← The President's Daily Brief
The President's Daily Brief
PDB Situation Report | June 21st, 2025: Does Israel Really Need U.S. Involvement In Iran? & The Islamic Regime Teeters
01:06:55
Loading summary
Transcript93 lines
- [00:01]
Mike Baker
Fourth of July savings are here at the Home Depot, so it's time to get your grilling on. Pick up the traeger Pro Series 22 Pellet Grill and Smoker now on special buy for $389. Was $549. Smoke a rack of ribs or bake an apple pie. This grill is versatile enough to do it all this summer. No matter how you like your steaks, your barbecues are guaranteed to be well done. Celebrate 4th of July with fast free delivery on select grills right now at the Home Depot. It's up to availability.
- [00:34]
Miranda Devine
You know that one friend who somehow knows everything about money? Yeah. Now imagine they live in your phone. Say hey to Experian, your big financial friend. It's the app that helps you check your FICO score, find ways to save, and basically feel like a financial genius. And guess what? It's totally free. So go on, download the Experian app. Trust me, having a BFF like this is a total game changer.
- [01:13]
Mike Baker
Welcome to the PDB 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 with the latest from the Israel Iran war. Israeli jets still control the skies over Tehran, and Iran's leaders, well, they're vowing to fight to the end. We'll get perspective from retired IDF Major General Yakov Amadror later in the show. Regime change in Iran may no longer be a hypothetical. With the mullahs on the ropes, could the people finally bring 45 years of Islamic rule to an end? Former Senator Robert Torcelli weighs in. But first, today's Situation Report Spotlight. It's been just over a week since Israel launched its campaign against Iran, and at this point, Israel controls the skies. Iran's nuclear facilities, missile launch platforms and top military leaders have all come under sustained attack. In response, Iran is firing off smaller and less effective barrages, many now hitting civilian areas, including a hospital on Wednesday. So how has Israel pulled this off and how long can the operation continue? Joining me now is retired IDF Major General Yakov Amadror. He's a distinguished fellow at the Jamunder center for Defense and Strategy, and he previously served as Israel's national security adviser. Serb thank you very much for taking the time to join us here on THE SITUATION report.
- [02:41]
Yakov Amador
Thank you for having me.
- [02:42]
Mike Baker
If we may, I'd like to start with a fairly broad question here at the 30,000 foot level. And that would be what, from your perspective, what is the goal here? Is the goal the destruction of the Iranian nuclear program or is the goal regime change?
- [03:04]
Yakov Amador
The goal is to destroying the ability of Iran to produce military nuclear capability. We don't want to have Iran with a bomb and we will do whatever is needed to prevent Iran from having this bomb. The second issue which was important for us is about the missiles that are they are launching. They launched more than 400, almost 450 heavy missiles into Israel. And we see the damage of each of each missile when it hit the Tel Aviv or Haifa of Beersheba. The Iranians set a plan to produce 10,000 missiles like that and even bigger than those. And we are determined to destroy the whole infrastructure that they have and not let them to build more missiles in the future. These are the two goals of the war. Nothing more than that. Of course, on side effect of it, we had to destroy the air defense system of Iran so we will have the ability to control the skies. So we did it. We had to minimize their ability to launch missiles into Israel. So we are killing many launchers and we are destroying many storages of missiles inside Iran. But this is only because our homeland is getting the missiles and that is limiting our time. So these are not the goals. The goals are very clear. I must admit that the regime afterwards will be weaker, no question. But we cannot impose a regime in Iran. It's too big. The Iranians will have to make the decision whom they want to be their rulers. In the future. The regime will be weaker, but we cannot make the change. The change should be done by the Iranians.
- [05:16]
Mike Baker
If we look at the issue of the nuclear program, the destruction of the nuclear program, in your estimation, can that be done without the involvement of the us?
- [05:28]
Yakov Amador
There is one installation that we don't know to do as good as the American is the four door installation. We don't have the. The mother for bone. We don't have the ability to carry it. It's Americans can do it with B52 and B2. And if we want that to be destroyed, totally destroyed, that should be done by the Americans. We can add damage to the place. We can block the entrances, for example, we can destroy the installations around, but we cannot destroy completely as the Americans probably can with their capabilities. It is very specific target. All the other parts of the war can be done without involvement of the Americans. One remark. The Americans involved very much and we thank America for that. In our defensive, in our defensive efforts. There are two batteries of STA in Israel integrated to our Arrow 2 and 3 systems and together they are intercepting the the coming missile that I know 25, 30% of what was intercepted was done by, by American soldiers. But in the tank side of the, of the war we made them the whole war with American made technology. I when last time that I checked all the airplanes which flew from Israel to Iran and back were American made. So it's American involvement is by technology. All the munitions that we are buying in America, spare parts which we are getting probably sharing information. But the war itself is conducted by Israel, by Israelis only Israelis. Americans are helping in the defensive side.
- [07:27]
Mike Baker
When we talk about the defenses, it appears as if the rate, the success rate of, of intercepts has dropped, has gone down. I've seen some reports talking from 90% to somewhere in the 65% range. What accounts for that that problem?
- [07:49]
Yakov Amador
No, the statistics is different. Okay. People are combining and making try to understand based on the information that we had about Iron Dome. Iron Dome success was between 90 to 95%. We never said that that would be the success of the, of the Arrow. We are speaking here about intercepting ballistic missiles. It's totally different challenge. And the, the, the, the launch into Israel till yesterday around 400 and the success of the interception was around 80% and that is within our expectations. We didn't have expectation for more than 80% relating to the arrow dawn versus to the arrow two and three versus against the ballistic missiles. Don't compare between that, don't compare between the, the, the missiles coming from 100 kilometer to the missiles coming from 1500 kilometer. I mean it's much complicated, problematic.
- [09:02]
Mike Baker
No, that makes sense. Absolutely. But, but let me ask this. The, the success that you've had in destroying the missile stockpiles and the ability to, to build more on the Iranian side that could account for. Obviously it does account for their inability going forward to launch the large scale barrages that I think was part of their early strategy. But on, on the Israeli side, is there any issue in terms of shortages of interceptors, particularly for the Arrow system?
- [09:39]
Yakov Amador
Up till now we don't have. We made the calculation in the past taking into account long war. We understood that with Iran it's not going to be a short one. And we have kind of calculation how much should we use in every stage of the war up me now we didn't go outside the calculation that we had.
- [10:02]
Mike Baker
Okay. And I know this is, this is a tough question. You may not necessarily want to go into any detail on it. But when looking at the success of the strikes that you've had so far, how good is the, is the intelligence? How, how good are the damage assessments and how confident can you be in understanding both how much damage has actually been done to the nuclear program infrastructure and also in terms of just targeting launchers, missile stockpiles, that sort of thing.
- [10:39]
Yakov Amador
You know, in such an event, there is a competition between the efforts to get more intelligence about more targets, new targets, and the bda, because at the end you have limited sources and you have to allocate them. And in Israel, according to our DNA, I'm sure that we are allocating more for new targets than for the bda. Okay, the media will wait. We will learn so slowly what happened and if it'll be if we will have to do something else to complete something that was not good enough during the bus. But if you ask me, where the intelligence is, putting more efforts now is not about the bda, it's about new targets. But we have pretty good intelligence about the BDA because if you destroy something completely, you see it burning and you know how many missiles were yielded, you can take out all the missiles and so and so forth. So we have apparently good bda, not complete bda. It will take time because we are, we prefer to put our resources in producing new targets.
- [12:01]
Mike Baker
General dad, if you would stay right where you are. I apologize, but we've got to take a quick break and then we'll be right back. I've got a long list of additional questions to ask you. We'll be right back with General Amador and more on the Situation report. Stick around.
- [12:18]
Miranda Devine
Power, politics and the people behind the headlines. I'm Miranda Devine, New York Post columnist and the host of the brand new podcast, PodForceOne. Every week, I'll sit down for candid conversations with Washington's most powerful disruptors, lawmakers, newsmakers, and even the President of the United States. These are the leaders shaping the future of America and the world. Listen to podforce one with me, Miranda Devine. Every week on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcast, you don't want to miss an episode. Anyone can deliver you headlines. Only the New York Post can deliver the headlines you need and the stories you want. From the iconic newsroom that pulls no punches comes the New York Post cast. Every weekday morning, I'll break down a headline in impacting your world with sharp insight, context and in depth reporting. Plus, I'll have the Post's signature mix of stories that people are actually talking about. From politics to business to pop culture and everything in between, this isn't just another news podcast. It's a look at what matters and a peek at what's too interesting to ignore, keeping you informed and entertained. I'm Caitlin Becker. Listen and subscribe to the New York Post Cast every weekday morning on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, or wherever you get your podcast.
- [13:49]
Bob Torricelli
Hey, it's Sean Spicer from the Sean Spicer show podcast reminding you to tune into my show every day to get your daily dose inside the world of politics. President Trump and his team are shaking up Washington like never before and we're here to cover it from all sides, especially on the topics the mainstream media won't. So if you're a political junkie on a late lunch or get getting ready for the drive home, new episodes of the Sean Spicer show podcast drop at 2pm East coast every day. Make sure you tune in. You can find us at Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcast.
- [14:22]
Mike Baker
Welcome back to THE Situation report. Joining me once again is retired IDF Major General Jakob Amador. General, thank you very much for sticking around. We were talking in the last segment about the issue of quality of intelligence, the ability to have confidence in damage assessments as you're working through the various operations. And one question I wanted to throw your way is when it comes to US Involvement, that's it's always, it's top of mind, obviously, in the US and you know, this seems to be a cottage industry of trying to guess what President Trump may do in terms of jumping into this conflict. To what degree do those damage assessments play a role? Because I, I'm wondering, I guess, and I know this is somewhat speculation, but I'm wondering, you know, if perhaps the White House is waiting for those damage assessments to understand whether in fact their assistance is actually needed.
- [15:23]
Yakov Amador
It's clear that the assistant is needed for one purpose at least, and the one purpose is very clear, it's the destroying of installation. Israel cannot do it with our present capabilities within the Air Force. I'm sure that now in Israel somewhere smart people are sitting and try to think, what can we do without the markets? I'm not sure that they will find a good solution. But this is the only point in which we need active support of the Americans in the offensive side of the war to destroy. Theoretically, 4B2 can come do what they need to do going back to Diego Garcia and it's the end of the enrollment of the American in the world. Theoretically, for sure, when you come in, you don't know it will be ended. I know all the stories, but theoretically this is what needed. And I don't think that the BDA is the issue here. I think that the Americans have good information about what we succeeded to do and what we want to do in the future. And they haven't got a good impression, if not good picture impression of the success of Israel and what was destroyed and what will be support and destroyed in the future.
- [16:49]
Mike Baker
Let's if I could, I want to shift just slightly and and this is kind of where we fall into the realm of speculation and I apologize for, for going in that direction. But we talked just briefly about regime change. The idea that yes, you know, the regime will certainly, certainly be weakened as a result of what's been taking place. But ultimately as you pointed out, it's up to the Iranian people as to what happens. From a speculative point of view, what could that look like from your perspective? What might come in behind this, this regime?
- [17:24]
Yakov Amador
It's very much depends what will happen to the regime. It might be that this regime will remain because the regime is very strong and very cruel and ready to take measures against any kind of opposition which might emerge in district of stirrup. And on the other side there is no opposition as such. I mean there is no any organization you can call this is the opposition. There is no group of people you can say these are the leaders of the opposition. So when the regime is ready to take very hard measures and on the other side there is no any organized opposition unless the mass of the people are running to the palace and kill the and they kill the king other than that the regime can continue. So this is an option which is very realistic one. But for our point of view, regime without nuclear capability and without missiles that can reach Israel is not a regime that we are going to fight with. I mean we don't have any claim to the Iranians. We don't want to be destroyed by Iran and this is why we went to the war. But if this regime remains but without nuclear capability and missiles it's the business of the Iranian people to deal with the regime, not ours.
- [18:48]
Mike Baker
Yeah, that kind of falls under the category of I suppose in a way not to put this, and I don't mean to be glib but be careful what you wish for I suppose because we have recent.
- [18:59]
Yakov Amador
Yeah, I agree with you. Don't try to do too much because you find yourself too little.
- [19:07]
Mike Baker
Looking at the operation so far, how important has it been and why to be targeting military and IRGC leadership?
- [19:19]
Yakov Amador
From our point of view it is part of the military plan to make the decision maker to decision making process is much more problematic for the rulers of Iran. We went to a war in which we wanted to be sure that we can reach the targets. That we can reach the goal of this destruction of the nuclear capability in the missiles. And we want that it will be not impossible but much more complicated for decision makers to make the decisions what to launch, when to launch, where to move the anti air missiles, where to move the facilities which are very sensitive and so and so forth. So from our point of view, decapitating of the military leadership was very important part of the military plan. Not connected at all to regime change. They are not the regime. The regime is Khamenei and done to rush around it. And he himself is not so important. It's not their organization that you kill Masarama and people don't know what to do. This is a strong establishment with many people with deep state behind it. It is not going to change if you take the leader, but if you take all the medium decision makers, the chief of staff, the head of the intelligence, so and so forth. You make the whole process of understanding what is the situation, how to react very problematic for them.
- [20:54]
Mike Baker
Which is more important to the regime? Is it. Is it Khamenei and the and the mullahs or is it. Is it the irgc?
- [21:02]
Yakov Amador
If the IRGC disappearing, it's the end of this Iran. Iran will remain as a state. But this Iran Iran of the mullahs will not rely is one of the rulers. They are the IRGC is the basis of all the bullets. So it is very important, not important. This is the. If you ask for the regime, what is the center of gravity via lgc.
- [21:28]
Mike Baker
Yeah, my understanding is and. And correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems as if they have their meaning. That the Revolutionary Guard Corps they've got their tentacles in every aspect of Iran, the economy, the government, the media.
- [21:45]
Yakov Amador
Yes, you are right. They are as I said, they are the basics. They are everywhere. And they have the responsibility to keep the regime going on and to make sure that no one will revolt. And if we cannot eliminate the irgc, it's a huge body. But if you ask theoretically what is the basis for the stability of the regime and the ability of the regime to survive.
- [22:18]
Mike Baker
How would you describe the. This is going to sound odd, but how would you describe the management style or structure of the irgc? And what I mean by that is is it effectively a top down where the the generals are are unquestioned, they're leaders and then below that nobody really has decision making authority. They're not given flexibility or responsibility or is it more diffused than that? And then they push down decision making to lower levels?
- [22:47]
Yakov Amador
No, they don't push the decision making to the lower levels, but they push the implementation to the, after having the policy, the, the lower level can, can, can act in, in probably if they achieve the goal ahead within the frame, no one intercepts.
- [23:07]
Mike Baker
Again, shifting gears a little bit, going back inside Israel, from your perspective, what's the, what's the mood of the people like right now in Israel as, as it relates to this conflict?
- [23:18]
Yakov Amador
I think that they, from the beginning of this, of this part of the war.
- [23:22]
Bob Torricelli
Remember, we are in a long war.
- [23:23]
Yakov Amador
Since the 7th of October to almost year and a half ago, more than eight. But I think that the decision to go to Iran was accepted as a very legitimate act. You hear very few voices against it. The feeling of most of the Israelis is that the whole war cannot be ended without taking care for the head of the snake. Everyone understand that we fought Hamas. Hamas is the result of the efforts of the Iranians. We fought Hezbollah. Everyone understand that this is an organization which has been established by the Iranians, financed by the Iranians. All the weapons system came from Iran in Syria and Syria was kind of a state controlled by the Iranians. So I think that the feeling here in Israel that it will be impossible.
- [24:19]
Miranda Devine
Or.
- [24:21]
Yakov Amador
Not logic to make the war without ending it. Taking care for the head of the snake.
- [24:28]
Mike Baker
Is there any likelihood, I know what their public comments have been, but is there any likelihood that a ceasefire could exist and a peace proposal of some sort could exist in which the Iranians are still allowed to enrich uranium?
- [24:50]
Yakov Amador
From our point of view, the answer is very strong, clear no. And I hope that Americans will not do the same mistake again. The bad agreement which was achieved by the Obama administration was from our point of view, a very bad one. And I hope that this administration will not make the same mistake.
- [25:15]
Bob Torricelli
Again.
- [25:15]
Mike Baker
I know this is a tough one to answer, I suspect, but when you look at the last agreement, the 2015 agreement, and part of that was the idea that, okay, well, we've got trust but verify, we'll have inspectors on the ground. From your perspective, if we put a percentage on it, to what degree was their transparency in that deal?
- [25:41]
Yakov Amador
The problem is that deal was not the monitoring system. In spite of the fact that the weapon system was not under monitoring at all. It was not part of the agreement and resize hadn't been part of the agreement. It was just enrichment and the enriching pardon. The Iranians were smart enough. They didn't cheated about the enrichment they prepared the next generation of the ability to enrich which is more problematic. New modern certifu has been produced and they learn how to do better and then to accelerate the timetable of the enrichment because the agreement gave them the ability to make research about new generation of and at the end of the day they ended with new starting produce that can make the job much, much easier for them. So and remember that at the end the agreement was very limited in time this year 26 supposed to be the last year of the agreement. So from our point of view it was very bad agreement because it gave the Iranians the ability to enhance their capabilities without enriching and in 26 to end the agreement at all and to have all the legitimacy to pollution. So I thought that it's very bad agreement. By the way, when the grant was exposed to the error to the media and the people. Susan Rice, my counterpart gave a speech in APAC convention. She didn't say it's a good agreement. She said it the best that could be achieved. And I told her, your best is not enough. But I think that even that was not the real story. The Americans had very good clouds. The negotiators missed the opportunity they could achieve a better agreement. So I believe, I hope, I pray that this research will not make the same mistakes again.
- [28:00]
Mike Baker
One last question, General, if I could. The question of the timing of of the conflict. When you started this, this operation against Iran, why that timing did you from Again, I know this is tough to answer, but was there specific intelligence that was acquired that said now we have to move? Was it a a matter of you've weakened the proxy network to such a degree that there was just an an opportunity? It was a unique opportunity. What what accounted for the timing of this?
- [28:43]
Yakov Amador
I think it's a combination. It's the perfect storm. From the positive side, we understood immediately after the the 7th of October that we have an opportunity here to get rid of the proxies. If we do it one by one, we don't fight all of them together. We are going on Hamas, then we are going on Hezbollah, then we are. The collapse of the regime in Syria gave us a huge opportunity. And that was the end of the ability of the Iranians to rebuild the Hezbollah and they lost the ability to influence the Middle East. They what King Abdullah Jordan called the Shiite Crescent disappeared. And that was the opportunity. Then there was the timetable of the Iranians. The Iranians decided and we had very good intelligence about it to escalate to the whole process within the weaponization system. The group that they had, it was done very secretly because they understood that this is the only element that if they finish, it's the end of the story. We cannot stop the process anymore. And we understood that we might miss it because if they continue with the same way that they decided to do, we have very little time to stop it. And the decision to accelerate the preparations for producing thousands of thousands of missiles. They mined around 10,000 missiles within two and a half years. We understood that both are very close to a situation in which tomorrow it will be too late. And the combination between the new opportunity based on our achievements in the world and understanding that tomorrow might be too late brought us to this period. The day Itself was day 61 from the Declaration of the President of the United States of America. The Iranians have 60 days to reach an agreement. We waited the whole 60 days risking our agents in Iran that could be exposed. And the result was the day that we decided that it is after the timetable that the Americans and the Iranians had according to America to achieve an agreement. It's not we which said 60 days. The President said 60 days. And nothing is moving on. The Iranians are playing to have more time to continue with their nuclear and, and missile project. The Americans understood that the remains are playing with that. So that was the result. The day was, was picked because it was the 1661 days after the declaration of the, of the President. The, the, the, the decision, the principal decision was because it was almost too too late and the opportunity was there. And don't forget the. That having.
- [32:03]
Bob Torricelli
More open.
- [32:06]
Yakov Amador
Administration in Washington is also a factor in our decisions that.
- [32:13]
Mike Baker
Yes, listen, General, I unfortunately we've run out of time because I've got a number of questions left for you. I can only hope that when we call you again that you'll agree to come on back because we very much appreciate all your experience, your, your insight, your, your comments. Thank you. General Yakov Amador, former National Security Advisor for Israel. Again, thank you very much for stopping by and, and sharing your experience. All right, coming up after the break, as Israel strikes batter Tehran and the regime reels well, many are asking will Iran's people take back their country? We just had a little bit of that conversation. We'll get perspective from former New Jersey senator Robert Torricelli. Stick around.
- [33:02]
Bob Torricelli
This episode is brought to you by Avid Reader Press.
- [33:05]
Mike Baker
Legendary investor Ray Dalio's new book How Countries Go the Big Cycle explains the.
- [33:10]
Bob Torricelli
Mechanics behind big debt crises. Larry Summer says Dalio's brilliant iconoclastic approach.
- [33:16]
Mike Baker
Is an invaluable resource.
- [33:18]
Bob Torricelli
And Hank Paulson says it provides a solution to what is the best, biggest and most certain threat to our prosperity. Read it to understand the greatest economic.
- [33:27]
Mike Baker
Issue of our time, available now wherever books are sold. Hi, this is Joe from Vanta. In today's digital world, compliance regulations are changing constantly and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and stay secure with the most advanced AI, automation and continuous monitoring out there. So whether you're a starter startup going for your first SoC2 or ISO 27001 or a growing enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta makes it quick, easy and scalable. And I'm not just saying that because I work here. Get started@vanta.com welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. As Israel's campaign grinds on, one question is gaining urgency. What happens if the Islamic regime in Iran collapses? While the mullahs still cling to power, their grip is weakening. Decades of repression, economic ruin and international isolation have left many Iranians disillusioned. But if the regime falls, who fills the vacuum and how should the US and its allies respond? That's another good question you've asked. Joining me now is former U.S. senator Bob Torricelli. He's a longtime advocate for reform in Iran and remains closely engaged with opposition voices and exiled leaders watching events unfold. Sir, thank you very much for taking the time on the situation.
- [34:46]
Bob Torricelli
Thank you for having me. I've actually looked forward to it.
- [34:49]
Mike Baker
Excellent. Well, hopefully you feel that same way after we finish talking. Let's, let's start from sort of the top line view. Give me your perspective on what's happening right now with the Israel, Iran conflict.
- [35:06]
Bob Torricelli
Mike, let me also to make clear from the beginning, I although I've spent most of my adult life in the United States government, since leaving the government, although I'm a private citizen, I've stayed involved in this issue by a consultant to the opposition in Iran, those who would like to replace the Ayatollah. So I want your audience to be clear that while my views are always the interest of the United States, I've interpreted that that interest also involved regime change in Iran. I want to be completely forthcoming with you. I think the Israelis may have started with a limited objective that was to compromise the purification of uranium plutonium by the Iranians. It quickly expanded, also destroying their ability to make ballistic missiles. But now we're on the verge of something broader and that is building upon the enormous economic pressure and, and the political stability and the isolation of the Iranian government, we're entering into that phase of regime change. That is where we could solve these problems permanently by eliminating the ayatollah and. Or the government. That, obviously is a prescription to solve a much bigger problem, but also much, much more complicated.
- [36:28]
Mike Baker
It's interesting because Netanyahu has, and others on the Israeli side have been, I think, relatively clear that, you know, their objectives are to go after and to decimate the nuclear program, to, you know, ensure they can no longer fire ballistic missiles into Israel. But they've also been clear that, you know, regime change as an objective is not on their plate, but that, you know, should conditions allow for it, then that's up to the Iranian people.
- [37:00]
Bob Torricelli
We become very close to that policy morphing into something different. And that is that as the Iran gets more destabilized and there are. You're not starting from scratch. There's enormous resistance. The Iranian government within Iran, you've seen this in street demonstrations that have come up three times in the last 15 years that have come very close to, I think, threatening the regime. The question now is you never know with a society, and it's very hard to judge from the outside when you destroy its military capability, when you do economic damage. When a foreign power attacks, this can swing two ways. It can consolidate the population behind the regime, as I think would happen in the United States if someone attacked us, or it can further destabilize it with people realizing they're paying an enormous price for the actions of an illegitimate government and seek its overthrow. The. We've gotten this wrong as much as we've gotten it right in the United States. And trying to figure that out, you don't generally, you don't get it right from abroad. My own view, knowing the expatriate community and watching Iran, I think it's a powder cake. I think with a push, with a push, the Iranian people could take this into their own hands.
- [38:24]
Mike Baker
Let me ask you this. I've talked to a number of Iranians who have said, look, the people, not the regime, but the people, they don't have a problem with Israel, right? That's not an issue. There's almost more of a problem between the, the Persians and the Arabs, in a way. But at the same time, you know, you don't tend to rise up and, and protest and overthrow a regime when you're being bombed. Right. And so there's. I think I get the sense when talking to some Iranians that they're very conflicted here.
- [39:00]
Yakov Amador
You know, you.
- [39:00]
Bob Torricelli
You no Matter how awful your leader is, you tend to rally around them when you're getting attacked from afar. Nevertheless, looking at, as I tend to American interest exclusively, the interest of the United States, despite what our government has said in recent years, is for this government to be overthrown. You know, I know we've made that mistake before. We've tried regime change in places where we couldn't, we shouldn't. We did, and it backfired. I accept all that. We've made a lot of mistakes in this arena. In this case, I want your audience to remember. These are the people who took the hostages in 1980. These are the people who planted IEDs all over Iraq that took the arms, lives and legs of hundreds and thousands of American soldiers. These are the people who have funded Hezbollah and Hamas. This is not a regime that had a bad policy for a while. They are. I don't say this lightly. They are the face of evil on earth. And the Israeli bombing campaign may rid them of the ability to purify fuel and to build an atomic weapon. That may succeed. But ultimately, the only way to get stability in the region and the nuclear threat is to eliminate this regime. If the Israelis can do it, more power to them. I think it's going to take more than the capabilities of Israel that the seeds of that revolution are on the streets of the cities of Iran. I'd point you to the last three major disruptions that you've seen in Iran. People clearly are ready, given a push. The problem in the American government, in my opinion, is we've come to the view that there's no alternative. And this is probably influenced by what happened in Iraq, that if you take out Saddam Hussein, it's chaos. There's no one else. Iran is not Iraq. It is a large country. It has institutions. It has a middle class, it has a professional class, it has educational institutions. I think there's much more reason to believe that if the Ayatollahs were gone, you could get an internal revolution. And I say this just as you just said you talked to Iranians. In America, there's a strong diaspora community, a wealthy diaspora community, an educated diaspora community, very dedicated to rebuilding the country, hopefully with a democratic government. And in my case, where I'm close to the mek, probably the. The leading group of the diaspora. They're almost a shadow government. They have people who could, as part of a coalition or by themselves, could. Could govern Iran tomorrow if they could get past the Revolutionary Guards in the Ayatollah.
- [41:50]
Mike Baker
So. So let's talk just. Just A minute. I know that a lot of this is speculation. Right? I mean, and that's, and that's true. And also before I forget, I, I, I, I appreciate you, I'm glad that you mentioned all the blood that's on the current Iranian regime's hands from their, their appro, activities in Iraq. I, I, I don't think a lot of people understand just how many lives were lost or damaged, injured.
- [42:17]
Bob Torricelli
When you see an injured American veteran without an arm or a leg, you think Iran, that's where those ideas came from.
- [42:24]
Mike Baker
Yeah, it's again, I don't think it's really understood by the general population. You know, they think of Iran as something outside of, you know, any concern that the US may have had in the past. But here, let me, let me ask you this if I could. The irgc, like they've got, they've got their hands in everything. They're, they're in all aspects of, of Iran. And what's the, and again, I know this is speculation, sir, but what's the likelihood that whatever comes in behind this regime, should there be change? What's the likelihood that the IRGC is going to be somehow not involved? I mean, I have a hard time imagining them giving up their grasp of power.
- [43:06]
Bob Torricelli
I don't think they give it up. I think the best analogies to see the IRGC is the Nazi Gestapo. It is an army within an army. It is an army within the regime designed not to protect from foreign enemies, but to protect the regime from the people. And kind of like a gestapo. They own means of production, they own real estate. They are a part of the economy. They're a nation within the nation. They will not give up power gently. This is their families. It's their standard of life. It's their legacy, it's their lives. They will cling to the last possible moment. But it's a nation of 94 million people. If you get a revolution on the streets as powerful as the IRGC may be, look what happened to savak. SAVAK was the Shah's internal army. Same model, same methods, same brutality, same economics. They vanished overnight when the Shah fell. They ended up in California, they ended up in Iraq, they ended up in France. They headed for the wind. So will these people.
- [44:24]
Mike Baker
Well, and a great deal of the, the senior leadership has already been taken out during this current, the senior list.
- [44:29]
Bob Torricelli
Has been taken out. And I will guarantee you, just by instinct, watching these characters through my life, that if you're a senior mid level person in the irgc, you've got an Airline ticket and some cash in your back pocket just in case.
- [44:44]
Mike Baker
Where in this equation does Reza Pallavi and, and the monarchists fit?
- [44:50]
Bob Torricelli
I know this is controversial in Iranian community in the United States, but, you know, you ask an honest question, you get an honest answer. There's a lot of emotional attachment by a lot of American Iranians who were in the Shah's regime came and sought refuge in the United States and we accepted them and they built good lives here. I know they have memories of the Shah's time. There's a nostalgia to it. But very frankly, the specter of the Shah's son returning to Tehran is a gift for the Iranian regime. Because their argument, like unfortunately some in the American government is, well, the Ayatollah maybe problem, but there's no alternative. If there's no, if there's no Ayatollah, it's the Shah, and if that's the twin reality, the Ayatollahs or the Shah, we're not going to get a public uprising to overthrow the government. People are not going to make that choice. And if that's a false choice, there, there are democratic sectors within Iran. There is the, the irgc, there's the, the mek that is on the, the outside based in Paris. That is an umbrella for thousands of Iranians within Iran. And, and in the diaspora, as I said, there's almost a shadow government. There is an alternative. But as long as the, the regime can hold up the specter that if we fall, you've got the Shah back, it just, it's a gift to them.
- [46:23]
Mike Baker
Senator, if you could stay right where you are, I apologize, but we have to take a break and then we'll be back with Senator Torricelli and more here on the Situation Report. Stick around. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is former Senator Bob Torricelli. We've been talking about in a broad sense, what, what could happen, what may result if there is a regime change. Senator, anytime you say regime change, particularly here in the US People get a little bit squirrely. Right, I understand that. And yeah, and so I, I'm wondering from your perspective, again, I, I don't disagree with you. Look, that, you know, anything other than that is just limited. You're putting lipstick on a pig or, you know, band aid on a sucking chest wound, however you want to describ, kicking the can down the road to deal with the problem at some point in the future. And so I, I, I don't disagree at all that that would be the best Outcome. Let me ask you this. I know how people in the U.S. government and elsewhere feel about it, but let's look at the regional actors, right? The Saudis, the Jordanians and others. What's your perspective on how they feel about the current conflict, but also about this idea of, of a change in.
- [47:41]
Bob Torricelli
In Iranian government so in the neighborhood, all nations are not equal in power or influence. There's an outside sphere of Iran and you can understand is the largest country is potentially the most powerful. It is the most unstable and is by far the most aggressive. So this willingness to arm, to seek alliances, to seek protection at the same time to engage with the Iranian, to try to keep an edge off the problems. I don't want to say this in a disparaging way, but there's a, in the region, there's always been a sense that you can kind of trade your way out of trouble, just keep enough commerce going there, one type or another, to keep peace with them. But if you ask me, would there be a relief in Bahrain or in Riyadh if the regime fell? I think there would be fireworks.
- [48:43]
Mike Baker
They just won't say it out loud.
- [48:45]
Bob Torricelli
They will not say it out loud. There's an enormous intimidation. You know, I, I have affection for some of these nations in the region, so I hate being overly critical of them. But the, in. The reality is most of these regimes in the region live in spirit fear of fundamentalism and poor parts of their societies that are not as in touch with the monarchies or the regimes they live in. The top lives in fear of the bottom. And there's always this belief that the fundamentalist Islam of Iran can stoke that problem. So it's not simply a fear that Iran can attack militarily with sophisticated weapons. It's more they can create unrest on the streets from below. Monarchies often live with that fear. In this case, I think even more so. So I. The world's a strange place. It creates odd alliances. But I will guarantee you the Saudis for whatever they say and the UAE for whatever they say, and the Kuwaitis are, are hoping with bated breath there could be a regime change here without, without them having to show their cards.
- [49:58]
Mike Baker
Kind of go back to the idea of, you know, be careful of what you wish for and what could come in behind this.
- [50:04]
Yakov Amador
Right.
- [50:05]
Mike Baker
We've got recent case studies, certainly Libya, it's a good example. Iraq, I mean, we, we know that, that what comes next, you know, can be worse.
- [50:14]
Bob Torricelli
That's all true. Let me tell you. You know, I'm old enough to have A lot of old stories. When I was a kid, I, out of law school, I worked in the Carter White House and I remember Hamilton Jordan having a staff meeting saying, you know, if we can just avoid the problems of Vietnam or Watergate, we'll have a successful administration. I remember thinking, that's your scale of history. We're only, we're, we're learning from the last 10 years. Actually wasn't even 10 years. Learning from the last 6 years. Isn't history a little deeper than that? What you say is true. Regime change in Libya backfired. Regime change even in Iraq backfired. I accept all that. Regime change in Germany and Italy and Japan worked out pretty well. Regime change in Poland and Czechoslovakia and East Germany worked out pretty well. So I'm not telling you it always works. I'm not telling you it doesn't have dangers. It does. But in many ways, our attempts to change some of these governments, whether it was as a product of war or economic pressure or otherwise, in many cases, it also made the world better. All I'm suggesting to you is, is that kind of like my days out of law school in the Carter White House, we need to think more broadly than our unfortunate experience of the last 10 to 15 years.
- [51:36]
Mike Baker
As, as you were talking, sir, I, I was just, I was trying to, in my mind catalog any successful regime change examples in the Middle East.
- [51:48]
Bob Torricelli
That's, it's, it's, it's a, it is a challenge. And I don't know that I can, I, you know, I had hoped that the regime change in Egypt was going to be more successful, but if I could go back and take Mubarak. Barack Obama almost single handedly took out Mubarak and we ended up with a more fundamentalist, more brutal, less American line. The United States has a way of making our own problems. So I'm giving you the best example against my argument and a lot of.
- [52:18]
Mike Baker
It admittedly is speculation. So I know I'm putting you in sort of that uncomfortable position of having to answer questions with speculation, but is the opposition. Let's look at the mek as, as the, the best example. Is the opposition strong enough to.
- [52:42]
Bob Torricelli
And.
- [52:42]
Mike Baker
I, again, I'm not sure how to phrase this, to take control, to step into a vacuum should the current regime collapse.
- [52:53]
Bob Torricelli
I think your phrase step into a vacuum is the key here. No opposition group is strong enough right now to invade Iran, defeat their military forces and march into Tehran. If that's the model you have in mind, then the State Department is right. There's no one with that capability. But that is unlikely to be the scenario. I mean, I would have argued that Lenin wasn't strong enough to march across the German border and take over Russia either. He returned to, I think he returned to St. Petersburg with 24 men of Napoleon, left Corsico with what, 80 men to take down the monarchy. It's, it's, it's walking into what you said is the vacuum. The ayatollahs are only falling for the same reason the Shah fell. It's not that their guns don't work anymore. It's that people just stop cooperating. At some point, soldiers just say, well, I'm not pointing these guns at my neighbors anymore. People just won't support the regime anymore. They stop working. Revenue stops coming in, People take to the streets and they take over the means of production. Several thousand oil workers right now, if they revolted, could shut down the Iranian economy.
- [54:14]
Mike Baker
Before I get. Sir, sorry for interrupting. I'm at that age where if I don't ask what pops into my head, I may forget. So you mentioned the. As an example, you know, should the oil workers go on strike? There was a recent situation. Truck drivers on strike in Iran.
- [54:32]
Bob Torricelli
Exactly.
- [54:34]
Mike Baker
And then it went off. The, the, the headlines, it was, it kind of flared up briefly. It looked like it might, you know, catch on. And then we hear nothing else about it. What do you, what can you tell us about that situation?
- [54:45]
Bob Torricelli
First, I, you got to be very careful with news out of Iran. In the United States, if the New York Times doesn't have a reporter there or the network doesn't send a reporter, and neither of which exists in Tehran, from an American perspective, it didn't happen. And you got to be very careful of that. For months, there were revolts going on in the streets of Iranian cities. And it, the average American would have known it was even going on because there's no mainstream reporter there. So you got to be careful of that. But the scenario you're talking about is exactly what I have in mind. That this doesn't come from armed invasion. You get regime change because the truck drivers won't deliver food, the oil workers won't keep the pumps running or the docks going. In the case of the Shah, it was the small shopkeepers. They just shut down. They wouldn't take customers anymore and it created an economic collapse. This happened from lower middle class store owners. Really were the heart of the collapse of the Shah. Where this comes from in Iran, the no one knows. I guarantee you, whatever the CIA thinks, they're wrong. They don't know, you remember the famous memo that the CIA wrote to President Carter predicting that the shah had another 20 years as IS, as they was gone in two weeks. So, and that's not a fault of the institution. It's a, it's a fault of sitting thousands of miles away. It's a volume, right. You just, you don't know. But it's wild. But I have the overwhelming instinct. Wherever it's coming from, just you look at the circumstances, it's got, it's coming. And to your question, could the MEK fill the vacuum and yes, either alone or more likely in a coalition of other opposition groups. They have the resources, the will, the expertise to come in, in a vacuum. In a vacuum, not in a war in a vacuum and make the trains run on time, get the oil pumped, get the mail delivered, pick up the garbage, and transition into a free economy of some definition.
- [56:54]
Mike Baker
I mean, I know what you, you know, are hoping for, which I think, you know, obviously I, I, I agree. Right. It would be the best thing for regional stability, for national security interests of the US and our allies, for regime change. So I know that that's, that's the hope for result. But what do you think, what do you think will happen?
- [57:14]
Bob Torricelli
I have no idea. I, I can tell you the end game, but the, you know, this could play out over the next five days or play out over the next 10 years. I mean, in the, at the end of the day, a regime with this narrow a base, with these economic problems that has oppressed its own people, I mean, every time they leave the world, by far in executions. I mean, to be a member of the mek, for example, is a death sentence. You do that over enough years and you kill enough people, you suppress enough people, another generation losing any quality of life, any economic opportunity it compounds, it builds to an inevitable result. The regime cannot survive it. But different cultures have a different measure of the ability to absorb pain. Look at it as a spectrum. Of all the nations in the world I know the country that can take pain the least is the United States. You know, you disrupt our quality of life. I'm not saying this. I love America, but this is not our strong suit. Disrupt our quality of life and, and to our credit, our freedoms have us lose faith in the future. You're the incumbent government's going to have a problem. But it has surprised me in my life, the ability of some cultures to absorb pain, Enormous pain. I mean, look how long the Russians put up with Soviet communism. Generations were lost, but they put up with it. And that is true in many regimes in the Middle East. Look how long the Chinese put up with Maoist communism, the great leap forward of the 1950s. 50 million people starved to death, but the regime continued. Now. So how long people will put up with this is different by cultures. But that doesn't change the end result. In the end, it accumulates, the pressure accumulates and people rebel. It will happen in Iran. You asked me when. Honestly, I have no idea. Neither does anybody else. Only that it's coming.
- [59:21]
Mike Baker
I hope that when we we pick up the phone and give you a call, you'll come back because I, I'd.
- [59:26]
Bob Torricelli
Love it you visit this I, I would enjoy it and I'm honored to be on today and thank you for having me.
- [59:32]
Mike Baker
Senator Bob Torricelli here on the Situation report. I suspect we'll be talking with the Senator again in the not too distant future, given I don't think this conflict is going to be solved anytime soon, frankly. That's all the time we have for this week's PDB Situation Report. And if you have any questions or comments, please reach out to me at pdb@the firsttv.com you know what we do with your questions, your comments. We take the best ones every month and we smash them together into an episode that we call Ask Me Anything. Got another one in the tube ready to launch. So keep the cards and letters coming. Finally, to listen to the podcast of this show ad free. You can do that. You can do that very simply. Just become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting PDB premium.com See, I told you it was simple. I'm Mike Baker and until next time, you know the drill. Stay informed, stay safe, stay cool.
- [60:44]
Caitlin Becker
From a meeting at the office to a big first date, there's a lot of pressure to wear the right clothes for every event. But clothes don't make the man. So why stuff your closet with things that only work for some situations? With Mack Weldon, you can build a wardrobe that looks polished in any setting. The their clothing is understated and tells the world that you stay you wherever you go. They craft each piece by combining timeless style and modern performance materials so you can stay looking good and feeling comfortable from morning to evening. No wardrobe changes required. Browse everything from summer ready tech linen shorts and anti odor polos to tailored sweats and crews for a night in. They can outfit you for anything. No matter what's on your agenda for the day. Go to mackweldon.com and get 25% off your first order of $125 or more with promo code MAC25. That's M-A C-K-W-E-L-O-N.com promo code MAC25.