc độ sản xuất uranium làm giàu cao ở mức 60%, tức gần với mức 90% cần thiết để chế tạo vũ khí hạt nhân, đã gia tăng ở Iran. Cơ quan Năng lượng Nguyên tử Quốc tế (AIEA) xem đây là tình hình « rất đáng lo ngại ». Thậm chí, theo Ali Vaez, chuyên gia về Iran tại nhóm International Crisis Group, « nếu lượng uranium mà Iran đang có đã được làm giàu đến mức 90%, thì quốc gia này có đủ khả năng chế tạo vũ khí hạt nhân với tốc độ một vũ khí trong một tháng ».Đầu tháng 12/2024 vừa qua, Teheran cảnh báo sẽ đưa vào sử dụng các máy ly tâm tiên tiến mới. Quyết định này ngay lập tức vấp đã phải sự phản đối mạnh mẽ của Hội đồng thống đốc Cơ quan Năng lượng Nguyên tử Quốc tế. Tuy nhiên, vào thời điểm loan truyền báo cáo mật của Cơ quan năng lượng Nguyên tử quốc tế, Teheran vẫn khăng khăng bác bỏ khả năng đàm phán với Mỹ.  Đe dọa từ Mỹ tăng vọt, dân chúng mệt mỏi : Nguy cơ sụp đổ Vì sao chính quyền Iran đã nhanh chóng đảo ngược quan điểm khăng khăng không chấp nhận đàm phán với Mỹ ? Nhà nghiên cứu Viện IRIS nhìn thấy ở đây những lo sợ của chế độ Hồi Giáo Iran trước các áp lực ngày càng lớn từ bên ngoài cùng tình trạng phẫn nộ của dân chúng trong nước :« Đúng là chỉ một vài tuần trước, lãnh đạo tối cao Iran còn nói : không được, không được ! Sẽ không khôn ngoan và không hợp lý khi đàm phán với Mỹ. Tuy nhiên, ông ta đã thay đổi quyết định. Và nếu ông thay đổi quyết định thì đó là vì thực sự có một cuộc khủng hoảng chính trị ở Iran, kể từ năm 2022. Có một vấn đề về tính hợp pháp của chính quyền Iran. Có những khó khăn về kinh tế, mà chúng ta không nên phóng đại, nhưng rõ ràng có lạm phát, hiện vẫn ở mức 30%, và trên hết là dân chúng đã mệt mỏi. Vì vậy, chế độ Iran lo sợ nếu có lệnh trừng phạt mới của Mỹ, thì chắc chắn sẽ có các phong trào phản đối trong dân chúng, và sau đó, thực sự là có đe dọa về một cuộc tấn công của Mỹ hoặc Israel. Những điều này thực sự ảnh hưởng đến việc Iran quyết định đàm phán. »Chế được vũ khí hạt nhân phải mất từ một đến ba nămTrên thực tế, khả năng Iran sản xuất được vũ khí hạt nhân không còn nằm trong lĩnh vực kỹ thuật, mà ở quyết định chính trị, theo nhiều chuyên gia. Trong một chương trình tọa đàm của RFI về chủ đề này, nhà nghiên cứu Clément Therme, giảng viên tại Đại học Paul Valéry ở Montpellier và Học viện Sciences Po Paris, chuyên gia về thế giới Iran, nhấn mạnh rõ đến sự khác biệt này :« Nếu lãnh tụ tối cao, giáo chủ Ali Khamenei, ra quyết định thì Cộng hòa Hồi giáo Iran sẽ phải mất từ ​​một đến ba năm để có được vũ khí hạt nhân có thể sử dụng được. Vì vậy, đây chưa phải là vấn đề cấp bách. Chúng ta cần phân biệt giữa năng lực thực sự sản xuất vũ khí để có thể sử dụng và khả năng có đủ số lượng uranium để về mặt lý thuyết có thể sản xuất được vũ khí. Về điểm thứ hai này, thời hạn là ngắn hơn nhiều. Tôi nghĩ là các phương tiện truyền thông nhầm lẫn giữa việc có được vũ khí hạt nhân với việc có đủ lượng uranium để chế tạo vũ khí hạt nhân. Hai chuyện không phải là một. Chính vì vậy vẫn còn có khả năng đàm phán và trong hiện tại, công cụ được ưu tiên để kiểm soát tham vọng hạt nhân của Iran là con đường ngoại giao. »Đường cùng mới phải chế vũ khí hạt nhân: Nội bộ chế độ cân nhắc lợi hại Iran có thể đạt được một thỏa hiệp về chương trình hạt nhân quân sự với Mỹ trong thời gian tới hay không ? Đối với nhiều chuyên gia, mấu chốt của vấn đề nằm ở chỗ các phe nhóm chủ chốt trong chế độ Hồi giáo Iran nhìn nhận ra sao về vấn đề này. Trả lời RFI, chuyên gia về thế giới Iran Clément Therme giải thích :« Câu hỏi đặt ra là phát triển chương trình hạt nhân quân sự có phục vụ cho lợi ích của nước Cộng hòa Hồi Giáo Iran hay không và quyết định này có thể đe dọa đến sự tồn vong của chế độ Cộng hòa Hồi Giáo Iran hay không? Tổng thống Pháp Jacques Chirac, trong một cuộc trả lời phỏng vấn nổi tiếng với tờ New York Times hồi 2006, từng nói rằng nếu Teheran tìm cách sở hữu vũ khí hạt nhân, Iran sẽ bị nguyền rủa. Như vậy, nhìn chung có thể thấy nếu Iran phát triển chương trình hạt nhân quân sự, chế độ Hồi Giáo sẽ sụp đổ. Có một cuộc tranh luận trong nội bộ chế độ Iran về việc có nên phát triển chương trình hạt nhân quân sự hay không. Cuộc tranh luận này dựa trên ý tưởng chính: nếu Israel và Mỹ tấn công vào các cơ sở hạt nhân dân sự của Iran, thì chế độ Hồi giáo có thể sẽ quyết định nhanh chóng phát triển vũ khí hạt nhân. Tôi nghĩ là hiện tại có một nhận thức chung: Cái giá mà Iran phải trả, nếu quyết định thúc đẩy chương trình hạt nhân quân sự, sẽ lớn hơn các lợi ích mà chế độ Hồi giáo Iran có thể thu được từ việc phát triển vũ khí hạt nhân, mà rõ ràng là một mối đe dọa tồn vong đối với chế độ. »

Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and host of The Iran Breakdown podcast, joins the show to discuss the Iranian nuclear program, where things stand with the Trump administration's pursuit of a deal, and the prospects of an Israeli attack. ▪️ Times      •      01:33 Introduction     •      02:04 Beginnings      •      04:25 A weapon is the purpose     •      07:31 Enrichment        •      12:32 JCPOA        •      16:54 “The worst deal…”      •      18:46 Can Iran reach the U.S.?         •      23:53 Dismantle the program      •      29:01 Splitscreen     •      34:09 Risky and futile        •      41:02 Pacing   Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find a transcript of today's episode on our School of War Substack

Editors' Picks:Rich: NR's webathonPhil: Ryan Mills's piece “North America's Auto Supply Chain Took Decades to Build. Trump's Tariffs Could Crush It”Ramesh: Vahaken Mouradian's magazine piece "American Becoming: The Making of a New U.S. Citizen"Dominic: Christian Schneider's piece “Universities Get Schooled on Federal Funding”Light Items:Rich: Going to MilwaukeePhil: Aaron JudgeRamesh: Books for Lent by Edward FeserDominic: Rest Is History club subscriptionSponsors:DonorsTrustFastGrowingTreesThis podcast was edited and produced by Sarah Colleen Schutte.

Today, Martha, Les, Andy, and Jess unpack the Trump administration's latest mixed signals on Iran. After U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff publicly suggested the U.S. might accept uranium enrichment at levels allowed under the JCPOA, the statement was quickly walked back—raising major questions about whether the administration has a coherent strategy for talks with Tehran.What is the Trump administration's actual position on Iran's nuclear program? Is Witkoff—despite his lack of diplomatic experience—shaping U.S. foreign policy by default? Can the U.S. pursue negotiations without clear parameters, or should it return to a maximum pressure campaign?Check out the answers to these questions and more in this episode of Fault Lines.Check out these sources which helped shape our Fellows' conversation: https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/u-s-softens-position-on-iranian-uranium-enrichment-5bf0953a https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/15/trump-envoy-steve-witkoff-demands-iran-eliminate-nuclear-programme https://www.ft.com/content/5fa3707d-7952-464f-a67c-37ddfc061ed5 Follow our experts on Twitter: @NotTVJessJones@lestermunson@marthamillerdc@AndyKeiserLike what we're doing here? Be sure to rate, review, and subscribe. And don't forget to follow @masonnatsec on Twitter!We are also on YouTube, and watch today's episode here: https://youtu.be/qqev_TnyGVk Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

[00:30] Trump Administration Supports JCPOA 2.0 (51 minutes) The Trump administration's proposed deal with Iran is eerily similar to Barack Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which allowed Iran to quietly pursue its nuclear goals. President Donald Trump and his team are big on dialogue, but dialogue will not solve the Iranian nuclear threat, neutralize Hamas, or convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to retreat from Ukraine. Though President Trump recognizes that Iran is “tapping us along” to get its own way, other leaders are beginning to view him as a geopolitical bloviator who talks big but doesn't follow through. [51:30] Feedback (4 minutes)

Is Israel Prepared to Act Alone Against Iran's Nuclear Threat?In this explosive follow-up, Dr. Bob welcomes back Brigadier General (Res.) Jacob Nagel — former Israeli National Security Advisor and close confidant to Prime Minister Netanyahu — to deliver a sobering warning: Iran is 6 to 18 months away from a nuclear weapon.Nagel lays out the facts:

Michael Doran, senior fellow and director of the Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East at Hudson Institute, joins the show to discuss “restraintism” as a factor in Trump's choices in the Middle East. ▪️ Times      •      01:46 Introduction     •      02:20 What is it?      •      05:01 Left, right, center      •      06:56 Syria '07        •      11:47 Iraq Study Group        •      17:21 Populist expression      •      27:34 Balance         •      30:20 Obama v Trump      •      34:56 Oscillation     •      42:16 Back to JCPOA?         •      45:49 Snapback      •      47:44 Syria '25     •      52:09 Iran and Turkey Follow along on Instagram, X @schoolofwarpod, and YouTube @SchoolofWarPodcast Find a transcript of today's episode on our School of War Substack

As new negotiations begin to tackle Iran's nuclear program, missile development, and support for terror proxies, tensions are escalating. Jason Isaacson, AJC Chief Policy and Political Affairs Officer, joins us to unpack the legacy of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and withdrawal in 2018, and Iran's dangerous stockpiling of uranium, getting them closer to nuclear weapons capabilities. With U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff leading talks and key UN sanctions expiring soon, the stakes are higher than ever. Don't miss Jason's insights on what the U.S. is demanding, the potential for successful diplomacy, and the global risks posed by Iran. ___ Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran Social media influencer Hen Mazzig on leaving Tunisia Chef Einat Admony on leaving Iran Playwright Oren Safdie on leaving Syria Cartoonist Carol Isaacs on leaving Iraq Novelist Andre Aciman on leaving Egypt People of the Pod:  Latest Episode: This Often Forgotten 1929 Massacre is Key to Understanding the Current Israel-Palestinian Conflict Higher Education in Turmoil: Balancing Academic Freedom and the Fight Against Antisemitism Held Hostage in Gaza: A Mother's Fight for Freedom and Justice Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.  

Upcoming Event Notice: Dan Senor will be delivering this year's “State of World Jewry Address” at the 92nd Street Y (92NY) on Tuesday May 13 at 7:30 pm: https://www.92ny.org/event/the-state-of-world-jewry-addressWatch Call me Back on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CallMeBackPodcastTo contact us, sign up for updates, and access transcripts, visit: https://arkmedia.org/Dan on X: https://x.com/dansenorDan on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dansenorArk Media on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/arkmediaorgIn response to escalating tensions with Iran, the US, over the past month, has been quietly — and not so quietly — ramping up its military presence in the region, signaling it's preparing for the possibility of direct confrontation with Iran. Six B-2 stealth bombers, capable of carrying bunker busting weapons, have been deployed to Diego Garcia, a remote base in the Indian Ocean that's well within striking distance of Iran. At the same time, while missile defense systems have been repositioned to guard against Iranian retaliation, the US Navy has extended the deployment of the Harry Truman carrier strike group and has sent in the USS Carl Vinson, adding serious firepower to the region.So, to many Israelis, it came as a surprise when President Trump, with Mr. Netanyahu sitting beside him, announced on Monday that the United States would engage in “direct” negotiations with Iran on Saturday, in a last-ditch effort to rein in the Islamic Republic's nuclear program. So we're looking at a very volatile situation, with military might being deployed on the one hand, and a diplomacy track underway on the other. How are Israeli decision-makers assessing the situation?With us today is Call me Back regular Nadav Eyal, senior analyst for Yediot Achronot, to help us unpack how we got here, and what Israelis expect to happen next.  CREDITS:ILAN BENATAR - Producer & EditorMARTIN HUERGO - Sound EditorYARDENA SCHWARTZ - Executive Editor, Ark MediaGABE SILVERSTEIN - ResearchYUVAL SEMO - Music Composer

Benyamin Poghosyan - US-Iran, Gyumri, Armenia MFA Blames Artsakh, Negotiations with AzerbaijanGroong Week in Review - April 6, 2025TopicsUS Iran EscalationAftermath of Gyumri and ParakarMFA blames Artsakh for Regional IsolationBullets and PeaceGuestBenyamin PoghosyanHostsHovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 426 | Recorded: April 8, 2025Subscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

Iran, US, Armenia, Fake Peace, Gyumri & Parakar Municipal ElectionsGroong Week in Review - March 30, 2025TopicsIran Rejects US Offer of Direct NegotiationsIran and Armenia TiesGyumri and Parakar Municipal ElectionsArtsakh Refugee Protests in ArmeniaGuestArthur Khachatryan, MP - Hayastan Dashinq/ARFHostsHovik ManucharyanAsbed BedrossianEpisode 425 | Recorded: March 31, 2025Subscribe and follow us everywhere you are: linktr.ee/groong

The original JCPOA agreement is set to expire on October 18, 2025, raising the question of whether it makes sense to restore the JCPOA as it was envisioned in 2015 or to draft a new nuclear agreement, with both the US and Iran signaling willingness to negotiate. Economic transformation in the Gulf requires stability and GCC countries have engaged with Iran, reducing support for aggressive US policies. Rebounding US inflation may also influence policy priorities. We forecast Iranian crude production to remain flat at 3.1 mbd in 2025, unchanged from 2024 levels.   Speaker: Natasha Kaneva, Head of Global Commodities Research   This podcast was recorded on 21 February 2025. This communication is provided for information purposes only. Institutional clients can view the related report at https://www.jpmm.com/research/content/GPS-4906782-0 or more information; please visit www.jpmm.com/research/disclosures for important disclosures. © 2025 JPMorgan Chase & Co. All rights reserved. This material or any portion hereof may not be reprinted, sold or redistributed without the written consent of J.P. Morgan. It is strictly prohibited to use or share without prior written consent from J.P. Morgan any research material received from J.P. Morgan or an authorized third-party (“J.P. Morgan Data”) in any third-party artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems or models when such J.P. Morgan Data is accessible by a third-party. It is permissible to use J.P. Morgan Data for internal business purposes only in an AI system or model that protects the confidentiality of J.P. Morgan Data so as to prevent any and all access to or use of such J.P. Morgan Data by any third-party.

You're Listening to Parallax Views https://parallaxviews.podbean.com/ Support the Show on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/parallaxviews On this edition of Parallax Views, Robbie Martin, filmmaker behind the documentary A Very Heavy Agenda about the history of neoconservatism & co-host with Abby Martin of Media Roots Radio, returns to discuss the 2024 election and its fallout with a particular focus on what Robbie perceives as the psyop-ing or cognitive infiltration of so-called alternative media. Robbie expresses his annoyance with the state of alternative media and what he sees as alt media figures who claim to be antiwar and against the mainstream, but are smuggling pro-war, hawkish views into the political arena while claiming to be against U.S. militarism and interventionism. We'll also delve into the parallels between this cognitive infiltration of alt media and the trajectory of the 9/11 Truth movement. Robbie and I also discuss the state of conspiracy culture, RFK Jr.'s leaked call with Trump before he suspended his campaign in the 2024 election, the paranoid climate in the post-Jeffrey Epstein moment, antisemitism in alt media, nationalist sentiments in alt media, Trump's foreign policy record in his first term (arming Saudi Arabia's war in Yemen, Ukraine and Russia, reneging on the JCPOA deal with Iran and assassinating Gen. Qassem Soleimani of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps., Latin America), the influence of Tucker Carlson, Trump's hawkish appointments (confirmed and unconfirmed at time of recording; Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio, Mike Waltz, et al.), antiwar Libertarians getting sucked into the right-wing's culture war, the mainstream media's turn on Joe Biden,

The Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), which the United States was a signatory to but abandoned under former President Trump, is unlikely to be revived. Barbara Slavin, a distinguished fellow at the Stimson Center and journalist with extensive experience reporting from Iran, underscores Iran's desperate need for sanctions relief. She argues that the JCPOA is an outdated framework, given President Biden's refusal to sign an executive order to bring the U.S. back into the deal, and that current twisted American foreign policy greenlights Israel's maniacal plans to target Iran.  

Mike Braun, Jennifer McCormick, Donald Rainwater Debate Last Night. Another union choosing not to endorse in the presidential election. Iran is going to be a nuclear power because of the JCPOA, not in spite of it. FEMA doesn't have the money to take care of Americans ravaged by Hurricane Helene? Because it went to illegal immigrants?  Caitlin Clark was not the unanimous Rookie of the Year. The WNBA continues to be ridiculous. Jennifer McCormick Is Not Serious And Does Not Connect With Regular Hoosiers See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Mike Braun, Jennifer McCormick, Donald Rainwater Debate Last Night. Another union choosing not to endorse in the presidential election. Iran is going to be a nuclear power because of the JCPOA, not in spite of it. FEMA doesn't have the money to take care of Americans ravaged by Hurricane Helene? Because it went to illegal immigrants? Caitlin Clark was not the unanimous Rookie of the Year. The WNBA continues to be ridiculous  Jennifer McCormick Is Not Serious And Does Not Connect With Regular Hoosiers.  Micah Mistake? Dems now love warhawk Liz Cheney. Japanese Dan bot for sale. FEMA cries poor. McCormick fighting White Christianalism. Dems believe that Cheney's endorsement moves momentum their way? Jobs numbers beat expectations, but will they revise down? Degenerate Rob Kendall makes his weekend picks  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Discussions about renewing or adopting something like the JCPOA to slow Iran's advance toward nuclear weapons should be tempered by the evidence. Justin Logan believes it's a dead letter. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Ambassador Thomas R. Nides, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider (D-IL) joined us for the conversation. AJC's chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East, was moderating the program. AJC hosted a similar program on the sidelines of the Republican National Convention last month in Milwaukee. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides Show Notes: Watch: Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Democratic National Convention Listen – People of the Pod: Is Centrism the Antidote to Political Polarization and Extremism? A Conversation with Yair Zivan Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Halie Soifer, Brad Schneider, Tom Nides: Manya Brachear Pashman: This week, on the sidelines of the Democratic National Convention, AJC hosted a program on Israel and the path to peace. Joining us for the conversation was Ambassador Tom Nides, former US ambassador to Israel, Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, and Illinois Congressman Brad Schneider. Moderating the program was AJC's chief policy officer Jason Isaacson, who is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for a New Middle East.  Just a reminder, AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization, and AJC neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. Jason Isaacson:   I really wanted to begin by citing some passages from the Democratic platform and some passages from the Republican platform relating to the Middle East. I'll just mention very briefly that the Republican platform's Middle East language is short and to the point. It says, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East. We will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of stability, peace, stability and prosperity.  And it also promises, very quickly, to restore peace in Europe and the Middle East. The Democratic platform is much more extensive. It's an 80 page document, a long section on the Middle East. But it says that the administration opposes settlement expansion and West Bank West Bank annexation. Also opposes the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement against Israel. But it's very clear that the administration believes a strong, secure and democratic Israel is vital to the interests of the United States.  It's also quite specific about the necessity of defeating Hamas. I want to start my questioning with Halie Soifer. The question that's been on the minds of political reporters and many of us in the community, Haley, as you very well know, over the last 10 months of the war in Gaza, and has taken on new meaning in light of the change at the top of the Democratic ticket.  How can a Democratic candidate for president in the current highly charged environment maintain the support of the party's pro Israel mainstream while also keeping or winning back the loyalty of the increasingly active pro Palestinian segment of its constituency. What have we heard from Vice President Harris, for whom you worked in the Senate, that suggests that she can balance these competing policy claims? Halie Soifer:   Well, thank you, Jason, thanks to everyone. I was told to project. And for those of you who are at the Global Forum, you know I know how to project, so I will try my best. But thanks for having me.  I did have the honor of working for then-Senator Harris, starting her first month in the Senate for two years as her national security advisor. And what I can tell you is, not only does she share the views of President Biden, we know that based on the past three and a half years, and their records standing with Israel in the lead up to and of course, in the aftermath of the horrific attacks of October 7.  Giving an unprecedented amount of military assistance to Israel, standing with Israel, not only in the aftermath of these attacks, but demanding the release of all of the hostages, and continuing to stand with Israel as it faces this threat from Iran, pre positioning military assets in the region, not once, but twice in the lead up to The attacks of April 13. But also, I can tell you from personal experience, her views on Israel didn't start from day one in the White House. I saw it from day one when she was in the Senate. She came to this role with over a decade of experience working on these issues. I traveled to Israel with her in November of 2017.  This is an issue that she feels deeply in terms of the importance of the US Israel relationship, Israel security, its right to self defense, and she is a staunch supporter of Israel. Have no doubt. I'm glad you started with the Democratic platform as well, because this also elaborates on what is the strongly pro Israel views of our party.  And make no mistake, it's not a coincidence that we have three pages detailing our support of Israel in our platform. It's pages 82-85 for those who would like to look it up. And it is no mistake that the Republican platform is empty platitudes. Two, two bullet points that barely say anything. Because this is an issue of which our party is deeply committed.  And it extends beyond Israel. It includes Israel's security in the Middle East and our platform, which has never been stronger. I testified before the platform committee. I was very happy to say this very strong pro Israel platform of 2020 not only should it not be diluted, it should be strengthened.  Because, of course, we have seen the horror of October 7, we should reflect the fact that we stand with Israel in this moment. We call for the release of the hostages, and of course, we unequivocally condemn Hamas.  All of that is reflected in this platform and more, including recognition of the horrific sexual violence that was perpetrated on that day, which the vice president herself has given voice to. So in terms of questioning how she can navigate this issue, she already has and she continues to stand with Israel.  I have no doubt that when she's elected in 78 days, with the strong support of the Jewish community, that she will continue to do so as President. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Haile. Brad, I'm going to turn to you. The Republican Party platform had no specific references to Iran, but the Democratic platform went on at length about the need both to halt the regime's progress toward nuclear weapons capability and to confront Iran's and its proxies, destabilizing activities across the region. The Democrats document also pointed to instances of the Trump administration's failure to respond to certain Iranian provocations. Unfortunately, the Democratic platform didn't mention the fact that Trump administration was responsible for taking out IRGC Quds Force Chief, General Soleimani.  Now talk about how you imagine a Harris administration confronting the Iranian threats differently from the Biden administration. We have seen over the last three years, Iran has continued to develop its nuclear weapons capability, although it's not yet passed that threshold apparently. Its proxies are on the march across the region. We haven't really been successful in confronting Iran. Do you see a Harris administration taking a different approach?  Brad Schneider   Great question. And before I start, let me just welcome everybody to Chicago, to our great city, and those from Chicago, can you raise your hand? And I'm also going to take the personal indulgence to say it's good to be home with Chicago AJC. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you, Brad. I should have said that. Brad Schneider   Look, Iran is the greatest threat to Israel, to the region, but also to the United States. Our interests here in the region, but also here at home, and so we need to stand up to Iran and understand Iran is a threat on many different aspects. It's not just their nuclear program. It is their support of the proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and more. It is their efforts to expand their reach, their influence across the region, and they do so not by building up states, but by tearing them down, creating instability across the region.  Their chant is not just Death to Israel, but Death to America. I have no doubt that the Harris-Walz administration will stay focused and understands the importance of first, ensuring that Iran never, ever gets a nuclear weapon. That has to be our number one priority. Because imagine where we would have been on April 13 if Iran had a nuclear weapon. Or this past couple of weeks, if Iran had a nuclear weapon.  The second thing I think you will see is the continuation of the policy. Reflecting on April 13, Iran launched 350 drones, rockets and missiles at Israel. It was Israel, the United States, and a arrangement or alliance of other nations that defeated that attack. That sent a very clear message that we will stand up to Iran, not leaving Israel to stand alone, or the United States and Israel standing without the support of allies, but allies throughout the region.  And just as important, if you look at who those allies are and what they believe in, they are countries, Arab countries, that are looking to the future. They're looking for a different dynamic in the Middle East. You mentioned that the Trump administration took out Soleimani. The Trump administration also laid the groundwork and helped establish the Abraham Accords. That is, I believe, the framework for the future that provides security and peace, not just to Israel, but to the other nations in the region.  And so what I believe the administration, that the Harris-Walz administration will focus on is isolating Iran, ensuring Iran can never have a nuclear weapon. Thwarting Iran's effort to expand its reach through proxies and failed states, but at the same time building up and working towards a path towards peace, security and prosperity for Israel and the region. I think that reflection of forward thinking, it's not just about Israel. It's about everything.  If you were watching last night, if you were there last night [Monday night], if you've been watching this campaign as it's unfolded. Now it'll be one month tomorrow. As it unfolds, what you're seeing is a view towards a different path that gives promise and hope to a better future that is absolutely dependent on the United States. United States leadership and US leadership on a global stage will empower and help us to ensure that Iran doesn't get that foothold on the global stage and doesn't have the ability to continue with threats to Israel in the region.  Jason Isaacson:   Well, let me stay on Iran for a second with you. Do you see a Harris administration try to return to the JCPOA? Brad Schneider  No. Jason Isaacson:   Or has that been totally discredited?  Brad Schneider   One thing you'll see is the Harris administration. I had a long conversation with Ilan Goldberg yesterday, the recognition that we are where we are now, we all would wish we were in a different place. 10 years ago, we were focused on getting to a place to move Iran back from the threshold of a nuclear weapon, and without relitigating the JCPOA, we moved Iran further away, a year away.  Now a year away is not eliminating Iran's capacity or capability to develop a nuclear weapon, but it is buying time. And what we should have done, I will relitigate this. We should have used that time to strengthen our position, our allies' position to improve our prospects of moving Iran further back. Instead, what happened was the Trump administration pulled out of the JCPOA and Iran marched forward, and where they are today is far closer to a nuclear weapon than they were 10 years ago. Where they are today are talking about days away from having enough nuclear enriched uranium, highly enriched uranium, to build not one, but multiple nuclear weapons. And they just announced that they're working on developing the triggering mechanism, the ability to convert that enriched uranium into a nuclear weapon. So the stakes are higher. The risks are higher. Iran is closer. We've got to start where we are today, and I think the new administration coming in will start at that point and look for ways to push back, to create space, and to use that space to buy time, to use that time to get us to a place where we have more security. But we can only go there if the administration is clear. Congress is clear. It's not a partisan issue. This has to be Democrats and Republicans saying we will never allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and all options are available to us to ensure that Iran does not achieve their goal. Jason Isaacson:   Brad, thank you. Ambassador Nides. We were talking earlier this morning about the Abraham Accords, and of course, Congressman Schneider just talked about that as well.  How do you see a Harris administration, building on the Abraham Accords, success, building on what the Biden administration has tried to do in normalizing relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel. Will that be a priority for the Harris administration? What would be the obstacles that it will face as it tries to move forward in that direction. Thomas Nides: Well, first of all, thank you for having me. And let me give a little bit of shout out to Ted Deutch. Who is– Ted, you can't leave. I see you walking back there. Because when they decided to recruit Ted Deutsch to leave the Congress to come do this, that was your biggest, happiest day. So thank you very much for your leadership.  Let me just say there were not many things I agreed about with the Trump administration, to be clear. And when my when I was being confirmed as ambassador, one of the very nice members on the Republican side asked me, Sir, it seems to be that the Biden administration won't even talk about the Abraham Accords, and they don't even call them the Abraham Accords, I remember seeing the Senate because I'm a bit of a smart aleck, and I said, Can I explain to you something? I love the Abraham Accords, okay? I love the Abraham Accords.  The Abraham Accords was, in my view, then and is today, a foundational event. And as much as I believe that the Trump administration has done all sorts of other things, the Abraham Accords, in my view, has strengthened the State of Israel. So I congratulate them for doing it and supporting it as we have. So we should all applaud that. And as we think about the future. Because listen, what has happened here. Even after October 7, the Bahrainians, the Moroccans and the Emiratis, they didn't abandon Israel. Quite the opposite. They've stuck with, most all of them kept their ambassadors in Israel. Most of them continue to have long involved conversations with the Prime Minister about the strength of Israel. And in fact, several months ago, when the Iranians were attacking Israel, those same countries were indirectly helping with the United States and with Israel to protect the State of Israel, not directly, but indirectly. A lot of information sharing.  So the foundation for the Abraham Accords should be the foundation for what comes next. And what comes next. Number one, we got to get a hostage deal. For any of you – I'm leaving here to go with the hostage families. I was in Israel a couple weeks and spoke at hostage square. For all of us, for any of us, we should sit and pray to get these hostages out. And for those of you who know some of the families, it breaks my heart. We've got to get a hostage deal. The time is now, okay?  And this President and this Vice President are committed to get these hostages free, so once we can get that deal done, and that means putting pressure on Netanyahu and putting pressure on Hamas. Make no mistake, this idea that this is all about Bibi. Listen, I've got my issues with Bibi on occasions, but it's not only convincing Bibi to do what needs to be done, it also is pressuring Hamas, through the proxies, to get them to do a deal.  Once there is a hostage deal, everything starts coming into place. And what does that mean? Ultimately, would have to have a plan to rebuild Gaza. Because this fight wasn't with the Palestinian people. This fight was with Hamas, and we've got to help rebuild Gaza with a new PA, with a new group of international parties, including the Saudis and Emiratis. That's a $15 or $20 billion operation to build, rebuild Gaza. Yes, we need a new PA leadership, a new what PA leadership looks like in the future. Needs to be talked about and then, and then we need to have a conversation about normalization with Saudi Arabia.  Make no mistake, it is the single most important thing that we can do, including keeping in control of Iran, is getting a normalization with Saudi Arabia. Because it's not just Saudi Arabia, it's the rest of the Muslim world, and it's in our grasp. We can get this done. Now obviously it's a little dreamy. And how do you get the 67 votes? We'll let the geniuses on the Hill, including the congressman, figure that out.  But I do believe there is an opportunity, because Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are completely committed to this. I will say one little note. Two years ago, when Joe Biden came for his 10th visit to Israel, I remember meeting him at the airport, and if you recall, it was the same it was middle of covid. It was the same time and where he decided to go to Saudi Arabia. And you remember Joe Biden during the campaign, said some fairly aggressive things about the Saudis during the Khashoggi thing and MBS.  But he was convinced by a lot of people, mostly his national security adviser and his vice president to go to Saudi Arabia. Why? Because it was good for the security of the State of Israel. He fundamentally believed that the Saudi normalization could be and should be the keys for the security of the State of Israel. So we've got to get these hostages out. We get a plan, and we need moving on a side, normalization as quickly as humanly possible. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in for my conversation with Yair Zivan, foreign policy advisor to Israel's opposition leader, Yair Lapid, about his new book of essays “The Center Must Hold.” In that book, authors argue for a return to centrist politics as an antidote to the extremism around the globe today.

Israel's right to self-defense and security, governance in Gaza, the Iranian regime and its network of terror, the Jewish state's relationship with Arab countries in the Gulf, and much more were among the topics of discussion at an AJC-convened panel discussion at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. Listen to an excerpt of the panel, moderated by AJC's Chief Policy Officer and the head of AJC's Center for a New Middle East, Jason Isaacson, along with policy experts Dr. Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg. *The views and opinions expressed by guests do not necessarily reflect the views or position of AJC. AJC is a nonpartisan, 501(c)3 nonprofit organization. AJC does not endorse or oppose political parties or candidates. Episode Lineup:  (0:40) Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, Rich Goldberg Show Notes: Watch: Israel and the Path to Peace - AJC at the Republican National Convention Listen – People of the Pod: Europe at the Ballot Box: Insights and Impact on Jewish Communities and Beyond Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts. Transcript of Panel with Jason Isaacson, Ken Weinstein, Kirsten Fontenrose, and Rich Goldberg: Manya Brachear Pashman:  America's political parties are kicking off the 2024 convention season, starting this week with the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee. AJC was on the sidelines of the RNC, with a live program titled Israel and the Path to Peace, moderated by AJC's chief policy officer, Jason Isaacson. Jason is also the head of AJC's recently launched Center for A New Middle East.  Joining Jason was Dr. Ken Weinstein, former longtime CEO of the Hudson Institute and the Walter P. Stern Distinguished Fellow at Hudson;  Kirsten Fontenrose, the President of Red Six Solutions and Senior Director of Gulf Affairs in the National Security Council under President Trump; and Rich Goldberg, Senior Adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and Director of Countering Iranian Weapons of Mass Destruction for the National Security Council, under President Trump.  Just a reminder: AJC is a 501(c)3 nonpartisan organization and neither supports nor opposes candidates for elective office. A similar program will be offered at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago later this summer. Now onto today's episode: an excerpt from AJC's convention program. Jason Isaacson:   Let me begin by reading to you a couple of passages from the Republican platform, which was adopted yesterday at the Republican National Convention. This is what it said about Israel. Quote, We will stand with Israel and seek peace in the Middle East, we will rebuild our alliance network in the region to ensure a future of peace, stability and prosperity. And then there was, as you may recall, for the Republican platform, his list of 20 promises. And it's described as 20 promises that we will accomplish very quickly when we win the White House and Republican majorities in the House and Senate.  And number eight, on that list of 20 promises is the following, quote: restore peace in Europe and in the Middle East. So let's drill down with our panelists on those two statements in January 2025. That's more than six months away. It may be that the Israel Hamas war will be won over by them, and perhaps whatever conflict is so close to boiling over between Israel and Hezbollah, that that might not any longer be the case, might have boiled over, might be a thing of the past.  But let's say for the sake of argument, that hostilities are in fact, continuing, and let's assume that the Republican Party is victorious this fall. What are you expecting the Trump administration to do to, quote restore peace in the Middle East and to accomplish that, quote, very quickly. And let me begin Kirsten, with you. Kirsten Fontenrose:   Great, thanks so much for having us. All of us like to nerd out about these kinds of topics all the time when we're just grateful that there are other people who are as interested. What I expect to see in America is a revived peace plan. So you all remember the deal of the century, the vision for peace, we will see that come back. If there's a second Trump administration. Not in isolation, it will be part of a larger context.  That will also include assurances about Israel security and governance for Gaza and the like. Why have we not seen this yet? Because no one's asked the Trump team. But that will come back and you will see that. There's an expectation, whether it's naive or not, which we'll see, that there will be a greater receptiveness among the Palestinian population for an economic plan that offers improvements in livelihood after this conflict.  If there is a marginalized Hamas, there'll be more movement in this space for reviving these kinds of ideas. So we will definitely see a revived peace plan, you won't see less attention on this issue, you'll see very top level attention on the issue. You're also going to see, I think gloves off with the Houthis in the Red Sea. The US military has been very careful to make sure that all of our strikes so far had been from a defensive perspective. But you will see, I believe, because the world has not criticized any of these strikes, I think you're gonna see more latitude there. More room for movement for preemptive striking, for instance, because the perception is that for the whole world, this shipping interception problem is just out of hand. So I think we'll see more latitude there. And we'll see gloves come off a bit there.  And then I think you're gonna see some tough talk, frankly, with Prime Minister Netanyahu. President Trump has watched the US be yanked around a bit by the current Israeli government.  And I think you're going to see less tolerance for that recognition that Israel is a sovereign country, but more of an attempt to say the US is the superpower here, and we will be leading the ideas from hence. If we're expected to play a role, we will be leading in that role. What you will see, however, will be interesting to watch as there is division among Trump advisors about a two state solution. So you'll see that be debated out. Jason Isaacson:   Thank you for that. Ken, let me ask you, restoring peace in the Middle East and Europe and doing it very quickly, you've had a very broad focus on a whole range of foreign policy issues at the Hudson Institute and before and since. Tell me how you see that playing out under a second Trump administration? Ken Weinstein:   I'd say first of all, I think President Trump came to the conclusion early on, in his first term, he came in remember, talking about the deal of the century with you know, this peace agreement, he was booed at the Republican Jewish Committees event when he was a candidate.  And he quickly came into office and understood he could not trust Mahmoud Abbas, because of the incitement to terror by the Palestinian Authority and the tensions that were given out, and the pay for slay efforts that the Palestinian Authority has. Whereby people who kill Jews, kill Americans, were getting Palestinian Authority pensions in prisons, for their families and the like.  And so, Trump quickly came to understand that the challenge in the peace process wasn't bringing Israel and the Palestinians together, it was that the peace process itself was misconstrued. The peace process was being used by Middle Eastern governments, in particular, the Iranians, but also the Palestinians as a means to put leverage on Israel, exercise leverage on Israel, by a bunch of people who wanted to see the end of Israel's existence. And Trump quickly reversed that equation.  He understood that the best way to move forward was to remove items from the table such as moving the embassy to Jerusalem, which didn't have any of the backlash that John Kerry and others predicted would happen. And he quickly understood the best way to move things forward was to put pressure on the Palestinians.  Trump's a real estate guy. And so he understands leverage, he understands how to put pressure forth, and how to deter. I think we're going to see much more of that moving forward. We're not going to have a vice president of the United States who's going to get up and say, the Israelis can't evacuate Rafah, it's going to lead to 10s of 1000s of deaths.  And here I actually disagree slightly, I think Trump will actually give the Israelis the latitude they need to finish the mission, which is to destroy Hamas, and eventually bring about a transformation in Gaza, with the assistance of the Saudis. Who were absolutely critical in de-radicalizing Gaza, they have done it successfully themselves, as has the UAE. And so I think we're going to look much more at a regional approach on these issues. Obviously, Iran is going to be, to borrow a term from Joe Biden, President Biden, in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, as they were before. You're gonna see massive sanctions again, we're gonna get them, we're gonna enforce those sanctions. And Rich can talk to this stuff far more deeply than I ever could.  And you're gonna have the Iranians on the run so that they don't feel that they can work with Hamas or work with Hezbollah, to do more damage to Israel. And already we're seeing a deterrent effect on the Northern Front. And also with regard to Hamas.  Because with regard to Hamas, we see that the fear of a Trump administration is leading to a greater willingness to negotiate with Israel. And on the northern front, I think it's less likely that the Israelis will take dramatic action before the US election, knowing that they will not be reined in by an administration that is somehow searching for a delusion of peace with Hezbollah and with Lebanon. Jason Isaacson:   What about peace in Europe? Is is that something that you see, that you can envision under a Trump administration? Ken Weinstein:   First, let me say something with regard to Europe and the Middle East. I think that the Trump administration, the Trump team has been infuriated by this notion of enforcing this ridiculous ICC policy with regard to Israel and those who threatened to arrest Netanyahu. I think you're going to see in places particularly, I can just think of the kinds of actions they'll take in Germany.  I think you can expect individual sanctions on the people who were behind Nord Stream as a sign to not dare mess with Netanyahu, period. And you'll see other actions like that. I know the Spanish ambassadors here with regard to Spain with that we will be taking numbers, as Nikki Haley did so effectively at the UN, and as the Biden team does not.  So with regard to Europe. Look, I think the situation with regard to Ukraine, as President Trump understands it, I think, Trump, you have to understand he comes to this. He's not a policy person. He thinks that policy people like the three of us, four us up here, we lack creativity, we have a sense the policy options run from the letter L or P to the letter Q or R. And in fact, for Trump, they run from A to Z. And so that meant fire and fury in Pyongyang, but it meant eventually potentially beachfront condominiums in North Korea and an economic vitality to North Korea, if it gave up its nuclear program. With regard to Iran, it was maximum pressure, but it was the new Iran deal that got rid of the nuclear program that got rid of the missile program that got rid of regional activities, and that internally reshaped Iran, and led to a new relationship with Iran, with not only the region but the rest of the world. And with China, it was massive tariffs on China, but a new trade deal in the phase one that was gonna get rid of intellectual property stuff, which was at the core of what President Trump saw correctly as the engine of the Chinese economy, and the engine of the China 2025 program. So I'd say with regard to Ukraine, the President is looking at options that will, as he himself has said, he would tell the, you know, the Ukrainians on day one, you've got to, you know, we've got to end the fighting, you would tell Putin, if you don't end the fighting, we're gonna arm the shit out of Ukraine, pardon my French, as he said something along those lines. And I think what we'll see at the end of the day, is a massive program to guarantee Ukrainian security, that is going to take massive security guarantees. But the Europeans are going to have to step up and step up in a very serious way. And we've seen since the announcement of the JD Vance nomination are ready to reaction in Europe, the Europeans, you know, have to understand they're not gonna be able to backchannel they're not going to be able to figure out some way out of this. They're gonna have to be big providers of security guarantees, we will do the same for the Ukrainians as well, but Europe has to take up a big portion of it. And Trump does not, he is not Joe Biden, he's not going to cut and run, as in Afghanistan, he doesn't want to be humiliated on the stage, he understands deterrence, he's going to send a very clear signal to the Russians, as he did to the Taliban. When they were talking about when they were negotiating with the Taliban, Trump was on a video call once with the Taliban leader, and said, I want to make this very clear, you're not to strike at any of our people. And if you do, and hit the button on Play, and he showed a video of I think, the Taliban leader's kid leaving their house to say we're watching you every moment, and we will take care of you. And  there'll be some kind of a version of that with regard to Putin, that's going to be very clear. He was very blunt with Putin behind closed doors, from the White House in particular. And I think there was a good reason why Putin didn't go into Ukraine during Trump's term. And so I think that there's going to be some kind of a square in the circle solution that's going to have to come together. And I've been telling European foreign and defense ministers for the last few months, think about this now, how to do it, how to implement it.  Jason Isaacson:   Ken, thank you so much. Rich, let me turn to you. We've been talking about Iran, and you are an expert on Iran. It happened for years. I didn't see a reference to Iran and the Republican platform. But of course, we know, former President Trump's record on Iran. And Ken has been talking about that. Should he return to the White House next January, what do you foresee on this front to return to maximum pressure, or something more kinetic? And what is your sense of our regional strategic partners priorities? Are our friends in the Gulf hoping for a decisive showdown with Iran? Or are they sufficiently risk averse that they prefer a less confrontational approach? What do you think? Rich Goldberg:   I think if you look at the top lines, right, and you compare the policy, the recipe, if you will, under the Trump administration: maximum pressure on Iran, maximum support for Israel gets you peace, gets you deterrence. And when you flip the narrative and you go to maximum deference to Iran and pressure on Israel, you get conflict in the Middle East. It's not disconnected from what Ken's just talking about in other regions of the world as well, whether in Europe, whether you're in the Indo-Pacific. This comes down to the ability to restore American deterrence. And then you have options. There are a lot of genies that are out of the bottle due to the last three and a half years. Iran today and its nuclear program is at the one yard line of nuclear weapons thresholds. They were not there four years ago. In fact, after the killing of Soleimani, in early 2020, the rest of the year the Iranians never escalated the nuclear program again. They waited until January of 2021. And that's when they started jumping to 20% high enriched uranium. And then they saw nothing's happening to us. So they went to 60% high enriched uranium. They started installing all the advanced centrifuges, they've advanced, so far accelerated to this incredible capacity to produce a dozen nuclear weapons in just a couple of months if they so chose. Plus Intel now coming in that the administration is trying to downplay work on weaponization. There's a lot of genies out of the bottle here that Donald Trump's going to have to try to put back into the bottle.  And that will not be easy. But the formula remains correct. Restore deterrence, have maximum pressure and isolation on the Iranian regime and provide support to your allies. Now, the Gulf Arabs, by the way, the Saudis, the Emiratis, they've made some strategic decisions due to the policies that they saw, sustained by Joe Biden. They've cut deals with the Iranians and sort of cut their own JCPOA. with Iran with the Houthis. I'm not sure they're going to be on board for what's coming next. And they need to make some preparations for the return of a Trump administration and hawkishness towards Tehran and understand that we also won't tolerate them hedging with the Chinese. Now, that comes from the fact that America is hedging on them.  And so there's going to be a lot of parts that have to come together like a puzzle, to try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again, actual restored turns and regain that peace through strength in the region. This is true in the Middle East. It's true in Europe, and it's true in the Indo Pacific. So what is deterrence? I think that's a major question. What is deterrence? Made up of two big things, capacity and will. Joe Biden and Donald Trump both have capacity. They were the commander in chief at some point of the most powerful military on Earth. Nobody doubts that you have capacity when you are the president of the United States. But our enemies do doubt the will. And they test the will early on.  Every single administration gets tested, whether it's China, whether it's Putin, whether it's Iran, they get tested. At some point, Donald Trump got tested by the Iranians and Soleimani is dead. And that changed a lot of things in the world. And over the course of time, the unpredictability, the some of the craziness of the media went hysterical over the red button with Kim Jong Un did get the attention of people like Vladimir Putin. The Taliban tested Joe Biden, and he failed the test. And Kabul fell. And then Ukraine was invaded. And then now in China, they're expanding and starting to harass and actually attack in some ways, the Philippines and Taiwan.  And what are we seeing? Nothing. So, the minute Donald Trump becomes president, when I hear Trump say, just my election is going to start bringing about a change on the Ukraine front, a change in the world. You might have laughed at that.  I think after Saturday, you're not laughing anymore. A picture that if you're Xi Jinping, the Ayatollah, Putin, Kim Jong Un, looking at that on your desk every day of Donald Trump with his fist in the air blood dripping, right after being shot, saying fight. You're not questioning will. And that will be, I think, the big game changer.  Now, they might still test it. And there's a Chinese proverb, which is, you have to kill the chicken to scare the monkey. And I think President Trump might have to kill a chicken. He'd have to pick the chicken wisely. I think it might be the Houthis. That makes no sense to me. There is a national interest, there's a strategic importance to it. And it will game change how you're trying to get the Gulf Arabs back on side, see that we are committed to the security in the Gulf in the broader Middle East, it will send a major signal to Tehran, and it'll be part of that pivot back to maximum pressure on Iran and maximum support for Israel.  Jason Isaacson:   Rich, thank you. But before I turn back to the Abraham Accords, let me ask you, what's your sense of the Saudi and UAE and Bahraini overtures to Iran? Are they just seeking some kind of stability, some kind of channel, but it doesn't have a whole lot of meaning, or what's your sense and how should the US respond? Rich? Rich Goldberg:   I think there is meaning to it. I think that Mohammed bin Salman, the Crown Prince in Saudi Arabia has changed his strategic calculus over the last three years. I think that there was a game changing moment for him when the Houthis were raining down missiles, next to a Formula One race he was hosting out in Jeddah. And you're talking about major investors, world leaders, important people all driving into a race course already there. And you're seeing a ballistic missile explode within your line of sight. And the United States does nothing.  And then Abu Dhabi comes under attack by the Houthis, and the United States does nothing. And they're saying, Wow, they're just at the table trying to give the Iranians whatever they can, they've taken the Houthis off the terror list. They're not defending us anymore. They've pulled the missile defense augmentation that Trump put in, in 2019-2020. And they're still trying to get this nuclear deal done.  What are we doing here? Why are we just waiting around for Godot? Why are we exposed? We should cut a deal here. And why if the United States can hedge on us, can't we hedge on them, and they start cozying up to the Chinese and doing things that we probably don't like very much I need to put an end to. So I think it's very real. These channels are real. They're in a hedge. I think it's taken a while for others that are far more suspicious of Iran, like Bahrain to get on board this strategy. But everybody sort of signed up to this. There's a normalization process with Assad that I think is partially connected to it as well. All of that's going to have to change. You have Donald Trump is back in office. And I don't know that they appreciate that very much. Jason Isaacson:   There's also a recollection of the Trump administration in this reaction or non reaction to this Iranian attack on Saudi Aramco facilities. So it's been a mixed bag. But But first, let me let me let me turn back to you. And we were talking about the Abraham accords before. That was a great foreign policy access success of the last months of the Trump administration, first of the UAE, then Bahrain and then with different terminology, but Morocco and Sudan. As you know, the Biden administration has been vigorously pursuing an effort to normalize Saudi relations with Israel, and objective that was also very much a part of the Trump administration's vision. What are your perspectives on the likelihood of that kind of a deal being closed in the last months of the current Biden administration, if they do move forward on such a deal with the Republicans getting the Senate joined with Democrats in the Senate to support such a deal before the election? Or perhaps in a lame duck session after the election?   Kirsten Fontenrose:   Well that's the big question. So I think if you have a deal that includes normalization with Israel, Saudi us still includes normalization with Israel, it has a shot of getting through, but the closer we get to the election, the smaller that shot gets, because the more Republicans Congress will want to hold out to grant that foreign policy when to potential Republican administration.  But if you have a deal that is being discussed now, as a Plan B, that is just a US-Saudi deal, without normalization. And this is because of the Israeli government's decision, perhaps not to grant that the Saudis are fully on board, you won't get it through, there's just not enough in it. For the US. There are lots of questions about why we'd be granting Saudi assistance with civilian nuclear technology. And a security guarantee, when we're not really getting much out of it. There's nothing in this deal in terms of concrete asks on the relationship with China. And we can really go quite far in blocking Chinese influence in the Gulf by just improving our own foreign military sales process. We don't need to grant security guarantees, the Israeli Saudi relationship is so close right now. It's normalization and everything but public statement and name and that public statement name is important for the follow on effects you have around the world globally and with other Muslim populations.  But in terms of their coordination, they're in a pretty good place. So we're not in some sort of crisis rush to make sure this happens in the next few months, unless you're the Biden team. And you're desperate for a foreign policy win, because your promises on other foreign policy fronts have not borne out.  So I think you will still see this continue, though we have doubled down on the Saudi discussion, if there is a second Trump administration. But you will not see this granting of a deal to Saudi Arabia, even though they are a phenomenal partner. And we are quite close, without more concrete asks that benefit U.S. goals as well. It's not the opinion that just having Saudi on side with nothing we've actually signed them up to, would they grant overflight rights, if things came down with Iran.  We need to make those more specific before we would do something that would require commitment of troops, large resources, equipment, perhaps to the detriment of other partners, we would be able to send those same troops and equipment. So I don't think we're going to see it in the last months of this administration. Manya Brachear Pashman: To hear the rest of the panel, head to the link in our show notes. Another reminder that AJC is a nonpartisan organization and will be at the DNC next month in Chicago. We hope to see some of you there.  Next week on People of the Pod, tune in for our sit down with two Jewish Olympians before they head to Paris for the Summer Olympic Games.

Following a shooting at a rally in Pennsylvania, Donald Trump's supporters have portrayed him as a so-called "threat to the US deep state". But in reality, Trump was a warmonger as president, and appointed top CIA officials and neoconservatives to run his foreign policy. Ben Norton reviews Trump's support for Israel and Ukraine and his aggressive policies against China, Russia, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba. VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wwm4OiYY5M Topics 0:00 (Clips) Trump on Syria, Venezuela, Ukraine 0:32 US politics & bipartisan war crimes 3:29 Alleged assassination attempt against Trump 7:13 Trump's warmongering foreign policy: a summary 11:35 Israel - Palestine 16:56 Trump proposed bombing Russia & China 17:27 Russiagate 18:01 Trump tore up 2 arms treaties with Russia 18:55 Ukraine 20:33 (Clip) Trump boasts of arming Ukraine 20:56 Trump vs Obama on Ukraine weapons 23:02 NATO 24:24 "We're at war with China" 26:24 Trade war & new cold war on China 28:44 Democrats vs Republicans on Russia & China 29:48 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) 30:44 Assassination of Qasem Soleimani 31:20 Trump's war on Iraq 32:48 US hypocrisy on "political violence" 34:31 Syria 35:00 (Clip) Trump brags of taking Syria's oil 35:27 Afghanistan war & minerals 37:06 Trump wanted to take oil from Libya & Iraq too 38:15 Yemen 39:24 Trump plans to attack Mexico 41:06 Bolivia coup 41:54 Elon Musk & Bolivia's lithium 43:24 Venezuela 44:06 (Clip) Trump on "taking over" Venezuela 44:18 Venezuela coup attempt 46:00 Nicaragua coup attempt 46:37 Elliott Abrams 47:53 Cuba blockade & sanctions 50:09 Tax cuts for the rich 51:54 Billionaires for fellow billionaire Trump 53:16 Outro

From June 17, 2019: It's getting ugly in the Persian Gulf: Iran allegedly attacks two oil tankers. It announces that it's going to violate the JCPOA, the so-called Iran nuclear agreement. There's talk of military strikes. Europe is edgy, and the Secretary of State is on Sunday talk shows being edgier still.Benjamin Wittes sat down with Suzanne Maloney and Scott R. Anderson to talk it all through. They talked about whether the AUMF covers Iran, why Iran is doing this stuff, whether the Trump administration brought this all on itself, and where it's all going from here.To receive ad-free podcasts, become a Lawfare Material Supporter at www.patreon.com/lawfare. You can also support Lawfare by making a one-time donation at https://givebutter.com/c/trumptrials.Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/lawfare. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

- US representative Thomas Massie is being targeted by the #Zionists. (0:00) - Corruption in US Congress, focusing on #AIPAC and #Israel. (5:14) - Obama's Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) and its implications. (15:13) - Iran secretly possesses nuclear warheads. (21:49) - US aircraft carriers' vulnerability to Chinese hypersonic missiles. (38:11) - AI and drone technology rendering only military tech obsolete. (49:57) - Weapons sales to Israel and ongoing #genocide. (1:00:42) - Politics, economics, and decentralization. (1:12:22) - Trump, travel, and body armor. (1:17:09) - Potential return of Trump, gold standard, and currency corruption. (1:33:07) - Implementing change in government under President Trump. (1:39:00) - Political corruption and potential solutions. (1:41:53) - Selecting Trump's inner circle based on business acumen and loyalty. (1:50:50) For more updates, visit: http://www.brighteon.com/channel/hrreport NaturalNews videos would not be possible without you, as always we remain passionately dedicated to our mission of educating people all over the world on the subject of natural healing remedies and personal liberty (food freedom, medical freedom, the freedom of speech, etc.). Together, we're helping create a better world, with more honest food labeling, reduced chemical contamination, the avoidance of toxic heavy metals and vastly increased scientific transparency. ▶️ Every dollar you spend at the Health Ranger Store goes toward helping us achieve important science and content goals for humanity: https://www.healthrangerstore.com/ ▶️ Sign Up For Our Newsletter: https://www.naturalnews.com/Readerregistration.html ▶️ Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/hrreport ▶️ Join Our Social Network: https://brighteon.social/@HealthRanger ▶️ Check In Stock Products at: https://PrepWithMike.com

PREVIEW: #IRAN: Excerpt from a conversation with collague Cliff May of FDD re the state of the Biden Administration ambitiion to reignite the JCPOA from 2015 despite the Iran launched surrogate attacks on Israel by Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Ketaib Hezbollah and West Bank gangs -- and the powerlessness of the UN.  More details later of the Iran suspect nucear weapon program. 1965 North Yemen