Pod Save the World: "Will Trump Drag Us Into War With Iran?"

Release Date: June 18, 2025

In this intense episode of Pod Save the World, hosts Tommy Vietor and Ben Rhodes delve deep into the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, examining the potential for U.S. involvement under President Donald Trump’s administration. The conversation provides a comprehensive update on the situation, critiques the motivations and actions of key players, explores media influence, and discusses the broader political ramifications. The episode culminates in a thought-provoking debate with Ohio Congressman Greg Landsman, offering contrasting viewpoints on the path forward.

I. Current Situation: Israeli Strikes on Iran

The episode begins with an update on the conflict, highlighting Israel's extensive strikes on Iranian targets.

• Tommy Vietor notes, “As of Sunday, the IDF confirmed that they had hit over 170 Iranian targets and more than 720 military infrastructure components” (02:00).

• Ben Rhodes emphasizes the scale of the operation, stating, “This is not just an active war, but one that is growing and one that is clearly now a regime change operation” (02:33).

Key developments include:

• Iran has launched approximately 370 ballistic missiles towards Israel, with around 30 hitting targets.
• Significant damage inflicted on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, including the Natanz and Isfahan enrichment sites.
• Israel claims to have neutralized Iran’s air defense systems, asserting control over Iranian airspace.

II. Potential U.S. Involvement: Trump's Role

The discussion shifts to the possibility of the United States entering the conflict more directly.

• Ben Rhodes warns, “This could be a really long and difficult war because of the regime change component of it” (06:36).

• Tommy Vietor highlights reports from Axios indicating Trump’s consideration of a U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, noting, “Trump is seriously considering joining the war and launching a US Strike against Iran's nuclear facilities” (07:28).

Concerns raised:

• The use of massive bunker-buster bombs by U.S. bombers to target facilities like Fordow.
• The potential for an endless cycle of bombing operations without clear end goals.
• The impact of such actions on U.S. service members and global oil markets.

III. Critique of Israeli Actions and Netanyahu

Ben Rhodes provides a scathing critique of Israel's unilateral military actions and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu's leadership.

• Ben Rhodes asserts, “This is entirely a war of choice launched by Israel” (07:05), comparing it to the Iraq War and warning of similar unintended consequences.

• Tommy Vietor expresses frustration, “Netanyahu keeps saying, we were given a deadline, but this is just self-evidently bullshit” (52:12).

Key points:

• Israel’s strikes go beyond targeting nuclear facilities, hitting media stations and military leaders not directly involved in the nuclear program.
• Netanyahu’s coalition government includes figures like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Smoltridge, whom Rhodes criticizes as extremists influencing policy negatively.
• The absence of a clear endgame, leading to prolonged conflict and humanitarian crises in both Iran and Gaza.

IV. Media Influence: Fox News and Propaganda

The hosts delve into the role of media, particularly Fox News, in shaping public perception and influencing political decisions.

• Ben Rhodes condemns Fox News, stating, “There is so little good news out here” (25:28), drawing parallels to the media's role in promoting the Iraq War.

• Tommy Vietor highlights Tucker Carlson’s commentary, noting, “Fox's coverage jumped out at me. Some of the same voices, the Fox” (25:28).

Insights:

• Fox News consistently portrays Israeli actions as ingenious military operations without substantial pushback.
• The media’s failure to critically assess intelligence discrepancies regarding Iran’s nuclear timeline.
• The amplification of neocon hawkish voices, pushing for aggressive military policies.

V. Political Ramifications in the U.S.

The episode explores the internal political battles within the U.S., focusing on efforts to prevent escalation.

• Tommy Vietor mentions bipartisan efforts, “Congressman Thomas Massie and Democrat Ro Khanna have put forward a resolution that would prohibit the United States from getting involved in the war” (47:34).

• Ben Rhodes expresses skepticism about the effectiveness of these measures, given the entrenched hawkish elements within Congress.

Discussion Points:

• The Democratic and Republican divides on foreign intervention.
• Public opinion largely opposing U.S. military involvement in another Middle Eastern conflict.
• The potential long-term costs and geopolitical repercussions of a U.S.-led regime change in Iran.

VI. Conversation with Congressman Greg Landsman: Diverging Perspectives

In a pivotal segment, Tommy engages with Congressman Greg Landsman, an Ohio representative who supports Israel's actions against Iran. Their conversation reveals deep ideological divides and personal experiences shaping their views.

A. Personal Experiences and Security Concerns

• Greg Landsman recounts a personal ordeal where his name was on a hit list for a shooter targeting lawmakers, underscoring the real threats policymakers face (60:11).

B. Justifying the War Against Iran

• Landsman argues for the necessity of regime change, stating, “The initial goal is to diminish, derail the nuclear capabilities of Iran” (63:34).

• He believes that weakening Iran’s regime could lead to regional stability, liberating countries like Lebanon, Gaza, and Syria from Iranian influence.

C. Critique of Diplomatic Failures

• Landsman emphasizes the failures of diplomatic efforts, attributing the conflict's escalation to insincere negotiations and the militant stance of Iran’s regime.

D. Addressing Civilian Casualties and Humanitarian Impact

• While Tommy Vietor highlights the staggering civilian toll in Gaza and Iran, Landsman responds by differentiating IDF’s targeted strikes from Iran’s indiscriminate missile attacks, asserting that Israel aims to minimize civilian casualties (81:25).

E. Path Forward and Hope for Peace

• Landsman remains hopeful for diplomatic resolutions post-military action, advocating for a new Israeli leadership that can foster sustainable peace (77:30).

• He calls for international support to rebuild and support liberated regions, distancing future policies from past mistakes like those seen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

VII. Conclusion and Final Thoughts

The episode concludes with both hosts expressing deep concerns over the ongoing conflict and its potential to spiral into a prolonged war with severe humanitarian and geopolitical consequences.

• Tommy Vietor voices his frustration and despair, stating, “It is so unbelievably pathetic. Pathetic and disappointing. He looks so goddamn weak” (53:20).

• Ben Rhodes warns of the long-term instability and the dangers of repeating past mistakes, urging Democrats to stand firm against unrestrained military interventions (50:20).

Final Remarks:

• A unanimous call for reconsidering the path of war and emphasizing the importance of diplomatic efforts to prevent further loss of life.
• A reflection on the cyclical nature of regime change wars and the urgent need to break free from historical patterns that lead to instability and suffering.

Notable Quotes:

• “This is entirely a war of choice launched by Israel.” – Ben Rhodes (07:05)

• “There is so little good news out here.” – Ben Rhodes on Fox News (25:28)

• “We have to support this and look at this war and things are blowing up and you're weak if you don't support it.” – Ben Rhodes (09:00)

• “It's so unbelievably pathetic. Pathetic and disappointing. He looks so goddamn weak.” – Tommy Vietor on Trump (53:20)

This episode of Pod Save the World offers a critical examination of the volatile Middle Eastern geopolitics, the influence of media on policy, and the profound ethical dilemmas surrounding military interventions. Through a balanced dialogue and expert insights, Tommy Vietor and Ben Rhodes provide listeners with a nuanced understanding of the precarious situation and the urgent need for thoughtful leadership and genuine diplomatic efforts.