PDB Situation Report | May 24th, 2025: U.S. Intel: Israeli Strike Incoming & Trump Reveals The Golden Dome

Summary

Podcast Summary: The President's Daily Brief | May 24th, 2025

Host: Mike Baker
Guest Experts:

• Benham Ben Talablu - Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies
• Brandon Weickert - Senior National Editor at The National Interest and author of Winning Space

---

1. Introduction

In the May 24th, 2025 episode of The President's Daily Brief, host Mike Baker delves into two critical national security topics: the alarming intelligence suggesting a potential Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities and the unveiling of President Trump's ambitious missile defense system, dubbed the "Golden Dome." Engaging discussions with experts Benham Ben Talablu and Brandon Weickert provide listeners with in-depth analyses of these pressing issues.

---

2. U.S. Intelligence Indicates Possible Israeli Strike on Iran's Nuclear Facilities

Overview: Mike Baker opens the episode by presenting recent U.S. intelligence indicating that Israel may be preparing a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear sites. This development has sparked urgent concerns within Washington D.C. and has the potential to destabilize the already volatile Middle East region.

Key Points:

• Intelligence Evidence:
  American officials have intercepted communications between Israeli leaders and observed significant military movements by Israel, including the repositioning of munitions and completion of large-scale air exercises. These actions strongly suggest a possible imminent attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

• Expert Analysis with Benham Ben Talablu:
  Benham Ben Talablu discusses the implications of the leaked intelligence, emphasizing the historical context of Israeli military actions against Iran. He highlights Israel's advanced air force capabilities and its longstanding commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

  Notable Quote:

  "The Israelis have always been training and probably will always continue to train so long as there is the Islamic Republic of Iran that is interested in getting a nuclear weapon."
  (Benham Ben Talablu, 07:01)

• Potential Outcomes:
  The possibility of an Israeli strike raises the stakes for U.S.-Iran relations and could lead to a broader regional conflict. Washington faces the challenge of balancing diplomatic efforts with deterrence strategies to prevent escalation.

• Leak Dynamics:
  Benham suggests that the intelligence leak likely originated from a trusted individual within the U.S. national security apparatus who sought to influence public opinion or policy through media channels.

  Notable Quote:

  "The simplest explanation is a leak from a human individual who happens to know a reporter and wants that particular story out there."
  (Benham Ben Talablu, 03:02)

---

3. President Trump Unveils the Golden Dome Missile Defense System

Overview: Transitioning from Middle Eastern tensions, Mike Baker shifts focus to President Trump's revelation of the "Golden Dome," a $175 billion missile defense initiative designed to protect the United States from a range of threats, including ballistic and hypersonic missiles.

Key Points:

• Golden Dome Details:
  The Golden Dome aims to establish a comprehensive, layered defense system combining ground-based and space-based components. It envisions deploying over a thousand satellites for global tracking and utilizing advanced interceptors capable of neutralizing incoming threats at various flight stages.

• Expert Analysis with Brandon Weickert:
  Brandon Weickert provides skepticism about the feasibility of the Golden Dome but acknowledges the political determination behind its initiation. He draws parallels to the Apollo moon program, suggesting that substantial political and financial commitment can drive technological advancements.

  Notable Quote:

  "I think something similar is happening here, especially because everybody in D.C. is aware that China and Russia notably have capabilities that can hit our homeland now."
  (Brandon Weickert, 35:15)

• Technological Challenges:
  Weickert highlights significant hurdles, including the development of directed energy weapons (e.g., high-powered lasers) and the integration of space-based interceptors. He notes that while the technology exists in rudimentary forms, scaling it to the envisioned level poses immense challenges.

• International Reactions:
  China's aggressive response to the Golden Dome announcement underscores geopolitical tensions in space. Accusing the U.S. of weaponizing space, China’s reaction reveals fears of losing strategic advantages and the potential militarization of outer space.

  Notable Quote:

  "They want to exploit it, whether it's with nuclear missile threat, hypersonic weapons threat, or just anti-satellite weapons attacks in a deny space to Americans."
  (Brandon Weickert, 48:04)

• Strategic Implications:
  The Golden Dome is positioned as a mitigation strategy rather than a complete shield, acknowledging that no defense system can provide absolute protection. Weickert compares it to hurricane mitigation in Florida—aimed at reducing the impact rather than preventing the event entirely.

  Notable Quote:

  "I think that if we can mitigate the threat that ballistic missile and hypersonic weapons pose by a significant percentage even over parts of the country, I think that's a win."
  (Brandon Weickert, 53:34)

---

4. Conclusion

The episode underscores the intricate balance the U.S. must maintain between proactive defense measures and diplomatic engagements. With potential military actions in the Middle East and ambitious defense projects like the Golden Dome, national security remains a complex and multifaceted challenge. Insights from experts Benham Ben Talablu and Brandon Weickert shed light on the strategic considerations and technological advancements shaping America's defense landscape.

---

Notable Quotes Recap:

• Benham Ben Talablu:

  "The Israeli Air Force not just in counter proliferation ways, but other ways where they've really confounded expectations that do exist in the open source about what they can and cannot do."
  (05:26)

• Brandon Weickert:

  "The technology is finally caught up with the dream. And so the idea here is that we are going to create a comprehensive, layered defensive network."
  (37:46)

---

Stay Informed:
For more in-depth analyses and daily briefings on America's most pressing security challenges, subscribe to The President's Daily Brief by The First TV.

Transcript

[Starbucks Ad]

Morning decisions. A creamy mocha Frappuccino drink, a sweet vanilla, maybe a smooth caramel or that white chocolate mocha. Whichever you choose, delicious coffee awaits. Start your day with bottled Starbucks Frappuccino drinks. Pick up a bottle near you wherever you buy your groceries.

[Mike Baker]

This episode is brought to you by Enterprise Mobility. From fleet management to flexible truck rentals to technology solutions, Enterprise Mobility helps businesses find the right mobility solutions so so they can find new opportunities. Because if your business is on the road, they want to make sure it's on the road to success. Enterprise Mobility Moving you moves the world. Find your [e-mail] 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 today's show by taking a look at some intelligence recently obtained by the US that suggests Israel is preparing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities, prompting, of course, urgent concern in Washington. Ben Am Ben Taliblu from the foundation for the Defense of Democracies joins us to break it down. Later in the show, President Trump has unveiled new details of his ambitious Golden Dome missile defense plan. Have you heard about this? To shield the US from foreign attacks. Brandon Weickert, author of Winning Space, joins us to walk through the details. But first, today's Situation report. Spotlight New intelligence suggests Israel may be preparing to strike Iran's nuclear facilities despite ongoing US Efforts to negotiate a new deal with the Iranian regime. According to American officials, intercepted communications between Israeli leaders and recent military activity all point to a possible near term attack. CNN reports that Israel has moved munitions into position and wrapped up large scale air exercises, both potential indicators of a preemptive strike. The news has raised concerns in Washington, of course, that such an operation could ignite a wider regional conflict. Joining us to discuss what this intelligence might signal is Benham Ben Talablu in a senior fellow at the foundation for the Defense of Democracies and for inside baseball purposes, you know, the Situation report is, is a year old. In fact, it was a year old as about a week ago. And Benham was one of our very first guests. So we're very delighted to have him back on THE Situation report. Benham, thanks very much, man.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

It's an honor to be back with you. Thanks so much.

[Mike Baker]

How, how did this intelligence get out there? Right. I mean, so, so obviously somebody saw that within the White House, within the national security offices, we had intelligence saying that there's concern that the Israelis may be preparing to strike. Any insight into how that Information got out.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

Well, how the information may have gotten out from the White House to the press, you know, my Occam's razor approach, or the simplest explanation is the most likely. Is this the same way that other information that the U.S. government, sometimes more political, sometimes more policy, sometimes more classified or high level compartmentalized intelligence information gets out, which is it's a leak from a human individual who happens to know a reporter and wants that particular story out there because they play sometimes a Washington folks call an inside outside game. Whereas when they have a certain amount of exposure to a topic or to an issue, that generates a certain kind of public backlash, that allows folks within the administration and within the kind of, I don't like to use the word deep state, but within the, you know, more long standing civil service bureaucracy, the room maneuver to ride on top of the sentiment, reacting to that story to achieve the policy processes that they may have wanted to. Again, I have no insight as to if this was the way or if there was a different way that some of this information got out there about the administration seeing the Israelis getting ready for a strike, basically deal or no deal. But to me also having read that story the first time, I pushed away from the table on it and said, even though I'm reading this for the first time, this is really an evergreen story because I think the Israelis mean what they say when they say they won't let the Islamic Republic of Iran get a nuclear weapon. They're a country that does have a very advanced air force. You saw that specifically against the Iranian threat both in April and in October of last year when they retaliated against Iran's missile barrages. And you've seen in history over the past 40, 50 years where there have been a whole host of operations involving the Israeli Air Force, not just in counter proliferation ways, but other ways where they've really confounded expectations that do exist in the open source about what they can and cannot do. And so layering all of this on together, I think, yeah, this is a snapshot, but a snapshot of a story we've seen over time, which is there are always folks in various administrations left and right that always tend to leak to press sources. There's always people within the civil service bureaucracy who benefit from those leaks. But as to this specific topic, yeah, the Israelis have always been training and probably will always continue to train so long as there is Islamic Republic of Iran that is interested in getting a nuclear weapon.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, it is interesting. Look, from, from my perspective, I mean, given my background, I'm always fascinated by, you know, the concept of intelligence, intelligence leaks issues, you know, within, you know, maintaining classification and discretion. And it does seem in Washington D.C. i think you're right. Look, there's, there's not that many, you know, scenarios here, not that many options. So either someone saw this and, and it's a, it's a very small circle still to this day. Right. I mean we, we tend to over disseminate, I think in Washington D.C. but it's still a relatively small group of individuals who would, who would have access to specific intelligence, specific intelligence reporting. And so you could argue, okay, it was somebody or individuals who disagreed with, you know, the direction, you know, that the intelligence indicates the Israelis may be going. Sometimes in Washington you get people leaking information, you know, because it benefits the administration. Right. Because they want to get it out there. They want to, it's sort of a soft landing trying to set the table. Sometimes you get people who just, you know, you know, get off on talking to journalists even though it's anonymous. Right. So you know this, there's not that many scenarios. But stepping away from that issue, do you, you know, are you concerned from, from your perspective about the concept of the Israelis trying to do this on their own? I mean, do they have, I know obviously they've got a very advanced air force, but do they have as an example, the munitions needed which are not, shall we say, out in the open?

[Benham Ben Talablu]

Well, I think if you're going off of 2024, which was a historic year for the Israeli Ron rivalry, both in terms of what the regime launched as well as how and where and using what ordinances the Israelis responded. I think a, that thing I said before about the Israelis being able to found expectations and having certain assets in reserve holds true. But if I had to do kind of the open source macro assessment, I think today in 2025, the Israelis can destroy any above ground facility in the Islamic Republic of Iran today on their own. An above ground facility could be a political entity, it could be a military base, it could be a production facility for drones or missiles, it could be a radar installation, it could even be an above ground reactor or nuclear storage facility. What they cannot destroy is two or three facilities. One of the facilities being underground at Natanz, one of the other facilities being much, much more deeper underground at Fordo. And, and the third facility being constructed on the outskirts of Natanz at Kuhe Kulang or Pickaxe Mountain, which the Iranians say will be a centrifuge production site in the future. But heaven Forbid it becomes an enrichment site in the future. Those are things that without, I think the heavy bombers that countries like the United States of America has, without some of the munitions that you can drop, those GBU's, I forget which number 38 or 57, the massive ordinance penetrator, as well as some of the other heavier conventional bombs like the US has dropped in Afghanistan. I'm thinking the MOAB of 2017, without those that can really explode and tunnel and penetrate much, much deeper than the, you know, 500 pound or 2,000 pound bunker buster bombs that you've seen the Israelis use to the north and south against Hezbollah and against Hamas. You will need America. Which is why this debate about, you know, Israel's right to respond is not a debate that exists in isolation. It's a debate that exists very much at the heart of U. S. National security policy.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, no, absolutely. And, and let's, let's pick up on that. What do you believe is the likelihood that the Trump administration would get on board? I suppose it would in part depend on the credibility of the intelligence that the Israelis present. Where do you think that stands?

[Benham Ben Talablu]

You know, I think this is a very kaleidoscopic scenario. It depends on the intelligence, it depends on the sourcing, it depends on the nature of the talks. Depends on, I would even say with, with respect, the view of the president towards the Iranian threat that day or at that point in time. Well, whether he feels like he has the backing of not just his party and not just the Congress, but the vast majority of the American people. Will the president have been able to show the American people that there was more than a good faith effort to reach some kind of diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear crisis. I'm sure the President and his team in Washington are going through even right now in the absence of the strike being dangled, all of those things with round five of US Iran nuclear talks underway or wrapping up in Rome right now. So those are all factors that can impact and create push or pull factors. But ultimately I would say, would the regime be shooting itself in the foot? Because one fear that I have is they get a lot more by staying at the table. And if the only way the US Goes militarily at the Iranians is if the Iranians are no longer at the table, well, then the Iranians can come to the table and just read a whole host of grievances and filibuster and just kind of gain from the optics of being there without really providing any concessions. That would make it a lot harder for I think the Trump administration to back in an Israeli strike. And it also depends a lot on phasing. Would the Iran, would the Americans want Israel to go first, then America to play defense and then take out what is left? Or would the Israelis want a joint strike? Or would the Israelis want a retaliatory strike only in the instance of Iranians directly responding to Israel? Or what if the Iranians ride in the fronts and go after US Assets or the jurisdictions from certain sites from where certain things were launched? There's, it's, again, this is very much like a kaleidoscope. We know the facts, we know the positions of people, but based on the context, when you turn it, that image turns drastically differently. And there is as much politics in this question as there is policy in this question.

[Mike Baker]

What do you think is the likelihood or the possibility that the Trump administration is maybe playing chess here? And what I mean by that is that they don't really believe that the Iranian regime is going to, you know, make a good faith effort in these talks, that they wouldn't follow through and, and, and, and actually stick to any agreements, but that they're having these conversations, I mean, the Trump administration having these conversations basically to show, as you mentioned, the American public that they've made all good faith effort to go the diplomatic route and that gives them top cover. Then to, you know, switch to the.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

Military option, I would honestly, I would say it exists, but it exists in the universe of it being a non zero number, meaning I probably put the chances of that in the single digits or very, very low double digits. I think the President means what he says, and he's been pretty clear, at least on this front, of he does not want the Islamic Republic to get a nuclear weapon. But even when he was campaigning before term one, his whole thing was about making deals, even in places where potentially that might not be possible or hard or feasible or where it may come with political constraints. You know, his line was back then, and it remains true today, I buy bad deals, I make them good deals. You know, you saw that with North Korea. But with North Korea, he learned and when there was really no chance, he was willing to walk away. Now, that didn't commence a larger war and did it lead to a larger strike. But I think with respect to the Islamic Republic of Iran, the President has said that he doesn't want to have to do the military option, but he's willing to at least put it on the table and make it meaningful over time. So I think every threat with respect to this president, every option with respect to this president is credible. And if at, you know, five months out, I had to judge the Trump administration's Iran policy, I would say they're trying to go a mile wide and an inch deep on everything. So even though you heard this line back starting from President George W. Bush when he said all options are on the table, when you look at literally everything that President Trump has been doing, he has literally been putting stock behind every single option, military, economic, with the sanctions, for example, political, diplomatic, even by engaging in these direct or indirect, depending on who you believe, bilateral conversations with the Iranians. So he is every element, diplomatic, informational, military, economic, trying to create an element of this is run Iran policy. I think he's trying to provoke a reaction. He's trying to see where the Iranians are responding. And right now the Iranians are responding primarily in the diplomatic or political domain. They're trying to test him, they're trying to buy time. But now it behooves him to grow the stock beyond just an inch deep of those economic and of those military options. And if I had to advise him right now, I would say one thing that you got to trim with respect is the positive rhetoric or the optimism that the most powerful person in the world injects into these talks, which is when the President says, I want them to go well, I think they're going well. Looks like they're going well. Go. The Iranian currency, the real has appreciated, meaning improved about 20% since talks started just because of this slightly more different, changing positive atmosphere. The President has gone after three refineries in China going after Iranian world while talking to the Iranians. This stuff President Obama or President Biden never did. And yet still Iranian exports are flatlined at 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 million barrels a day, depending on who you ask. So there is going to have to be more done to make the Iranians feel the pain. But long story short, I don't just see this as the President taking a box and rushing through things. I think this is consistent with how he sees the Iranian threat, consistent with his options, consistent with what he campaigned on multiple times before the American public. And he is trying to square paying round holness because the Islamic Republic is trying to raise the cost and the US Is trying to limit the cost. And nary the two shall meet.

[Mike Baker]

Well, I think you do get. Oh, you just finished up with a very eloquent final sentence near the two shall meet. Come on, don't, don't start making this a highbrow show. That's not why people tune in.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

No Shakespeare on this show.

[Mike Baker]

I wanted, so I want to come back around to talk about what you said, the positive statements, the optimistic statements, because there have been contradictory statements. Right? There have been things back and forth and, and, and I want to touch on that. But first, as you know, we're going to need to take a break. So Benham, if you could stay with us. We'll be right back with more of THE SITUATION REPORT after this quick break. Hey, Mike Baker here.

Let's talk about your online security. Now, going online without the protection offered by ExpressVPN is like, it's like leaving your blinds open at night, right? That's a little creepy. Anyone can watch what you're doing and you have no idea who might be out there lurking in the dark, or in this case, in the dark. Web ExpressVPN reroutes 100% of your traffic through secure encrypted servers. So your ISP can't see your browsing history because all your traffic flows through their servers. Internet service providers know every single website you visit. Did you know that? And they hold on to that information. And did you know that in the U.S. iSPs are legally allowed to to sell that information to Advertisers?

[Benham Ben Talablu]

That's true.

[Mike Baker]

ExpressVPN works on all your devices and is easy to use. And that's important. Just fire up the app and click one button to get protected today. Protect your online privacy today by visiting expressvpn.com baker that's expressvpn.com baker to find out how you can get up to four extra months of service free. Expressvpn.com hey, Mike Baker here. Let's talk about trees, shall we? And plants. Oh, and don't forget shrubs. Now, did you know that Fast Growing Trees is the biggest online nursery in the U.S. it's true. With thousands of different plants and over. Get this, 2 million happy customers. They have all the plants your yard needs, like fruit trees, privacy trees, flowering trees, shrubs, and so much more. Whatever plants you're interested in, Fast Growing Trees has you covered to get your dream yard delivered directly to your door. Now, it's an excellent business and this spring they have the best deals, up to half off on select plants. And now listeners to our show get 15% off their first purchase when using code PDB at checkout. That's an additional 15% off at fast growing trees.com using the code PDB at checkout. Fast growing trees.com code PDB. And don't forget with springtime in full swing, now's the perfect time to plant Use PDB to save today. Offer is valid for a limited time. Terms and conditions may apply.

[Starbucks Ad]

This episode is brought to you by Selectquote. Life insurance can have a huge impact on our family's future with Selectquote Getting covered with the right policy for you is simple and affordable. Selectquote's licensed insurance agents will tailor your experience to find a life insurance policy for your needs in as little as 15 minutes. And selectquote partners with carriers that provide policies for many conditions. Select quote they shop, you save. Go to selectquote.com Spotify pod today to get started.

[Mike Baker]

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is Bena, Ben Taliblu. He's a senior fellow at the foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a very good friend of the show and, and quite frankly, a snappy dresser. Then I'm, we were talking about the, the, the comments, the, the optimism, the positivity coming out of the White House, out of, from President Trump related to the ongoing discussions with the Iranian regime, the nuclear talks. At the same time, you, you could argue, look, there have been a lot of contradictory statements. So President Trump will come out with something positive and then you'll hear back from the Iranian regime saying, no, no, we're not ever going to give up uranium enrichment. No, you know, we're not, because they're obviously playing the same game over on their side of the table with their population. Right. They probably do not want to be seen as caving in to the US by any means. But when you, and in reality, you can argue we're seeing the same thing with the, the Ukraine, Russia conflict. Oftentimes we're getting, yes, the phone call was very positive. We're going to have discussions, they're going to move for a ceasefire. And then you get Putin saying, well, no, we're not, then we're not having any discussions and we're not meeting, you know, wherever. So talk to me about that. Is that, is that just in the nature of President Trump? Is that just the way that he operates or again, I keep, I'm keep kind of pulling at the same thread. Is there a strategy here?

[Benham Ben Talablu]

Well, I do think there is a strategy here. It's just that there are other strategies as well. I think there's a attempt by the Iranians to rope a dope, the Americans. I think there's an attempt by, you know, Iran's great power partners, the, the Russians and the Chinese to magnify the Iranian threat, the soft, the oxygen in the room and time and political space in Washington deal with a Tier 3 threat and to not be able to deal properly with a Tier 1 threat, which is the likes of China and Russia, in my view. But with respect to the things that people have called contradictory in the president's policy and even some of the president's statements and even in some of the statements of his advisors, I think I would say yes, you could see different approaches being taken by different flanks of the Republican Party pretty early on in the Trump administration when it came to with, you know, technical things like enrichment in Iran be permitted, yes or no. But if you had to plot those divergent statements on a chart, yes, indeed, they did start very scattered. But now they are all very much correlating in one direction. Now, there was a time when former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz was the only one talking about dismantlement and zero enrichment and the Libya model. But now you've had Secretary of Defense Pete Hegset, you've had the White House press secretary much more recently, you've had President Trump himself, you've had Secretary Rubio, the Secretary of State on multiple occasions bring this up. There is much more administrative cohesion. You've had the special envoying, for crying out loud, Steve Witkoff, a much more cohesion with respect to statements, with respect to both technical and political end states for Iran's nuclear program put forward publicly by the US Administration. At the same time, you've had the Iranians congeal and dig in and double down on the 180 degree exact opposite, which is if America is saying zero enrichment, they're saying no. They want to retain enrichment at all costs. And under this scenario, until you have an exogenous shock, until you have more pressure, the only way you would get a deal is if you have a massive collapse between the public statements of one side, which is at that point not for strategy, but for face saving and ideology and domestic politics, and the private, acceptable, more narrowly circumscribed red line. So unless America says no enrichment publicly and says yes, enrichment privately, or unless Iran says yes, enrichment privately, but no enrichment public, no enrichment, no enrichment privately and yes, enrichment publicly, you are not going to get a deal from these two sides anytime soon. That is at the heart of the matter right now.

[Mike Baker]

Let's talk about, you mentioned it earlier in our conversation, the fifth round of talks that are going on between the Trump administration and the Iranian regime. Any insight into how those talks are going?

[Benham Ben Talablu]

I think they should be concluding pretty soon, at least, you know, late morning, early afternoon, Friday today. But I do believe that, you know, the Iranians, after round three and after round four, once they introduced, once the Americans introduced a technical team into those talks, their talking points and their spin, particularly when you contrast it with round one and Round two, has become much more narrower, much more about managing expectations than about playing up the political weight. And the optics of round one and round two, of having been seen as an equal, is sitting, even though indirectly of sitting and talking with the American. So I think they understand here that their stylistic strategy is going to be running out of substantive steam. That style has a str, has a substance of its own, but it doesn't always get to replace substance. And if they really do insist on these 180 degree, drastically different red lines, then the Americans, which are increasingly saying, no enrichment on your own soil, then they are, they are beginning to understand. And you see it in their commentary. You see in their reaction to the new sanctions. For example, the spokesperson of Iran's Foreign Ministry doing a press conference with Iranian media only in front of the facility where the diplomatic negotiations were just about to be held, critiqued the State Department sanctions the other day for going after Iran's construction sector and targeting the trade of at least, I think, 10 different kinds of strategic metals that can bolster the regime's missile, military, drone, and potentially even nuclear programs. So they are much more wary right now of those other growing stocks of the administration, you know, the military stock, the economic stock. And they're seeing, too, that, you know, there will be costs to not delivering or to not changing their position. So that's why they are trying to ring the alarm bell. They're saying if there's a strike, everybody will be impacted by it. They're saying if there's a strike, monitoring verification will be gone. They're saying that they're basically going to hold America responsible for the things that Israel does. They're trying to increase the sense of panic in the west right now. You see that in their statements. Very much so.

[Mike Baker]

Monitoring and verification. You just mentioned that. Look, if, if, if there's an agreement, say that somehow the Iranian regime says, all right, fine, no, no enrichment, and, you know, we reach an agreement, that would imply that the only way we can enforce that is by full transparency, the ability to inspect all the sites that the west puts on the table and says, no, we're going to. They don't let the Iranian regime say these are off the table. We, these, you can inspect. What's the likelihood that that would happen.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

Well, monitoring, verification has always been a problem with the Islamic Republic because this regime has been caught red handed more than 20 some odd years ago trying to create a nuclear fate to complete. And so while they have been engaging and opening up significantly compared to where they were in the very early 2000s, the question is who? What is it that we don't know? Could there be a secret facility? And this fear is in my view justified because A, the regime has blocked inspections of military sites in the past and there is a strong connection between the military and the nuclear program, given that this is not some science fair project. And second, that the regime understands that it actually benefits from this double hourglass effect I call. You know, by growing the nuclear program and diminishing the monitoring, they can again induce panic. And so long as they retain the ability to do that, they will always be in control of the monitoring and verification process. And this is despite them being signatories of the NPT. This is despite code 3.1. This is despite the Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement, and this is despite the additional protocol. You know, monitoring and verification is important, but I'm not going to lie, it's technical and it's boring and it's difficult and it is not as sexy as talking about a potential strike or a potential deal. But deal or no deal, strike or no strike, the way to make sure there is no Iranian nuclear program that has, that has this weapons dimension is 100% transparency, monitoring and verification. You need the IAEA to be able to come to a broader conclusion with respect to Iran's nuclear program. They haven't been able to do that still. They still have outstanding questions about certain facilities about not being able to interview previous Iranian nuclear scientists. So long as you have that, you do not have that cloud of suspicion taken away from the Iranian nuclear program. And that's why I think it behooves us to treat this not just as a technical problem, but as a larger political problem. The nuclear threat. And this nuclear monitoring verification challenge is just one more challenge we face from this regime which since 1979 has been saying death to America and remains the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism. This is just the next layer. This is just the regime taking the threats and turning it up to 11.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, look, when he was Secretary of State, John Kerry used to bang on about, well, you know, the nuclear agreement. It's, you know, we were trusting, but verify, you know, you not, because to your point, I feel very strong about this. If you don't have 100% you know, access. If you don't have full transparency, you do not know. And getting intelligence on the Iranian programs has always been a very heavy lift. And the US has always had to rely very heavily on our liaison partners in the intelligence communities to get a. Well, it's not even a full picture, but to get the fullest picture possible. So I'm concerned that, you know, the Iranians will continue to play the same game that they've been playing. They'll agree, and then they just won't stick to the agreements. So I'm not sure why we would imagine that that dog is going to change its behavior. Venom, last question. Being mindful of time, and I know this would require a lot of speculation, but if you're a betting man, let's look at six months down the road. Are we still in these negotiations with the Iranian regime? Are they still at the table but kind of dragging it along, or have we moved on to a military option?

[Benham Ben Talablu]

I think the most important factor there is not us and not the Israelis and not the Iranians, but the Europeans. If in less than 6 months time you don't have the Europeans triggering this tool that expires on October 18, 2025, which is snapback, if you don't have that, then it's likely you have one of two scenarios, either a limited strike or a limited deal in place. I can't guess which one is more 5149 at this moment. But I would say both the Iranians and the Americans have an interest in kind of delaying because they don't like their exit options for political reasons. I certainly think our political. Our exit options, you know, ramping up pressure is much more attractive than the regime's exit option, which is having to go full speed for a nuclear weapon. But I think politically there is less of an appetite for entertaining a cycle of violence and conflict in Washington at the moment. And therefore, despite me saying 51, 49, deal, limited strike, if no snapback, I think both sides can find a way to limp along and continue talks despite both of them not budget on their red lines.

[Mike Baker]

Okay. You should have been a diplomat, Benham. That was a very.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

That was.

[Mike Baker]

That was a very good answer. All right.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

Not a good gambler.

[Mike Baker]

I'm not sure where to. Yeah, I'm not sure where to put my money on that particular question, but I do think.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

Keep your money. Keep your money.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, yeah. You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to bet that you're going to be back on the Situation report here in the in the not too distant future. That's what I'm going to bet.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

I'll take Ben.

[Mike Baker]

And Ben Taliblu, Excellent. Of the foundation for the Defense of Democracies. Listen, thank you man for joining us as always. Well, President Trump revealing the details of his multi billion dollar Golden Dome. It's a missile defense system. Have you heard about this? It's a, it's a, it's a little bit like Dr. Evil's Alan Parsons project. Anyway, it's to shield the US from future attacks. I just love the name Golden Dome. Brandon Weickert, you know him, he joins us to break down what it is and whether it can actually work. And that's an important question, isn't it? Stay with us.

[Starbucks Ad]

What makes a great pair of glasses At Warby Parker, it's all the invisible extras without the extra cost. Their designer quality frames start at $95 including prescription lenses plus scratch resistant, smudge resistant and anti reflective coatings and UV protection and free adjustments for life. To find your next pair of glasses, sunglasses or contact lenses, or to find the Warby Parker store nearest you, head over to warbyparker.com that's warbyparker.com packages by Expedia.

[Mike Baker]

You were made to be rechargeable. We were made to package flights, hotels and hammocks for less.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

Expedia Made to travel.

[Mike Slater]

My name is Mike Slater. I have a podcast called Politics by Faith. I was just talking to a friend of mine who said he hasn't been able to follow the news lately. It's been too much, it's too crazy. It's driving him crazy. And he's just checked out. If you feel that way sometimes too, I think you'll really like our podcast Politics by Faith. We take the main story of the day and we run it through the Bible. What does the Bible say about this? It's amazing, but it's all there. And then God tells us what to do. We don't even have to figure it out. The answers are right there. He gives us the answers. Politics by Faith. Please join us over there. You can listen to it wherever you're listening to this podcast right now. Politics by Faith.

[Mike Baker]

Welcome back to the PDP Situation Report. This week, President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth unveiled new details of their ambitious 175 billion dollar. That's billion with a B missile defense plan known as the Golden Dome. The system would combine ground and space based capabilities to intercept missiles at every stage of flight, including before launch. According to sources, the US could deploy over A thousand satellites for global tracking with 200 armed satellites ready to shoot down incoming threats using missiles or lasers. The plan has already drawn international criticism. China, as you might not be surprised to learn, slammed the announcement accusing Washington of turning space into a war zone. Now here's a pro tip. China turned space into a war zone some time ago. Supporters say the Golden Dome could revolutionize missile defense if here's the if it can be built. Joining me now to break it all down is Brandon Weickert. He's a senior national editor at the National Interest and author of Winning Space. Now that's a great book. It's full title is Winning Space How America Remains a Superpowered. If you don't have a copy, go out and get one friend of the show. Brandon Weiker, thank you very much for being back on THE SITUATION report.

[Brandon Weickert]

Thanks for having me again. It's good to be here.

[Mike Baker]

So Golden Dome, the Golden Dome. First of all, do you have any idea how they came up with that name?

[Brandon Weickert]

Well, Trump loves gold and so I just assumed this was his continuing fixation on, on the color gold, the golden age. You know, it's all, it's all gold, man.

[Mike Baker]

It's all, it's, it's the golden era. And now we've got the dome. Look, obviously it's a bit of a riff on Israel's Iron Dome. Yeah. Ours is going to be shinier. But is it, let's, let's start it. Yeah. And bigger. Of course it is, but at the 30,000 foot level. Right. I mean, actually we're going to be above 30,000 foot with this thing. But is it even feasible?

[Brandon Weickert]

Well, the scientists that I speak with, I've been talking to these guys since I wrote the book. A lot of them were sort of on background sources. For me, they're very skeptical generally of missile defense of the kind that we're talking about. I am not skeptical. Obviously. I think we have the technology to do it. It's a question of political will we finally have a politician in Donald Trump who wants to do it. So he's going to point the direction and the scientific community is going to have to catch up. This is what, by the way, JFK did, right? 1962, he goes to Rice University, gives a speech saying we're going to go to the moon in 10 years. Everybody's looking around going WTF? What is he talking about? And almost to the day, a decade later, we were on the moon because of the political buy in. And I think something similar is happening here, especially because everybody in D.C. is aware that China and Russia notably have capabilities that can hit our homeland now. And more importantly, even some of these radical terrorist groups like the Houthis apparently have a Palestine 2 hypersonic weapon that's threatening the Israelis. So we don't want to live in a world where we don't have any kind of defense.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, well, okay, first of all, Brandon, I'm going to correct you. Back in the early 60s, when Kennedy was announcing the moonshot, nobody said WTF. No, nobody said WTF back then. Yes. You know, maybe somebody might have said lol. And that's it. That's, that's the sum total of my, my knowledge of those, those little phrases. Anyway, but you, you mentioned something very interesting, which I. Let's, let's pick up on that. You said that now we have a president who's got the, the, the willingness, Right, to push for this, because prior to that, there wasn't the political will. Well, if you step back and you say, okay, what's the concept? The concept is creating a shield that defends the homeland from missile attack. Why was this a problem for previous politicians? What was the problem regarding political will was.

[Brandon Weickert]

Well, at the time, the first time it was mentioned really was the Reagan administration. Remember Star wars, the Strategic Defense Initiative. Back then, the, the technology was really not quite mature yet, so the scientific community was able to kind of push back. And the State Department types who don't want to upset the apple cart diplomatically, did not want to upend mutual assured destruction by making nuclear weapons basically obsolete. So they were able to kind of drag that process out and not get it. But now the technology has matured. We now have, we have directed energy capability, however rudimentary. We now have more complex systems that can go at different levels in and out of the atmosphere to shoot these things down. We have better sensor capabilities today. So the technology is finally caught up with the dream. And so the idea here is that we are going to create a comprehensive, layered defensive network. And they're basically, they're going to have to come along with us, these diplomats and these scientists, because they're allocating $175 billion for it. So that's too much money to ignore. So it's going to happen, I think, just, just because of the amount of money they're throwing at it.

[Mike Baker]

Okay, before I go to the next question, you mentioned directed energy. Can you just, for the benefit of our viewers, can you explain that without using lots of big words?

[Brandon Weickert]

Big lasers, basically. Big, big energy weapons. Star Wars. Yeah, the giant freaking lasers. Now, we have had a lot of problems. The Chinese are actually ahead of us on directed energy weapons. The Russians might be on par, if not ahead of us. But the idea is that by dumping this kind of money, $175 billion into the program, whatever issues there are with that particular technology will be overcome. This is something that Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has explicitly noted, along with hypersonic weapons that he wants his defense department to get done. And so when you have that kind of level of political buy in and that kind of money floating around, they're probably going to figure it out. Now, whether or not it's going to be, you know, the defense contractors taking a cut off the top for themselves, that's a whole nother story. But I think that, I think we're going to get there politically and technologically a lot sooner than people realize.

[Mike Baker]

I'm shocked that you would even imply that defense contractors might, might take a little something off the top.

[Brandon Weickert]

I mean, I actually think we could probably do cheaper than $175 billion. But of course they're not gonna, they're not gonna let that happen. But, you know.

[Mike Baker]

No, no, I think, I think, you know, look, I've said this before. I think throwing out $175 billion is an estimate I think is a very conservative number.

[Brandon Weickert]

I think so, too. It'll probably, that might be why Trump wants a trillion dollar defense budget. That might be the real reason is we're going to space, baby. You know, so.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, there you go. Now, okay, talk to me about this. There's a lot here, right? But if you can, the, up to this point, talk to me about the, the, the defense system that we've had. Right, the missile defense system that we've had, why it is, if it is, why it's inadequate today and what the golden dome would primarily be focused on in terms of defense.

[Brandon Weickert]

Well, the first thing I would argue is that it's been inadequate for decades, going back even to the Cold War. Everybody kind of knew our air defenses when it came to intercepting nuclear weapons. We could do it, but not, not the way that our defense planners really wanted to be able to do it. The cost involved were always high. It's very technical. Think about it. You're basically shooting a bullet with a bullet. Okay? That's the, basically what you're doing is that you're firing a missile at an incoming missile. And so that has always been very complicated for anyone to do. So this has always been a problem. And our current system is basically very rudimentary the ballistic missile defense shield. We don't have enough of those interceptors. They're very expensive to make. After the Cold War ended, the political class sort of didn't care anymore because there were no more enemies. And so we're playing catch up in that regard. What the golden dome is, is it's not just ground based and sea based intercept. It's now also space based. So we're going from the ground up and from space down. And so the idea is it's going to be very layered and it's going to have multiple advanced sensors with multiple points of intercept. And obviously, the more eyes on a target and the more capacity to intercept a target, even if it's moving fast, the greater the likelihood you can prevent it from hitting its intended destination or its intended target.

[Mike Baker]

Okay. And the nature of the targets have changed to correct me if I'm wrong, but and also elaborate on this because I'm sure I'm going to oversimplify, but past defense systems, basically we're working on ballistic missiles which have a, a predictable trajectory. Right. They go up, they come down.

[Benham Ben Talablu]

Yeah.

[Mike Baker]

The golden dome now will be focused on, and you mentioned them, hypersonic weapons as well as sort of the old traditional attacks. So talk to me a little bit about. Actually, you know what, before we do that, let's take a quick break because I. There's a lot here to discuss when we start talking about hypersonic weapons. So if you could stay with us, Brandon. We'll be right back after a quick break with more of the situation report. So please stay right where you are. Don't go anywhere.

[Starbucks Ad]

Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz and Allbirds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into sign up for your $1 per month [e-mail] specialoffer.

[Home Depot Ad]

Memorial Day Savings are here at the Home Depot. So take your kitchen to the next level. With up to 35% off, plus up to an extra $450 off select appliances like LG. Plan your get togethers with an LG refrigerator you can count on for years to come at the Home Depot. And with the connected ThinQ app, you'll know if the door is left open and when to change the filter. Spend less time time worrying this Memorial Day with savings on lg, America's most reliable appliance brand at the Home Depot offer valid May 15 through June 4 US only Sea Store or online. For details.

[Babbel Ad]

If you've heard that sound from Babbel before, I bet you do. Babbel is the science backed language learning app that actually works with quick 10 minute lessons. Handcrafted by over 200 language experts. Babbel gets you on your way to speaking a new language in just a few weeks. With over 16 million subscribers subscription sold and a 20 day money back guarantee. Just start speaking another language with Babel right now. Up to 55 off your Babel subscription at babel.com Spotify podcast spelled B A B-B-E-L.com Spotify podcast rules and restrictions may apply.

[Mike Baker]

Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is Brandon Weikart. He's the author of Winning Space How America Remains a Superpower. Pick that book up and read it because it's very good reading and it's also important given what we're talking about right now and, and what the US Is intending to do, which is the Golden Dome. So bringing it back around to the Golden Dome. Brandon. Yeah, we left off in the, in the last conversation with the notion that our missile defense systems were focused on ballistic missiles. Predictable trajectory. Yes. Now the Golden Dome is focused on new technology. Right. New capabilities that are, that our adversaries have, including hypersonic weapons. Talk to me about that. Is this, is this the case where using space based sensors and interceptors, is that the primary focus of that element of the Golden Dome?

[Brandon Weickert]

Yeah, you're lasered in, to pardon the pun, you're lasered right in on it. So this system will also deal with the ballistic missile threat, the conventional threat. But yes, it's going to also significantly address the hypersonic weapons capability. The problem with hypersonic weapons is not necessarily they're going fast. That's a misnomer. They're not necessarily going faster than a ballistic missile. The problem is the way that they can radically maneuver after they get to their terminal phase. So they're coming in like a ballistic missile would, but then they start kind of going crazy. And that's to evade known capabilities of our air defense system as it stands. So what the Golden Dome is trying to do is they're trying to basically add layers of sensors in space because they also are able to launch faster and they're able to these systems are able to evade in some cases our tracking capabilities. So they're trying to add other layers of tracking. And then eventually they want to put, and this is something that Lockheed talked about at a conference I was at back in 2021, they want to also put interceptors in orbit because they think it might be actually easier to knock a hypersonic weapon out from orbit rather than try to shoot up at it as it's approaching. So there, that was an interesting theory. That was back In, I think, 2021, 2022 in D.C. they were talking about that. And I don't know if that is what they're still going with, but I know that was in 2021 they were talking about this capability.

[Mike Baker]

Okay, that's, that's very interesting. Look, when this was announced, when they came out and said, you know, you know, we're, we're going to build the Golden Dome, China was probably the first to react. And they reacted in a fairly aggressive and, and, you know, indignant manner. And basically what, what the Chinese regime said was, how dare you, how dare the US Weaponize space? To what would you say to that?

[Brandon Weickert]

Well, the first thing is, and the Russians also, Putin was very upset, although I note that his upset was not as vocal as I thought it would be. And I think that's indicative of how interested in a deal he wants with Trump. But anyway, Xi Jinping was quite upset. And that's because I think it's a matter of projection. The Chinese know that space is not only our greatest advantage, our ability to use space for coordination and communication over vast distances, for interception as well, but they also know that it's our greatest weakness because we are so poorly defended in the strategic high ground of space. We have let our space capabilities, our military space capabilities, wither on the vine since the end of the Cold War. And China's catching up with that. And so they're worried that we're going to start plugging those strategic gaps. I'll remind your audience, after Trump announced the creation of space force. Now mind you, China's had their own space force since 2010, as has Russia. But after Trump announced space Force in 2018, 2019, the Chinese were, you know, apoplectic over that. So they're projecting, they're letting us know this is a key vulnerability they don't want us to strengthen. They want to exploit it, whether it's with nuclear missile threat, hypersonic weapons threat, or just anti satellite weapons attacks in a deny space to Americans. This is why they're so apoplectic over that. It has nothing to do with the concern about international law or norms. The Chinese regime doesn't believe in the international law because they think it's a Western construct.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, no, yeah, it's, it's, it's. They, they're doing what they tend to always do, which is say, oh my God, we're only interested in global peace. How dare you do this when. Yeah, you're right. I couldn't agree with you more. It's, it's, I mean, my favorite right.

[Brandon Weickert]

Now is that demanding a two state solution for Israel, Palestine, even as they're threatening to absorb taiw want. It's, you know, you know, it's, it's indicative of the regime.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah, look, you could, yeah. Now, now we're starting to disappear down that rabbit hole about how absurd the world is. One of my favorite examples of that is that both Ukraine and Russia buy key drone components from China. They're. China is selling both sides of that equation. And yet, you know, to your point, at the same time saying, oh my God, we need, you know, we're just interested in brokering peace.

[Brandon Weickert]

That's right. That's right.

[Mike Baker]

Of course.

[Brandon Weickert]

Getting rich off of the war. Yes.

[Mike Baker]

Yeah. Well, there's an interesting concept. I haven't heard that one before. And certainly, certainly the US has never done that. Okay.

[Brandon Weickert]

They've learned from the best. Right?

[Mike Baker]

That's exactly right. Hey, so with, with this look, the Golden Dome, I'm gonna, I think I'm going to impress you with my mathematical capabilities here. But the Iron Dome in Israel, Israel, roughly the size of New Jersey, we're talking about just with the U.S. you know, 450 times that land mass, perhaps Canada has now expressed interest in being a part potentially of the Golden Dome. And so now we're talking about the, you know, North America. Yeah, I, I kind of going back to that same question before, and I know this is a tough one and I take your first, you know, response, but you throw Canada into the mix.

[Brandon Weickert]

Yeah.

[Mike Baker]

And honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if our other really key trading partner, Mexico, says, hey, how about us? And which kind of would make sense. Now you're tying, you know, you're tying key trade partners into something that's very important. Again, I go back to that same simplistic question I have. You know, talk to me about the feasibility of this and also talk about the timeline because President Trump has mentioned we're going to get this done before, you know, my, the end to buy term.

[Brandon Weickert]

Yeah, well, I think we're going to get started. I don't think we're going to get the whole system Stood up in four. I think it's going to take about a decade. I think the key thing here about feasibility is we have the underlying technology and the handful of things we don't yet have, we're still developing. So it's not like we're starting from scratch. And so I believe that when you have the political leadership that we have right now to get it started, that's the key thing, getting it started. I think that we will start seeing it happen now. The question is, can it cover the whole North America? The reliability or usefulness of the comprehensive system that is tbd? That's to be determined. But ultimately, I do think, you know, I look at this as mitigation. So I think that if we can mitigate the threat that ballistic missile and hypersonic weapons pose by a significant percentage even over parts of the country, I think that's a win. And you have to remember, this is how the Russians have thought about missile defense. People don't realize this. We actually didn't start the push for missile defense that was begun by the Soviet Union in the late 50s, early 60s. They ringed Moscow under Khrushchev. They ringed Moscow with the Galosh weapons system, which was an early form of air defense for nuclear weapons attack. And the Soviets were very clear, we're not going to save the whole country, but we can prevent the capital from being taken out in a first strike. So it's mitigation. And if you live in Florida like I do with hurricanes, mitigation is a big deal down here. So you're not going to necessarily avoid a hurricane, but you can at least survive it and weather the storm with.

[Mike Baker]

The time that we've got left. Brandon, I want to go to circle back to China's reaction to this, because, again, I think this is really interesting. They were indignant. They, you know, they said, how dare you essentially weaponize space. Has space already been weaponized and to what degree and for how long?

[Brandon Weickert]

This is the thesis of my book, my argument, and I show the history of it. First, we militarized space, which is basically meaning we were using it for surveillance and communications. But in my, in my research, it looks like space has already been weaponized. Back in the 80s, there was a lot of talk that the FOB system, the fractional orbital bombardment system, the Soviets and the Americans were trying to put it up there. We know the Russians and the Chinese have put CO orbital satellites, otherwise known as space stalkers, in orbit. These are small satellites that tailgate our systems and with grappling claws they look like something from Moonraker. They can latch on and push our satellites out of their orbit. So I have an article pending at the National Interest right now talking about one system in particular. Our geosynchronous orbit. That's the highest orbit around the Earth. We've got the nuclear Command Control, Communications, NC3 functions. We've got the Wideband Global Satcom and the Mobile User Objective Service system for the Navy. All three of those systems the Chinese have targeted with these, the Space stalkers, they have placed, I think it's the Xi Jiang 21 in orbit. And that system can latch on to our systems and geosync and push them out of orbit. You could technically destroy or at least degrade America's nuclear deterrent by getting rid of those NC3 functions in orbit.

[Mike Baker]

Well, look, you mentioned your book. I'm going to one more time encourage everyone to pick up a copy of that. It's called Winning Space How America Remains a Superpower. Brendan, it's always excellent having you on the show. We appreciate the fact that when I.

[Brandon Weickert]

Learned something new, every time I'm here.

[Mike Baker]

I look at this. See, it's. It's not just entertainment. We consider ourselves to be an information show. Listen, Brandon Weigert, Senior National Security Editor at the National Interest, very much appreciate your time, man. I look forward to the next one. That's all the time we have for this week's PDB Situation Report. Now, look, if you have any questions or comments or humorous anecdotes or limericks, if people still do limericks, please reach out to me at pdb@the first tv.com every month. Well, you know what happens. Or Incredible Team selects a bunch of your questions and they produce one of our critically acclaimed Ask Me Anything episodes. Finally, to listen to the podcast of the show, ad free. You can do that, you know, just become a premium member of the President's Daily brief by visiting PDP premium.com I'm Mike Baker. Until next time, stay informed, stay safe, stay cool. It.