Speaker 1: When they are ready, they'll let us know, very simple,
Speaker 1: ready to do whatever, doesn't make any difference, whatever they
Speaker 1: want to do. I'm ready. That's the President talking about Iran.
Speaker 1: And we said to ourselves, we said, we need to
Speaker 1: talk to somebody who knows a lot about that part
Speaker 1: of the world, about what could be going on with us.
Speaker 1: And Ran indeed a lot of strong statements, a lot
Speaker 1: of talking heads who don't have half an idea what
Speaker 1: they're talking about. And then you have Ambassador face allil
Speaker 1: Estra Body, who's the former Iraq Ambassador to the u
Speaker 1: N one of the authors of that country's constitution and
Speaker 1: director for the center of Something behind Sean's head. Thank you,
Speaker 1: the Study of the Middle East at Indiana University. My apologies,
Speaker 1: Ambassador Alistra Body. How are you, sir? I'm very well,
Speaker 1: thank you, delighted to be with you again. Thank you.
Speaker 1: It's been too long. So why don't we begin with
Speaker 1: uh Iran and their their recent actions, their motivations, what's
Speaker 1: their game, what are their goals? Well, I think that
Speaker 1: a couple of things. One, as is always the case,
Speaker 1: regime survival is the number one priority. And there are
Speaker 1: people in the US administration that have given conflicting signals
Speaker 1: about that. John Bolton, the National Security Advisor, very famously
Speaker 1: wants regime change in Iran. Now it's interesting because the
Speaker 1: President has said that he is not interested in regime change.
Speaker 1: He only wants uh, he only wants UM to ensure
Speaker 1: that Iran doesn't obtain a nuclear weapon. Now, the problem
Speaker 1: with that is that the United States is actually transferring
Speaker 1: nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia as we speak UM, and
Speaker 1: so Iran will be looking back across the Gulf and saying,
Speaker 1: uh uh, this doesn't look good for us. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: they were um, actually complying with the terms of the
Speaker 1: so called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is what
Speaker 1: the President calls a nuclear deal, and very there is
Speaker 1: zero evidence that they were not in compliance with those terms.
Speaker 1: It's the United States which went out of compliance and
Speaker 1: withdrew unilaterally, couldn't even bring the UH European allies aboard.
Speaker 1: And so the Uranians are looking at this and saying,
Speaker 1: what's our incentive for negotiating. We negotiated, we came to
Speaker 1: an agreement, we abided by an agreement UM, and the
Speaker 1: other side violated it. So what assurances do we have
Speaker 1: that if we negotiate again, we won't be in the
Speaker 1: same position a year, two years, three years down the road. Um.
Speaker 1: It's uh. It's one thing to renegotiate, it's another to
Speaker 1: withdraw and reinstitute sanctions without a justification under the original
Speaker 1: agreement at least um and then expect the other side
Speaker 1: to negotiate again. It's it's a very tricky situation. The
Speaker 1: President has put the US in um and the Iranians
Speaker 1: aren't playing his game. Well, maybe that was the problem
Speaker 1: with the agreement. I was watching Senator Mark Rubio make
Speaker 1: a point yesterday that while they were in a compliance
Speaker 1: with the agreement, as you just said, with the specifics
Speaker 1: that we discussed, they were not in compliance with the
Speaker 1: spirit of the agreement, and that they were continuing to
Speaker 1: be the world's number one exporter of terror and be
Speaker 1: involved in a bunch of things that we don't like. So,
Speaker 1: how do you how do we do with that? Well,
Speaker 1: the you deal with that as such? You don't that made.
Speaker 1: First of all, there's no such thing as a spirit
Speaker 1: of an agreement. There's there's an agreement, and there are
Speaker 1: terms of an agreement. And Senator Rubio knows that UM.
Speaker 1: You know, you would be hard if if you had
Speaker 1: made every payment on your on your mortgage on time
Speaker 1: and in the proper amount. UM. You would feel mightily
Speaker 1: put upon if your mortgage company foreclosed on your house
Speaker 1: because it felt you were not in compliance with the
Speaker 1: spirit of the mortgage agreement. There there are terms of
Speaker 1: a mortgage agreement, and if you're either comply or you don't.
Speaker 1: This is an international agreement that is sanctioned by UM
Speaker 1: six countries seven if you include Iran, but five some
Speaker 1: of America's closest allies, and the United Nations Security Council,
Speaker 1: on which the United States sits, where it along with
Speaker 1: four other powers, has a veto. You have never had
Speaker 1: a guest on your show more critical of the Iranian
Speaker 1: government and of its actions in the Middle East than I.
Speaker 1: There may be others who hold it in the same
Speaker 1: lower regard the government of Iran as I do, but
Speaker 1: you've never had one that has holds it in lower
Speaker 1: regard than I do. UM. But this isn't a game
Speaker 1: of monopoly. This this is you know, playing at at
Speaker 1: the highest level in the international community. And there's ways
Speaker 1: of doing things. And what the President did in unilaterally
Speaker 1: withdrawing US generally, is not it, particularly because I can't
Speaker 1: tell what the strategy behind the United States actions is.
Speaker 1: I know what the steps they're taking are, but sanctions
Speaker 1: are not a policy. What's the policy. I happen to
Speaker 1: agree with the President's point of view on the previous agreement,
Speaker 1: but walking away from it is an enormous gamble, by
Speaker 1: the way, Donald Trump, candidate Donald Trump, agreed with that. Yeah. Look,
Speaker 1: Jim Mattis general matters of former Secretary of Defense was
Speaker 1: against the agreement, he thought, and he was out of
Speaker 1: government at the time, of course, and he thought the
Speaker 1: agreement that the Obama administration entered into was it was
Speaker 1: a mistake. But he also thought withdraw and testified in
Speaker 1: Congress when he was still Secretary of Defense that it
Speaker 1: was it would be a strategic mistake for the United
Speaker 1: States to withdraw. And the problem and Trump said that
Speaker 1: as well. Well. What he said, he said it differently
Speaker 1: when he was a candidate. What he said was it's
Speaker 1: an international agreement. It involves our allies, and you can't
Speaker 1: just walk away from an international agreement. He's right about that.
Speaker 1: But if you do walk away, you would have thought
Speaker 1: you would do it in a way that would bring
Speaker 1: the allies on board, so there would be international support
Speaker 1: other than Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Air Emirates.
Speaker 1: The United States has no support for what for what
Speaker 1: it did in walking away from the agreement, and therefore
Speaker 1: no way. You know, the United States maybe the sort
Speaker 1: of eight hundred pound guerrilla in international affairs. But as
Speaker 1: as Vietnam proved, I think two generations ago, our generation ago, um,
Speaker 1: the United States still can't do it alone. It's it's
Speaker 1: not strong enough to take on the entire world. Um,
Speaker 1: it needs allies to get its strategic objections objectives. Sorry,
Speaker 1: it's strategic objectives accomplished. And here I don't even think
Speaker 1: we know what those objectives are. How about we start
Speaker 1: at the at the well at the top of this discussion,
Speaker 1: which would be Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Is that
Speaker 1: something we should you hold them in low and low regard.
Speaker 1: Is that something we should just not allow, no matter
Speaker 1: what the price is to pay, We just cannot let
Speaker 1: Iran have a nuclear weapon. Well, believe me as someone
Speaker 1: as you know, in your introduction you played out I
Speaker 1: was an ambassador from Iran's from the country that shares
Speaker 1: a thousand mile border with Iran. I am the last
Speaker 1: one that wants to see Iran with a nuclear weapon,
Speaker 1: but to to get us to that state, it would
Speaker 1: help if the United States weren't transferring nuclear arms technology
Speaker 1: to Saudi Arabia, Iran's chief rival in the region, and
Speaker 1: we're also transferring nuclear technology. United States is transferring technology
Speaker 1: to the United Arab Emirates as well, um another rival,
Speaker 1: although a much relatively minor arrival compared to Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: Quick question about that if forgive me for interjecting, but
Speaker 1: is the hatred, the fear between Iran and Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: primarily theological? The political? Sonny are So it's it's just
Speaker 1: your good old yeah. So you had to say it's
Speaker 1: it's geopolitics. A lot of the talking heads you were
Speaker 1: talking about it when you were introducing the topic. You can't,
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't think about the Middle East without
Speaker 1: thinking about religion. It's politics. When the Shah was was
Speaker 1: was running Iran back until nine when the Middlers came
Speaker 1: to power, you had the same tensions between him and
Speaker 1: the other states, and he was as secular as you
Speaker 1: I could hope for um. But so it's uh. But
Speaker 1: by the way, if you want to know who started
Speaker 1: the Iranian nuclear program, it would be a minor, little
Speaker 1: country you might have heard of called the United States
Speaker 1: of America. Well, I've made mistakes through my life too,
Speaker 1: I understand that. So whenever I hear about the nuclear
Speaker 1: transfers we're doing the Saudi Arabia always sort of in
Speaker 1: the back of my mind think what could go wrong?
Speaker 1: Ambassador facilel Istra, body is on the line from Iraq
Speaker 1: ambassador to the U N Obviously we haven't mentioned a
Speaker 1: little country there by the Dead Sea Israel. Uh. They
Speaker 1: certainly have a voice in the region and have made
Speaker 1: it utterly clear that they're not gonna wait till there's
Speaker 1: a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. They're going to strike Iran.
Speaker 1: Do you take them at the word? Um? Not really
Speaker 1: for a technical reason. Um, they don't have the hardware
Speaker 1: to do what would be necessary to do to take
Speaker 1: out a any Iran any restarted Irani and nuclear program.
Speaker 1: Um they there are they They were able to take
Speaker 1: out the Iraqi program back in the eighty two. I
Speaker 1: can't remember now because uh, well, the Iranians learned from
Speaker 1: the lesson that Iraq, the mistakes Iraq made, Um, they
Speaker 1: would need to First of all, they don't have a
Speaker 1: refueling ability, they don't have the heavy bombers. They don't
Speaker 1: have the heavy bombs. Um. It's the basically the only
Speaker 1: country that can do this as a United States. Which
Speaker 1: is why I ne who's been trying to get the
Speaker 1: US to do it for for for years. He's been
Speaker 1: saying for more than a decade that Iran is a
Speaker 1: year away from a nuclear bomb. Which is the odd
Speaker 1: thing about withdrawing from the deal because the deal, for
Speaker 1: all all its flaws, and I agree with you, it's
Speaker 1: a it was a very flawed deal. Um. George W.
Speaker 1: Bush walked away in two thousand and four. I think
Speaker 1: it was from a much stronger deal. He refused to
Speaker 1: sort of pull the trigger and make an agreement with
Speaker 1: the Iranians, and the Iranians just kept working, and by
Speaker 1: the time Obama made his deal in two thousand fifteen,
Speaker 1: the terms of the deal were much less in the
Speaker 1: favor of the United States than if the United States
Speaker 1: had made an agreement with Iran in two thousand four.
Speaker 1: But that's the that's the hand uh we were dealt UM.
Speaker 1: I agree with strengthening the deal. I think there was
Speaker 1: a way to try to make the deal a little
Speaker 1: more permanent or more permanent or permanent, and to bring
Speaker 1: Iran within compliance with what's called the Additional Protocol Hall
Speaker 1: of the Non Proliferation Treaty. But a unilateral withdrawal without
Speaker 1: the support even of the European Allies, much less Russia
Speaker 1: and China as permanent members of the Security Council, I
Speaker 1: don't think was the way to do it. So I've
Speaker 1: been reading a lot about the leader of the uh
Speaker 1: Airb Emirates m S what's mb zz and and his
Speaker 1: and his role in the Middle East, and now he
Speaker 1: and MBS with Saudi Arabia are working together to try
Speaker 1: to eliminate a Ran. So, uh this is a really
Speaker 1: high stakes game, isn't it. It's an extremely high stakes game,
Speaker 1: and it's unfortunately one that the US is getting drawn into.
Speaker 1: And I don't think there's a happy outcome for the
Speaker 1: United States to be involved in these sorts of regional
Speaker 1: regional disputes. The Crown Prince of the U a E
Speaker 1: Is mb Z Mohammed bin zayat Um, and he is
Speaker 1: sort of rumored to be kind of the mentor of
Speaker 1: the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. They're both, they both
Speaker 1: have the titles of Crown Prince, and they both run
Speaker 1: their respective countries for a variety of reasons. UM. And
Speaker 1: they are indeed taking on Iran. Keep in mind, they
Speaker 1: have been trying to take on the whole sees of
Speaker 1: Yemen for what is it for or five years now.
Speaker 1: I can't remember exactly when the bombing started. I think
Speaker 1: it was two thousand and fourteen, it might have been fifteen, UM.
Speaker 1: And they haven't been able to take on a rebel
Speaker 1: group in a little country like Yemen, which they regard
Speaker 1: that little rebel group as one of Iran's proxies. If
Speaker 1: they can't take them on effectively, I don't know how
Speaker 1: they're going to take Iran effectively. And one of my
Speaker 1: real fears. And keep in mind, I know you introduced
Speaker 1: me as an Iraqi ambassador, and I was, but I'm
Speaker 1: also a natural born citizen of the United States. I'm
Speaker 1: a natural born citizen of both countries. So as an
Speaker 1: American citizen born in the United States, I'm really concerned
Speaker 1: that that that one or two regional powers in the
Speaker 1: Middle East have a real interest in trying to draw
Speaker 1: the United States into an armed conflict with Iran, and
Speaker 1: I see no uh no United States national security interest
Speaker 1: in getting into a shooting war with Iran, though improving
Speaker 1: the deal with Iran is certainly in the American interest
Speaker 1: if it can be done through diplomacy. Facil Istrobody, former
Speaker 1: Rock Ambassador to the u N Director to the Center
Speaker 1: for the Study of the Middle East at Indiana University, Sir,
Speaker 1: it's always enlightening. We sure appreciate the time. Thanks a million.
Speaker 1: It's always a pleasure. I enjoy it very much. Thank you. Okay,
Speaker 1: follow up discussion, cetera. To come stay with us.