Summary of "Lawfare Daily: U.S. Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Facilities"

Release Date: June 24, 2025
Podcast: The Lawfare Podcast
Host: Benjamin Wittes, Editor in Chief of Lawfare Institute
Guests:

• Scott R. Anderson, Lawfare Senior Editor
• Dan Byman, Lawfare Foreign Policy Editor of CSIS and Georgetown
• Suzanne Maloney, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution

1. Introduction

In this episode of the Lawfare Podcast, Benjamin Wittes moderates a discussion among experts Scott R. Anderson, Dan Byman, and Suzanne Maloney about the recent U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. The conversation delves into Iran's reactions, regional impacts, and the legal justifications surrounding the American actions.

2. Overview of U.S. Strikes on Iranian Nuclear Facilities

Benjamin Wittes opens the discussion by outlining the recent U.S. military intervention, which involved bombings of at least three Iranian nuclear targets over the weekend. He highlights Iran's belligerent verbal response but notes the absence of immediate retaliatory actions.

Quote:
"Today we discussed the American strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities this weekend. How Iran has reacted, the effects on the region, and whether the American action can be defended as a matter of law."
— Benjamin Wittes [02:47]

3. Iran's Potential Responses

Suzanne Maloney provides an in-depth analysis of Iran's possible reactions, emphasizing that Iran's capabilities have been significantly degraded by previous Israeli strikes. She outlines limited options available to Iran, such as minor terrorist attacks or cyber operations, but expresses skepticism about Iran's capacity to launch significant retaliatory strikes given the current state of their nuclear and military infrastructure.

Quote:
"I think that the most likely outcome is what they're probably focused on now is whether they can preserve and/or reconstitute the nuclear program in some covert fashion."
— Suzanne Maloney [03:45]

4. Legal Justification of the Strikes

The panel discusses the legality of the U.S. and Israeli strikes under international and U.S. domestic law. Dan Byman explains that both nations are likely to argue self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, despite this being a high bar traditionally requiring imminent threats.

Quote:
"International law, you know, is generally understood to prohibit the use of force between states. But there's an exception that's an Article 51 of the UN Charter for the exercise of the inherent right of self-defense."
— Dan Byman [39:12]

Scott R. Anderson adds that the executive branch has a permissive interpretation of these laws, allowing for broader justifications of military actions without extensive congressional oversight.

5. Regional Implications

Scott R. Anderson discusses the potential shifts in regional alliances following the strikes. He suggests that Gulf states may see a reduced strategic necessity to maintain close ties with Israel, potentially leading to a distancing within the Abraham Accords framework.

Quote:
"The cooperation between Israel and the Gulf states and the hope for Israeli-Saudi Arabia talks was that there would be this kind of grander anti-Iran alliance... With Iran weakened, the Gulf states actually don't need Israel as much as..."
— Scott R. Anderson [21:14]

6. Impact on Iranian Society

Suzanne Maloney emphasizes the detrimental effects of the strikes on ordinary Iranians. She argues that while the regime may be weakened, the Iranian populace faces increased repression and instability, with the government likely clamping down on dissent to maintain control.

Quote:
"The Iranians, the Iranian people are the real losers from this exchange. The government may live to fight another day. It will be severely weakened. Iran's military and nuclear infrastructure will be heavily degraded. But the prospects for a better day for Iranians, I think, are further today than they ever were."
— Suzanne Maloney [19:28]

7. Assessing the Administration's Decision

The panel critiques the Trump administration's role in supporting Israel's strikes without a clear long-term strategy. Scott R. Anderson expresses concern over the lack of defined goals post-strike, fearing that maximalist objectives tied too closely to Israel may lead to unrealistic outcomes.

Quote:
"I worry that US Goals are just going to get more and more maximal and will be tied a bit too much to Israel, which does have more maximal goals that I think are often unrealistic."
— Scott R. Anderson [02:27]

8. Future Prospects

Looking ahead, the experts debate the potential long-term outcomes of the strikes. Dan Byman warns of the possibility that Iran may accelerate its nuclear program covertly or that the destabilization could lead to broader regional conflicts. Suzanne Maloney remains pessimistic about the strikes leading to a more liberal Iranian government, instead predicting increased governmental repression.

Quote:
"I think that ultimate outcome will be a much worse outcome than what we had before June 13th."
— Suzanne Maloney [19:05]

Conclusion

The episode offers a comprehensive analysis of the recent U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, exploring the immediate military actions, potential Iranian responses, legal justifications, and broader regional implications. The experts express concerns over the lack of a clear strategic endgame, the possibility of escalating tensions, and the adverse effects on Iranian society. The discussion underscores the complexity of military interventions in foreign nuclear programs and the challenges in aligning such actions with both international and domestic legal standards.

Notable Quotes with Timestamps:

• "Today we discussed the American strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities this weekend..."
  — Benjamin Wittes [02:47]

• "I think that the most likely outcome is what they're probably focused on now..."
  — Suzanne Maloney [03:45]

• "International law, you know, is generally understood to prohibit the use of force between states..."
  — Dan Byman [39:12]

• "The Iranians, the Iranian people are the real losers from this exchange..."
  — Suzanne Maloney [19:28]

• "I worry that US Goals are just going to get more and more maximal and will be tied a bit too much to Israel..."
  — Scott R. Anderson [02:27]

• "I think that ultimate outcome will be a much worse outcome than what we had before June 13th."
  — Suzanne Maloney [19:05]

This summary encapsulates the key discussions and insights from the podcast episode, providing a clear and structured overview for those who have not listened to the full episode.