Tom Friedman: ‘This Is One of the Most Remarkable Dramas in the Middle East’

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Opinions – Tom Friedman: ‘This Is One of the Most Remarkable Dramas in the Middle East’

Episode Details:

• Title: Tom Friedman: ‘This Is One of the Most Remarkable Dramas in the Middle East’
• Host/Author: The New York Times Opinion
• Release Date: June 18, 2025
• Description: An in-depth discussion with opinion columnist Tom Friedman on the escalating missile conflict between Israel and Iran, its historical significance, and the implications for the Middle East and global politics.

---

1. Introduction to the Conflict

[00:51] Dan Waken:
Dan Waken, an international editor for the New York Times Opinion section, introduces the episode by referencing Tom Friedman's recent column. He highlights the escalation between Israel and Iran, particularly after ISRA's missile attack targeting Iran's nuclear infrastructure. Waken emphasizes the potential historic impact of this conflict on the Middle East.

[00:51 - 01:28]

• Key Point: The current missile conflict between Israel and Iran is poised to be a pivotal and game-changing event in the Middle East.

2. Historic Significance of the Conflict

[01:50] Tom Friedman:
Friedman elaborates on why this conflict is historic, citing two main reasons:

1. Long-standing Hostility:

   • Since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, there has been persistent hostility between the United States and Iran, as well as between Israel and Iran.
   • Quote: “This conflict has never risen. It’s always been under the table. It’s never risen to this point of open warfare between Israel and Iran now” ([01:50]).

2. Iran's Regional Influence:

   • Iran's indirect control over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen has shaped regional dynamics, preventing these nations from aligning with the West or embracing democratic governance.
   • Quote: “Iran has been engaged in something that is close to a colonial enterprise, in effect indirectly controlling Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen” ([02:30]).

[01:50 - 05:03]

• Key Points:
  • The conflict represents a significant escalation of longstanding tensions.
  • Potential outcomes include regime change in Iran or the dismantling of its nuclear program, both of which would have profound regional repercussions.
  • Iran’s influence over key Arab nations is a critical element at stake.

3. U.S. Interests in the Conflict

[05:03] Tom Friedman:
Friedman discusses how the conflict intersects with U.S. interests:

1. Cold War Dynamics:

   • The U.S.-Iran enmity has been a major factor inhibiting regional integration in the Middle East.
   • Quote: “The Cold War between the United States and Iran since 1979 … has been one of the most important dynamics in the region” ([05:03]).

2. Potential for Positive Change:

   • Weakening Iran and its proxies could allow for the emergence of more stable and democratic governments in countries like Lebanon and Syria.
   • Quote: “We've already seen the weakening of Iran and the weakening of its proxy allies, particularly Hezbollah … giving Lebanon a chance to actually come together again” ([05:03]).

[05:03 - 06:45]

• Key Points:
  • A resolution of U.S.-Iran tensions could foster regional stability.
  • The decline of Iran’s influence might enable democratic resurgence in affected Arab nations.

4. Iran and Israel’s Strategic Approaches

[05:13] Tom Friedman:
Friedman explores the strategic maneuvers of Iran and Israel:

1. Iran’s “Craziness” Strategy:

   • Iran and its proxies engage in unpredictable and often extreme actions to destabilize the region.
   • Quote: “They always think that they can out crazy you … They help drive the American Marines out of Beirut by blowing up the Marine compound with a suicide bomber” ([06:59]).

2. Israel’s “Finish It Once and for All” Approach:

   • Israel aims to decisively eliminate threats, whether by removing nuclear capabilities or altering regional power structures.
   • Quote: “After any kind of major Palestinian attack … we're seeing the strategy of you cannot out crazy me playing out” ([06:59]).

[06:45 - 09:29]

• Key Points:
  • Iran employs unconventional tactics to challenge its adversaries.
  • Israel seeks definitive solutions to security threats, often contemplating extensive military actions.
  • The interplay of these strategies contributes to the volatility of the conflict.

5. The Role of the Trump Administration

[09:29] Dan Waken:
Waken shifts the discussion to the role of the U.S., specifically the Trump administration, in stabilizing the region.

[09:46] Tom Friedman:
Friedman provides insights into potential U.S. strategies:

1. Coercive Diplomacy:

   • Advocates for arming Israel with advanced weaponry to strengthen its position.
   • Quote: “Give Israel the 30,000 pound bunker buster bombs and the B2 bombers … that would be the best outcome” ([09:46]).

2. Negotiation Leverage:

   • Encourages Iran to abandon its nuclear program through credible military threats.
   • Quote: “Coercive diplomacy. Give Israel the club for real coercion, but negotiate so it doesn’t have to use it” ([09:46]).

3. Assessment of Trump’s Strategizing:

   • Expresses uncertainty about Trump’s strategic consistency and effectiveness.
   • Quote: “It’s just not clear to me what the Trump policy is … including his Secretary of state” ([13:01]).

[09:29 - 13:51]

• Key Points:
  • The Trump administration could play a pivotal role through military support and diplomatic pressure.
  • Uncertainty remains regarding Trump’s strategic intentions and policy coherence.

6. Israel's Military Capabilities and Nuclear Goals

[11:59] Dan Waken:
Waken questions whether Israel can independently neutralize Iran’s nuclear facilities.

[12:06] Tom Friedman:
Friedman responds that Israel likely cannot achieve this alone due to the complexities involved.

• Quote: “We don’t think so … That will require, I think, eventually, troops on the ground” ([12:06]).

[12:47 - 13:01]

• Key Points:
  • Israel may require significant military support to effectively dismantle Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
  • The introduction of advanced weaponry by the U.S. could enhance Israel’s operational effectiveness.

7. Potential Outcomes and Regional Impact

[14:00] Tom Friedman:
Friedman discusses possible future scenarios:

1. Positive Outcome:

   • Regime change leading to a more consensual and democratic government in Iran.
   • Quote: “If somehow this regime could go peacefully or relatively peacefully and be replaced by a more consensual government in Iran, that would be wonderful” ([14:00]).

2. Negative Outcome:

   • Potential for regional chaos if the Iranian regime collapses violently.
   • Quote: “It could explode and shards would fall all across the region and all across the oil market” ([14:00]).

[14:00 - 16:35]

• Key Points:
  • The dissolution of Iran’s regime carries both the hope for democracy and the risk of regional instability.
  • The focus should be on eliminating nuclear threats while allowing Iran’s internal dynamics to shape the future.

8. Iran’s Perception of the United States

[15:37] Dan Waken:
Waken inquires about Iran’s view of the U.S. involvement.

[15:44] Tom Friedman:
Friedman offers insights into Iranian public sentiment:

• Regime’s Popularity:

  • Approximately 20% favor the current regime.
  • Quote: “In Tehran, … the polling there is at about the regime's popularity stands at about 20%” ([15:44]).

• Public Sentiment:

  • Educated Iranians are divided between nationalism and support for the Islamic Republic.
  • Quote: “Educated Iranians … believe in Iran's greatness and potential … then you have another group … who believe that the Islamic Republic is the greatest thing” ([15:44]).

• Personal Reflection:

  • Friedman expresses fascination and cautious observation of the unfolding events.
  • Quote: “I would actually pop popcorn … this is one of the most remarkable dramas in the Middle east in my lifetime” ([16:35]).

[15:37 - 16:35]

• Key Points:
  • The Iranian regime lacks strong popular support, particularly among educated segments.
  • Public opinion in Iran is split, influencing the potential for internal change.

9. Conclusion

[16:35] Dan Waken:
Waken wraps up the conversation, thanking Tom Friedman for his insights.

[16:37] Tom Friedman:
Friedman reciprocates the gratitude, concluding the discussion.

---

Key Takeaways:

• Historic Conflict: The Iran-Israel missile exchange marks a significant escalation in Middle Eastern geopolitics, reminiscent of pivotal wars since World War II.
• U.S. Role: The Trump administration is pivotal in shaping the outcome through potential military support and diplomatic strategies, though its policy consistency remains uncertain.
• Strategic Approaches: Iran employs unpredictable tactics to destabilize, while Israel seeks definitive elimination of threats, often contemplating extensive military actions.
• Potential Outcomes: The conflict could lead to either positive democratic shifts in Iran or catastrophic regional instability, depending on how the situation evolves.
• Iranian Sentiment: Low regime popularity and divided public opinion suggest a potential for internal change, but the path remains uncertain and fraught with risks.

Notable Quotes:

• Tom Friedman:
  “This conflict has never risen. It’s always been under the table. It’s never risen to this point of open warfare between Israel and Iran now” ([01:50]).

• Tom Friedman:
  “Coercive diplomacy. Give Israel the club for real coercion, but negotiate so it doesn’t have to use it” ([09:46]).

• Tom Friedman:
  “I would actually pop popcorn … this is one of the most remarkable dramas in the Middle east in my lifetime” ([16:35]).

---

This summary encapsulates the critical discussions and insights shared by Tom Friedman on the escalating Iran-Israel conflict, highlighting its historical significance, the intricate role of U.S. policy, and the potential future scenarios for the Middle East.

Transcript

[Sponsor Announcement]

This episode is supported by Wealthfront. Markets can be unpredictable, but your cash doesn't have to be with Wealthfront's cash account. Earn 4% annual percentage yield on your cash from program banks with free instant withdrawals to eligible accounts. Get a $50 bonus when you open your first cash account and deposit $[e-mail] opinions bonus terms and conditions apply. Cash account offered by Wealthfront Brokerage, LLC member FINRA SIPC, not a bank a APY and deposits as of December 27, 2024 is representative, subject to change and requires no minimum. Funds are swept to program banks where they earn the variable apy. This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it.

[Dan Waken]

I'm Dan Waken, an international editor for the New York Times Opinion section. Last week, after ISRA launched a missile attack aimed mainly at Iran's nuclear infrastructure, opinion columnist Tom Friedman wrote that the conflict quote needs to be added to the list of pivotal game changing wars that have reshaped the Middle east since World War II. Of course, how it will reshape the region is still very much in play, as is what the United States role should be. To talk this through, I'm joined by Tom now. Welcome Tom.

[Tom Friedman]

Great to be with you, Dan.

[Dan Waken]

So to start, I'd love for you to explain why you think this particular conflict is likely to be historic. In other words, what exactly is at stake for the region in this back and forth of missile attacks between Israel and Iran. And we're taping this on Tuesday, late morning, so things may well change by the time this publishes.

[Tom Friedman]

Well, I'd point to two things. One is the fact that since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the hostility between the United States and Iran and between Israel and Iran has been one of the most important shaping dynamics in the Middle East. And that conflict has never risen. It's always been under the table. It's never risen to this point of open warfare between Israel and Iran now attacking each other's countries with missiles and doing it in a way that suggests that this war will not end without one of two things changing. One, the regime in Iran, I think that's less likely. And the other, Iran's nuclear program. And so if either of those change, it's a fundamental earthquake in the region and so many different relationships will flow from it. The second reason that it's important is that Iran's relationship with the Arab world is also at stake. Since 1979, Iran has been engaged in something that is close to a colonial enterprise, in effect indirectly controlling Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, four Arab capitals, and by doing so prevented them from falling into any kind of Western camp, any kind of embrace with Israel, in the case of Lebanon and Syria, prevented them from getting on a track to more consensual Western democratic style government. And so that also is at stake here. So I can't think of anything I've covered in recent years that is more important than this conflict right now.

[Dan Waken]

And how does that relate to US Interests?

[Tom Friedman]

Well, in two ways again, Dan. One is that obviously the Cold War between the United States and Iran since 1979, since the Iranian revolution, has been one of the most important dynamics in the region and really prevented a more regional integration. And if this conflict, see now in any way ends with regime change in Iran, and I'm not predicting it, but it is in the realm of possibility and we see the end of the U. S. Iran enmity, that would be huge. And at the same time, we've already seen the weakening of Iran and the weakening of its proxy allies, particularly Hezbollah has allowed the emergence of a new government in Lebanon with two outstanding leaders, Prime Minister Nawaf Salaam and the president Joseph Aboud, and giving Lebanon a chance to actually come together again and repair itself and restore some semblance of its pluralistic democratic roots. And now the same in Syria. And what is good for Syria and good for Lebanon tends to affect Iraq as well. So there's a lot of potential positive changes that could come about if people in these other countries can take advantage of them and find their own way to more consensual politics. Now that the dead hand of Iran has been removed from the neck of Lebanon and Syria and loosened in Iraq.

[Dan Waken]

How much do you think of what Israel is doing is related to eliminating the nuclear threat or actually carrying out regime change?

[Tom Friedman]

Well, carrying out regime change through an air war is very difficult. And even stripping Iran of all its nuclear capacity will be difficult just with aerial bombing. I think that is the number one goal of what Israel is doing. But it's certainly hoping that if Iran is humiliated militarily and stripped of its nuclear capacity, that that could trigger an uprising by the Iranian people or different forces in Iran. Now, to that, I would say a couple things. One is be careful what you wish for, because the thing we have learned from all the uprisings in the Middle east in recent years is that the opposite of autocracy, at least in the Middle east, is not necessarily democracy. We saw the decapitation of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya, it led to basically disorder. We've seen a similar thing in Yemen. We saw a similar thing in Syria. And so just because you get rid of the mullahs doesn't mean that Thomas Jefferson and friends and their Iranian equivalents are there at the ready to govern what is a country of 85 million people spread over a vast landmass made up of many different minorities as well, not just Persians. So I think one should be very humble about that. I don't think anyone should go in with the expect aim of regime change. If it happens and it happens in a positive way, that would be great for Iranians first and foremost and for the region. But I think one should be very careful of mission creep here and focus entirely on the effort to use coercive diplomacy to get Iran to abandon its nuclear program once and for all.

[Dan Waken]

You just published a column earlier this week that outlines two very different approaches guiding Iran and Israel right now. Can you go into a little detail about what those two approaches are?

[Tom Friedman]

Well, you know, the Iranians and their proxy Hezbollah have always practiced a strategic phenomena that I call out crazy because they do some crazy stuff. They have been reportedly behind the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, the very fine former prime minister of Lebanon. They were behind backing Bashar Assad's murderous putting down of his own people. They are reportedly behind the US Embassy bombing and the Marine bombing and a whole spate of also attacks on Lebanese journalists. And so these guys play by the local rules and local rules are no rules at all. And they always think that they can out crazy you. They help drive the American Marines out of Beirut by blowing up the Marine compound with a suicide bomber. The one party they've never been able to out crazy are the Israeli Jews. And you can't out crazy Israel because while the perception among the Iranians and some of their fellow travelers is that Israel is a colonial implant, it is actually not a colonial implant. The Jews are indigenous there, which is to say that they're not the Belgian Congo. They have no Belgium to go back to. And so when you try to out crazy them, they will outcrazy you back. And that's sort of what you're seeing play out right now. The other strategic framework in the region which you see over and over again from the Israeli side is once and for all. So Israelis, after any kind of major Palestinian attack want to say we're going to finish this problem now once and for all. That was the mantra of Netanyahu when He went into Gaza after the heinous Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023. The only way you get a bit of a problem once and for all is either you get rid of all the people, get rid of every last Palestinian, or get rid of every last one of their organizations by occupying them for 50 years and changing the culture as America did in Japan and Germany after World War II. Otherwise, once and for all doesn't really work. At the end of the day, Israel still needs to find a compromise with Palestinians, and Palestinians need to get their act together to find a compromise with Israelis. But you can't understand what's going on in the Middle east right now if you don't understand that in the Israel, Iran theater, we're seeing the strategy of you cannot out crazy me playing out. And between Israelis and Palestinians, we're seeing the flaws of a strategy of I'm gonna finish you off once and for all.

[Dan Waken]

So it seems like you think the US can, you know, take a strong position in trying to stabilize the region. But should it is the question. And if so, can you walk us through what the Trump administration should do?

[Tom Friedman]

Well, you know, Trump didn't start this war, but I do think the war, as the 1973 war, enabled Henry Kissinger to deftly shape the outcome in a way that produced a diplomatic outcome. I think the same is true here. I think Trump has been basically saying to the Iranians, I gave you a chance to negotiate, I gave you 60 days, you weren't serious. Now you may want to come back to me because as you can see, my friend Bibi is crazy. He's crazy. I don't know what he's going to do. And so he's been using basically Bibi as a club to beat the Iranians back to the table. Is it too late? Are they not willing to come? I don't know. But I think that's what the dynamic is going on right now. Israel is bound and determined to strip Iran of all its nuclear bomb making capabilities, including the Fordo enrichment plant buried deep inside a mountain. How they do that with American help or without American help, that's what's being negotiated right now. What I think the Trump administration should do is give Israel the 30,000 pound bunker buster bombs and the B2 bombers to deliver them and the training of the pilots to deliver them and give Israel that capacity. So it can fundamentally threaten Iran by saying that we could destroy 30% of your television and radio infrastructure. And you need to let the iaea, the International Atomic Energy Commission, Into Fordow, you need to turn off all those spinning uranium processing machines, and you need to get out of the nuclear bomb business in a verifiable way. That, to me, would be the best outcome here. Coercive diplomacy. Give Israel the club for real coercion, but negotiate so it doesn't have to use it. That, to me, is the ideal outcome that President Trump should be working for. Whether he sees that, whether he wants Iran to have any nuclear capacity even for a civilian program, whether he is afraid to have the United States involved directly in military conflict or not, I think that's all to be determined. But this is serious judgment time for Trump. Does he take out the Iranian nuclear program in far do by himself, as with the US Air Force? Does he let Israel do it? Does he let nobody do it?

[Dan Waken]

I mean, is there any way that Israel could do that on its own, take out the nuclear capabilities under the mountain in Fordo?

[Tom Friedman]

We don't think so. And I say we don't think so because Israel has demonstrated certain capacities in the last week that a lot of people didn't anticipate. The ability to pick off different senior Iranian military leaders from, you know, hundreds and hundreds of miles away. What is Netanyahu's bottom line? I don't think he has one. And he's kind of riffing as he goes along as well, and calculating his interests and harms and benefits of the war. And right now, I think he's decided that the benefits vast overweigh the harms. And he's going to do everything he can, I think, to take out the Fordo nuclear facility. That will require, I think, eventually, troops on the ground. It's hard to believe they can do it from the air, but that's where I think that's going.

[Dan Waken]

And there's a lot of attention being paid to President Trump's role or potential role in this. Do you think that's exaggerated? Are people putting too much hope on what he can achieve?

[Tom Friedman]

Is so hard to know, Dan. Trump oscillates between President of the United States and a commentator on the presidency of the United States. And one minute he's telling Iranians to get out of Tehran, the other minute he's saying, well, boy, these guys could really fight it out. As if he replaced Pete Hegseth on the weekend commentary show on Fox. And so you just don't know what comes out of Trump's mouth, whether it's actually strategically planned to send a message, whether someone just put a bee on his bonnet and he demanded to go it could be all of those things. And so it's just not clear to me what the Trump policy is. I have no sources in this administration, and I find sources are useless in this administration from afar because everybody's trying to figure out what Trump is gonna say, do, or tweet, including his Secretary of state.

[Dan Waken]

Tom, do you think that any good can come out of this conflict for the region and for the world?

[Tom Friedman]

Well, it's a very good question, Dan, and I would just go back to where I began, which is that the Iranian Islamic regime has been a terrible regime, first and foremost, for the Iranian people. It's corrupt. A couple years ago, it arrested 20,000 of its own people, killed and executed 500 of them in an uprising, detained a woman for not having her head fully covered, and then beat her so badly that she died in custody. That's what we're talking about here. It's a regime that has funded militia in Yemen, Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq that work against all the democratic processes in these countries. And it's a regime that basically has overseen the devastation of the Iranian economy. And this is a. Iran's a serious country. It's 85 million people. And so if somehow this regime could go peacefully or relatively peacefully and be replaced by a more consensual government in Iran, that would be wonderful. But if it can't, it could be disastrous, because Iran is a country that doesn't implode. It would explode and shards would fall all across the region and all across the oil market. And how it be reintegrated or restabilized, I don't know. So I'm trying to be very humble in my analysis and advocacy. I think we should focus on getting rid of its nuclear capacity to make a bomb and threaten its neighbors and leave the rest to what the Iranian people decide on the ground.

[Dan Waken]

And finally, how do you think Iran perceives the role of the United States here?

[Tom Friedman]

You know, I've watched a few interviews from Tehran, and, you know, the polling there is at about the regime's popularity stands at about 20%. You know, it's mostly rural, but if you talk to educated Iranians, I think they're torn between Iranian nationalism, which doesn't want to see their country destroyed, that very much believes in Iran's greatness and potential to greatness, given its incredible human talent. And then you have another group, I think they're much smaller, no more than 20%, who believe that the Islamic Republic is the greatest thing to ever happen to Iran and will stand and fight for it till their dying. Breath. What will happen here? I just don't know. I mean if it weren't my own country, I would actually pop popcorn, pull up a chair, put at my feet and watch this because this is one of the most remarkable dramas in the Middle east in my lifetime and I'm 71.

[Dan Waken]

Thanks so much Thomas. Been great talking to you.

[Tom Friedman]

Wonderful. Thank you. D.

[Sponsor Announcement]

If you like this show, follow it on Spotify, Apple or wherever you get your podcasts. The Opinions is produced by Derek Arthur Vishaka Darba, Kristina Samulewski and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Alison Bruzek. Engineering, mixing and original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro and Afim Shapiro. Additional music by Aman Sahota. The Fact Check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. Audience strategy by Shannon Busta and Christina Samulewski. The director of Times Opinion Audio is Annie Rose Strasser.