Speaker 1: From Schwartz Media. I'm Ruby Jones. This is seven AM.
Speaker 1: America's attacks on Iran's nuclear sites over the weekend mark
Speaker 1: a terrifying turning point. Donald Trump has taken the US
Speaker 1: into direct conflict with Iran and risked what the UN
Speaker 1: Secretary General is calling a rat hole of retaliation. In
Speaker 1: an address at the Pentagon, the U s Secretary of
Speaker 1: Defense Pete Hegseth claimed Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated,
Speaker 1: but questions remain about the extent of the damage and
Speaker 1: whether the attack will only strengthen Iran's resolve to rebuild. Today.
Speaker 1: Author of the Permanent Crisis, Iran's Nuclear Trajectory and defense
Speaker 1: editor at The Economists, Shashek Joshi on what Iran will
Speaker 1: do next and what Donald Trump, calling for regime change
Speaker 1: says about how far we are from peace. It's Tuesday,
Speaker 1: June twenty four.
Speaker 2: Last night, on President Trump's orders, US Central Command conducted
Speaker 2: a precision strike in the middle of the night against
Speaker 2: three nuclear facilities in Iran, for Doeaux, Natan's, and Svahan
Speaker 2: in order to destroy or severely degrade Iran's nuclear program.
Speaker 1: Shishang, thank you for speaking with me. The United States
Speaker 1: Secretary for Defense Pete Hegseth said in a press conference
Speaker 1: at the Pentagon that Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
Speaker 2: Thanks to President Trump's bold and visionary leadership and his
Speaker 2: commitment to peace through strength. Iran's nuclear ambitions have been obliterated.
Speaker 3: Is that true? We don't know. We know that America
Speaker 3: has dropped some of the very biggest bombs in its
Speaker 3: arsenal on this mountain side in Four Daux, and we
Speaker 3: can have confidence that that's probably caused damage to any
Speaker 3: of the centrifuge machines inside the facility, which are typically
Speaker 3: very very centif to any kind of disruption or vibration,
Speaker 3: and obviously, dropping a thirty thousand bomb on a mountain
Speaker 3: causes more than a little bit of vibration. We also
Speaker 3: know that America struck Esfahan and Tans to other nuclear
Speaker 3: sites where Iran has been conversing uranium into different forms
Speaker 3: in a way that you might need for a weapon
Speaker 3: down the line. But and there's a very big butt.
Speaker 3: We don't know exactly how much damage has been done
Speaker 3: to Four Dough. Even the Iranians may not be aware
Speaker 3: of it, because they may not be able to enter
Speaker 3: the facility safely, given all the rubble, given all the
Speaker 3: contamination that may be inside. We don't know as well
Speaker 3: where exactly Iran's stockpile of highly enriched uranium is. That
Speaker 3: is uranium enrich to about sixty percent, which is a
Speaker 3: very very short distance from weapons grade. It used to
Speaker 3: be stored at Esfahan, where it was inspected by the
Speaker 3: International Atomic Energy Agency. The IAEA no longer has any
Speaker 3: visibility into that stockpile. Iran said it has moved some
Speaker 3: of the stocks away from facilities that are known to
Speaker 3: the US and others, and in the days prior to
Speaker 3: these US strikes, satellite images also showed trucks and vehicles
Speaker 3: at some of these sites. So that's the problem. We
Speaker 3: do not know if Iran's stockpile of uranium has been destroyed,
Speaker 3: and if it hasn't, of course, that is a problem
Speaker 3: that could be used as the basis for an effort
Speaker 3: towards bomb in other secret clandestine sites.
Speaker 1: The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterira said that the war
Speaker 1: risks sinking into a rat hole of retaliation from.
Speaker 4: The outset of the crisis. I have repeatedly condemned any
Speaker 4: military escalation in the Middle East. The people of the
Speaker 4: region cannot endure another cycle of destruction, and yet we
Speaker 4: now risk descending into a ref hole of retaliation.
Speaker 1: Iran has promised everlasting consequences to the series of attacks
Speaker 1: against it, So what type of retaliation do you anticipate.
Speaker 3: You know that Iran, for example, could attempt to close
Speaker 3: the Strait of Hormuz, and Hormuz is a very important
Speaker 3: waterway in the Persian Gulf. It's effectively the kind of
Speaker 3: point at which lots of key oil traffic flows. It's
Speaker 3: the only passage from the Persian Gulf to the open Sea.
Speaker 3: And if Iran were place minds, for example, that could
Speaker 3: cause real disruption to the energy market. However, I think
Speaker 3: it's pretty important that we separate Iran's rhetoric from its
Speaker 3: real situation, which is that it's deeply wounded. It is
Speaker 3: lost very senior commanders, it's lost a great number of
Speaker 3: its missile launchers, perhaps two thirds of them according to
Speaker 3: some Israeli accounts, and the regime is afraid. It's afraid
Speaker 3: that the regime itself may be a target of strikes
Speaker 3: in the coming days, and so they will be seeking
Speaker 3: to save face to sort of strike back in a
Speaker 3: way that preserves their honor without provoking a huge retaliation
Speaker 3: of the kind that Donald Trump has threatened. And I
Speaker 3: would cast your mind back to twenty twenty when America
Speaker 3: killed Cassam Sulimani, who was a very senior Irani in general,
Speaker 3: and Iran responded by conducting missile strikes against a US
Speaker 3: based in Iraq. But it was a very calibrated retaliation.
Speaker 3: They effectively gave America noticed that it would happen. They
Speaker 3: showed them where the missiles were landing, and it was
Speaker 3: a way of showing that they had done something very
Speaker 3: robust and strong without actually trying to kill very large
Speaker 3: numbers of Americans. And I think that that is along
Speaker 3: the lines of what you could see in the coming
Speaker 3: days if Iran is trying to keep tensions within limits.
Speaker 1: And Donald Trump made this decision to attack Iran after
Speaker 1: saying that he would be considering whether or not to
Speaker 1: do it within the next two weeks. So what was
Speaker 1: behind that statement. Can you talk to me about the
Speaker 1: calculations within his administration to misdirect the public when they
Speaker 1: were ultimately obviously planning this attack.
Speaker 3: Well, had Iran turned up to those diplomatic talks with
Speaker 3: France and Germany in Geneva for the weekend and said, actually,
Speaker 3: we're willing to completely dismantle our nuclear program and give up.
Speaker 3: Perhaps Donald Trump would have canceled these strikes, although that's
Speaker 3: difficult to say. It does look as though he was
Speaker 3: using both diplomacy and his own statements about making a
Speaker 3: decision within two weeks as a smokescreen to deceive Iran
Speaker 3: while preparations were being made for these strikes. And the
Speaker 3: reason preparations have to be made is because the journey
Speaker 3: to Iran for the B two Stealth Comma, that is
Speaker 3: the only plane that can carry these huge bombs. It
Speaker 3: is a thirty seven hour round trip. It's enormous, and
Speaker 3: you need refueling planes along the way to keep these
Speaker 3: bombers in the air. And you also need intelligence to
Speaker 3: be gathered about exactly what you're hitting. You know, who's
Speaker 3: in the area, what's the weather like, because that affects
Speaker 3: the movement of these gravity bombs dropped from these planes.
Speaker 3: So that he would have been using that time to
Speaker 3: prepare this attack as well as I think to prepare
Speaker 3: US military facilities in the area to cope with any
Speaker 3: subsequent retaliation, for example, evacuating families from military bases in
Speaker 3: places like Bahrain and Katar. So I suspect the deception
Speaker 3: was largely aimed at buying time to prepare and at
Speaker 3: making American facilities more secure. And then finally there was
Speaker 3: that last little feint of sending some B twos effectively
Speaker 3: the wrong way. A couple of decoy B twos taking
Speaker 3: off and heading west, spotted over the Pacific to make
Speaker 3: it look as though they were heading in a completely
Speaker 3: different direction.
Speaker 1: Shank In announcing the attacks, Pete Hegseth said that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump seeks peace. In your view, does this decision by
Speaker 1: the US to strike Iran bring anyone any closer to peace?
Speaker 3: I think, in this narrow sense that it may accelerate
Speaker 3: the Israeli campaign, because the Israeli campaign has largely been
Speaker 3: about destroying around nuclear program, although there have been some
Speaker 3: other interest slightly stabilizing the Iranian state. And with that
Speaker 3: in mind, because Fodeaux is now probably neutralized to some
Speaker 3: large degree, and Iran's nuclear program has been weakened very substantially,
Speaker 3: it makes it easier for Israel to stop the conflict. However,
Speaker 3: we don't know the false scope of Iran's retaliation, and
Speaker 3: if that retaliation is more expansive than I have suggested.
Speaker 3: For example, if they launch a bunch of missiles at
Speaker 3: a US based in the Middle East in ways it
Speaker 3: kill marines and kill soldiers or kill airmen, that could
Speaker 3: quite easily drag America straight back in to go hit
Speaker 3: political targets into Iran. We don't know, And so whether
Speaker 3: or not this move brings piece closer I think is
Speaker 3: really dependent on the Iranian retaliation as much as anything else.
Speaker 1: Coming up after the break. What America's strike on Iran
Speaker 1: says about its strategy in the Middle East?
Speaker 3: Shashank.
Speaker 1: The United States has adopted Israel's frame, being that these
Speaker 1: attacks were necessary to prevent Iran from producing a nuclear weapon.
Speaker 1: So has there been any intelligence or any evidence presented
Speaker 1: to back that up.
Speaker 3: We haven't seen clear evidence in public. We've seen claims
Speaker 3: by Israel in public on the very first day of
Speaker 3: the war that Iran was accelerating its progress towards what
Speaker 3: we call weaponization, that is, elements of the bomb making process,
Speaker 3: in particular that it was quite publicly racking up huge
Speaker 3: quantities of highly enriched uranium. But it was also working.
Speaker 3: They say on the neutron initiators that you need to
Speaker 3: trigger a bomb, as well as the plastic explosives that
Speaker 3: go around it, and the uranium core itself, the round
Speaker 3: spherical bit of fissile material that goes at the very
Speaker 3: heart of a bomb. But we haven't seen detailed documentation
Speaker 3: or intelligence to support that. My colleagues at the Economist
Speaker 3: have been told that Iran was taking some steps, for example,
Speaker 3: about initiate a meeting of its missile forces in ways
Speaker 3: that would help them mate a potential warhead to a
Speaker 3: missile down the line, But by and large Western officials
Speaker 3: appear to be much more skeptical of some of these claims.
Speaker 3: And whilst they all agree Iran was doing concerning things
Speaker 3: with weapons related technology, that it had not decided to
Speaker 3: finally manufacture a bomb. And I can see no sign
Speaker 3: from outside countries that they agree Iran was racing its
Speaker 3: way towards that outcome at all.
Speaker 1: And what does this strike on Iran say to you
Speaker 1: about America's plans in the Middle East, given such a
Speaker 1: large part of Trump's base is anti interventionist, and getting
Speaker 1: involved in this way is indirect conflict with how Trump campaigned.
Speaker 3: I think it shows you the problem that so many
Speaker 3: administrations have had, which is, how do you keep away
Speaker 3: from the quagmire of the Middle East when you were
Speaker 3: trying desperately to try to effectively pivot to Asia and
Speaker 3: focus on the challenge post by China. And it's a
Speaker 3: problem that confronted Barack Obama and his pivot to Asia.
Speaker 3: In twenty fourteen, he was dragged in to supporting the
Speaker 3: European military campaign in Libya. It's a problem that the
Speaker 3: devil Trump in his first term he had, you know,
Speaker 3: he bombed Syria, he nearly bombed Iran. It's a problem
Speaker 3: that afflicted Joe Biden, who ended up having to fire
Speaker 3: at the Huthis and was pulled into the war in
Speaker 3: the Middle East as well after October seventh. And I
Speaker 3: think that there will be many in the Pentagon saying
Speaker 3: we did this, We did it once. But what's imperative
Speaker 3: now is that we do not let this become an
Speaker 3: open ended campaign of the kind that we have criticized
Speaker 3: so often in the past. And that will be fine,
Speaker 3: But of course the thing to remember us we've discussed
Speaker 3: is that the enemy gets a vote, and Iran will
Speaker 3: have a determinant in the question as to whether how
Speaker 3: bad this could eventually get and how far America may
Speaker 3: against its will have to be pulled.
Speaker 1: Back in right, and what is the longer term strategy
Speaker 1: here if the US does have one.
Speaker 3: I think the longer term US strategy is still to
Speaker 3: try to limit its involvement in them, at least to
Speaker 3: avoid getting sucked into a very high degree. I think
Speaker 3: that they realize the military balance in the Pacific against
Speaker 3: China has been eroding. They must focus on sort of
Speaker 3: building up forces there. And you know, just look at
Speaker 3: the munitions you're spending. They fired scores of Tomahawk land
Speaker 3: attack missiles yesterday, cruise missiles. These are weapons that the
Speaker 3: Indo Pacific Command in the Pentagon believes would be vital
Speaker 3: for any conflict with China, and they just chewed through
Speaker 3: more of them, having chewed through many others in the
Speaker 3: campaign against the HUFIS earlier this year. So there will
Speaker 3: be many military officers focused on the Pacific who will
Speaker 3: have their head in their hands saying this is terrible.
Speaker 3: So I think in the longer run, this administration is
Speaker 3: still going to try its best to be disciplined if
Speaker 3: it can, and to try to avoid committing itself in
Speaker 3: a part of the world, in a region that it
Speaker 3: feels has been effectively a graveyard for American resources and
Speaker 3: lives for the last twenty five years.
Speaker 1: And Trump is now talking very directly about regime change.
Speaker 1: He's saying on truth Social I'll quote, it's not politically
Speaker 1: correct to use the term regime change. But if the
Speaker 1: current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran great again,
Speaker 1: why wouldn't there be regime change? So my question, I suppose,
Speaker 1: is how likely is that outcome?
Speaker 3: I think it's still unlikely. I think that he is
Speaker 3: Donald Trump likes campaigns that are successful and strong, and
Speaker 3: he didn't want this war in the first place. But
Speaker 3: once Israel showed that it was succeeding, that appealed to him,
Speaker 3: and it pulled him in. Israel is now flirting with
Speaker 3: the idea of regime change, and that may also be
Speaker 3: influencing mister Trump. But I think that his advisors will
Speaker 3: be much more skeptical at any kind of effort at
Speaker 3: political change than they will at what was seen as
Speaker 3: a one off strike against Fourdeaux and other nuclear sites.
Speaker 3: I think, in a way, the way we should think
Speaker 3: about this is that Trump is holding out this political
Speaker 3: threat as a way of trying to influence the current
Speaker 3: debate inside Iran, in inside its leadership over how to
Speaker 3: retaliate and how severely to do so. And what it
Speaker 3: says is, if you kill Americans and you retaliate in
Speaker 3: a big way, I'm willing to come back and topple
Speaker 3: your government. But if you don't do that, I'm willing
Speaker 3: to stay out of this. That I think is more
Speaker 3: likely to be the signal that he's sending. Although with
Speaker 3: Donald Trump, of course, you know you never quite know
Speaker 3: what's happening in his head.
Speaker 1: Shashang, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 3: You're very welcome. Thank you so much for having me.
Speaker 1: Also in the news today, Foreign Minister Penny Wong says
Speaker 1: the government is continuing to work with Australians stranded in
Speaker 1: Iran and Israel. Senator Wong says thirteen hundred Australians in
Speaker 1: Israel and three thousand in Iran have registered with the
Speaker 1: Department of Foreign Affairs is wanting to leave. However, evacuation
Speaker 1: attempts in Iran are particularly complicated. The Department of Foreign
Speaker 1: Affairs says Australia has deployed support of the Azerbaijani border
Speaker 1: to help those able to make it there, and the
Speaker 1: federal government is being urged by the Greens to disclose
Speaker 1: whether the satellite surveillance base at Pine Gap in the
Speaker 1: Northern Territory was used in the US strikes against Iran.
Speaker 1: Green's defense spokesperson David Tchubridge says Australia should take immediate
Speaker 1: steps to distance itself from the US over the strikes,
Speaker 1: describing the development as a dangerous escalation. I'm Ruby Jones.
Speaker 1: This is seven am. Thanks for listening.