Loading summary
Transcript69 lines
- [00:01]
A
This week on the NPR Politics podcast, Iran, Greenland, Venezuela, how does all of that square up with America?
- [00:09]
B
First, it's not that Trump's ideology changed. Trump has really just gotten better at using the levers of power, and he's just doing a lot more.
- [00:18]
A
Listen to the NPR Politics podcast every weekday afternoon on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [00:27]
C
Regime change is a very big question, a very big operation, not something that can be done quickly and easily in Iran.
- [00:35]
B
It's day 19 of turmoil in Iran. Human rights groups say more than 2,500 people have been killed. President Trump is weighing military action in response. This is Sources and Methods from npr. I'm Sacha Pfeiffer in for Mary Louise Kelley. Every Thursday on this podcast, we take a close look at the week's biggest national security stories with NPR reporters who are out covering them this week. Greg Myre, who covers national security. Hi, Greg.
- [01:03]
C
Hi, Sasha.
- [01:04]
B
And Quil Lawrence, who covers national security and veterans. He's joining us from New York. Welcome, Quill.
- [01:09]
D
Thank you.
- [01:09]
B
Greg, I want to go straight to you, and I will note that as of when we are taping this at noon on the east coast with that timeframe, could you update us on what is the latest in Iran?
- [01:20]
C
Yeah, it seems after 19 days or so, things have quieted down for the moment and real emphasis on for the moment. Hard to say why, because the information coming out of Iran is so fragmented. The government cut the Internet last week, so we're only getting sporadic videos, sporadic phone calls. Very hard to get a full picture of what's going on there. One possibility is certainly that the security forces have cracked down so hard, killed so many people, arrested so many people, that this has driven some, many of the protesters off the streets again, at least for now. The group Human Rights Activists in Iran, which is based here in the US but works with people in Iran, has been trying to document the death toll, and they're the ones reporting more than 2,500 killed and thousands arrested. But everybody acknowledges how hard it is to get thorough, complete information. So this is where we are at the moment, but it's hard to say whether this is over.
- [02:27]
B
We should also note, Greg, that President Trump has been urging Iranian citizens to protest. He's been on Truth Social saying, keep it going.
- [02:36]
C
Yeah, he has. And we just really can't tell to what extent there's a direct link between President Trump's call for more protests and what seems to be a lessening of those protests in recent days.
- [02:50]
B
And, Greg, as we've said we keep reporting that President Trump is weighing military action. But describe to us what could that look like. What might military action by the US And Iran be?
- [03:01]
C
Well, there's certainly a range of options, but it very much would depend on what the goal would be and would it be effective. I think the most, by far the most likely option would be some sort of airstrike. But again, who would you target? Would you be targeting leaders of the regime, the security forces? If there are protesters in the streets, you've got to be careful about what you target. Would the US Go after Iran's nuclear facilities, as it did in combination with Israel last June, and use this as an opportunity to hit again at the nuclear facilities, although that would not have a direct bearing necessarily on what's happening in the streets with the protests. So there are these different military options, but again, this is very different than, again, what we saw last June, where you were trying to hit a specific target in Iran, the nuclear facilities, or even in Venezuela, as we saw recently, where the US Had a very specific operation to grab the president, Nicolas Maduro, and then work from there. We with these big street protests. People who their main grievance is economic and a lot of them are now calling for the overthrow of the regime. It's a large fuzzy demonstration that's taking place in dozens of cities around the country, maybe even hundreds. And how do you do anything with precision there? And how do you know that it will have an impact? And it could even be counterproductive? Turn the focus on the United States and on external actors and external issues, rather than the grievances that ordinary Iranians have at home.
- [04:33]
B
When the US Military talks about possible actions it might take, they often talk about kinetic actions, sort of a euphemistic way to say we're going to bomb something. But could there also be something non kinetic? You know, could they try to disable some of the country's infrastructure? Is that another way that a military strike by the US could look?
- [04:49]
C
Oh, absolutely. You could try to do something directed at the regime and the security forces, perhaps a cyber operation, for example, although that would probably be limited and be unstable, done after a short period of time, perhaps a day or a few days. So that might not be terribly effective. There's talk about Starlink going in there, Elon Musk's Starlink, but you can't just ship them in and get them to people all over the country. So how do you get them in? How would people be able to use them? There's been talk that some got in and that some were being jammed by the Iranians. But apparently you can get around that. But again, that doesn't seem like a mass way to connect the people of Iran. The US could also do other things outside the country, like go after the shadow fleet of tankers that Iran uses, as we've seen in Venezuela, where the US has seized multiple oil tankers that were on sanctions list. So there's a wide range of things the US could do. But if you're trying to have an impact on what's happening at the moment with demonstrations and their efforts against the Iranian government, that's very hard to do from afar.
- [06:06]
B
Quail, even though you're in New York, we're all on a zoom call together and I can see you kind of wanting to speak up. You wanted to add something.
- [06:10]
D
I've been listening to Greg's reporting this week, and he and I have both covered this region for a very long time. There's a strange situation where Iran used to have all of these assets outside of Iran. And when the US wanted to hit Iran, it could hit someone in Syria, it could hit someone in Lebanon, it could hit, it could take action against one of their, you know, well funded proxy forces or forces they support, for example, Hamas. And I know, Greg, you've been reporting this week on how those forces have been so reduced. I mean, that's in a way what's already weakened the regime. And it doesn't give the US so many easy targets to hit when it wants to show, I guess, or you know, send a message to the Iranian regime.
- [06:57]
B
That's interesting. It means the US more has to focus on Iran proper, geographically itself rather than try to get a, a proxy group in another country.
- [07:06]
C
Yeah, Iran has just suffered this series of serious body blows in the past couple years. Hamas has been decimated by Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon has been hit hard by Israel as well. Bashar Al Assad, the leader of Syria and a close ally of Iran, fled and so his government is gone. So Iran spent decades and billions and billions building up, propping up these proxies in the region. That was how Iran projected power made itself look strong. Those proxies are gone now, are greatly reduced in strength. So it's very much a focus on Iran itself. Right now. Iran can't project that power. Those targets for Israel or the US are not what they were. So the Middle east has been reshaped quite dramatically and now we're seeing this come home to Iran itself with these protests, which seemed to be the largest and most serious since the Islamic revolution back in 1979.
- [08:09]
B
Greg, going back to Starlink, which you mentioned, it seems to be playing such an interesting and important role in Iran right now. And it requires this device, this satellite like device. So there's a limitation to that. But it's been reported by the BBC at least that Elon Musk, who owns that company, is not charging people for the service right now. So give us a sense of how important Starlink is to Iran and its citizens right now.
- [08:35]
C
Well, I think for those who might have access to it, it could be very important, especially if you're somebody who's deeply involved in organizing the protests or trying to get information in and out of the country, trying to give some sense of the casualties, how bad this, how serious this crackdown is. However, the one thing I do want to caution is it's very hard to judge how widely this is being. Again, not clear how many Starlinks were there before these protests erupted just in late December. How many are there now, to what extent the Iranian government is able to jam them. So there's all of these questions we don't have answers to. What we do know is Internet traffic has just fallen off a cliff, but some Iranians are managing to get out videos, have phone communication. So some information is getting out. Presumably some of this is from Starlink or other creative ways that Iranians are managing to do this. I'll just note one thing. Back in the 1990s, I was visiting Iran, and I remember that at that time, Iranians complained because there were very limited TV options. So Iranians would literally put out satellite dishes on their rooftops after dark or watch TV at night and then take down the satellite dish. This allowed them to get channels and stations from the much broader region. So going back at least 30 years, Iranians have been very creative in trying to skirt the restrictions on communications that you've had in that country. So it certainly wouldn't surprise me. It doesn't surprise me that we're seeing the Internet cut off and video still appearing, but the Iranian government is trying to restrict the level of communications.
- [10:34]
B
Greg and Quill, let's take a short break. And when we get back, what do Iran and Venezuela have in common? We'll answer that when we return. That's ahead on Sources and Methods from NPR.
- [10:50]
A
This week on up first from Minneapolis to Venezuela to the Federal Reserve, one of the biggest stories of the year so far is how the Trump administration is using presidential power. We're following every angle. So you start each day knowing what's happening. What's true and what isn't on up first Listen on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts this week.
- [11:14]
B
On Consider this Minneapolis. Are federal agents there operating with absolute immunity?
- [11:20]
C
The only immunity the officer would have is if he could demonstrate his actions were necessary and proper to carrying out his federal function.
- [11:29]
B
Listen to consider this one major news story in 15 minutes every afternoon on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [11:38]
A
NPR's podcast Trump's terms is your source for same day updates on big news about the Trump administration, short, focused episodes, one topic at a time, about five minutes or so. We carry out reporting from across all of NPR's coverage, so you are always getting the biggest, most urgent stories. Listen to Trump's Terms on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
- [12:02]
B
Greg and Quill, let's pick up with the question we left off with before the break, which is what do Iran and Venezuela have in common? Greg, can you explain the connective tissue?
- [12:14]
C
Yeah, in a word, it's oil. These are both countries that have large oil reserves and that has made them flashpoints over the years. And more broadly, I would point to this notion that has been around in recent decades that oil countries, that petro states are more prone to getting involved in conflicts, whether they're causing the conflict, whether they're the target of a conflict. But just having such a valuable resource makes it a place that has a lot of prominence that leads to power struggles, in many cases may lead them, the oil state, to use that oil wealth to project its power and influence in the region and therefore cause friction and lead to conflict. And so I don't think it's entirely coincidental that we see these countries involved in such high stakes events right now. In fact, we've heard President Trump time and time again talk about Venezuela's oil industry, how the US Is in fact already taking control and is selling some of that Venezuelan oil that he wants US Companies to go in. Iran's oil resources have allowed it to project itself into the region with these proxy groups we've discussed. Iran is on the Strait of Hormuz, which is where a huge amount of the world's oil flows not only from Iran, but from other countries in the region. So all of these things can be factors. But the point is you often see wars connected to countries that have a lot of oil.
- [13:55]
B
Quill, a broader question about U.S. military and political involvement in the Middle East. You've covered Iraq for years. As you know, we're coming out of two decades of US Entanglement in that region. When you look at what's playing out in Iran, how do you tie it back to our previous history there?
- [14:15]
D
I think there's a very clear difference in that the Trump administration has shown that it has no problem with what you called kinetic action, using the military airstrikes, maybe these lightning raids. But so far, no interest in boots on the ground, no interest really in nation building and all of these things that come after these military strikes or seizing the president of Venezuela, for example.
- [14:40]
B
Greg, when we look at Trump's actions in Venezuela, removing Maduro, we know that many of his supporters support that, but they do wonder, what is the end goal? So let's put that question to Iran. Do we have any sense what Trump's end goal is in Iran beyond maybe basic regime change?
- [14:57]
C
Yeah, he really hasn't defined that. And again, it could be a number of things. It could be a new deal on the nuclear program, of trying to get rid of the nuclear program there entirely. It could be regime change, although he said very little to support democracy or humanitarian human rights in Iran. So it's very important, I think, that that goal be pretty clear before you go into another country. And therefore, I think that's one of the reasons, you know, can you achieve what you want. But what is that goal? We haven't seen a real clear definition of that.
- [15:38]
B
Could it also be some level of control over oil, as we've seen in Venezuela?
- [15:44]
C
It would be very difficult for the US to control the Iranian oil industry unless the US had some major operation and took over the government there. And we just don't see that happening right now. So based on what we're talking about right now, I think that would be very unrealistic.
- [16:00]
D
Yeah. Just to remember, and Iranians remember, even if Americans don't, that the United States did intervene to remove the democratically elected prime minister of Iran in 1953, and many people saw that as one of the reasons for the revolution later. So the idea of the US Intervening in Iran's oil industry and government might be controversial there.
- [16:23]
B
Greg and Quill, acknowledging that we don't know how Iran is going to play out and how the Trump administration might act in Iran. Let's say the administration does act in some way. Do we know how likely that is to mean the end of the current regime?
- [16:39]
C
Well, you have a leader there, the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah ali Khamenei, who's 86 years old. He's been there 37 years. He's not in good health by any stretch. He's going to pass from the scene at some point in the not too distant future, whether he's removed by force or simply by dint of his age, he could be replaced. He would simply, they would simply find another clerical leader. So I don't think replacing one person really changes the regime. You still have this huge apparatus in place, all the clerical leaders, the clerical establishment, as well as the these powerful security forces led by the Revolutionary Guards. So it's not a simple decapitation operation of removing one person. So I think regime change is a very big question, a very big operation, not something that can be done quickly and easily in Iran. And therefore, I just think we're looking at however this may play out, whether the regime stays in place and holds on which it could certainly do, whether it starts to topple, those are big, big questions and they're not going to play out easily or quickly. And outside influence from the United States or others may actually be quite limited. At the end of the day, to.
- [18:01]
B
Go down this speculative road a little bit more, what would dismantling the Iranian regime look like? Are we talking about spiriting away one or more of their leaders like we did in Venezuela? Do we know who would likely succeed them? Any sense of that, Greg or Quill?
- [18:19]
C
I think the key here is there is no obvious opposition leader figure, party that could step in and you have such a large regime, you would have to see that regime, I think, crack in more than one place. I don't even really want to speculate because I just think a, it's not clear that regime change is imminent either by force or by protest or any other measure. And what it would look like, I really think that's anybody's guess. There's just not a clear vision or a clear view of what, what might come next.
- [18:55]
B
Let's pause for another quick break. And when we're back, who is Trump's pick to lead the U.S. southern Command? That's ahead on sources and methods from NPR. We're back on Thursday. Senators grilled who would lead the U.S. southern Command? SOUTHCOM. We're talking Central America, South America, the Caribbean, a pretty important area. Would you fair to say, Quil?
- [19:23]
D
Yeah. Especially in President Trump's new philosophy of being focused on this hemisphere, on the United States. You know our neighborhood well.
- [19:35]
B
Let's talk about Lt. Gen. Francis L. Donovan again. He was nominated to lead Southcom. Tell us about Donovan.
- [19:43]
D
Frank Donovan is a Marine. He comes from Special Operations. He was involved in setting up the Marines Special Operations Group. He got a silver star for Gallantry in combat in 1991, in the Gulf War. And anyone who's a general officer at this stage, especially for these commands, is going to have had combat experience in Iraq and or Afghanistan. So he has these qualifications. I mean, it's more about sort of what he's stepping into really, than where he's coming from. I don't think any of the senators in this hearing think that there's any reason not to confirm him. It's more about what they wanted to talk about is happening in, in Southern Command.
- [20:28]
B
And in terms of what he's stepping into, during his hearing he was questioned about the lethal strikes the US has been making on suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean. How did Lieutenant General Donovan field that question?
- [20:41]
D
I mean, it was a very interesting hearing and I guess this has been a trend that's happening for a while. But more and more you feel like the people who are nominated, they're like Supreme Court nominees where they desperately try not to say anything in answer to questions, whether it's because they don't want to wade into politics or because they don't want to disqualify themselves. But what's really significant is that. And one of the senators mentioned this, I think it was Senator Tim Kaine, that this is the first time that this committee has had a chance to really weigh in and opine in public about this campaign of pressure on boats in the Caribbean and the Pacific, on Venezuela, that started in September 2nd with the United States blowing up a suspected in the Caribbean. And so the senators wanted to get on the record their comments about that. And they also wanted to ask pointed questions to General Donovan about whether he would follow orders that were questionable in their legality.
- [21:53]
B
Stop playing dodgeball here. You know, I thought that was going to be the easy question leading to harder questions.
- [21:58]
D
And several senators tried to get him on the record like that. I think Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts maybe finally got a direct answer to it.
- [22:09]
C
My legal advisor says that is an illegal order and I will seek clarification from higher headquarters.
- [22:15]
B
Okay, and if somebody hired says no, what are you going to do at that point, Senator?
- [22:20]
C
Then make a decision using 37 years.
- [22:22]
D
Experience to carry out that order or not.
- [22:24]
B
Okay, but your intention is not to. It sounds like he was never carry a legal careful. He knew that the stakes were high in terms of how he answered and tried to be very delicate in his response.
- [22:35]
D
Yeah, and did finally answer directly, but I mean there was so much subtext in this hearing. And what I think is looming over it as well is who he's replacing. And many senators asked about that.
- [22:47]
B
Well, that's a very interesting part of this because his predecessor left under fairly unusual or at least noteworthy circumstances. Tell us about that.
- [22:55]
D
Yeah, Admiral Alvin Halsey. No one has been able to confirm this on the record, but many of the senators mentioned this, that there are reports that Admiral Halsey had questions about the legality of striking possibly unarmed boats as they transited, possibly toward the United States, possibly towards Europe, and that that is why he left his post two years early. So that really was hanging over this hearing, and that's, you know, why so many of these senators were focusing on that.
- [23:32]
B
Quill, widen the lens a bit more in terms of how difficult the incoming head of southcom, how difficult the job this person is walking into. It's a very political, controversial, a lot of high stakes in terms of national security, international relations. What is at stake in this nomination?
- [23:51]
D
Yeah, and I should say, you know, it didn't used to be southcom was much quieter than Central Command, which includes the Middle east and Afghanistan, places where there's been so much US Military activity in recent decades. This used to be just a much more straightforward cooperative anti drug operation, usually with the DEA and supporting governments like Colombia's government against narco trafficking. Now, because President Trump has said he's gonna reintroduce this Monroe Doctrine of the United States playing with a heavy hand a role in what goes on in this region, there were a lot of questions to General Donovan about, well, you know, you've got all this firepower in the region. What are you going to do with it? Senator Angus King from Maine actually quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson as saying that essentially, your actions are speaking so loud, I can't hear your words, basically, to say, why would you have such immense firepower in this region if you weren't planning to do something in Cuba next or in other places, possibly Mexico and the nominee. I think he dodged these questions because that's what you do in a nomination hearing these days.
- [25:14]
B
Big job waiting for the person that fills that role. All right, Quill. And Greg, let us end, as always, with, with osint. That is open source intelligence. The not so secret yet telling details that we've stumbled across in our reporting. Greg, would you start us off?
- [25:29]
C
Sure. It seems like there's a development in Havana Syndrome, and this is the cases we've been seeing since 2016 at the US embassy in Havana and in several other places around the world where US Diplomats and CIA officers and some troops have suffered from these very debilitating bouts of headaches, dizziness, cognitive problems. And many of them believe they were attacked with a weapon that emitted some sort of microwave or electric pulse. And the US Government has been looking for this, has not found anything that seemed to be the cause or who was behind it. But now we've learned it's just come out in the past couple days. A story reported I'll note by Sasha Ingber, an alumna of NPR, that the U.S. government in late 2024, purchased what seems to be a weapon that may have caused these cases of Havana Syndrome. The government has been testing, has not issued a report, but it has briefed people about this, and it does seem like this may be involved. Again, nothing official at this point, but I did speak with Mark, Mark Polymeropoulos, a CIA officer who was afflicted with this Havana Syndrome during a trip to Moscow back in 2017. He doesn't know all the details, but he does believe this is huge, and he does believe it will lead to vindication from all of these people who have claimed these afflictions and have not been able to identify the source, either they or the government.
- [27:14]
B
Finally, a possible answer. And quill your os.
- [27:17]
D
Yeah, I mean, during this hearing, there was, there were a lot of questions about legal orders. And the nominees were both saying, well, that they would consult with their, with their lawyers, their JAG officers, who tell them, no, this is legal, or you'd have to question this or let's find out more about this before we carry it out. But the fact is the Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, has been very open about wanting to cut back and has indeed cut way down on the core of these JAG officers. So there are far fewer people around to give you advice on what constitutes an illegal order. Likewise with people who are there to advise on how to avoid civilian casualties. In the hearing, it came out that the office that is supposed to be advising ON this in Southcom has been cut. Its staff's been cut by 75%. And they did get General Donovan to say that he would look into restoring.
- [28:09]
B
That staff for my osint. I have to admit with some slight embarrassment that I still have a landline in addition to a cell phone, in fact, two cell phones. But I keep a landline because it's inexpensive. I really like the number. It has some nostalgic value because it was the previous homeowners. They agreed to transfer it to us. We like the homeowners. So I had this landline, always felt a little self conscious. Well, related to Iran. You may have seen that with the Internet being cut in Iran, many people are unable to use their cell phones. And apparently some of the few people who've been able to make calls out of the country have been using their landlines. And when I read that, I felt somewhat vindicated with my decision to hang on to this old school thing, although we do know that you can cut a landline and they may be tapped sometimes in Iran. But I felt like, you know what? I'm going to keep that landline a little longer because in Iran, they still seem to have a use.
- [29:02]
D
I wish I'd never given up most.
- [29:05]
B
Never gonna let yours go. I have been speaking with NPR national security correspondent Greg Myhrey and NPR national security correspondent and veterans correspondent Quill Lawrence. Thanks to both of you.
- [29:17]
C
Thanks, Sasha.
- [29:18]
D
Thanks, Sasha.
- [29:20]
B
And before we go, a thank you to our NPR supporters who hear every episode without sponsor messages and can access our entire episode archive. If that's you, thank you for making the reporting you hear on this show possible. And if you're not a supporter yet, Learn more at plus.npr.org I'm Sascha Pfeiffer. We'll be back next week with another episode of Sources and Methods from NPR.