← Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
Call Me Back - with Dan Senor
What Happens If the U.S. Strikes Iran?- with Karim Sadjadpour and Nadav Eyal
00:45:32
Loading summary
Transcript55 lines
- [00:00]
A
Before we start a bit of housekeeping, we are in the process of growing ARC Media with some plans that we will be telling you about in the near future. But suffice to say, we think you'll be as excited about them as we are. The reason for this update, or what may seem like a tease, is that we are hiring. ARC Media is currently looking to fill a number of roles, including podcast producer, writer, and a senior community manager. So if you meet the requirements and are interested in being part of the future of ARC Media, or you know someone except who might be, you can find a link to our jobs portal in the description. You can also go to arkmedia.org and find our careers page, which we'll be updating with even more roles in the near future. So keep an eye out for it. Now, on to today's episode. You are listening to an art media podcast.
- [00:56]
B
You know, Khamenei is arguably the world's longest serving dictator. He's 86 years old. He became president in 1982, supreme leader in 1980. You don't become the world's longest serving dictator if you're a reckless gambler. He's someone who at the end of the day, he's homicidal, but he's not suicidal. And so if he senses that there's an existential moment for the regime, he's shown in the past that he's willing to back off. For that reason, I'm skeptical that if there is any type of intervention in Iran that they will retaliate in a way which is anything other than performative.
- [01:31]
C
You could assume, Dan, that Israel understands very clearly that the regime is threatening to react. Some people in the Israeli defense apparatus would want the regime to make a mistake because Israel has a series of assignments that it didn't finish or follow through during the June war. And we know what these are. There's the ballistic missile production. There's a lot of targets that Israel would want to hit within Iran that are crucial for the threats that it's trying to mount against Israel.
- [02:08]
A
Foreign. Here in New York city, it is 3pm on Wednesday, January 14 in Israel and it is 4:30pm on Wednesday, Jan. 14, in Tehran as Iranians continue in massive numbers to protest their government while being cut off, it seems, from the rest of the world. But the world has not been cut off from following events in Iran yesterday. Tuesday, President Trump urged Iranian protesters to continue demonstrating, saying, quote, help is on its way in comments that appeared to move away from negotiations with Tehran, as had been speculated about in a Social Media Post President Trump warned that those responsible for killing protesters would, quote, pay a big price after Iranian Authorities said about 2,000 people had been killed in the unrest, a figure Israeli intelligence said was likely significantly higher. A few hours earlier, the United States urged its own citizens that are in Iran to leave Iran immediately, advising those able to do so to consider overland departures to Turkey or Armenia, according to a notice from the US Virtual embassy in Tehran. In a press conference yesterday, Greenland's prime minister reaffirmed the territory's commitment to Denmark and NATO. This came as President Trump has renewed his interest in acquiring the Arctic island. Danish and Greenlandic foreign ministers are due to meet U.S. vice President J.D. vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Wednesday to seek a diplomatic resolution. Also on Tuesday, a Hamas delegation led by senior Hamas official Khalil al Haya arrived in Cairo for talks with Egyptian mediators on the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire. Hamas said the discussions would cover the reopening of the Rafah crossing, the establishment of an independent, technocratic administration in Gaza, and further Israeli troop withdrawals. Now, on to today's episode following the mass killing of protesters in Iran. Despite repeated US Warnings to Tehran, tensions across the Middle east have surged amid expectations that the Trump administration could take military action against Iran in the very near future. Israeli officials have said that a significant US Strike on Iran would likely prompt Ayatollah Khamenei to order retaliation against Israeli targets. To discuss the probability of a US Attack on Iran and what it would mean for the uprising inside Iran, what it would mean for Israel, what it would mean for the US I'm joined again by Karim Sajapour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, who previously worked for the International Crisis Group inside Iran, where he lived for a number of years, and by ARC Media contributor Nadav Ayala. But before our conversation, here's a word from our sponsor.
- [05:08]
D
Let me take you on a thought experiment. You're standing at the edge of a forest holding two seeds. One grows fast and bright, but within 10 years the soil is depleted. The other grows quietly, becoming the tree that will shelter and nourish generations to come. Which seed would you plant? Most of us would plant both if we could, but real life doesn't always make it that simple. And yet, somehow, Birthright Israel does both planting for today and for tomorrow, developing a generation of young Jews who feel joy in being Jewish, who host Shabbat dinners, who lead, who speak up, who build community wherever they go. Right now and far into the future, Birthright is now taking its boldest vision yet, bringing 200,000 young Jews to Israel over the next five years. But the forest doesn't grow without planters. If you believe in the future, if you want those trees to stand tall, support Birthright Israel today at onetripchangeseverything.com or click the link in the show notes.
- [06:14]
A
Karim Nadav, thanks for being here, guys.
- [06:16]
C
Thanks for inviting us.
- [06:17]
B
Thank you.
- [06:18]
A
Karim, just to get things started, how have events unfolded in Iran since we last spoke on Sunday?
- [06:24]
B
Well, the entire country continues to be under a blackout, den the regime has throttled the Internet, throttled satellite and cellular communications. It's over six days now that the entire country has had only 1% connectivity. Some people have access to Starlink terminals, but for the most part, they're living under a digital iron curtain. And the regime does this very deliberately so it can massacre people en masse in the dark. And just some perspective here, Dan. According to the government's own statistics, it's already killed 2,000 people in the last two weeks. Now, human rights observers, independent media outlets are estimating that figure could be at least five or tenfold over 10,000 casualties, some estimate higher. Now, in the entire year of the 1979 revolution, the estimates are that only around 500 people were killed in that revolution. The Shah killed 500 protesters in that revolution. So in the last two weeks, the Islamic Republic has killed perhaps five times as many protesters that the shah killed in the entire year of the 1979 Iranian Revolution.
- [07:36]
A
And we've seen over these past 24 hours, as I said in the introduction, an escalation in President Trump's rhetoric against the regime. Can you tell us about this escalation rhetoric and how you're seeing it being received and interpreted inside Iran?
- [07:50]
B
By my count, Dan, President Trump has now made eight threats against Iran that if they continue to kill protesters, there will be heavy consequences. Now, that was at least several thousand deaths ago that President Trump made those threats. At this point, then I think people inside Iran are demoralized. And it's not clear. First of all, they're not getting information from anywhere. So when they hear President Trump make these statements of solidarity, they may not be getting it. And given that he made these statements now two weeks ago, that there will be consequences to pay and there haven't been consequences. You know, I think people are unclear about what his intentions are. President Trump has also feigned interest in a potential deal with the Iranians. So at this point, I think many people who are involved in the protests are hoping for some kind of aid from The United States. And I would say, at a minimum, Dan, and perhaps Nadav can speak to this. There's been a lot of talk about whether the United States or Israel has the capacity, the technical capacity, to launch cyber operations that could help the country restore connectivity. You know, is there a way to go after the regime's jamming technology and inhibit this digital iron dome?
- [09:04]
A
Has the regime been using what some might argue it sounds like what you're observing is a disconnect between the threats from the administration or the promises of help to come, and then the actual visible US Help? Is the regime using that disconnect to say to the protest movement, you know, the United States says they've got your back, but they're not showing up and we're not going anywhere.
- [09:28]
B
They've done that indirectly and that you can see now openly. For the last four or five days, Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has been openly taunting Trump as a tyrant that will be overthrown. Now, I noted, I may have said this last time, that one of the last times I remember Ayatollah Khamenei doing this was on January 1, 2020. He was publicly taunting Trump. And two days later, Trump took out Iranian General Qassem Soleimani in Iraq. So there is a precedent there. But at the moment, I don't think protesters are not in the streets right now because they've been mowed down. It's essentially like they call military government. There's curfews, and so people are just waiting for restoration of communications. They can't communicate with one another. They can't communicate with the outside world. And listen, then Iran is a large population, 92 million people. The same joke that my Jewish friends have, you know, two Jews, three opinions that's commonly evoked to talk about Iranians. So I don't want to give the impression that there is consensus even amongst the protesters about what they would like to see from the United States. But I do think, at a minimum, if there is a technical way in which either the US Or Israel can kind of lift or tear down this digital iron curtain, and perhaps beyond that, I think many protesters would like to see at least some kind of a shield from America, if not a sword.
- [10:53]
A
Nadav, based on your conversations with Israeli intelligence sources, how do they currently assess the likelihood and what could be the scope of US Involvement in Iran right now?
- [11:03]
C
Well, nobody's going to place a bet, Dan, that the president is even going to do that. The assessment in Israel is that it's going to happen, that the President has made his mind to have some sort of response and that there is a debate still in the White House as to what kind of response. And there are two sides there. Both of them understand that the US Is going to react. The question is, would this be what military officials label a kinetic attack? Are they going to actually bomb something or are they going to use technology, cyber attack of sorts of means that are non lethal that Karim referred to and that there is a debate there. The President is going to make a decision as to the tools that are going to be used. He was presented with different options. This is what my Israeli sources are saying. I have to say that I have not confirmed that with American sources. Israel, one could assume, is bracing itself for retaliation from Iran. The Iranians have said the chairman of Parliament Kariba, who's an extremist even within the Iranian system, has threatened Israel that they will retaliate against army bases, US army bases in the region. And we are of course getting reports that some personnel in the US Largest base in the region in Qatar have been recommended to leave the base or to relocate from the base.
- [12:40]
A
And what would be the purpose of retaliation at this point? I mean, if we really believe, and maybe they don't believe, but if we really believe that the regime is crumbling, what exactly is the Iranian benefit in retaliating against Israel? It just seems like you could wind yourself up in a full scale war. Again, I throw that either of you. Karim or in the Dove well, first.
- [13:00]
C
Of all, it's not a bad thing, Dan, to be right now in some sort of a confrontation or a war as far as the regime is concerned in the sense that people will feel even less secure to march in the streets while they're not marching all the time. As Karim has mentioned, last night in Tehran we were seeing videos of massive demonstrations still in Tehran, at least in certain areas or streets. And this kind of a confrontation can lead, I think the regime thinks, to a rally to the flag, which they actually experienced during the June war. Nobody can deny that this has happened in Iran as a result of the confrontation with Israel. There is a classifying debate within the Israeli leadership as to how serious is the regime's condition right now. There are those who are saying, look, everybody agrees that the regime is in a very dire point and that it would need some sort of change in order to survive. But those experts for Iran within the Israeli system are saying the regime is in control. Don't fool yourself. The fact that you're seeing them shooting protesters en masse means that the security forces, both police, Basij Revolutionary Guard and army are still answering to the regime. And the other side is saying no, they're finished. And this briefing is coming from political people, senior political people in Israel, and they're briefing the regime is finished. It's going to take weeks. It's going to take a month or two. They have passed the point of no return. And this is a debate within Israeli decision maker circles. And this debate is not academic because if you believe that they only need a push, you can allocate more resources to assist. And if you believe otherwise, you might take a different decision.
- [14:52]
A
Karim, your response to that?
- [14:54]
B
So a couple things I think first, Nadav, I have a different perspective about whether or not there was a rally around the flag effect last June in Iran. My view was that that was really a short term sugar high for the regime. And what we've seen historically is that when nascent autocratic regimes or nascent revolutionary governments experience external military invasion, that often does help them consolidate power. We saw that with Fidel Castro and the Bay of Pigs invasion. We saw that with Khomeini's government when Saddam hussein invaded in 1980. But the opposite can also be true. That when late stage dictatorships like the Islamic Republic engage in what's essentially an elective war, you know, death to Israel, in my view, is an elective war for the Islamic Republic of Iran. And when those late stage dictatorships are humiliated, it can oftentimes serve to actually hasten their demise. And we saw that with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan a few years after that Soviet Union fell. So I'm skeptical that external war is going to produce a rally around the flag effect, especially given what's happened in the last two weeks. What external war tends to do is it just accentuates the existing polarization. So those who are supporters of the regime will further support it and hunker down. But I don't think it converts opponents the regime, into supporters of the regime. Second point I'd make is that revolutions are really psychology, not political science. And it's impossible to get inside. Really need to get inside the head of the protagonist. You know, what is the mental and physical health right now of Ayatollah Khamenei? What are senior Revolutionary Guard commanders thinking? What is the collective view of the population? Bashar al Assad, I don't think he knew he was leaving Damascus until 24 hours before he left. So these actors themselves don't know what they're going to do. So for us to be able to predict from far away what they're going to do is obviously impossible. What we know from history is that there's obviously the psychological tipping point that for revolutions to be viable, they need to attract a critical mass of people. But a critical mass of people won't be join them unless they think it's viable. Right, because you don't want to go out in the streets and get killed. You'll only go if you think that those protests could be successful. I just want to say one more thing in context, which is when I was based in Tehran two decades ago, I used to attend some of these anti government protests just as an observer to see what's happening. These can be very terrifying experiences. So when you go out into the streets, first of all, when the regime knows that there are going to be protests, they will close off streets, close off highways. So it's very difficult to get to where you need to go. That's one thing. So logistically it becomes very difficult. Number two, when you go out into the streets as an unarmed observer or protester and you see 10,000 men with guns, it's terrifying. And they shooting to kill right now. And so I think it's slightly callous even for President Trump to just encourage people go out and take institutions, go out and take to the streets. If you haven't lived under, under a dictatorship, under an oppressive regime, you really can't understand how terrifying it is for people to go and risk their lives. And so when you collectively see millions of people throughout the country protest, that's very significant.
- [18:29]
A
Nadav, you wrote in your recently wrote in your newsletter, which I strongly encourage our listeners to subscribe to. We'll link to it in the show notes. You wrote that your sources told you that the US Is involved on the ground in Iran already, like right now. Can you say more about that?
- [18:46]
C
I was quoting Tamir Heyman, who was the chief of Israeli intelligence, the former chief he served a couple of years ago. And Tamir Heyman has said on the record that the US Is already in operation in Iran in a major influence operation than. And also a subversion operation. He used the terms influence and subversion. I'm quoting him because it's highly irregular to hear that from Israeli sources. To some extent, what's happening in Iran right now is starting to look more like Syria at the beginning of the uprising.
- [19:29]
A
The beginning of the 2012 uprising or the beginning of the 2024 uprising?
- [19:33]
C
Yeah, the 2012 uprising that began with demonstration and turned into a bloodbath that turned into a civil war. Now, I do not have any sort of indication that parts of the Iranian army or other armed groups are now beginning a civil war, that there is a capacity for a civil war. But you asked about Israel. I want to answer about Israel. The priority as far as the Israelis are concerned is definitely a regime change in Iran. Israel would want to see a regime change in Iran and it would want to assist, one could only assume, the Iranian opposition. But if there is no regime change in Iran, then the worst kind of outcome would be a shift within the regime, giving credence and credibility to the regime. In certain places in the world that will look like a change, but won't really be a change. This is very dangerous for Israel because then suddenly Iran is seen as, oh, the supreme leader doesn't make the decisions anymore, he's just symbolic. Now it's a new era, they're going to renegotiate and it's all going to be, sorry for the expression, BS because it's the same framework of the Islamic Republic. So in that regard, it's better for Western countries, including Israel, for the Islamic Republic to be weakened than to be emboldened by some sort of an inner change of sorts. That's the point that my sources are making.
- [21:08]
A
Karim, your response to that?
- [21:10]
B
Listen, I think Iran and Syria are just fundamentally different countries. You know, Syria is a 20th century, post Ottoman creation. It's not to say that there isn't a sense of national identity, but you had an Alawite government repressing a Sunni majority. The Kurds in the north essentially had their own enclave. And Iran has 2000 years history as a nation state. So I'm skeptical that what we're seeing now in Iran is going to devolve into a full scale civil war, as we saw in Syria. The other important factor in Iran is the nature of the opposition. You have an opposition in Iran that's trying to separate mosque and state. You have a regime which has joined mosque and state. And so whereas in Syria, a lot of the opposition were Islamists. You know, there were militants wanting to join mosque and state. Ahmed Al Shada himself was member of Al Qaeda and then isis. That's frankly one of the challenges that Iranian opposition has is that it's a regime which believes in martyrdom. You know, they evoke martyrdom. It's a society which is trying to get away with all of that. You know, this is a nationalistic, patriotic uprising to have Iranian patriotism supplant Islamist radicalism. And so for that reason, it's an opposition which is not in the last decades shown itself willing to do the types of nasty things that other opposition groups might be willing to do, whether that's conduct suicide bombings or even take up arms. So it may be that on the periphery of the country, in places like Kurdistan, which have experienced heavy casualties, and there is much more gun culture among some that you will see opponents of the regime take up arms, but we've almost never seen that. I don't think there's any historic precedent of protesters against the Islamic Republic in the major urban areas, Tehran, Mashad, Shiraz, elsewhere take up arms against the regime. I'm skeptical that that's how things will play out.
- [23:10]
A
And to Nadav's earlier point about this issue or question about how involved the US is on the ground right now.
- [23:17]
B
Listen, I think statements like that from Israeli officials or American officials are just totally playing into the hands of the regime, which is essentially trying to forward the narrative that these protesters are foreign supported, foreign armed terrorists. I don't really give much credence to it. It's not that the Iranians need any foreign support to hold enormous political, economic, social grievances against their regime. Obviously, President Trump has made a lot of statements about Iran, but I know that the US has not had an embassy in Tehran for 47 years. And if you speak to former intelligence officers in the United States, they would say that the U.S. presence or U.S. influence in Iran is virtually negligible.
- [24:05]
D
Let's take a short break to hear.
- [24:06]
A
A word from our sponsor.
- [24:10]
E
Hi, it's Gabe Silverstein from the ARC Media team.
- [24:14]
A
You may know me from research by Gabe Silverstein.
- [24:17]
E
This summer I participated in a Birthright trip. So I can tell you exactly what they mean when they say one trip changes everything. Birthright didn't just connect me with my Israeli brothers and sisters in a spiritual and lasting way. Birthright gave me a deeper understanding of what it means to be a Jew and where I fit into the Jewish story. It's incredible to me that this organization exists and I know that behind every one of these trips are generous people who made it happen. People like you. Birthright Israel's goal is to inspire and empower a new generation of Jewish young adults to help make that happen and to create more life changing experiences like mine. Please visit BirthrightIsrael Foundation. Callmeback Birthright. One trip changes everything.
- [25:06]
A
Kareem, you talked about the effect of the US making threats against Iran and not seeming to act. I guess a separate question is how do you think the leadership in Tehran, or I guess the leadership in Tehran and Hum are thinking about the possibility of a US Strike, it seems to me, I mean, you say that the Supreme Leader is taunting President Trump. Obviously, there's a question of how performative that is and how much they actually think the US could really strike. Because after the US Operation alongside Israel last June and after what the US Just did in Venezuela, not that the US Would do something comparable to Venezuela, but just I think the US Is projecting a message or President Trump is projecting a message of I tell you what I'm going to do if you don't do what I'm telling you to do, and then I do what I told you I was going to do if you didn't do what I told you to do. And there's not like a clear pattern, number of case studies in multiple theaters. So isn't the leadership in Iran looking at that, saying, he's telling us he's going to do this if we don't do certain things, we are doing the opposite of what he is demanding of us. What are they actually anticipating?
- [26:11]
B
So really we should be focused on the mindset of the Supreme Leader and then perhaps the top senior Revolutionary Guard commanders. Ayatollah Khamenei's mindset is that when you're under siege, whether that's internally or externally, never take a step back, never show weakness, because if you do that, it's going to embolden your adversaries. And so for that reason, they, they've crushed the protests internally. They call all of the protesters terrorists. And he's been defiant vis a vis the United States publicly. Now, at the same time, what he's done is, as he always does, allows Foreign Ministry officials, in particular the Foreign Minister Arakchi, to send signals to the United States saying, we're interested in talking, we're interested in a deal. I know that Foreign Minister Arakchi has been in touch with Steve Witkoff, essentially relaying that message. And so this is long Ben Khamenei's act, where he publicly is very, very defiant, brutal internally. But at the same time, Dan, you know, Khamenei is arguably the world's longest serving dictator. He's 86 years old. He became president in 1982, supreme leader in 1989. You don't become the world's longest serving dictator if you're a reckless gambler. He's someone who at the end of the day, he's homicidal, but he's not suicidal. And so if he senses that there's an existential moment for the regime. He's shown in the past that he's willing to back off for that reason. I'm skeptical that if there is any type of intervention in Iran that they will retaliate in a way which is anything other than performative. Because if you start to launch a barrage of missiles against Israel, that becomes existential for you. If you start to go after US Military personnel in the region, I think that could potentially become existential for them. So right now they're in survival mode. They're not in gambling mode.
- [28:00]
A
Nadav, how is Israel preparing militarily for the possibility of a US Strike on Iran?
- [28:07]
C
I'm limited in what I can share. You could assume, Dan, that Israel understands very clearly that the regime is threatening to react to some extent. I would say that some people in the Israeli defense apparatus would want the regime to make a mistake because Israel has a series of assignments that it didn't finish or follow through during the June war. And we know what these are about, right? There's the ballistic missile production. There's a lot of targets that Israel would want to hit within Iran that are crucial for the threats that it's trying to mount against Israel. And as you can imagine, Dan, if the Americans are putting their own staff on alert across the region, the same is probably true as to Israel. I'm sorry I can't have more details, but very interestingly, you didn't hear until now, for instance, the prime Minister making a speech threatening the Islamic Republic. Israel is keeping its silence as to what's happening in Iran to a certain degree. The problem is, of course, that when Israelis keep their silence, they're also briefing off the record. And I agree with what was said earlier that it's definitely not helpful to the Iranian opposition now in the streets. This impression that this is a foreign operation of sorts is the line that is being held by the regime again and again. And this is something that even the off the record briefings now are trying to stay away with. What I'm hearing is people saying we need to be extremely cautious. We need to be modest. These are demonstrations within Iran. It's an internal issue of Iran. This is the formal line that they're trying to hold. Then there comes an official or former official and says, it's an influence campaign by the United States. Right? Or we are seeing an influence campaign by the United States. Nobody's saying it's only that. But these former officials are pronouncing these kind of expressions. The Israelis are not done to your question, Dan. With some of the military infrastructure in Iran, and we all know about that, and the possibility of another series of strikes if the Iranians make a mistake. You can bet that the Israelis would want the White House to greenlight a response by Israel. Now, the question is, if the US Attacks, will the president allow the Israelis to act or will he say. And American presidents have said that before, you remember that in the 1990s, the first Gulf War. No, we're doing this. Even if you take some sort of an Iranian attack, the US Is tackling this issue. It wants to contain the event. This is one of the questions. It's again going to be the decision.
- [30:53]
A
By President Trump to make Karim short of military action. What else could be done here? I mean, I've heard a range of options. Right. You know, Europe is obviously Chancellor Mears, other leaders in Europe are talking a very tough game about Iran and how these are, you know, Iran's final days or weeks. But it's not that they're considering a number of sanctions. I'm surprised at this point why every European country hasn't withdrawn its ambassador from Tehran. I mean, there just seems to me important symbolic, non military moves that non US Governments could pursue that I think would strengthen perhaps the resolve or at least demonstrate support to the protest movement and send a message that the regime is really isolated. I heard Eli Lake from the Free Press lay out how a number of senior regime officials have family members in Canada, have family members in the United States. I think one senior official has a daughter who studies at Emory University. There's a lot of family members of senior regime officials who are living very comfortable lives outside of Iran. And those family members could be sent back to Iran or there could be a message to senior Iranian officials if they get out now, they can join their loved ones in the safety and comfort of a life outside of Iran. I'm just throwing out, sort of rattling off some options here. What is your reaction to those specific options or any others that you think the west should be pursuing?
- [32:15]
B
You know, unfortunately, Dan, there aren't silver bullets in this context. When a dictatorship is repressing its people en masse, it would be nice if it were a Hollywood movie and the good guys could come in and prevail, but there are not many historic examples of that. I think in the immediate term, we're talking in the immediate term right now, the thing that is most critical is to tear down this digital iron wall when the regime is the only one that can control information, communication. There's not information coming out of Iran, there's not information going in Iran. There's a huge advantage they have. And to the extent there are tools, we have tools, US Government, Israeli government, others, to inhibit their ability to just kill people in the dark. That's significant. Now, Starlink terminals have made a difference. And what I want to emphasize about, about Starlink is that, you know, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, you know, at the top of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is every human being needs food and shelter. Well, unfettered Internet access has become like oxygen for citizens around the world. And if you just make these terminals available, it's not that we have to even necessarily figure out how to get them there ourselves. Logistically. You make these terminals, you flood. Flood Iraq with them. Iraqi Kurdistan, the black market will take care of it. Inside Iran, there's such a huge demand. You know, Dan, alcohol, satellite dishes, iPhones are all prohibited inside Iran. They're all ubiquitous because there's a huge demand for them. And frankly, this is something which. It's almost too late to start thinking about these measures while an uprising is taking place. You need to start thinking about these things, you know, months or years in advance. But that is, in my view, going to be a critical tool that. Perhaps I don't want to pretend like I'm a cyber expert or a technical expert, but we've done probably far more sophisticated cyber operations in the past with the Stuxnet virus that sabotaged their nuclear program. But in a situation like this in which you have a regime fighting for its life and willing to kill people en masse, there's not a lot of historic precedent that outside intervention, short of what was done against Gaddafi's regime in Libya or Saddam's regime in Iraq, which I don't think anyone is talking about here, that outside intervention can dictate the outcome.
- [34:48]
C
Look, there are different MOs. One of them is a revolution. When you see massive demonstrations in the streets, you think revolution. Revolution. Revolutions are a rarity in modern times. Actual revolutions that morph into a significant change of government. And it's exactly the point that when the regime has the allegiance of enough security forces that will shoot the demonstrators. Revolutions are very hard to actually come by in these kind of conditions. And there's the possibility that's discussed again and again of some sort of an internal coup d', etat, that an internal change that is not really a change. That's another possibility. But there is not a lot in between. As I said earlier, there are no factions right now that have diverted from the Islamic Republic in the Iranian army or definitely not the Revolutionary Guard that are willing to fight it right now. It seems that they are aligned with the regime right now. So this is a major challenge. And the question is, is what kind of a strike by the US if there's going to be a strike? And it does seem like everything is prepared towards a strike, what's going to happen next in that regard? How will this lead to an actual change that is meaningful within the Islamic Republic? And I don't have an answer to that one.
- [36:11]
B
That's a very important point and that's what we saw in the Arab Spring uprisings. And if we take Egypt as an example, when the protests against the Mubarak government continued, at some point the Egyptian military changed their calculations and they said, in order to save ourselves, to preserve our own wealth and power, we're going to have to cut loose the dictator. The question is whether that could happen in the Iranian context. Up until now, the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards have seen their fates intertwined. But at the end of the day, human beings are all self interested. At some point, if the protests commence again or reignited, the Revolutionary Guard may end up coming to a similar calculation that do we really want to potentially go down with this ship to preserve the rule of an 86 year old? But they're not going to need to make that choice unless protests are reignited. And so when it comes to any type of activity from the United States, the thinking should be to impact the calculations of these security forces inside Iran. So as President Trump is now considering what to do inside Iran, it's critical to understand that so long as the regime's security forces, the Revolutionary Guards, remain united, the regime can continue to endure. And the US should not be doing anything which is going to further strengthen that cohesion among security forces. You actually want, want people within the regime, within the Revolutionary Guards, to start to think twice about their conduct and about their repression and start to create questions in their head about whether they would be better off. Also their lives would be better off by not continuing to repress the population en masse, that there will be consequences for them and their families if they continue to do so.
- [38:08]
A
But this comparison to Egypt in the Arab Spring and the Egyptian security forces turning at that point, I guess on Mubarak. One key difference is that at the time the US Military had very close relations with the Egyptian military. Egypt was, is the second largest recipient of U.S. foreign assistance. The Egyptian military and the American military have a very strong and very deep and very well coordinated and with many points of contact within the bilateral relationship. So the US Military could communicate very directly with the Egyptian military. I just wonder, as you said earlier, Karim, we've cut off diplomatic relations. You know, it's been, I mean, there's been no diplomatic relations for 47 years. There's no communication.
- [38:52]
D
So who.
- [38:53]
A
Yes, it would be great if the Iranian security forces started to develop these concerns and started to think about their own futures and take matters into their own hands. But I don't know if that just happens. It feels to me like we're just hoping that happens as opposed to someone actually communicating with them or a lot of people communicating with them and laying out the scenarios, the risks for them, the opportunities for them if they turn. It just feels like we're like an information black hole in terms of understanding what these people are thinking, which was not the case in Egypt.
- [39:22]
B
That's a very important point. And that for the Egyptian military and the Egyptian government, they recognized that there was significant consequences for them if they continued to kill protesters en masse, that they, their greatest ally, their greatest source of aid was reconsidering that relationship. And as you said, the US had enormous leverage over the Egyptian military. We have virtually no leverage over Iran. There's no. If Iran continues to kill people en masse, China and Russia are not going to abandon their partnerships with them. So that's one key difference. But just to kind of reemphasize the point that at the end of the day, human beings are human beings. You know, everyone is going to act in their own self interest, and we're not there yet. In Iran, where security forces would have to decide whether to preserve their own status and cut loose Ayatollah Khamenei, they haven't had to decide that. But one thing I do want to emphasize, which is not usually evident from outside, but it is evident if you've spent time inside Iran and interacted with some Iranian officials. As a friend of mine who's a longtime professor in Tehran on told me, he said, you know, at the beginning of the revolution, the regime was composed of 80% ideologues and 20% charlatans. 80% were true believers in the system. Now it's the reverse. There's only around 20%, if not less true believers in the system. 80% are charlatans who are going along for political and economic experiences. It's kind of like the late stage Soviet Union. How many, many Communists were there in the Soviet government in 1988? And so for that reason, even though the regime's security forces are intact. I very much doubt that even among the Revolutionary Guards, there's a majority that thinks that the status quo government, the status quo system in Iran is a wise, sustainable system.
- [41:17]
A
Karim, before we wrap, how has Reza Pahlavi responded and how have the developments of the past few days impacted support for Pahlavi? To the extent that you can, you know, glean from what's going on on.
- [41:28]
B
That question, you know, these are the first protests inside Iran where people are undeniably chanting the name of Reza Ahlavi, the Shah. And not just in wealthy areas or affluent areas like north Tehran and very conservative cities like Qom Mashad. In Khomein, the birthplace of Ayatollah Khomeini, people were saying, jawed Shah, long live the sh. And I think Reza Pahlavi for protesters symbolizes what I call almost this forward looking nostalgia, similar to make America great again. Of this nostalgia that these protesters, virtually all of these protesters were born after the 1979 revolution. So they didn't experience life before the revolution. But there's a nostalgia about what Iran was then. It was socially free society. It was a growing economy, it had status in the world. It was a upstanding member of the international community. And you know, those folks didn't experience the time of the Shah. So they don't have, there's just pure nostalgia. They don't remember anything negative about that. And so as I said last time, to the extent this is a movement of patriotism against Islamist radicalism, long live Iran versus death to America. Reza Pahlavi is the symbol for many people of that forward looking nostalgia, that desire to make Iran great again.
- [42:58]
A
Okay, Kareem Nadav, thank you for this. We will leave it there. I know we will be back at it with you guys in the days and weeks ahead. So until then, just stay close because things are moving, moving fast.
- [43:12]
C
Thank you.
- [43:13]
A
Thank you. That's our show for today.
- [43:23]
D
If you value the Call Me Back.
- [43:24]
A
Podcast and you want to support our mission, please subscribe to our weekly members only show, Inside Call Me Back. Inside Call Me Back is where Nadavayal Amit Segal and I respond to challenging questions from listeners and have the conversations that typically occur after the cameras stop rolling. To subscribe, please follow the link in the show notes or you can go to ark media.org that's ark media.org call me back is produced and edited by Lon Benatar. Arc Media's executive producer is Adam James Levin. Already our production manager is Brittany Cohn, sound and video Editing by Liquid Audio Community Management by Gabe Silverstein Our music was composed by Yuval Semo. Until next time, I'm your host, Dan Senor.
- [44:25]
D
We all know the challenges facing the Jewish world today. Anti Semitism on campus, misinformation on social media. Young Jews feeling isolated, discouraged and disconnected.
- [44:35]
A
And we're all searching for answers.
- [44:38]
D
Well, one answer just might be staring us in the face. Birthright Israel for over 25 years, research has shown that a 10 day trip to Israel strengthens Jewish identity, pride and resilience in young adults. The Birthright model works. The impact is real. What they need now is our support. It costs $5,000 to send one Jewish young adult on a trip to Israel, but the return on investment is extraordinary. Today's Birthright participants are among tomorrow's Jewish leaders, educators, parents, pro Israel activists and philanthropists. They are the backbone of the next generation and we need more of them. So if you want a stronger, brighter future for the Jewish people, make a gift to Birthright Israel today. Visit onetripchangeseverything.com or just follow the link in the show notes.