Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: Let's keep this conversation going with Richard hass He is
Speaker 2: President emeritus over at the Council on Foreign Relations and
Speaker 2: a senior counselor with Centerview Partners. Richard, fantastic to have
Speaker 2: you with us. So, I mean, as evidence by what
Speaker 2: we're seeing just in the past couple of minutes, there's
Speaker 2: a lot of ambiguity over what happens next, what happens
Speaker 2: at eight pm tonight, And you know, as you watch
Speaker 2: these you know, this back and forth play out. Apparently
Speaker 2: Aroun isn't even talking anymore at this point. I mean,
Speaker 2: what is your gut instinct about what we see transpire
Speaker 2: over the next five to twenty four hours.
Speaker 3: Well, what's just as important as what happens tonight is
Speaker 3: what doesn't happen tonight. Clearly, the pace of diplomacy is
Speaker 3: picking up. It's not direct between Irun and the United States,
Speaker 3: but Pakistan is in a critical position. It's one of
Speaker 3: the few countries, think about it, there's good relations with
Speaker 3: the United States, with Iran and with China, so that
Speaker 3: puts them in a special position. They've been one of
Speaker 3: the few countries that Iran has continues to ship oil
Speaker 3: to through the Strait of Hormus, and the idea that
Speaker 3: they're essentially trying to buy more time is realistic. There's
Speaker 3: no way you can get a deal done between now
Speaker 3: and eight o'clock to deal with the nuclear issue, the
Speaker 3: Straight or anything else. So to ask for a couple
Speaker 3: of weeks to maybe try to get the straight open
Speaker 3: either way, I think.
Speaker 4: That's essentially a good sign.
Speaker 3: In large part, I'll be straight with you, I simply
Speaker 3: don't see the upside of the United States carrying.
Speaker 4: Out the threats that President Trump made.
Speaker 3: I simply don't see what, if anything positive we get
Speaker 3: for it. But I do think it could lead to
Speaker 3: a much more destructive, wider war.
Speaker 2: So maybe we do see some more time bought before
Speaker 2: eight pm tonight. But you think about it, We've seen
Speaker 2: a lot of extensions over the past couple of weeks,
Speaker 2: and all the while we've seen the rhetoric really on
Speaker 2: both sides escalate, And certainly that social media posted to
Speaker 2: be got from President Trump this morning maybe takes the
Speaker 2: cake there. But when it comes to the off ramp,
Speaker 2: I think that's where a lot of people struggle what
Speaker 2: the theoretical off ramp would be given that you know,
Speaker 2: tensions are so high right now.
Speaker 3: Look, there's any number of potential off ramps here. There's
Speaker 3: probably three priorities. One is to stop the war, Two
Speaker 3: is to open the straight. Three is to place some
Speaker 3: sort of a verifiable ceiling on Iran's nuclear program.
Speaker 4: Those are the three goals.
Speaker 3: Again, there's no way you can get them done quickly,
Speaker 3: but I would think the most urgent is to get
Speaker 3: the straight open and to get some type of a
Speaker 3: cease fire or hopefully more than that, and then over time,
Speaker 3: I think you can address the nuclear program through negotiations,
Speaker 3: and I think that's all optimistic but not unrealistic.
Speaker 1: Well, I am curious about just kind of the deliberative strategy,
Speaker 1: if at all, that we're seeing out of the US
Speaker 1: side of this, and to who's really driving this, because
Speaker 1: there seems to be a lot of reports basically saying
Speaker 1: with military leaders, I guess trying to push back on
Speaker 1: some of the requests that Trump is making behind closed doors,
Speaker 1: not in defiance, but just you know, I guess a
Speaker 1: nod to the reality of how they need to carry
Speaker 1: out their missions here. We know that whatever I guess,
Speaker 1: ballistic missile drone capabilities, they have have not been completely
Speaker 1: eliminated based on the couple of jets that we lost
Speaker 1: over the weekend. Here should that be a mission that
Speaker 1: maybe should be a little bit more at the forefront
Speaker 1: to make sure that that threat is eliminated.
Speaker 3: Eliminated as too ambitious. Roan can continue to produce drones.
Speaker 3: Look what Ukraine does. Every basement is a drone factory.
Speaker 3: So the idea that you're going to eliminate their physical
Speaker 3: military capability to interfere with shipping or their ability to
Speaker 3: hit a desalinization plan or an energy refinery simply not possible.
Speaker 4: Missiles you'll never find all of them.
Speaker 3: You can degrade, you can diminish military capability, but if
Speaker 3: your goal is to effectively disarm, then you're talking about
Speaker 3: perpetual war.
Speaker 1: There has been a lot of debate, and I'm going
Speaker 1: to get too much into the ethics of it, but
Speaker 1: at least from a strategy standpoint, this idea of some
Speaker 1: of the degradation we've seen to civilian infrastructure, The idea
Speaker 1: that even if we somehow win this war and we
Speaker 1: somehow get the Iranian regime to capitulate, there is some
Speaker 1: concern here that we have maybe demoralize a lot of
Speaker 1: the rank and file people on the ground, who, in theory,
Speaker 1: we would need to some degree to support whatever the
Speaker 1: US's aims are post war.
Speaker 3: Well, first of all, we're not going to get the
Speaker 3: Iranians to capitulate.
Speaker 4: They've got a lot of leverage.
Speaker 3: Hopefully we can get them at some point to agree
Speaker 3: to a piece at most to compromise. But the idea
Speaker 3: that they're going to capitulate I put off to the side.
Speaker 4: I put off to the side any hope of a
Speaker 4: regime change.
Speaker 3: If anything, the regime's probably in a stronger place now
Speaker 3: than I was five weeks ago. Look, in any foreign
Speaker 3: policy endeavor, particularly in war, you've got to set achievable,
Speaker 3: reasonable objectives. God, there has to be some close connection
Speaker 3: between your ends and the means that.
Speaker 4: You're prepared to employ to bring them about.
Speaker 3: So the most ambitious aims are simply non starters. Realistic
Speaker 3: aims are the ones I talked about to put a
Speaker 3: ceiling on Iran's nuclear program, probably through the diplomacy, and
Speaker 3: to reopen the straight or fore moods.
Speaker 4: I think those are both essential. The good news is
Speaker 4: they're potentially feasible.
Speaker 2: As well, and Richard, I want to go back to
Speaker 2: what you said that you know, if anything, the Iranian
Speaker 2: regime is stronger now, in a stronger position, because you
Speaker 2: think about again what we got from the President this
Speaker 2: morning posting on truth Social that in his view, we
Speaker 2: have complete and total regime change. It sounds like you
Speaker 2: disagree with that.
Speaker 4: Well, it's preposterous.
Speaker 3: You still have the revolution in charge of Iran that
Speaker 3: came in seventy nine. Some individuals killed, obviously, from the
Speaker 3: Ayatola to several military and intelligence leaders, but the regime,
Speaker 3: the system is still intact. You've got political leadership, clerical leadership,
Speaker 3: You've got a military leadership. You have the regular army,
Speaker 3: you have the Revolutionary Guards, you have the besieged, the
Speaker 3: pew of the neighborhood community, people with who go out
Speaker 3: in the streets with sticks. This is a regime that's
Speaker 3: heavily institutionalized. This is not Venezuela. We're not talking about
Speaker 3: removing a slice and everything crumbles. This is a deeply institutionalized, institutionalized, religious, political,
Speaker 3: and military establishment. So we should for the time being
Speaker 3: accept the unfortunate fact that the regime is going to stay.
Speaker 3: The Iranian people are going to be the losers, and
Speaker 3: we've got to deal with the government we have, not
Speaker 3: the one we want.
Speaker 1: Do you think it's a plausible scenario that the US
Speaker 1: actually walks away from this.
Speaker 3: Well, again, the President could declare victory and quote unquote
Speaker 3: walk away.
Speaker 4: I think that would be a big mistake. That's what
Speaker 4: I would call. We broke it, you own it.
Speaker 3: We have the challenge of opening up the Strait, we
Speaker 3: have the challenge of the nuclear program. So I think
Speaker 3: walking away from it, quite honestly, would be irresponsible.
Speaker 4: The good news is there's a lot of space.
Speaker 3: Between walking away from it on one hand, and doing
Speaker 3: what the President talked about bombing bridges and power plants.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of space for certain limited military operations.
Speaker 3: More important, there's a lot of space for diplomacy that
Speaker 3: should be our focus.
Speaker 1: Richard, always a pleasure, always great insights. Richard Haass, President
Speaker 1: Emeritus at the Council on Foreign Relations, now a senior
Speaker 1: counselor with Center View Partners.