← Americast
Americast
Trump's Iran Gamble... What is the US president up to?
00:34:15
And will Trump's Republican MAGA base support his strikes on Iran?
Loading summary
Transcript54 lines
- [00:00]
Justin Webb
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.
- [00:06]
Sarah Smith
Are you really buying a car online on Autotrader right now? Really? I can get super specific with dealer listings and see cars based on my budget. You can really have it delivered or pick it up. Mommy's, I think kid is walking up the slide. Really?
- [00:18]
Justin Webb
Autotrader, buy your car online.
- [00:20]
Sarah Smith
Really? What they are ultimately trying to create is going to replace humans.
- [00:26]
Justin Webb
What it's doing is parboiling the inside of your brain.
- [00:30]
Podcast Narrator
This could be a turning point in a history of social media.
- [00:34]
Sarah Smith
Welcome to the Interface, the show that explores how tech is rewiring your week and your world.
- [00:40]
Podcast Narrator
Coming up next. In our latest episode, we look at the secret meetings at the world's biggest AI summit, the truth about the mystery of a brain melting weapon and the lawsuit that could shift the future of social Media. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [01:02]
Donald Trump
Our objective is to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime, a vicious group of very hard, terrible people. Its menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world.
- [01:25]
Sarah Smith
That was Donald Trump announcing that he has just launched a massive military campaign against Iran, without doubt the biggest gamble of his presidency. There's so much to unpack about this. Why has Donald Trump done it? Why has he done it now? What's it going to mean in the long term for America and for Iran? What does it mean for his MAGA supporters to whom he promised no more foreign wars? And what does it mean to American voters who, remember, are going to the polls in November? Welcome to AmericasT. AmericasT. AmericasT from BBC News.
- [02:00]
Donald Trump
You hear that sound? Oh, I think when I hear that sound, it reminds me of money.
- [02:05]
Justin Webb
Nicolas Maduro yeffed around and he found
- [02:08]
Sarah Smith
out this is a big cover up and this administration is engaged in it. This guy has Trump derangement syndrome.
- [02:14]
Donald Trump
I have four words for you. Turn the volume up.
- [02:24]
Justin Webb
Hello, it's Justin at home in South
- [02:26]
Sarah Smith
London and it's Sarah in the BBC's bureau in Washington.
- [02:29]
Justin Webb
And I should say it is quarter past six in the evening on Sunday. This is an emergency episode. The reason is pretty obvious that the United States is effectively at war with Iran alongside the Israelis. And we're going to concentrate on the US aspects of that because plainly and never mind what is going on in the Middle east itself, although that's obviously hugely important, it is also really, really important, isn't it, Sarah? Actually, for the future of the Trump presidency. You can put it as bluntly as
- [02:58]
Sarah Smith
that, yeah, this is probably the most consequential thing he's done, the biggest gamble he's taken since getting back into office. And the consequences, yeah, for him and his remaining time in the White House are very, very big. And obviously for America and for the Middle east as well, because this is a really large operation that the U.S. launched early Saturday morning in conjunction with Israel. They're calling it Operation Epic Fury, which may tell you something about how they're feeling about it. And so far, President Trump's been saying he thinks it's a tremendous success and that they are ahead of schedule. Iran has now confirmed that its supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was killed in an Israeli strike yesterday. And we've just had news today, Sunday, of the first American fatalities, three service members who've been killed and five wounded. And so far, Iranian officials are telling us that over a hundred, 150 people have been killed there, including some children.
- [03:55]
Justin Webb
And one of the fascinating early things that became obvious, isn't it, Sarah, is that he was sort of dialing all of this in from home. He's effectively working from home, working from Mar A Lago. And you have this weird fact that the president is doing this enormously consequential thing. And normally you'd think of the situation room of the White House and all the rest of it and all the kind of folderal about that and the photographs being taken and the grave faces and all the rest of it. Donald Trump is at home in Mar A Lago, which tells you something, doesn't it, about the Trump presidency and the way that they approach all of these things.
- [04:29]
Sarah Smith
Yeah, because he knew he was going to do this, which is why they have a specially constructed situation room down at Mar A Lago. And the White House actually posted some pictures of him in there monitoring the operation. And you can see him with Chief of Staff Susie Wellsit, the Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs raising Kane, as he loves to call him. But, you know, there was no rushing back to the the White House because he's taken the country to war or anything like that. He'd obviously planned to do it from Mar a Lago. We also saw a shot of the White House situation room with J.D. vance sitting in the, the number one chair with a couple of other Cabinet secretaries with him. But obviously the whole thing was being organized and monitored from Mar a Lago itself, which is remarkably casual, I think, for something as serious and monumentous as this. And to announce it. The only Thing he's actually said directly to the American people was in a video that he posted on his own social media channel at half past two in the morning on Saturday morning. That's how he told the American people that basically he'd taken their country to war. And he hasn't directly spoken to them either on video or in a TV address since then.
- [05:39]
Justin Webb
Yeah. And I mean, not only is the, the video extraordinary long and the only intervention, as it were, that he's made, but it's also worth saying that when he made it, he was wearing this white baseball cap with USA on the front. So the vibe, exactly as you were saying, Sarah, the vibe kind of casual. Just the absolute opposite. You think of those pictures of Barack Obama in the Situation Room when they were killing Osama bin Laden. You think of other kind of major, huge interventions that American presidents have made and the kind of official vision of it, the official production of it actually is not too strong a word to use. This is, I think we're saying, also produced, but produced to look very Trump like. Anyway, let's listen to a bit of what he actually said.
- [06:28]
Donald Trump
They've rejected every opportunity to renounce their nuclear ambitions and we can't take it anymore. Instead, they attempted to rebuild their nuclear program and to continue developing long range missiles that can now threaten our very good friends and allies in Europe. Our troops stationed overseas and could soon reach the American homeland. Just imagine how emboldened this regime would be if they ever had and actually were armed with nuclear weapons as a means to deliver their message. For these reasons, the United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. We are going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated. My administration has taken every possible step to minimize the risk to US Personnel in the region. Even so, and I do not make this statement lightly, the Iranian regime seeks to kill. The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost and we may have casualties. That often happens in war. But we're doing this not for now. We're doing this for the future. To the members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, the armed forces, and all of the police, I say tonight that you must lay down your weapons and have complete immunity or in the alternative, face certain death. So lay down your arms. You will be treated fairly with total immunity, or you will face certain death. Finally, to the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance. For generations, for many years, you have asked for America's help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let's see how you respond.
- [09:06]
Justin Webb
Can I just pick up on that last point he made, Sarah? No president was willing to do what we did tonight. I mean, that is actually true because it is also true, isn't it? And I remember this from back in the day when Obama actually, right at the beginning of the Obama administration, there were worries about Iran. There was an outreach to Iran. They gave me an interview with Obama because we told them that we were going to translate it for the BBC into Persian and run on the Persian service. And that's why we got the interview. I remember that that would have been in the middle of 2009, because there was this outreach and this fear that Iran was going to develop a nuclear weapon and it needed to be stopped. But at the same time as they were doing that outreach with us, it has become obvious since that they were also working out militarily how to strike Iran and to destroy its nuclear capabilities. So that goes all the way back to the Obama presidency. And obviously, not only did he not destroy their nuclear facilities, but he also, in the end, set up this deal that he thought would at least limit their ability to have nuclear weapons in the longer term future. And then it came up again, didn't it, in Trump, one with John Bolton, who's out and about now, rather pleased with what's going on. Interestingly, given how he's fallen out with Donald Trump, he wanted them to do it then and Trump didn't do it then. So this is not something that he's just suddenly turned to overnight. This is a set of plans that the American military felt that it had to have in place for some time.
- [10:41]
Sarah Smith
Yeah, because they've been watching the possible development of a nuclear weapon in Iran for a very long time. And there's been a twin track process of negotiations about trying to limit that, threats of military action. It's gone back and forward for decades. And it's worth saying, of course, when, for instance, Barack Obama was trying to negotiate this, Donald Trump was often saying that Obama should not attack Iran, not start a war there. There was one tweet he sent out in 2012 saying, don't let Obama play the Iran card in order to start a, in order to get elected. Be careful, Republicans. So things have obviously changed since then. But there was so much in that eight minute address that he posted on social media. I think we should go through it bit by bit. The first thing I think is that he did not give a convincing case as to why it was in America's interest to attack Iran. Now, what the imminent threat to the homeland was. He talked about a threat to U.S. troops and bases in the region and U.S. allies. Well, I don't think anybody believes Donald Trump goes to war to protect his allies, given the relationships he has with some of them at the moment. He's wanted to do this for a long time and he has certainly been saying for the last few weeks that if Iran didn't give him what he wanted in the negotiations, he would attack. But that's different from actually really laying out a comprehensive case to America about why it is worth risking the lives of their armed forces and putting blood and treasure on the line in Iran and what's in it for them. He just absolutely has not explained. I don't think he could have done it in the State of the Union address less than a week before he launched this attack. Didn't even mention it. Yeah. And hasn't even scheduled a television address yet to appear on TV and explain to voters why this was necessary.
- [12:29]
Justin Webb
Yeah. And here's where it gets really interesting, because you mentioned almost as an aside earlier, Sarah, and I think rightly as an aside, J.D. vance, the Vice president who's stuck there in the White House, and there were a couple of pictures of him, as you say, in the White House situation room. But oh my goodness, what is he thinking now, this guy who we know, and we know from the leaked messages a year or so ago weren't there over his disinclination to be involved in various actions against the Houthis in this area. He said leave it to the Europeans and it all got leaked out. He doesn't think much of this kind of thing. Thing generally that has always been his thing. I mean, I suppose if he were here and he's very welcome to come on the pod at any stage, of course, but if he were here, he'd probably say, well, I do believe in overwhelming force when you use American might, and I would approve of that kind of thing and the fact that we have gone in all guns blazing. But I've generally speaking, J.D. vance and that wing of the party, but particularly the vice president himself. And you think of the things that he said publicly and the things that you assume he says privately. And you do wonder what he makes of this.
- [13:40]
Sarah Smith
Yeah. And what he has been saying in the last couple of weeks is that there is no way the US Is going to get into an extended campaign in Iran. Donald Trump is not quite so clear on that. I mean, nobody is talking about putting boots on the ground, having troops entering Iran. This is not Iraq. But one of the things, of course, that will determine America's involvement is whether or not the Iranian people take Donald Trump up on his offer for them to overthrow their government. He said it in his speech there as though it was a simple thing. And of course, we know it's not, especially not after the incredibly brutal way in which protest and dissent was being crushed in Iran last month. He is basically saying he does want regime change in Iran, but he's not prepared to get involved on the ground and thinks that he can basically effect regime change from the air. As long as the Iranian people actually take it into their own hands to overthrow the government. That is a very big gamble, to put it mildly.
- [14:45]
Justin Webb
And also, what regime would he then be satisfied with?
- [14:49]
Sarah Smith
Because there isn't an opposition ready to go in Iran. There's not somewhere to turn with an obvious figurehead and people ready to take over and run the country. Country. And from what we saw in Venezuela, it's very possible that the instinct of the Trump administration would be to do that. Not to worry about the ideological nature of the person who you're putting in charge. Just make sure they're pliant. And as long as they'll do what the United States tells them to do, otherwise they know that a further and greater attack could come upon them, then I think they would be very, very happy with that. The first casualties have been announced today, Justin. The first fatalities. We haven't heard from Donald Trump since that was announced. Three service personnel killed. We don't know where, we don't know how. No other details about it yet. More unlikely to get them for another 24 hours or so. But that materially changes America's involvement and how it's going to be received here and how Trump's decisions will be looked on, don't you think? You know, unfortunately, there will probably be more fatalities, but even just these first three, that's, that's. It's now completely different from Venezuela or the attack on Iran last year where there were no American casualties.
- [16:03]
Justin Webb
Yeah. Which in itself was a stunning thing. I mean, you think of the complications involved in that incredible Venezuela operation where they went in in the dead of night, they closed off the electricity, the Special Forces went in, took out the people around Maduro, they actually snatched the man himself, they got him out. All of this done. Loads of aircraft in the skies, loads of things that could have gone wrong. And the odd thing that did go wrong, actually, but absolutely no one killed. And now with this operation, I mean, even huger in terms of the materiel being employed, and obviously there will be, not only have there been casualties, American casualties, but there will be more. And you assume, don't you, Sarah, that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when he was briefing the President what the options were, will have said, look, things can go wrong. I mean, we could have a ship that's hit, we could lose hundreds. And you do wonder how that then, how Trump then reacts to that and how the wider American public. We'll talk in a second about the Republican Party and indeed the Democrats, but just in general public opinion, it seems to me that when military operations are successful, and you look back to 2003, actually in the initial stages of it, everyone, broadly the American public, don't take a huge amount of interest in what's going on abroad, kind of thinking, oh, well, we're doing well, what the heck, it's a noble cause, etc. And I think with this as well, you can see it going very, very wrong if casualties start to mount, particularly U.S. casualties.
- [17:32]
Sarah Smith
Yeah, because Iran is treated completely differently from what it did, the attack on its nuclear facilities in June, where it almost didn't respond. It fired off a few rockets with some warning, in fact, and no Americans were killed as a result. And it appeared that they were being quite careful to make sure that was what was going to happen. They know now they're in an existential fight and they're going to fling absolutely everything that they've got. Now, Donald Trump thinks so far that this is successful not just because of the barrage of artillery that has been dropped on Iran, but because the Ayatollah Khamenei has been killed by an Israeli bomb, but pinpointed with American intelligence, quite a number, in fact, of the leadership have been killed. And Donald Trump's even been saying it's going to be difficult to restart negotiations with him because so many of the people they were talking to last week have now been killed. So he is viewing this as a success so far, but without knowing exactly where it's going to go or how it could expand.
- [18:33]
Justin Webb
And when it comes to what his end game is, that wasn't contained really, in that video, was it other than to say in sort of slightly vague terms, well, the Iranian people themselves are going to have to take this over. But what would be acceptable, I mean, given that there are certain key demands, I mean, the most obvious one being you mustn't have a nuclear weapon and you must hand over all the material that could lead to a nuclear weapon, all of it. Now, which of course they were talking about, weren't they, in Amman in the talks with the Iranians before the attack. But also there are other things they want Iran to do, aren't there? I mean, specifically to stop aiding and abetting militant groups in the area to get rid of their long range missiles, the missiles that can attack Israel and do attack Israel. So is the end game having a regime in Iran that agrees to all of that? I mean, I suppose you could assume that that's the end game, but I'm not sure he's actually quite said it.
- [19:34]
Sarah Smith
No. And in fact, let me just run you through the precise quote that he gave when he spoke on the phone to a reporter from Axios on Saturday. He said, I can go long and take over the whole thing, meaning Iran, or end it in two or three days and tell the Iranians, see you again in a few years if you start rebuilding, referencing their nuclear programs. In any case, it'll take them several years to recover from this attack. So, I mean, that frankly sounds like he hasn't made up his mind what the end game is, that he could go back to talks, see if they're prepared to give in to his demands. Now, that's what he's been suggesting on Sunday morning, or go long and take over the whole thing. So presumably that means, you know, finding your Delsey Rodriguez and essentially telling them how to run the country from Washington. So I don't think he knows what the end game is. I think he wanted to get rid of Ayatollah Khomeini. The briefing that we've been getting from senior administration officials about why now, because they've been asked a lot, you know, what was the tipping point, what was the imminent threat? They aren't trying to say that Iran was weeks away from a nuclear weapon. That's a very difficult case to argue, not least because of the damage that was done to their nuclear facilities by US B2 bombers in June. You know, Donald Trump said they had been obliterated, completely destroyed. He can't claim now that they were days or weeks away from a nuclear weapon. So they're concentrating on the conventional ballistic missiles. That you mentioned, Justin, those ones that are being fired into Israel as we speak, claiming that they posed a risk to American bases and troops in the region. And it just was no longer acceptable for Iran to have conventional long range ballistic missiles. But they have had them for years. I mean, it's a difficult case to make that something changed, meaning that those missiles had to be taken out.
- [21:24]
Justin Webb
Yeah. And when you say a difficult case to make. A difficult case to make. And here we come to the internal divisions in the Republican, the wider Republican movement. A difficult case to make to the MAGA movement who were told, we've said this so many times, but it's worth repeating, who were told during that long, exciting election campaign between Donald Trump initially and Joe Biden and then between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Donald Trump is for peace. He is the peace candidate in this election. And you heard it, didn't you? We both heard it on the ground from people who are intending to vote for Donald Trump. We are voting for him because he is going to bring peace to the world and he's certainly not going to involve the United States in the kind of wars that we've seen in recent years. So you have now in the MAGA movement, don't you, Sarah, quite significant voices saying you shouldn't be doing this.
- [22:13]
Sarah Smith
Yeah, absolutely, because they took him at his word. I remember, I think it was last May I went on that Middle east trip with Donald Trump when he visited several different countries. And we were in Qatar at the huge US Air base there, the Al Uddin Air base. He was speaking to all the troops and he said, I'm going to end conflicts, not start them. And now, you know, that air base is the one that will be targeted the most by Iran as he has chosen to begin this conflict. So, you know, the contradiction is very, very clearly there. And that is being pointed out to him by some of the people who have in the past been great, great supporters of his, like Marjorie Taylor Greene, who is now a former Republican congresswoman. But she is absolutely sticking to the message. She said on X, we said no more foreign wars, no more regime change. We said it on rally stage after rally stage, speech after speech. Trump, Vance basically promised, the entire administration campaigned on it, promised to put America first and make America great again. And she says there are 93 million people in Iran. Let them liberate themselves. She doesn't believe that Iran was on the verge of having a nuclear weapon and is basically saying that Donald Trump has been distracted from fixing things that Americans want fixed in their country. Like healthcare, insurance and the economy and is wasting his time on foreign affairs instead.
- [23:34]
Justin Webb
And then add to that, you've got Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson, who we profiled on the pod just a couple of episodes ago. Anthony and I talked about him and I talked to the guy who's just written a book about him. And really, interestingly, the thing that really struck me about what he told us about Tucker Carlson, this great right wing influencer, used to be a Fox News personality, of course, now has very much his own show online and really does pack a punch. Tucker Carlson, I thought, was not terribly involved in the Trump White House. And the guy we talked to, the author rather corrected me and said, you know, he, he does still have real impact on Donald Trump.
- [24:13]
Sarah Smith
He's there all the time.
- [24:14]
Justin Webb
Yeah, fascinating.
- [24:16]
Sarah Smith
I've seen him sit in the front row of various events. That has got nothing to do with him. But some of the cabinet secretaries will come in and there's Tucker Carlson with them, sitting there as though he is a part of the administration.
- [24:26]
Justin Webb
Yeah. So here he is now saying he absolutely condemns what's going on in Iran and you think, well, hold on a second. I mean, number one, he's obviously not getting his way. But number two, is that also leading to all sorts of rows behind the scenes that could destroy, stabilize the Trump administration? Or I suppose, number three, Trump is powerful enough, feels himself to be powerful enough to say to those in the party that MAGA conservative wing, essentially isolationist wing, no more wars wing, look, I've got to do this and you've just got to follow me because it's going to be a success and I'm going to do it and the broader American public will go with it, sort of in a way embracing his inner neocon, which perhaps is there, you know, maybe in the soul of every American president. You've got a lot of hardware and you quite like the idea of being able to use it. And I just wonder the extent to which he is able now, Sarah, to face down those people, particularly if this is a success in his terms or he can portray it in those terms, whether actually we maybe slightly exaggerate the impact of these people. Because there's another twist to it, isn't there, which is that quite a lot of them don't like Israel and are accused actually of not liking Jews. And there is this sort of added twist that some of it, that some of that sort of sense of wanting to be done with Israel and the heck, Israel can just look after itself is out of kilter then with the wider Republican movement and the wider feeling in America. But it's fascinating, isn't it? Because it is a big. It's a very big discussion they've got to have, both in public and private as well.
- [26:07]
Sarah Smith
Absolutely. And I mean, Trump has said in the past when faced with things like this, that he's acting in a way contrary to what he promised when he was campaigning. And people saying, where will MAGA go? He says, I am maga. He decides what MAGA is because he's the one who invented it. And basically, if he says it, it goes. But we'll discover whether or not that's true. And you said there, Justin, maybe he thinks he can get away with this if it's a success. Well, that's absolutely key, obviously. But when you go into a wider conflict like this in the Middle east, we know that you do control the outcome and you're not guaranteed of success. So I tell you who I thought put it very well was Blake Neff. He was a producer of the podcast that the right wing activist Charlie Kirk used to do before he was killed last year. And Mr. Neff said, if this war is a swift, easy, decisive victory, most of them MAGA supporters will get over it. If the war is anything else, there will be a lot of anger. The American people were not given a strong explanation as to why this was necessary. But success can override bad explanations. And I think that is absolutely true. And the gamble is that success is not guaranteed. I mean, it pretty much was with the bombing of the Iranian nuclear facilities in June. What happened in Venezuela in January was a stunning success, but not with the risk that is attached to this Iranian adventure. Nothing like it.
- [27:35]
Justin Webb
So if you come to elected politicians, and if we start with the Republicans, do they just sit on their hands? Have there been, I mean, there are one or two who will always follow Trump and are going to follow him. But is there a wider sense of unease that you've picked up?
- [27:50]
Sarah Smith
There's been a small touch of criticism from some people that you might label the usual suspects these days, like Republican Congressman Thomas Massie, who's critical of Donald Trump on quite a lot of issues and doesn't agree with his decision to go to war in Iran. Other than that, the leadership and people like Mike Johnson, speaker of the House of Representatives, have been quite in favor of this. Democrats are, well, unsurprisingly opposed to something that Donald Trump has done. But the case they're making, for instance, Virginia Senator Mark Warner, who sits on the Intelligence Committee, is that there was no imminent threat to the United States, that Donald Trump has not laid that out. And he's saying it's incumbent. The president comes before the American people and before Congress to make the case on why he's chosen to go to war. And you've heard that call from numerous Democrats who are saying that not only does the president need to set out why he's done this, he bypassed Congress in order to do it. He didn't get a vote authorizing this, and he's done it just before Congress was able to pass a piece of legislation that would have tied his hands. They've been trying to get the War Powers act on the books that would have forced the president to get a vote in Congress before taking military action. And instead, he just decided to do it all on his own.
- [29:10]
Justin Webb
It's a slightly difficult one for the Democrats, isn't it? Because, I mean, what you've just outlined is slightly technical, isn't it? And it was just when it comes to making kind of mass appeal to the American people, yes, we support this war, or no, we do not support the war. I think the question will be, well, hang on a second, what are you saying about it? Just, oh, well, you've got to come to Congress and talk to us a bit more about. It doesn't necessarily come convince people. And when you think back to, I mean, in a sense, one of the reasons why Barack Obama became president, we were both there when it was happening, Sarah. I mean, there were all sorts of reasons, but one of the key ones was that he had opposed the invasion of Iraq, the 2003 invasion, and he had actually opposed it and could say to other members of his party, and particularly Hillary Clinton, who'd gone along with it, I opposed it. And by then it had turned out to be a catastrophic mistake, almost everyone felt, and he gained a lot from it. So, you know, for a Democrat, now, you're having to make the decision, aren't you? Do you say, I think this is wrong, It's a disaster. It's a disaster in the making. It's a disaster for the American people. Do you have, in a sense, the guts to say that, given that it might not be wrong and it might work and you'll look pretty silly, or do you hedge your bets, as they seem to be doing, or do you go along with it, which is another option? Which, of course, they did quite a lot of them with the 2003 Iraq invasion and then hugely regretted it? I mean, it's a tricky one for them, isn't it?
- [30:32]
Sarah Smith
Yeah. Because they don't want to come out to be on the side of the Iranian regime. I mean, nobody is going to be particularly sad on the democratic side that Ayatollah Khomeini has been killed and is no longer in charge of that country. Because, I mean, two things can be true at once, but they don't make for good political slogans. It can be a very, very risky and unnecessary gamble to launch this war, but it can at the same time be good news that so many of the brutal, vicious ruling regime in Iran are no longer in charge of the country and that there is the potential that people might be able to overthrow their government. So, yeah, Democrats are hedging their bets a bit. And what I saw around town yesterday, and it's been happening in other American cities as well, I think kind of sums up some of that confusion. There were quite a lot of protests, anti war protesters out and about in Washington waving Iranian flags. And I didn't know what message they were trying to send and it was very confusing. Are they saying they are on the side of Iran in this conflict and that they don't want to see the regime being attacked? Were they saying they were on the side of the Iranian people who have been protesting earlier this year and that they want the government to be overthrown? And if they do want the government to be overthrown, why are they attacking the Americans decision to attack Iran? So, yeah, I mean, I think it's. There's a great deal of confusion among people at the moment about not only how to oppose this, but to what extent they do oppose this.
- [31:57]
Justin Webb
All of that summed up in the statement that Zoran Mandani, the mayor of New York issued. And we keep saying Zoran Mandani is kind of the new politics when it comes to the Democratic Party, never mind his actual politics, just the abilities, communication, ability. But he issues this statement and it starts saying, absolutely, clearly, I think it's illegal war and it shouldn't be happening and all the rest of it, and then ends up saying to those Iranian Americans in New York, you're safe here. And you're thinking, well, hang on a second. A lot of Iranian Americans in New York will be desperately keen that A, that this military action happens and B, that it is successful and they'll be delighted that Khamenei is dead, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And he doesn't quite manage to address that in his statement because of course, it does clash with those who just are opposed to any kind of American military action, who are very much part of his constituency. And that's the fundamental difficulty for them. Even those Democrats who we think of as being very plain spoken.
- [32:52]
Sarah Smith
Yeah. And a lot of this reminds me of the arguments. You too, Justin. I'm sure in 2003, when George W. Bush was preparing to go to war in Iraq, although the contrast is quite something. I mean, he did have a congressional vote about it. That's how we know for sure that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were on different sides of whether or not it was a good idea to go into that war. And he did spend a long time making the case for it and explaining why it was necessary. But we know it was not successful. It turned into a disaster. It was militarily successful in the beginning and for the first few days looked as though American forces were practically unopposed and that they were going to achieve their aims very quickly. It was when they stayed and occupied the country that it turned into such an unmitigated mess. Obviously, Donald Trump thinks that this is different because he has no intention of occupying the country, has no intention of invading the country. But that does mean he has a lot less control over what is going to happen in that country. And even he cannot possibly imagine that he can foresee exactly how this is going to go or be able to affect that outcome.
- [34:00]
Justin Webb
Okay, time for us to go. Send us your questions, your comments if you're listening this and you have questions and comments. But indeed, stay in touch with us. Who knows how many of these episodes, emergency and otherwise, we're going to be doing in the days and weeks ahead. For the time being though, Sarah, I think we've both got to go.
- [34:16]
Sarah Smith
Bye bye bye.
- [34:20]
Justin Webb
Thank you for listening to another episode. If you liked what you heard, why not subscribe to America, BBC Sounds, or indeed wherever you get your podcasts. That way you will be notified every time we publish a new episode. We also want to hear your thoughts, your feedback, questions, anecdotes, ideas. So do keep them coming in. We do look at every single bit of correspondence that we get so you can email us americastbc.co.uk the WhatsApp is 443-301-239480 and you can get involved in the AmericasT Discord server. The link for that is in the description and you can also Watch us on YouTube. You just search for Ameracast. Until next time. Bye bye.
- [35:21]
Sarah Smith
What they are ultimately trying to create is going to replace humans.
- [35:25]
Justin Webb
What it's doing is parboiling the inside of your brain.
- [35:29]
Podcast Narrator
This could be a turning point in the history of social media.
- [35:33]
Sarah Smith
Welcome to the Interface, the show that explores how tech is rewiring your week and your world.
- [35:39]
Podcast Narrator
Coming up next. In our latest episode, we look at the secret meetings at the world's biggest AI summit, the truth about the mysteries of a brain melting weapon, and the lawsuit that could shift the future of social Media. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your podcasts.