Iran certainly does not want a war. Trump, upon the global pushback he has been receiving, now realizes that a major military strike would become very complicated, leading to undesirable consequences. He wants Iran to “make a deal”, so he can claim success short of victory. I’m sure their teams are negotiating a face saving win-win for both sides. Iran is tamed. Trump is a benevolent tough guy. Israel will be disappointed; but it may take the pressure off their back door.
Too many people are promoting or anticipating a regime change, while ignoring the reality that Iranian society is highly polarized with support still strong for this conservative regime. Despite the massive street protests last month, there is still strong support to the contrary. Just like the U.S. Anti-ICE protests are impressive; but Trump and the Republicans still have a grip they will give not give without a fight.
Excellent discussion. I like the WWF comparison, very pertinent and original, and that Trump is not a gambler (though he owned casinos :) - he doesn't like to take risks at all. He is in a bind because I don't think he can just launch "a couple of tomahawks". Iran has clearly explained that it will not consider something light; they would hit back hard - so that would force the US into a larger and longer conflict. This is in my opinion what the current hesitation is about.
I agree that the image if US backs off would be bad, but in some sense even Greenland and Vznla also can be seen as a TACO, though it is not presented like that; but that's what it is.
I don't believe for a second the "moderate Mullah" theory ; they are already moderate in the sense that they want to trade with the world, be an independent country, and defending Palestine against the genocidal maniacs in Tel Aviv. For me that is really moderate.
Iran for sure has no nuclear weapons : 1) there is a Fatwa and Ayatollah has said nuclear weapons are non-islamic - enough said actually, but 2) they would first need to quit the NPT and even first even just announce that they are going to leave the NPT. And 3) any Iranian nuclear weapon would lead to an arms race immediatly where Egypt, Saudi and Turkey would immediately try to build one. This was already confirmed by MBS for instance. And 4) DNI and CIA have time and time again confirm they don't have a bomb program even, as late as April 2025. So because 1+2+3+4 : there is no nuclear weapon at all in Iran, but I do think it was a mistake to enrich Uranianum to 60%, this was a serious tactical mistake, because it just made the problem worse with the US.
Thanks Finn. We need to work on the sound quality and organization for the next podcast.
The term "moderate Mullah" is intentionally sarcastic, it is a play on the term "moderate" Islamists in Syria, who are of course not the least bit moderate, but are allies of the US and Israel.
I would never make any declarative statements about whether Iran has or does not have nuclear weapons. Shades of Bill Clinton and "is", what is the definition of "have"? They might, like Japan, only be “a screwdriver away” from "having" nuclear weapons and so it is not really a question where definitive answers have much meaning--they are deliberately couching everything in a deep fogbank of ambiguity.
I think the sound was great. Regarding nuclear weapons in Iran I don't see it exactly like that since I think they have been very clear for years: right to enrich as per NPT but no plan for such weapons because Iran is against such weapons. But indeed some have said this stance could change if they are aggressed. So I think it's mostly Washington that likes to exagerate an ambiguity in such Iranian statements where actually in my opinion there are none.
I see Washington's attitude as staunchly unambiguous: that Iran does NOT currently have nuclear weapons. No US official has ever accused them of possessing nuclear weapons. You yourself have cited US intelligence reports that say Iran has no nuclear weapons. Also would the US really be trying this gunboat bullying against a nuclear power? Worse still, if Iran now has nuclear weapons, under whose watch did this occur? Trump's?
By enriching more than 400 kg's to above 60%, Iran has itself entered a dangerous zone of ambiguity, one which the Americans publicly reject and insist that Iran has not yet acquired working nuclear devices.
Iran's power would be in privately disclosing they have say ten devices and threatening to publicly test one if they felt they were about to be attacked. This would humiliate Trump or force him to launch a nuclear first strike, which is a fairly dangerous move, to say the least. Iran being an undeclared nuclear power, just like Israel, might just be the best result for everyone in the region at this point.
Iran certainly does not want a war. Trump, upon the global pushback he has been receiving, now realizes that a major military strike would become very complicated, leading to undesirable consequences. He wants Iran to “make a deal”, so he can claim success short of victory. I’m sure their teams are negotiating a face saving win-win for both sides. Iran is tamed. Trump is a benevolent tough guy. Israel will be disappointed; but it may take the pressure off their back door.
Too many people are promoting or anticipating a regime change, while ignoring the reality that Iranian society is highly polarized with support still strong for this conservative regime. Despite the massive street protests last month, there is still strong support to the contrary. Just like the U.S. Anti-ICE protests are impressive; but Trump and the Republicans still have a grip they will give not give without a fight.
Excellent discussion. I like the WWF comparison, very pertinent and original, and that Trump is not a gambler (though he owned casinos :) - he doesn't like to take risks at all. He is in a bind because I don't think he can just launch "a couple of tomahawks". Iran has clearly explained that it will not consider something light; they would hit back hard - so that would force the US into a larger and longer conflict. This is in my opinion what the current hesitation is about.
I agree that the image if US backs off would be bad, but in some sense even Greenland and Vznla also can be seen as a TACO, though it is not presented like that; but that's what it is.
I don't believe for a second the "moderate Mullah" theory ; they are already moderate in the sense that they want to trade with the world, be an independent country, and defending Palestine against the genocidal maniacs in Tel Aviv. For me that is really moderate.
Iran for sure has no nuclear weapons : 1) there is a Fatwa and Ayatollah has said nuclear weapons are non-islamic - enough said actually, but 2) they would first need to quit the NPT and even first even just announce that they are going to leave the NPT. And 3) any Iranian nuclear weapon would lead to an arms race immediatly where Egypt, Saudi and Turkey would immediately try to build one. This was already confirmed by MBS for instance. And 4) DNI and CIA have time and time again confirm they don't have a bomb program even, as late as April 2025. So because 1+2+3+4 : there is no nuclear weapon at all in Iran, but I do think it was a mistake to enrich Uranianum to 60%, this was a serious tactical mistake, because it just made the problem worse with the US.
Thanks Finn. We need to work on the sound quality and organization for the next podcast.
The term "moderate Mullah" is intentionally sarcastic, it is a play on the term "moderate" Islamists in Syria, who are of course not the least bit moderate, but are allies of the US and Israel.
I would never make any declarative statements about whether Iran has or does not have nuclear weapons. Shades of Bill Clinton and "is", what is the definition of "have"? They might, like Japan, only be “a screwdriver away” from "having" nuclear weapons and so it is not really a question where definitive answers have much meaning--they are deliberately couching everything in a deep fogbank of ambiguity.
I think the sound was great. Regarding nuclear weapons in Iran I don't see it exactly like that since I think they have been very clear for years: right to enrich as per NPT but no plan for such weapons because Iran is against such weapons. But indeed some have said this stance could change if they are aggressed. So I think it's mostly Washington that likes to exagerate an ambiguity in such Iranian statements where actually in my opinion there are none.
I see Washington's attitude as staunchly unambiguous: that Iran does NOT currently have nuclear weapons. No US official has ever accused them of possessing nuclear weapons. You yourself have cited US intelligence reports that say Iran has no nuclear weapons. Also would the US really be trying this gunboat bullying against a nuclear power? Worse still, if Iran now has nuclear weapons, under whose watch did this occur? Trump's?
By enriching more than 400 kg's to above 60%, Iran has itself entered a dangerous zone of ambiguity, one which the Americans publicly reject and insist that Iran has not yet acquired working nuclear devices.
Iran's power would be in privately disclosing they have say ten devices and threatening to publicly test one if they felt they were about to be attacked. This would humiliate Trump or force him to launch a nuclear first strike, which is a fairly dangerous move, to say the least. Iran being an undeclared nuclear power, just like Israel, might just be the best result for everyone in the region at this point.