← The NPR Politics Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript34 lines
- [00:04]
A
Hey there. It's the NPR Politics podcast for Thursday, February 12, 2026. I'm Myles Parks. I cover voting.
- [00:10]
B
And I'm Greg Myhre. I cover national security.
- [00:13]
C
And I'm Franco Ordonez. I cover the White House.
- [00:15]
A
And today on the show, the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was at the White House yesterday as talks continue between the United States and Iran about that country's military capabilities. So, Franco, get us up to speed here. What do we know about this meeting between President Trump and Netanyahu?
- [00:31]
C
Yeah, it was about a two and a half hour meeting. It was not public. But afterwards, Trump insisted that negotiations with Iran continue, at least for now, to see if a deal on Iran's nuclear program can be reached. And Trump was insisting because Netanyahu is more interested in military options. Now, the official line out of Israel is that Netanyahu was there to ensure Israel's needs were included. Trump can obviously be very unpredictable in his zest to strike a deal. So Netanyahu was there to talk about making sure that any criteria, such as limits on ballistic missiles, were including this. Also, Israel wants to make sure that these military proxy groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are not supported by Iran. But a person familiar with the matter also told NPR that Israel really feels these talks are futile and that further military strikes are basically inevitable.
- [01:31]
A
Hmm. Greg, can you refresh us on what each side kind of wants to come out of this?
- [01:36]
C
Sure.
- [01:36]
B
So this latest round began just last Friday in the Middle Eastern country of Oman. President Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, his son in law, Jared Kushner were there. Trump is saying he thinks there could be additional talks as soon as next week. Nothing official has been announced. Now, you could say these talks are just getting started. On the other hand, this is an issue that the US And Iran have been dealing with on and off almost 15 years at this point. And they reached a deal in 2015. Trump tore it up in 2018. And the issues are pretty similar here. The US and Israel wants to see as much of Iran's nuclear program taken away as possible. That includes enrichment, ongoing enrichment, if that's in fact happening, removing highly enriched uranium that was already there when the US And Israel bombed last June. We don't quite know what happened to that. Was it buried in one of the facilities that was bombed? Did Iran move it before then? And so that's the main central issue. And then, of course, as Franco alluded to, there are other issues. Iran's ballistic missiles, which it's used to hit Israel and fire at US Targets and the support for the proxy groups. Iran does not want to talk about the other stuff, wants to restrict it very narrowly to, to nuclear issues.
- [03:05]
A
We've talked on the podcast before, Greg, about the sort of weakened state of the Iranian regime right now. Can you explain that a little bit?
- [03:13]
B
Sure. I think it's really fair to say Iran's clerical leadership is in its weakest position since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. We have seen a series of blows the past two years since the Gaza war erupted. Iran's proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, the, the Houthis, Bashar Al Assad in Syria, all have fled, been greatly weakened. This was a 40 year program of Iran to build up proxy groups to in a sense be the frontline fighters for Iran. They've been tremendously weakened. Iran's economy is in free fall. The currency was just collapsing. Recently we've seen these massive street protests and again the US And Israeli strikes last June. So in combination, Iran just continues to suffer these series of blows and does not have a clear path out because it's still very much sanctioned and it does sell some of its oil on the world market. But there's no real political and economic course to get out of this crisis.
- [04:23]
A
So then I almost have to imagine, does that make it more likely that they're willing to negotiate or willing to agree to some of these things that the United States and that Israel want?
- [04:33]
B
So I think it means they know they're going to have to make some concessions, but they obviously want to make the smallest concessions possible, like maybe we'll cut back on enriching uranium or we'll pause enriching uranium, but we're not going to do those other things. And at some point they probably feel we can't even make additional concessions. Ballistic missiles, as we saw last June, are the one way they can strike with conventional warheads at Israel or at US Bases in the region. So if they were to give those up, they really wouldn't have any way to fight back at a serious level. So there's probably some things they say we just can't do that that amounts to surrender. And in fact they're thinking, hoping, suspecting that President Trump doesn't really want a long open ended fight and that therefore they may even be willing to say, okay, if we get hit in a military attack for a day or two, we can survive that. We can't survive certain things like giving up all our missiles.
- [05:33]
C
This regime is just centered so much on control and fear. And as Greg was talking about, the Ballistic program, the nuclear program. I mean, that is such a key part of the regime's identity. I mean, even the atomic symbol is in the currency of Iran. I mean, this regime, as all the experts I talked to who worked on this portfolio, the Iran portfolio, from the Bush years, from the Obama years, from the early Trump years, tell me that they see this basically as an existential crisis or an existential threat, at least that just bending too much is basically giving up. They would rather give up on the field or at least take a chance to see if Trump is bluffing. We've reported so many times before where Trump has made these threats and didn't follow in so many ways. It's hard to see this regime kind of buckling too much more and instead seems to be taking the chance that Trump, if he does anything, is going to be, as he has in the past, selected strike, targeted strikes. And that may be something they can survive.
- [06:45]
A
Well, you mentioned that Israel feels like strikes like that are an inevitability. But what about the experts that you talk to? I mean, does it feel like we are headed toward a place where the United States is going to have some sort of military action with regards to Iran?
- [06:59]
C
I mean, the United States has essentially struck Iran two times. Last summer, the United States joined Israel. Israel struck first over the summer, and then the United States kind of joined later in what was later described as kind of the 12 Day War. And then again in the first administration, the Trump administration made targeted strikes against an Iranian general. Now, that was actually in Iraq, but it was an Iranian general, and it made huge waves. So the precedent is there now. I think a lot will determine based on what happens in these negotiations, but also what kind of target is available. As we mentioned before, Trump likes select targets, targeted strike, something where you can come in and out. And there's a lot of reporting out there that he's been given options that he doesn't necessarily see that kind of in and out kind of possibility. It is hard to tell. But there is also this mass of military hardware. You know, Trump does not like to make idle threats. I mean, he usually is following through with things. So it might be more targeted than what's feared.
- [08:06]
A
Greg, you made mention of the deal from more than 10 years ago that the Obama administration made. I guess I'm just trying to get a sense of how different a potential deal now would look compared to what Trump tore up a few years ago.
- [08:19]
B
Well, broadly speaking, it's pretty similar. Now, if you get down to the details, Iran has more highly enriched uranium now than it did then again, we don't know exactly where it is or what state it's in. So in the specifics, there are some things that are different. Iran is certainly much weaker now than it was 2015 when that previous deal was being negotiated. So Trump may feel, I can get more than Obama got, but there's still a sort of fundamental question. Can you completely negotiate away Iran's nuclear program? And Iran, which has never acknowledged that it actually wants to build a bomb, in fact, says quite the opposite. It has said, we have the right to peaceful nuclear enrichment, and we're never going to give that up. If Trump could get something like that, it would be a huge deal. But if he comes away with something that, broadly speaking, seems kind of similar with just a few different details, he's going to put himself in an awkward position of trying to defend it and say, we had that deal in place back in 2015. You tore it up in 2018. What did we get now that we didn't have then, other than also some of those clauses in the original agreement would expire after 10 or 15 years. So even if that deal had held intact for that period, we might need to negotiate another one. But that will be really key. Can Trump walk away with something that says this is more significant than what Obama had, both for his own personal bragging rights, but just for reality that the program would be kept more in check and could be inspected in ways that would verify that?
- [10:00]
C
I agree. I mean, I think from a political standpoint, it will be very challenging for Trump if it is not that much beyond what Obama did. Even Republican critics are going to be questioning this. And going into the midterms in a few months, I think that could be a great challenge. I do think we all know and having reported enough on Trump that no matter if any deal is struck and he is going to be bragging, he is gonna be boasting, and he is going to be saying this is much, much bigger than what it probably reality is.
- [10:31]
A
All right, well, we can take a quick break. More on all of this in just a moment. And we're back. And we've been talking about ongoing negotiations with Iran about its weapons program. And, Greg, as these talks continue, there's also military buildup of American forces going on in the region. Can you tell us about that?
- [10:49]
B
Yeah, absolutely, Miles. It's a sizable buildup. Of course, the US Has a presence throughout the region that already ex military bases there. So there's a lot of firepower to begin with. But in addition The US has sent an aircraft carrier, one of about a dozen ships that have moved into the region over the past month or so, dozens of additional warplanes, anti missile defense systems that could guard against Iranian missile attacks on US Bases or Israel as well. So this is a big buildup and it's taken time. So even if the US had wanted to carry out military action earlier, it really, really didn't seem that it was prepared both offensively to attack and defensively to protect US Bases in Israel. But it's a pretty substantial buildup. The Wall Street Journal has reported this week that the US Is considering sending a second aircraft carrier. Now, the military hasn't said anything one way or another, but that would certainly add to the pressure. And Iran knows that it feels that. And it's trying to calculate, is Trump doing this to put pressure on us in negotiations, or is he doing this because he's planning to strike? And if he strikes, will it be one or two days of bombing, or is it an extended open ended conflict? And then the US And Israel also have to figure in reverse, how long could Iran fight back? Would they know it still has a sizable supply of missiles? It was greatly weakened in the fighting last June. But could Iran strike for days and weeks if indeed that's what plays out in terms of the military action?
- [12:28]
A
Well, I'm curious about one thing, which is when we were talking about the sort of different things that each party wants as part of this negotiation, something that we didn't really talk about was the protests with regard to what's happening in Iran. I mean, reports have that the Iranian government has killed more than 6,000 protesters at this point. This is something that a couple weeks ago President Trump was talking a lot about and even at that point seemed to be alluding to or threatening strikes related to this crackdown on protesters. But I'm not hearing that coming up a lot now. I mean, am I missing something or does that seem like something that's kind of faded in the background for American officials?
- [13:04]
B
No, this really morphed over the past couple weeks. I mean, what set this off were these Iranian protests that began right at the end of December and then lasted for the first few weeks of January. They were massive, often being described as the biggest protests in the 47 year rule of the Islamic clerics in Iran, perhaps the deadliest crackdown on protesters as well. So this was a very big thing. And that's when Trump jumped in and said, we've got your back, we will respond. Nothing happened then in the short term, the protests have been crushed, at least for the time being. But that began this U.S. buildup. But now, as we see in these negotiations that are taking place and in the threats that the whole issue of the protesters and political rights in Iran have really fallen by the wayside, and they don't seem to be an issue at all. So what started this is not what is the focus of it right now. Now it's about military might, nuclear negotiations, not ordinary Iranians and the protests that we saw the end of December.
- [14:12]
C
Yeah, I was very fascinated with how Trump's own rhetoric has shifted over the last couple of weeks. I mean, you're right, he was saying, we have back. He was encouraging demonstrators in Tehran to keep going, to keep fighting. You know, when there was announced executions, Trump spoke of demonstrators expected to be executed and said, if this goes through, we will take action. You know, since then, that execution was called off or postponed at least, and things kind of, you know, seemed to chill out for a few days. But Trump has kind of backed off on all those promises of, you know, coming to the aid of protesters. He says he's still behind him when he's pushed on it. But you don't see the same type of language out of the president these days. Now it's all focused on negotiations, on reaching a nuclear deal and as we saw yesterday, insisting that talks need to continue, at least for the time being, before considering military options.
- [15:12]
B
One other thing I think we should stress, Miles, is Iran in its current leadership has proved resilient. We've seen a series of protests dating back about 15 years or so now. They've all been put down very brutal, brutally, very forcefully. They have not made political concessions. The clerical leaders still completely dominate the place. So there's no clear way that you could say, do this one thing and you could get regime change. And even if you could, what does regime change mean? You have an 86 year old leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. He's ruled since 1989. If he were to die, he would presumably just be replaced by another ayatollah. Because of the repression over the years, an opposition hasn't been able to develop. They've all been imprisoned, killed, driven out of the country. So there's no clear group or individual waiting in the wings to take over. And therefore it becomes a very complicated process. If you were to begin with military.
- [16:17]
A
Action, I want to shift gears within the region to talk about Gaza, because after the meeting with Netanyahu, Trump posted on social media that the two discussed the quote Tremendous progress being made in Gaza and the region in general. There is truly peace in the Middle East. Greg, tell us a little bit more about the progress that Trump is referencing.
- [16:38]
B
Yeah, I think progress is more accurate than tremendous progress. We have a ceasefire that was put in place last October. We have not seen a full scale resumption of the war. Israel still carries out airstrikes. More than 500 Palestinians, both militants and civilians, have been killed since then. So it's by no means peaceful, but it's not what it was. There is more food, there is more medicine. Gaza is moving incrementally away from this horrible war that they endured for the past two years. But there's still no clear path ahead. The Rafah border crossing at the southern end of Gaza that goes into Egypt has been opened recently. Some Palestinians have now been able to leave or inter for the first time in more than two years. So I could point to a number of what I would say small things, and they add up maybe to something a little bit larger. But we're still not seeing a complete, clear end to the war. There's still the Israeli troops there. You're still going to need all sorts of things to develop. The economy, security, just normal life in Gaza. So still a long way to go.
- [17:49]
C
You know, it's such a long way to go. And it's fascinating that that hasn't stopped this administration from kind of describing what they see as a new Gaza with all these big high rises and apartment buildings. The White House actually put out these tweets showing the Gaza Strip with these glass lined big window to condominiums and apartments and oil rigs off the coast. Jared Kushner, who presented at Davos, called it a destination. You know, I think it's fascinating what they are describing. We used to report about, you know, Trump's ideas for kind of like the Gaza Riviera. I mean, that is kind of what they seem to be describing. However, you know, pointing out to what Greg was saying, it's hard to see how this actually comes through because they're making all these plans on top of where people have homes or where they have land. And there has been no talk of transfers of deeds or housing. So I just have such a hard time imagining how they get from, you know, this tough, complicated situation that Greg's describing to what, you know, Jared Kushner is envisioning in this quote, unquote, new Gaza.
- [19:00]
A
It feels like this Board of Peace was going to be a big part of this agreement and kind of thinking through what the future of Gaza was going to be this newly convened group of people. What's the status of this Board of Peace? Are they making progress? Have they met? What's going on there?
- [19:15]
B
Right. So it was introduced formally at the Davos conference in Switzerland a couple weeks ago, and they're meeting next week here in Washington. And it'll be very interesting to see who turns up. A lot of traditional US Allies, particularly in Europe, have either been hesitant or just flat out refused to join. Many of the countries that have agreed to join are countries that are, quite frankly, not democratic, have abused human rights. They seem to be allied with Trump in some ways and see this as a way to have access to him. And this was all set up initially. It was announced as part of the ceasefire back in October. And Trump has tried now to bill it as something much larger, that it will deal with Gaza and then deal with other conflicts around the world. And so that's very ambitious. And the critics say, well, you're just trying to replace the United nations and give Trump a platform to continue to deal with global affairs, perhaps even after his time in office is over. But I think Gaza is going to be a really good test of the Board of Peace to see how impactful it is because it is so difficult to get things done in Gaza and particularly revive the place or just even permanently end the war there. So if they have success in Gaza, then more power to them. That really is an achievement. But that absolutely remains to be seen. So it will be interesting next week in Washington. We'll get a sense of what they're thinking.
- [20:49]
C
Yeah, I'll be very interested, interested to see if Trump makes any inroads to try to give a little bit more international credibility and bring in some of these other Western nations who originally seemed interested and curious about it, but pulled back during some of the talks about Greenland and taking over Greenland. So I think that'll be very interesting. I did find it interesting that yesterday Netanyahu, the Israeli government, said that he is going to join the Board of Peace. And we all know that he has different expectations of what Gaza will be. And I imagine that could also be very complicating factor, not only in the Middle east, but also across the West.
- [21:29]
A
All right, we can leave it there for today. Make sure to follow the NPR Politics podcast wherever you get your podcast to make sure you don't miss any episodes. Tomorrow, we're going to wrap up all the other news from another busy week that we didn't get to today. I'm Miles Parks.
- [21:41]
B
I cover voting I'm Greg Myhre. I cover national security.
- [21:45]
C
And I'm Franco Ordonez. I cover the White House.
- [21:47]
A
And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.