← The President's Daily Brief
The President's Daily Brief
PDB Situation Report | February 1st, 2025: Is Iran Setting A ‘Trump Trap’? & America’s Own ‘Iron Dome’ System
01:07:24
Loading summary
Transcript68 lines
- [00:00]
Ryan Reynolds
Hey there, Ryan Reynolds here. It's a new year and you know what that means. No, not the diet resolutions. A way for us all to try and do a little bit better than we did last year. And my resolution, unlike big wireless, is to not be a raging and raise the price of wireless on you every chance I get. Give it a try@mintmobile.com switch $45 upfront payment required equivalent to $15 per month.
- [00:23]
Mike Baker
New customers on first 3 month plan.
- [00:25]
Ryan Reynolds
Only taxes and fees. Extra Speed slower above 40 GB on unlimited. See mintmobile.com for details. This episode is brought to you by Lifelock. The new year brings new health goals and wealth goals. Protecting your identity is an important step. Lifelock monitors millions of data points per second. If your identity is stolen, Lifelock's restoration specialist will fix it, guaranteed or your money back. Resolve to make identity, health and wealth part of your New year's goals. With LifeLock, save up to 40% your first year. Visit LifeLock.com podcast Terms apply.
- [01:11]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Welcome to the PDP Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right, let's get briefed. We'll start things off today in the Middle east where Iranian leaders are are reportedly telling their proxies to lay low out of fear of antagonizing President Trump. Bennett Ben Taliblu of the foundation for the Defense of Democracies will give us his insights into Tehran's strategy later in the show. President Trump's latest executive orders include a push for a multi layered homeland air defense system requiring the development of space based interceptors. Now Brandon Weickert, author of We Winning Space How America Remains a Superpower. That's a great book by the way, and you should pick it up. Breaks down the technology behind what's being called America's Iron Dome. But first, today's situation report. Spotlight. Iran is reportedly urging its proxy forces and there are a number of them to stand down, fearing that provoking Donald Trump could spark a crisis that threatens the regime's survival. It's all about holding on to power for them. According to an exclusive Telegraph report, Tehran is quietly ordering militias in Iraq and Yemen to halt attacks on US assets, warning them not to use Iranian made weapons if they do act. Oh, a senior Iranian source put it bluntly, the regime feels an existential threat. With Trump's return. Iran's leadership has reason to be worried. Trump's first term saw the maximum pressure campaign, crippling sanctions and the targeted killing of of Quds Force commander Qasem Soleimani. Now, with their proxy war against Israel in shambles and Bashar al Assad, of course, ousted in Syria, Iran's regional power has been severely weakened. So you ask yourself, what does this restraint signal for the Middle East? Well, joining us to break it down is Bena Ben Taliblu, senior fellow at the foundation for Defense of Democracies. Beno, thanks very much for joining us here on THE SITUATION report.
- [03:09]
Ryan Reynolds
Always great to be with you. Happy New Year to you and the.
- [03:11]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Listeners and to you as well. I hope your 2025 is, is off to a good start. Yeah, I guess. Let's, let's go from the 30,000 foot view. What do you make of, of this report that the Iranian regime is essentially telling their proxies to, to, you know, sit on ice, don't attack, don't provoke, lay low. What do you make of that?
- [03:35]
Ryan Reynolds
Well, it's consistent, it's consistent with patterns of Iranian national security behavior in the past. It's consistent with a theory I have as to how Iran's supreme leader and commander in chief is trying to set the chessboard for the short term future. And that is there's a Trump trap being set right now in Tehran. The Islamic Republic is looking to not just take advantage of President Trump's instinct and desire for a deal, but but to really use negotiations as a shield against increasing Israeli military action, both against it as well as its proxies in the region. It's also looking to buy time to prevent transatlantic coordination between Europe and America on a whole host of issues like counter missile, counter drone, counter human rights, a whole host of things that Europe and America have been increasingly good on together in the multilateral space. It's also to that end, trying to use negotiations to prevent major diplomatic pressure at the UN there's this thing called snapback where there's the restoration of UN sanctions. The last opportunity to have this happen is October 18, 2025. So it's trying very hard to put on a nice space and avoid that deadline as well. And then naturally on the economic front, the regime is bankrupt, the regime is broke. It's afraid of a return of max pressure 2.0. And it's trying to sweeten the equation for the presidents by trying to turn off the fire. And indeed, if you look at Iran backed militias in a place like Iraq, for example, they have not struck US Positions in Iraq or Syria really since the election period or shortly thereafter. And this too, I think is a signal, but one I think that the new administration should see as a signal of weakness Rather than a signal of goodwill and good faith.
- [05:23]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Yeah, I was going to ask you that. I mean, because it's, you could kind of look at this from both sides. You could say, okay, well, what you're implying is that the Iranian regime is, is significantly weakened and they're looking just to maintain a hold on power to survive. And so they're, they're doing what they need to in order to try to save themselves. Or, you know, it almost seems also that you're implying that it's a very strategic plan on their part, very thought out plan, and that they're basically just buying time with the idea that I would imagine that they're looking to rebuild their proxies and claw back some of the problems that they've experienced.
- [06:02]
Ryan Reynolds
I think that's exactly right. What you just laid out is a combination of tactical and strategical what this regime is doing in the short term and the logic with which it's doing it in the eye to which it's doing it for the long term. I mean, just look at what the regime was doing in late December and early January before President elect Trump became President Trump. So basically before inauguration, there was a surge in attempts to sell Iranian oil, including Iranian oil that was held in storage in borders and in ports in places like China, for example, so that they could get more revenue, so that they could again brace themselves for maximum pressure. And then of course, there is not my word, but the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency was talking about the regime hitting the gas pedal, I think was the phrase in terms of uranium enrichment and the speed at which it was enriching to 60% purity. And just for the audience though, uranium is the fissile material you need for a nuclear weapon. But a country that can reach to 60% is basically 90 plus percent of the way. And 90% purity, and 90% purity is pure weapons grade uranium. That's like the perfect material that you would need for that core of a nuclear weapon. And because enrichment with uranium is, is logarithmic, it's not linear. If you go 60%.
- [07:17]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Yeah, yeah, that 60 to 90 is, is again, not to oversimplify, is sort of the easier lift. It's getting to the 60% that, that takes, the time, the effort, the work. Give us your perspective if you could. I mean, how weak are they? We talk about, okay, they're obviously that you, yeah, Hamas, Hezbollah, even the Houthis at this point have, have been degraded by Israeli actions for the most part. But looking at the Iranian regime, how.
- [07:45]
Ryan Reynolds
How weak are they, well, there's a couple different measures. There's, there's the fact that this regime has had energy crises, currency crises, even on the backdrop of the outgoing Biden administration's lack sanctions enforcement. So certainly there is the political effects of the loss of its sole state ally in the Middle east, the Assad regime in Syria. There is the gutting of two of the major proxies that the regime has armed, trained and equipped to Israel's north and south. That's Hezbollah in Lebanon and that's Hamas in Gaza that the Israelis have militarily beaten back. There's basically the long range air defenses that the Iranians had received from the Russians. That's the S300 that the Israelis had significantly damaged or destroyed in their October response to Iran's October ballistic missile barrage. And by the way, that is the largest single day ballistic missile barrage in history. And even though the Iranians landed some 30 to 32 to 35 missiles, depending on how you count, that was largely believed to be a successful interception by the Israelis in the interconnected system of air and missile defense in the Middle east that the US has worked to support. But again, you don't have to take my word for it. Just take a look at the Persian press in the past week, week and a half, and it's all been a case of the lady Daw protest too much. You have major Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps officials feeling the need to come out and say we are not weak. That traditionally tends to happen when you actually are weak. You have hardline media organizations in the Islamic Republic that have been championing the axis of resistance war against Israel over the past year, year and a half, since the war broke out on October 7, 2023 in the middle east of Hamas attack against Israel. And they are running headlines like the war which we want, which empirically and objectively you cannot say for the Islamic Republic went their way. So because of all of this, the Islamic Republic is looking to use the prospect of negotiations to prevent an attack, to rebuild that home, to stabilize at home. And then tomorrow I make sure it's in the position to export that ideology and export those arms, weapons and money again abroad.
- [09:59]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Okay, well, and you referred to it at the beginning as a Trump trap. The new, you know, President Trump as, as stated that he would prefer to find some sort of diplomatic, you know, result here rather than get engaged in a, in a direct conflict with the Iranian regime. So it seems as if, and I think, you know, their intuition is probably right based on what you were saying. I think that they, they understand sort of the, the draw that, that, that they can use here with Trump's ability to, or desire to find a deal to negotiate. Right. To say that he's at the table and he's, he's struck a great deal. So you know, what's the alternative? Because if, if the Iranian regime indicates that they are willing to sit down and talk, that's it. I mean you can't really take, what are you doing? You can't, you, you can't say, well no, we're not going to do that. I mean, I don't know that there's any political will in Washington D.C. that say like no negotiation. We're just going to get, you know, we're going to degrade the Iranian regime further. So how do you, how do you counter this? What's your, what's your answer?
- [11:06]
Ryan Reynolds
Well, I think there are certain, certainly different ways to counter it. You know, one is to take your cues from the street inside Iran rather than the narrative the state is trying to sell you. And the cues from the street is simply that this regime is weak, it has no legitimacy. They even tried to have just a few weeks ago made your paramilitary parade. I made a whole series of military parades that they had in the paramilitary in that country, it's called the Basij and not Avijo is supposed to be an all volunteer force, the most loyal of the loyalty. And a lot of these guys didn't even show up, which was a major loss to face because this is one of the most hard line security forces that is used by the state against the street consistently in these multiple rounds of protests. So you know, we should be taking our cues from, from what is going on in the street in that country and actually developing an organic playbook to support the people the next time they come out into the street. That's, you know, that needs to be the long term orienting vision that the arsonist behind the many fires in the Middle east is the Islamic Republic of Iran. It's taking advantage of America's adriftness in the Middle east, particularly post Afghanistan withdrawal, but particularly beginning with the wars in the Middle east after 911 and particularly after the Arab Spring and particularly after the power vacuum that they left. So really being able to align your head with your heart, having a policy that has maximum pressure against the regime and maximum support with the people, that's big picture number one. But in response to if the Iranians come and say, hey, let's talk, then the president deserves to have an idea of what an Actual good deal looks like. And I'll tell you one thing, I'm not sure the Islamic Republic can actually give a good deal at this point in time. A because the people who, who set the fires in the Middle east and lost the wars that they started, like Hamas, like Hezbollah, like the Islamic Republic of Iran, do not get to dictate the terms to the victors, which is the Israelis and the Americans. So the President needs to be wary that the loser is trying to dictate terms to him. He has the power. And the debate that you hear by the former proponents of the JCPOA that was the 2015 Obama era nuclear deal, who also in this town, in Washington where I work and live, are quite keen to take advantage of President Trump's deal making instincts. They are, you know, keen to say, oh, you can kick the can down the road, modify some of the things in Obama's agreement and it becomes your agreement and you know, you'll get, I don't know, a Nobel Prize for this or something. This is very dangerous thinking because it risks enshrining the loser, the Islamic Republic, over the current victor, America and Israel. And that simply is not a good political prospect, let alone a policy prospect for a president, particularly a president like Donald Trump. So the only acceptable kind of nuclear only framework that I could offer here is not an arms control deal. So if you're going to talk to them, it's not about arms control. It's not like the idf, Reagan and Gorbachev. It's not like the jcpoa, Obama and Rouhani. The model here, if you want to test the seriousness of this regime, is a disarmament kind of deal like Taiwan way back in the day, and more importantly South Africa way back in the day. You have to give up the WMD program and associated infrastructure altogether. And the debate that is being had in this town is, oh well, what kind of sanctions relief package can the President give? The debate among the Europeans is how can we get Iran to trust America. That all misses the forest through the trees because of the regime's weakness. What you get to tell them is the thing that you get is to have oxygen tomorrow. You, it's not about your correspondent banking accounts and cash in your pocket. We simply will not curb stomp tomorrow. And we can't guarantee that we won't curb stomp you a week from now or a month from now. But we will not take advantage of your weakness in this precise moment again, because they are the loser. They are the arsonist of the multiple buyers and they don't get to come and now be the firemen.
- [15:06]
Benham Ben Taliblu
I take your point at the outset about what's important is getting the pulse of the people, the population and understanding what that means to the stability of the Iranian regime and the fear that that may instill in the regime in terms of trying to hold on to power. I want to pursue that and then and pick up on a couple of other things you've said. But right now we're going to have to take a quick break. Benham, if you just stay but don't go anywhere. And we'll be right back with more of THE SITUATION report. Welcome back to THE SITUATION report. And joining me again is Benham Ben Taliblu of the foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Benham, you made a really interesting point earlier. We were talking about, you know, how weak in reality is the regime. How does President Trump avoid what you refer to as the Trump trap in terms of sitting down at the negotiating table and, you know, their desire to buy time. And you pointed out that one of the things that needs to be understood is, is not to take the narrative from the Iranian state media, the Iranian regime, what they talk about, how they talk, but to understand the, the conditions of the people, the population, getting the pulse of the population, being able to support them the next time they come out in the streets. Now, I guess I want to push back there a little bit. I don't disagree with you, but that's been kind of the holy grail for decades now that at some point the population's going to rise up and, you know, get rid of this despotic regime and live the lives that they deserve. But it, it doesn't happen, and it's happened a couple of times in a mild manner. Then obviously the administrations in the US at the time didn't pick up on that. They didn't pursue it. They didn't support, you know, what do we have that tells us that it could happen sometime in our lifetime?
- [16:57]
Ryan Reynolds
Sure. So just empirically looking at not just the pattern of protest against the Islamic Republic, which when you contrast 1999 and 2009, and that 2009 was the green movement versus 2017 to present, where the pattern of protest has been much more geographically and demographically diverse, the slogans have been against the regime in its entirety rather than a certain segment or a certain liberal class or certain factual group in this regime. You know, all of this stuff points to the population is sped up and it will be a question of when, not if, the next major crisis, where the state, where the street comes out against the state. And that could be triggered by an economic issue, as it was in 2019. It could be triggered by a social issue, as it was with the violent hijab enforcement against mas Amini in September 2022. It could be triggered again by labor issues, as we saw in 2018. Across Iran, there are a whole host of triggers for this kind of situation. So what the US Needs to do before that situation manifests is to develop this protest policy playbook and perhaps working with the Israelis or Europeans or people who have talked about supporting the Iranian people and seeing where, in terms of foreign governments, you can get your money where your mouth is, to actually make sure the Iranian people have what they need in terms of tech for VPNs to be able to access the Internet. Perhaps Starlink, Elon Musk, now that he's in the administration, could help get satellite Internet into the hands of the Iranians when there's a national Internet blackout. Perhaps in terms of a cyber campaign, there can be a coordinated cyber campaign to go after regime command and control. Every time they're going after certain segments of Iranian society, there's a whole host of creative options here to turn that principled support into practical support. So I'm not at all skeptical about the next time that the Iranian population will come out. That's the history of that country, not just against this regime for the past 45 years, unfortunately soon to be 46 years, but also for the past hundred plus years of the social and political movements in that country. You know, it's a lot. For over 100 years, this was a country that's gotten smaller, not bigger. It has a tradition of trying to seek representative government. And all the analogies that we hear about today of Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya, where there is militarized regime change, they're all like square peg, round hole. Because fundamentally, this is not about trying to get a foreign government to do a military style takeover. This is trying to get the original government in that country out of the people's way. It's a fundamentally different thing.
- [19:33]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Well, okay, so you're not skeptical about the population at some point saying enough is enough. Are you, are you optimistic that when that happens, the U.S. or other, you know, relevant members of the global community will do anything about it in terms of support?
- [19:54]
Ryan Reynolds
That right now is, is a hot, fun debate and is very much TBD with the Trump Administration 2.0, because Trump Administration 1.0 had actually made history in this regard. The President, you know, he shattered the conventional wisdom or whatever the phrase is, he slaughtered the sacred cows that used to exist both on the left and on the right in Washington, D.C. about when the Iranian people go out, can you at least rhetorically, vociferously support them? Because if you remember with Obama and the green movement, the whole thing was, would foreign support, Western support in particular, even American support be seen as a kiss of death? Donald Trump slaughtered that sacred cow and show that there was little to no cost to actually being able to do that. So now the question is, as he's back in the administration Again, Trump term 2.0, will he be able to do this when the rubber hits the road and when people are out there in the streets? One of the short term challenges to that is given all the domestic and regional and foreign policy and security and economic crisis the regime has. President Trump's consistency, both during the campaign period as well as the few days in the week or so he's been in office, is that he's more narrowly scoped the Iran problem to just nuclear. And even within the prism of just nuclear, he's been fairly consistent about wanting a deal. And that doesn't necessarily add wind beneath the wings of Iranian protesters who will see every dollar given this regime as a dollar that would enrich this repressive apparatus and buy time for regime which has no legitimacy. So it really will be a catch 22 for the Trump administration how to square this circle.
- [21:28]
Benham Ben Taliblu
And I think that's really a critical point. And I was going to ask you about this because in, in theory, right, if, if, if what? The hope is, right, not, not just, you know, for the global community in terms of seeing this regime step aside, but the, the people of Iran itself, right, For a better life. If the hope is to get to that point, then theoretically, maximum pressure, right? A maximum pressure campaign that further degrades the Iranian regime's revenue streams and economic stability. That is in the interest of what we're talking about, right? But if there's a movement to sit down at the negotiating table, then as you pointed out earlier, one of the, you would imagine one of the elements will be sanctions relief. Then again, to use one of your phrases from earlier, we're just kicking the can down the road, right? We're putting lipstick on a pig and letting some other generation maybe deal with the problem or try to find a solution later on. So we're not really solving anything if we sit back down again. I'm just positing this for your, for your comments. I want your perspective. You know, we're not solving anything by saying we're going to sit down at the negotiating table and create a deal with the Iranian regime that in reality just keeps them in power.
- [22:46]
Ryan Reynolds
No, you frame that brilliantly and let me take this and move it into the hard nosed world of realism and even see it as the way the new administration might want to see it, which is through the America first lens or, you know, how to put America first. When it comes to your moral imperatives and your strategic imperatives, let's pretend you are content with kicking the can down the road because sometimes in statecraft, it's really about managing rather than solving. But we've gotten to a point where we've so consistently managed left and right and so poorly managed left and right that that problem set is actually now managing us. We are more deterred by the weaker power than the stronger power being able to deter that weaker power. That's the fundamental issue here. There is an imbalance, at least in terms of political intention and will and resolve here. And that's something the Islamic Republic is hoping to capitalize on, despite the real capability and material difference between Iran and America. So I would advise the President take advantage of the massive chasm between state and society in Iran and take advantage of the massive differential between Israel and Iran and America and Iran, and use that to your advantage at the negotiating table. If you can get a disarmament agreement that doesn't pay this regime, that says you get to breathe tomorrow and then we'll talk about what comes the day after tomorrow, then great. But I think it's highly unlikely right now. And I think the trap the regime is setting up is to get the President to go away from disarmament and back into managing, back into arms control, back into kicking the can down the road, back into having to actually have American values and interests at odds with each other over Iran policy rather than be complementary with each other. And to take a fatally flawed framework like Obama's 2015 nuclear deal and just change some t's across some t's, dot semis, turn a few periods into commas, change something that says 10 years into 15 years and say you have an entirely new agreement when the President campaigned in term one rightly against the flaws of that agreement.
- [24:48]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Yeah, I think if they were to go to the table, here's what I would love to see. I don't think it's going to happen, but if the team handling this for the White House would say, fine, we'll sit at the table and talk to you, but here's, here's the situation and we, we're not talking about sanctions relief yet. We're talking about, as an example, full transparency on your nuclear program. We will tell you what facilities we want to inspect and this is how we're going to inspect them and this is what we're going to do. That's an arms deal because again, the previous one, you know, John Kerry used to say, well, you know, it's all based on verification. Well, yeah, verification of the sites that they allowed you to look at. So, you know, if they would go in and be hard nosed about it and say, here it is, otherwise fine, we don't care, we're going to walk away. And here's what we're going to do for you. You know, we are doing the maximum pressure campaign. We are going to stop any revenue streams we identify going into your regime and the irgc, which got its finger in every part of the economy. But again, I, you know, I think I'm, I think I'm kind of bloviating on, on hopes and dreams rather than, you know, what I believe they'll actually do. I think the, the, the, the desire in Washington D.C. for status quo. Right. You know, nothing happening on my watch is, is a good thing. I'm worried that that is going to kind of drive the day here and we're going to end up with a very unsatisfactory result which again will leave the regime in power and with us really not solving any issues. I know that makes me sound really, really churlish and cynical and I apologize for that.
- [26:35]
Ryan Reynolds
No, you're being smart. You're being smart. No need to apologize, sir. You're being smart because naturally, no president wants something to go boom on their watch. Naturally, no president wants to get stuck at another endless conflict in the region where unfortunately in recent memory there has been endless conflict with no political victory, let alone clear economic thing we can extract or military prize at the end of that tunnel. Naturally, this president campaigned against that and doesn't want to fall into that. But then here's where I say we have to take those very realistic fears, that very least common denominator approach and globalize it. Because if we're going to be that unsuccessful in terms of will and capability against a power that is this much weaker, woe unto us for being able to push back against Putin and xi. Woe unto us for being able to defend the entirety of the Western hemisphere and have this be the American hemisphere. There is no straight line from losing to the Islamic Republic of Iran. And being able to win against the People's Republic of China, especially when it comes to other things like how the Chinese are going to be assessing our resolve on Persian Gulfs.
- [27:42]
Benham Ben Taliblu
There's a lot more questions here on my little list of questions to, to ask you, but I'm afraid that we're, we're running out of time from a timing perspective. Let me ask you this. Have you heard anything coming out of, I don't know. It's only the first couple of weeks of this administration. But have you heard anything about possible discussions, any, any timetable for dealing with the regime, with the Iranian regime?
- [28:07]
Ryan Reynolds
So what I would like to see, and I haven't seen thus far, is a steady pace of sanctions coming out that show that the sanctions that the president helped to craft are going to be vigorously enforced and scaled up over time. Thus far, there's been a whole host of comments about seeking a diplomatic agreement. Now, it cautioned the administration from saying this too often or too frequently because, again, that would destroy the strong power differential that exists between America and Iran and again, allow the weaker power to take advantage of the stronger power when they get to the negotiating. So nothing's been said at that timeline. In fact, at the time of this recording, we don't even know who is technically going to even be the Iran envoy. You know, the point person in term one, this was Brian Hook. In term two, he was let go from the team right before inauguration. There were rumors that it would be Steve Witkoff. Those rumors were later, you know, found their way into mainstream press based on sources and exclusives. And then later, President Trump actually came out and kibosh that source, saying that, no, there still is no Iran envoy or that if I'm not mistaken, he said that Witkoff will not be handling that file. So there is more questions than answers here. But certainly, I think the Islamic Republic is looking to sweep the deal. They're talking publicly. You had the former foreign minister, one of the now vice presidents of Iran, Mohamed Javad Zarif at Davos trying to lure in the president. You had the foreign minister speak to Sky News. You had the president speak to NBC News where he literally walked back a threat that the DOJ and the FBI said was on the table. The DOJ and FBI last year said the Islamic Republic had a plot to kill President Trump. And then we had the smiling face of the regime, the new president tell nbs, tell NBC that there was no such thing.
- [29:52]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Well, look, that's been the history of, of our dealings with this regime is anytime they Throw a western looking, talking, sounding, you know, spokesperson or diplomat or official from the regime. It's like Pavlov's dogs. The U.S. whoever's in charge, just, they salivate and they think, oh, my God, look, we finally we've got an opportunity for reform. And, and, and, you know, moderation. It's just, you know, we, we never seem to really learn. Look, I have, if, if it's not Witkoff, frankly, Benham, I hope they give you a call.
- [30:25]
Ryan Reynolds
Listen, I'd be happy to take the call from anyone.
- [30:27]
Benham Ben Taliblu
This is all free advice anyway, Ben, I'm Ben Taliban. Listen, senior fellow at the foundation for Defense of Democracies. It's always a pleasure talking with you and I hope when we call, you'll pick up the phone again and come on back. All right. Wow. Well, there's a lot going on there. Moving on. President Trump is pushing for an Iron Dome missile defense system for the United States. Have you heard about this? But his plan doesn't stop there. Coming up next, we'll be joined by senior national security editor at the National Interest, Brandon Weickert. Right. Discuss. He'll be here to talk about why Trump is reviving a long debated idea, and that would be space based missile defense. Remember Star wars from the Reagan era? You don't. Oh, come on. Stay with us. Welcome back to the Situation report. President Trump is doubling down on national defense. And his latest executive order lays out an ambitious plan, the creation of an iron dome system for the United States. Now modeled after Israel's successful missile shield. The goal is to build a multi layered defense network capable of intercepting incoming threats before they reach US Soil. That seems like a sound plan, but this plan goes beyond ground based interceptors. Embedded in Trump's strategy is a push for space based missile defense. And that's a concept once championed by Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, otherwise known as Star Wars. Some military analysts question the feasibility, arguing that an Iron Dome style system, well, it makes sense for a small country like Israel, but may not be practical for the U.S. given its vast geography. But Trump and his team see it as a necessity in an era of hypersonic threats and advanced missile technology. Our next guest calls this technology the holy grail of American national defense. Brandon Weikart, author of Winning Space How America Remains a Superpower. And if you haven't read that and then you know what you've been doing with yourselves, go out and get it. And also a good friend of the show joins us now. Brandon, thanks very much for being with us on the Situation Report.
- [32:32]
Mike Baker
It's great to be back. Thanks for having me.
- [32:34]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Oh, absolutely. Well, all right. America's Iron Dome system. What does that mean?
- [32:39]
Mike Baker
Well, the first thing is, so I have a lot of friends in the Navy and they were kind of making fun of President Trump because they were saying, well, this is a short range system and we don't really have the kind of threats that Israel does. Israel is obviously a small country surrounded by enemies. So what's this really gonna do? Well, if you actually read and heard the executive order that President Trump issued, there's a lot more to it than just Iron Dome. That's the beginning. He makes it very clear. He explicitly states in that EO he wants space based missile interceptors. And so that is much more applicable to the self defense in the United States. Obviously, unlike Israel, we are a continental sized power and we are blessed by geography to have two massive oceans separating us from our, you know, our big rivals, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea.
- [33:39]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Hey, don't forget. That depends. I mean, you never know when Canada is going to attack.
- [33:42]
Mike Baker
Hey, hey, they're on notice. They're on notice. Now Greenland to Denmark.
- [33:47]
Benham Ben Taliblu
That's right.
- [33:49]
Mike Baker
But, but besides that, I forgot about Greenland. You're right. Yeah, but no, it's true. So, so we're blessed by geography. So an Iron Dome is helpful if, say, there's a terrorist threat operating just across the border in Mexico, which, you know, there are now reports, it's no longer just rumor. USA Today did report that, for instance, some of the Javelins we gave to Ukraine may have ended up in the cartels. And there's other reports now saying that there may be even bigger systems that the cartels have purchased on the black market. Systems that Iron Dome would be useful for deterring. But obviously against China and Russia, their Iron Dome is not as helpful. But the eo, the devil's in the details. Trump knows exactly what he's doing. He knows if he comes out and says, I'm going to build a space based defense system, all of the peaceniks, all of the globalists, all of the utopians are going to come out of the woodwork and try to do to him that which they did to Reagan when Reagan announced a similar thing. We called it Star wars back in the day. And so Trump is just basically saying it's Iron Dome, but there's a lot more to it.
- [34:59]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Okay, well, I. Look, I mean all those people who, you know, who cry about the idea of, of weaponizing space, I, I mean, they're kind of late to the game, but it's already been weaponized.
- [35:11]
Mike Baker
Right, right, right. And you know, in the book, in my book I kind of outline the distinction between for instance, militarization and weaponization. So really we've always had militarized space. What do you think Sputnik was? Right? Sputnik was a Soviet military operation. It's the first manned or sorry, unmanned human system put into orbit. And ever since then it was in the context of the Cold War. And then beyond that, you know, we now have surveillance systems, we have critical communications satellites, civilian and military. We can't exist without space. So it's not that big of a deal to go from militarization to weaponization. And as you allude to in my opinion, and I show this in the book, and the book came out now five years ago, so if anything it's moved beyond this. But as I show in the book, China and Russia using dual use technologies, have already weaponized space with these co orbital satellites and indeed the Chinese modular space Station, that is a rival to the International Space Station, that will exist longer than the iss, which is set to be decommissioned in a few years. China's military space station is explicitly a military affair.
- [36:26]
Benham Ben Taliblu
The idea that somehow the US should not be engaged in developing technologies for a, whatever you want to call it, Star wars system is, is asinine because those who don't have our interests at heart, yeah, the Chinese, the Russians, they're, they're all engaged in, in that activity already. But so, so talk to me. What, what does that mean? I mean I'm kind of throwing out these terms and as you might guess, I, I, I'm not a rocket scientist, but when we talk about sort of space based intercepting systems, is the technology where it needs to be now or how far off in the future are we talking about?
- [37:03]
Mike Baker
So this has always been the argument of what I call in the book the Utopians, which is that, well, the system is too complex, we can't rely on it. I can assure you that between 1982 when Reagan first announced strategic defense initiatives, so called Star wars and 2025, I can assure you the technology has certainly advanced significantly. You could have made the argument believably back in Reagan's time that we weren't quite there yet, but we're there now and it would not be that difficult for us to really scale this technology up, especially if we did do a Manhattan Project style program to get space based defenses. And by the way, your audience, I think I've been on before talking about hypersonic Weapons which the Chinese and the Russians have large numbers of. We do not. And we have no active defense against hypersonic weapons. Most of the defense experts that I speak to pretty regularly are convinced the only way we could shoot down hypersonic weapons would be with space based interceptors. So even if we're not talking nuclear war, we're talking conventional warheads on a hypersonic weapon, the only way we can stop it is with space based defenses. Trump knows that. And by the way, I don't know if you know, but my friend Sean Ryan did a great interview with Pete Hegseth right before Hegseth was nominated as Sec Def. And I highly recommend everybody watch it. It's two hours. Hegseth details the hypersonic threat. So Hegseth, Trump, they all get it.
- [38:35]
Benham Ben Taliblu
How come the US Is behind the curve? I mean, you mentioned China, Russia. Why aren't we leading that effort?
- [38:44]
Mike Baker
It comes down to political will and frankly, lack of strategic vision. We've had for 30 or 40 years now the end of the Cold War, we took our position as victor for granted. We thought not only was it the end of the Cold War with an American victory, but that it was the end of history. If you remember, that was Francis Fukuyama's thesis that enraptured everybody. Of course, Fukuyama himself has since walked that back. But in fact, our enemies did not think it was the end of history. Certainly the Russians didn't. I mean, what a horrible way to end history for them if that was the case. The Russians and the Chinese looked at it as an opportunity, especially when they realized that the Americans were going to seek to dominate, you know, the global hemisphere, the global commons. They wanted to create alternatives to that.
- [39:35]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Let's kind of go back to where we started, the, the iron dome system. Is there a place for something akin to an iron dome system in the US does that, I mean, again, I know you talked about, look, it may be some sort of, you know, attack from a cartel, a rogue group on the border or somewhere in. Fine, but is there a. Pragmatically speaking, do you get the sense that they actually are going to create an iron dome system or are we just going and leapfrogging straight to space based system?
- [40:06]
Mike Baker
Well, basically the way I see it, and I might be wrong about this, but the way that I see it is we need a layered national air defense system. So you want the long range, be able to deal with it at the long range in space, then you want to have it at sort of the medium range and the high atmosphere. And if all else fails, because this is obviously we're talking about shooting down missiles and hypersonic weapons, it's not going to be a foolproof system. If all else fails, you want to have that shorter term capability sort of as a last ditch effort to stop the incoming weapon system before it, you know, destroys its target.
- [40:44]
Benham Ben Taliblu
What does the space based system look like? I mean, for, for those of us, and I know, you know, again, you know, most of the, most of the, I don't know if you know this, but most of the situation report listeners are rocket scientists, I think nine out of ten. But for someone like me, explain it in simple terms with, with small words. What is, what does that entail?
- [41:06]
Mike Baker
Well, Trump in the EO call, in the executive order, he called it space based interceptors. So to me it sounds like they are planning to use basically projectiles launched from, say a satellite. They would track an incoming missile or rocket coming in and then they would have the satellite ready. They would probably pair it with artificial intelligence algorithms for accuracy, and then they would pop off a series of projectiles to basically destroy the warhead in orbit. Because remember, they have to pass through the atmosphere, through space on their way down to target. That's how they get to us so quickly. Now, Reagan back in his day was talking about lasers. And we know the Israelis, by the way, are creating a new system, an enhancement of the Iron Dome called Iron Beam. By the way, both Iron Dome and Iron Beam are being funded heavily by darpa, by our military scientists. And so I would hope that the Trump administration is planning to not just rely on sort of the Brilliant Pebbles approach, but would actually place lasers, eventually directed energy weapons that would be much more efficient than spewing debris in the atmosphere, which would just clutter the atmosphere even more and then risk space flight operations indefinitely.
- [42:34]
Benham Ben Taliblu
All right, now answer me this, if you could.
- [42:37]
Ryan Reynolds
Yeah.
- [42:37]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Hypersonic, say that's what we're facing, say a hypersonic missile.
- [42:42]
Mike Baker
Yeah.
- [42:43]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Part of the problem is the, part of the problem is the, the ability to maneuver, the speed it doesn't follow a ballistic, you know, flight path. But why is there an advantage, or what is the advantage to tracking it from space and trying to attempt to knock it out as opposed to a land based system? Well, you know, what is these, the, the primary advantage there?
- [43:07]
Mike Baker
Well, you're not working against gravity, you're working with gravity. Right. So if you're shooting, I knew you.
- [43:13]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Would have a smart, I knew you'd have a smart die answer like that. Throwing gravity back at me, you know. Yeah. Fine, Einstein, talk to me about gravity. Okay, no, I'm sorry, I digress.
- [43:26]
Mike Baker
You're right. But that's, that's one of the key things, and that was actually in the 80s why the Reagan team was looking at Space Base, because they realized that it's, you know, simple physics, it's actually more efficient and safer to knock out an incoming weapon in space, looking down in the void and shooting into the atmosphere where gravity can increase the speed of the projectile. We're shooting at the, the incoming weapon system as opposed to waiting for that weapon if it's nuclear, especially, especially you could still have radioactive fallout over the target. You don't want that, especially as most of those targets are civilian. So you don't want to render a city on, inhabitable, you know, in the long run by knocking out the missile, but still spewing stuff everywhere. And so that is one of the key advantages, I've been told, when it comes to hypersonic weapons. There was a Lockheed engineer I talked to a couple years ago now and take from this what you will, of course, because, you know, they have a financial interest in pitching it this way. But the Lockheed engineer I spoke with a couple years back told me that it has to do with the sensor network and basically being able to detect farther away this, this incoming hypersonic weapon. And the more kind of sensor data you can collect on that weapon as it is approaching, the more likely you can anticipate, especially if they use AI, you could anticipate some of the radical maneuvers and intercept it that way.
- [44:58]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Yeah, no, well, that, that does make sense in terms of increasing the response time. I mean, clearly that, you know, that's not a statement of rocket science that I just made. But, but that does make perfect sense. Brandon, if, if you wouldn't mind, stay right where you are.
- [45:12]
Ryan Reynolds
Right.
- [45:12]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Don't go anywhere. And we'll be right back after a quick break. Welcome back to the Situation Report. Joining me once again is Brandon Weikert. Brandon's the author of a terrific book, Winning Space How America Remains a Superpower. It's, it's a terrific read. Pick it up. It's got a lot of big words in it, but, you know, you can work your way through it. He's also senior National Security Editor at the National Interest. Brandon, thanks very much for sticking around. Okay. We've been talking about the, the potential for an American iron dome system, you know, moving a space based weapons system defense system out into, out into space. Talk to me about where our competitors are and in particular, I'm curious About the Chinese, how further down the road are they than the U.S. okay, so.
- [46:05]
Mike Baker
In terms of space weapons on the offensive side, China and Russia are very much ahead of us. Not necessarily because they're better technologically. It's because, like I said before, they had the political will and the foresight to invest resources over a long period of time into building the real working systems. So. So, for instance, China has what's known as the Xijian 21. This is a CO orbital satellite. It's a tiny, relatively cheap satellite they put a few years back in geosynchronous orbit. That is the highest orbit around the Earth. That is where some of America's most sensitive military satellites exist. We've got things like the Wideband Global satcom, wgs, things like the Multi User Objective Service Satellite muos. That's the Navy. That's what they use to mass their fleet, you know, and coordinate attacks across the horizon. And then there's also the NC3 nuclear command communication and control satellites. By the way, if we lose any NC3 satellite, we do not have replacements on hand. It will take years to rebuild them and deploy them under current acquisition rules. And the Chinese could basically knock out at least part of our nuclear triad by knocking out one of those systems.
- [47:27]
Benham Ben Taliblu
So we don't have any replacements. We don't have one sitting on the shelf that we can throw up there in case of an accident, a mishap, a problem.
- [47:34]
Mike Baker
Yeah. The reason I even got into space policy, because I am not a rocket scientist either. I was working on the Hill about over a decade ago. My goodness, it feels like just yesterday, but, but it was over a decade ago. And I, my first day went on a briefing and they were briefing us, the Space Command guys were about lack of spares and the reason they lacked spares. This is 2013ish. The reason they lacked the spares was because they weren't being given money by Congress to have extras on hand. And it was because Congress deemed it was too expensive and not needed. So in terms of the NC3 satellite, my understanding is that if we lose, and the reason we don't have many spares for the systems I'm talking about is because they're so far up, we never anticipated that an enemy would be able to reach them or would even want to reach them because they were. It's so hard to get there. But the Chinese have placed these CO orbital satellites, which are tiny satellites with grappling hooks. Looks like something from Moonraker. They tailgate our systems and then on a Command given by Beijing, they latch onto those American satellites and can push them physically from their orbit and knock them out permanently. And so there are no spares for the wideband global satcom. Luckily, we were able to get funding. When I was working there, we were able to get funding to have two or three additional spares on hand. And I think as of last year there are now three spares for the WGS, which the army uses. But for NAT and for the NC3 and the MUOS, my understanding is there are no spares on hand and we cannot expect any spares anytime soon.
- [49:17]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Okay, let me get this straight. Let me just. So, just so you, you, you, you put a picture out here for me and in, in my simplistic world, so one of our exam NC3, a key, key element of our national security, a satellite up there flying around the Chinese regime. What you're saying is they've got a small, they've got a small satellite now floating around up there at the same, you know, altitude or whatever we call it. Again, I'm showing my ignorance. And it's got a grappling hook on it. So at some point they can, they can issue a command to that satellite and, and the satellite will do it. Now I'm gonna, I'm gonna, you know, reference Austin Powers rather than Moonraker. I'm younger than you are. Oh yeah. And they shoot, they shoot this grappling hook out there onto our satellite, a key part of our national security structure, and tug it a little bit and it goes off, off orbit and then we're screwed. So, yeah, that seems like a real flaw in our national security planning.
- [50:29]
Mike Baker
No, you're, you're right. And I got a little worried when my book first came out. I was told that illegally copied copies of my book were sold very. Sold very well apparently in Russia and China. So it's. I think, I think our enemies are figuring out that the Americans have a nearly trillion dollar defense system that is reliant entirely on these satellites. That for a few hundred thousand dollars, you know, that it cost for one of these tiny co orbital satellites China has, they can knock out our entire trillion dollar or at least our nuclear triad or degrade it significantly pretty quickly. I mean, within, within. So how it was gamed out when I was doing this in government, we talked about this. It was gamed out by the Air Force that within the first half hour of losing those systems, basically the US military is rendered deaf, dumb and blind indefinitely. And you can imagine if I'm Xi Jinping and maybe I'm mirror imaging here, but if I'm Xi Jinping and I know I want to take Taiwan before the US Military is fully prepared, because I know Trump is going to be doing reforms, I'm going to first do a space and cyber Pearl harbor at the same time to completely distract the Americans at home, and then with the space Pearl harbor, make it physically impossible for US Forces to mass and defend key positions throughout the Indo Pacific before I do anything, and after I know that, then I go into Taiwan.
- [52:10]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Why wouldn't you?
- [52:11]
Mike Baker
Yeah, The Chinese built a laser, an actual laser system. And I mean, you know, laser and in. I think it's their Cola East. I might be wrong about that. I used to know exactly where it was, but they, they built a laser system that temporarily blinds passing by American satellite systems. Because when you temporarily blind a system, it's harder to attribute to malign action. You know, it might be that the American operators think, oh, maybe there was a solar flare or maybe there was a malfunction on board, and they'll spend more time trying to figure out how to fix or repair the broken system rather than think, oh, my goodness, we were just lazed. And so there's other systems the Chinese have developed, and they're quite ahead of us in terms of being able to knock out our satellites at every level, not just the high.
- [53:07]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Let me, let me, let me stop you there now, okay? They're quite a ways ahead of us. All right? Is that because, you know, they're better at strategic thinking and planning? Is that because they're an autocratic society and they can just, you know, budget and fund whatever they want to, and they don't have to worry about pushback from, you know, various political, you know, elements and factions. I mean, what's the, what's the reasoning behind that? Because, you know, I think there's a lot of people watching who always imagined that, you know, the US and our allies, you know, we're the best and the brightest, right? We've got the best engineers, the best thinkers, the best strategic planners, best technological capabilities. And yet you're telling me we got a serious goat rope here because we can't even figure out how to get spare parts and shore up a system that seems like it's got a real problem?
- [53:57]
Mike Baker
Yeah, no, I'm not saying the Chinese are smarter than us. I'm saying that generally speaking, and I'm not saying this is a moral. I'm not making a moral comment, but generally speaking, they have better leaders with a greater strategic vision. The Chinese know what they want, and they understand what they have to do to get it. What they want is to replace the United States as the dominant world power by the 100th year anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China. So that would be the year 2049. And they have acted on that grand strategy. Whereas American leaders, until I believe Trump understands this, I think Trump, he doesn't get enough credit. I do think Trump is actually a strategic thinker, despite the braggadocia. I think that, I think that Trump is the first president we've had probably since Reagan who really had a grand strategy and knew how to apply all the tools of statecraft to get that grand strategy into effect. The problem is we've had 30 or 40 years of really bad leadership that we have to make up for in four years. Really, it's 100 days less than now because Trump's going to start losing political capital significantly over the next hundred days.
- [55:05]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Yeah, no, I, I think that's, it's a very important point. And I think also the, again, I would go back to the fact that they exist in a system that, you know, once you say this is what we're going to do, you know, they, you know, their system is screwed and it's terrible. But, you know, from an efficiency point of view, when you're talking about, you know, getting yourself on a war footing and budgeting for those sort of concerns, you know, they've got a little more efficiency because, yeah, they're not, they don't live in a, in a, in a.
- [55:31]
Mike Baker
And also federal government system, you get killed if you're wrong. They'll kill you if you're wrong. In China, you know, I, I tell my kids all the time, that's motivating.
- [55:39]
Benham Ben Taliblu
I will tell you. That's motivating right there.
- [55:41]
Mike Baker
I tell my kids all the time that, you know, they're competing with Chinese students and in China, they kill the dumb ones. So that's the competition we're up against. So, you know, it's.
- [55:52]
Benham Ben Taliblu
Yeah, well, look, I think the, the US Tends to, Look, you know, we, we, regardless of what administration, I think the Trump administration, to your point, is, is, is going to prove itself some somewhat different. But, you know, typically, US Administrations always imagine somehow that we're part of a world community and that everyone is, is, you know, part of that community and is thinking about, you know, the betterment of mankind. And the US Tends to apologize for acting in its own best interests. Others don't. And, you know, I, I think it's it's fairly clear that the Chinese regime, whether they get there through a kinetic approach or whether they get there through other means, economic, you know, growth or whatever, however it is, you're right, they imagine themselves at the top of the heap, at the top of the food chain. And so that's where they've been going with this. Look, Brandon, we're pretty much out of time and I hate to leave. You know, this is kind of like we're on the precipice here now that we've identified a major flaw in national security. So thank you for that. And what I'd love to do is let's, let's continue the conversation here in the not too distant future. That sounds great. Listen, Brandon Weiker, senior national Security editor at the National Interest author, friend of the show, man about town, as always, thanks for joining us. That's all the time we have for the PDB Situation Report. If you have any questions or comments, please reach out to me at PDB, the first tv.com as you may have heard, we take some of those questions and comments every month and we smush them into a episode that we call Ask Me Anything. And the PDB crack production team is in the middle of putting another one of those together. So thank you very much for taking the time to send us your questions and your comments to listen to the podcast of this show ad free, which you can do. And it's very simple. Just become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting pdbpremium.com See, I told you it was very simple. I'm Mike Baker. Until next time, stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.