← Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Did the Iran War Succeed? - with Tamir Hayman and Mark Dubowitz
00:44:02
Loading summary
Transcript11 lines
- [00:02]
A
As events accelerate in the Middle east, the team here at ARC Media is increasing our coverage. More conversations, more context, more time spent trying to help make sense of what's happening. And all with an expanding cast of podcast hosts, analysts and journalists. Our Inside CallMeBack subscribers help make this expanded coverage possible. It helps us be here when it matters most. If you're not yet an inside Call Me Back subscriber, this is an important time to join us. To subscribe, you can follow the link in our show notes or visit arc media.org and to our insiders, thank you.
- [01:56]
B
It's 7:30am on Sunday, June 7th here in New York City. It is 2:30pm on Sunday, June the 7th in Israel as Israelis closely follow the negotiations between the United States and Iran. As of this recording, U.S. iran negotiations appear to be stalled but not dead. The talks are still centered on an interim framework, what we've been calling a Hormuz for Hormuz deal. A 60 day memorandum of understanding, not a peace deal and not a nuclear deal. The Core Exchange. Iran reopens the Strait of Hormuz and clears mines. The US Lifts its blockade on Iranian ports, allowing Iran to sell oil again and the unfreezing of some billions of dollars in Iranian assets. Outside of this narrow interim deal, a comprehensive nuclear deal looks unlikely in the near term, as both sides have reasons to avoid a wider war. So this is a moment that we thought here on Call Me. It would be a good time to take stock. The 40 day war that began on February 28th of this year obliterated Iran's air defenses, sank its navy, and destroyed its intercontinental ballistic missile program. It also left the regime intact, minus many key figures, with a new supreme leader intact, Mujtabat Khamenei, a man who reportedly believed for years that his father's nuclear restraint was a fatal mistake. And it did produce a ceasefire before the nuclear program was addressed. The question, the question now dividing serious people who all wanted Iran's nuclear threat eliminated is given where we are, how do we assess what the war achieved and what it did not achieve? To work through that question, I'm joined today by two guests who've each dedicated much of their respective careers to thinking about the Iranian threat. Mark Dubowitz, a frequent guest on this podcast, is the CEO of the foundation for Defense of Democracies, and he's one of the most persistent hawks and astute analysts on the Iranian nuclear threat, which earned him the distinguished honor of being sanctioned by both Iran and Russia. Mark also has an excellent podcast that we'll link to in the show, notes on Iran and retired General Tamir Heimen, who was the head of Israeli military intelligence for four years just a few years ago. And he currently leads the Israel National Security Studies Institute, a leading national security think tank in Israel. Tamir has been a clear eyed and at times sobering voice on what the war has and hasn't accomplished. Mark is more optimistic about the war's trajectory. Tamir, as you can tell from this introduction, I would say is more skeptical. But both of them are clear that they want Iran's nuclear program gone and they are both focused on that at FDD and inss. MARK Tamir, thanks for being here. Tamir, I want to start with you. Just tell me where you think we stand now with the US Iran negotiations and you would say are the most likely outcomes based on what we know now. Mark anything to add to that? Okay, so we're going to have some kind of debate here, but I think it's important first for our listeners to understand that you don't only diverge, you also agree on a number of important topics. And I just want to tick those off first before I get to where it's divergent. So one, the tactical achievements are real and the military execution was impressive. Two, the nuclear program is the metric that matters most and it wasn't addressed, at least not holistically and totally. Three, the current ceasefire, so far as we understand it, benefits Iran more than it benefits the U.S. four, the Iranian negotiators are pretty sophisticated. Five, a deal that leaves Iran with enrichment capability is not acceptable. And six, the regime surviving is a serious strategic problem for the US and for Israel and I might say the Gulf states and the broader region. So I just want to ask you both, do you basically agree with my quick run through there?
- [09:17]
C
Sam.
- [10:00]
B
Okay, so we'll get into that. Now. Let's dive into where you diverge. And I want to start with you, Tamir, weighing the war's achievements against its costs, was the war justified from a strategic perspective? And can you just double click on the costs? Mark. Yeah, I think our listeners first heard the term from you, Mark, many months ago. So yes. So Tamir, in terms of what you see as the major problems, in your opinion, is there something, anything that President Trump and his team could do now to realistically fix or meaningfully address what you consider the failings? Stay with us. We'll be right back.
- [24:13]
C
Sam.
- [24:42]
B
I want to come back to something Tamir has said in other conversations, which is that hope I'm quoting you here, Tamir hope covered rational thinking, or hope overrode rational thinking, referring to war planners being overly optimistic, especially as it relates to the possibility of regime change. But some of those planners in Israel's intelligence, based on what we understand from public reports and various reporting and analysis that we've had on this podcast, would say that the plan wasn't executed upon referring to the arming of the Kurds, the plan to arm the Kurds, that that was something, as you've talked about, the Israelis were for and were ready to execute, and then the Pentagon kind of put a hold on it in response to pressure from Erdogan. If you were presented with that plan, assuming the Americans were 100% aligned, would you have recommended relying on the Kurds to help achieve the collapse of the regime? TAMIR We've discussed on this podcast, we had Ronen Bergman on a couple weeks ago about the whole potential role for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the former president of Iran, to play a role in some kind of regime change, regime collapse. And I remain skeptical that there was ever a plan for Ahmadinejad to, you know, by the US Or Israel or anyone to run Iran following the current regime leader leadership. But there may have been planning about him playing some kind of role. It's not entirely clear, and obviously the model people look at, analysts look at, is the Venezuela model and whether or not Ahmadinejad could play some kind of role in Iran's future the way actually that Delsey Rodriguez is. I know it's not a perfect comparison, the way Delsey Rodriguez is playing in Venezuela. What's your reaction to that, to kind of comparing the Venezuela experience to the Iran experience? Mark.
- [35:04]
C
Sam.
- [35:41]
B
Okay, let's talk about Mujtaba Khamenei, the new supreme leader, who you both agree is a dangerous figure, radical, but you come at it from different angles. Mark, what is the key point through which we should assess how dangerous the new Khamenei supreme leader is? Okay, I want to end this conversation with I know it's never this simple, but I do want to end the conversation with a yes or a no to the following question. Do you believe Iran is more dangerous today than it was on February 27th? I'll start with you, Tamir.
- [42:24]
C
Sam.
- [43:07]
B
All right, gentlemen, we will leave it there. Thank you for illuminating and spirited conversation, and I'm sure we'll be having both of you back, because this story and this war is, for better or for worse, not going anywhere. Thank you,
- [43:44]
C
Sam.