Did Israel force America into war with Iran? - with Nadav Eyal and Mark Dubowitz

As events accelerate in the Middle East, the team here at ARC Media is increasing our coverage,

more conversations, more context, more time spent trying to help make sense of what's happening,

and all with an expanding cast of podcast hosts, analysts, and journalists.

Our inside Call Me Back subscribers help make this expanded coverage possible.

It helps us be here when it matters most. If you're not yet an inside Call Me Back subscriber,

this is an important time to join us. To subscribe, you can follow the link in our show notes

or visit arcmedia.org. And to our insiders, thank you.

And yet here is Carlson and Megan Kelly in the MAGA Wright, basically saying

that President Trump ordered an attack on Iran at the behest of a foreign power in an award

that is contrary to American interests. Dan, we have a term for that. It's called a traitor.

I find it interesting that Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly are calling President Trump a traitor.

Maybe in some kind of conspiratorial fever swamp, you can reconcile those irreconcilable

points of view, but Trump very quickly came out. Not only did he slap back,

Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly. He also said, I made the decision. If anything, I pressured

the Israelis to go when I wanted to go. What's dangerous for Israel is if Israel's position within

the American public would be further eroded as a result of this war because things are not going

to work the way that they are planned. If this is what's going to happen, you really need to think

long and hard. What's the Israeli position here? How people know that it's not Israel that's

responsible for that? That's difficult. Here's why because Israel did think that there needs to be

a war against Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu said that.

It's 6 p.m. on Tuesday, March 3rd here in New York City. It is 2.30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 4th in

Tehran, and it is 1 a.m. on Wednesday, March 4th in Israel as Israelis turn to a new day.

On Tuesday, President Trump pushed back on claims that Israel dragged him into the war with Iran

when asked about it during a press conference. President Trump said that if anything, he

quote, forced Israel's hands, close quote. Trump added that during the negotiations with Iran,

he got the impression that the Islamic Republic was preparing to attack first, further describing

the Iranian regime as quote lunatics. Also addressing a question about the timing of the war,

Prime Minister Netanyahu told Fox News on Tuesday that Iran was rapidly rebuilding its

offensive capacity for months. Netanyahu said that Iran was rushing forward with its nuclear

program, aiming to construct a network of underground bunkers for enrichment which would have

been quote immune, even to American weapons. On Monday night, President Trump's

envoy, Steve Whitkov, also stressed Iran's belligerence in a Fox News interview.

Whitkov recalled how during talks earlier this year, Iranian negotiators openly,

and with quote no shame, boasted about their ability to sidestep international safeguards and

enrich enough uranium to come close to delivering 11 nuclear bombs. Regarding the war itself,

President Trump told Politico on Tuesday that Iran is running out of ammo, though it will still

have the capacity of lobbying missiles for a while. He denied an earlier report in the Wall

Street Journal suggesting that the U.S. is running low on interceptors, describing America's

defensive arsenal as quote unquote unlimited. Also on Tuesday, the Israeli Air Force destroyed

a secret nuclear facility near Tehran according to an IDF statement. Reports on Tuesday in Israeli

media have indicated Qatar carried out strikes in Iran with Saudi Arabia expected to follow,

however, Qatar has officially denied its involvement in the campaign. The statement on Tuesday by

the Qatar reform ministry did state, though, that quote, we are exercising our right in self-defense

and deterring Iranian attacks against our country, close quote. Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers have

been pushing deeper into Lebanon, according to an IDF statement on Tuesday. Early in the day,

the Israeli Air Force conducted multiple strikes in Beirut, targeting Hezbollah strongholds,

weapon depots, and satellite networks. Earlier this morning, U.S. Eastern time, Israel carried out

a strike in KUM, targeting the building that houses Iran's assembly of experts. The site is not

a military installation, but a central political institution. It's where an 88-member clerical body

charged under Iran's constitution with appointing the next supreme leader meets. According to

reports, the strike occurred as members were in session voting on Ayatollah Khamin's successor.

Iran's top leadership structure now appears to be in disarray. The supreme leader is dead. His

designated successor, the defense minister, is also dead. The IRGC show signs of fragmentation,

Oman, long viewed as the region's primary diplomatic intermediary, is itself under attack. By

the very regime, it had been attempting to help Iran's. Now, the clerical body, responsible for

restoring constitutional authority, has been targeted during the succession process. The institutional

pathway from active conflict to negotiated settlement, from war to ceasefire to de-escalation,

appears to have collapsed at every level. Assuming this is all by design, what does this tell us

about the strategy that the U.S. and Israel are deploying right now, with no one to negotiate with,

who could be the negotiating party, which could lead to a desired regime change?

With me is ArchMedia contributor Nadavayel and Mark Dubowitz, CEO of the Foundation for

Defense of Democracies. Gentlemen, welcome back. Thanks, Dan. Thanks for having us.

So, we last spoke on the weekend when the war broke out, when the fog of war was as thick as it

gets. And it's still kind of thick, but just to orient us, Nadavayel start with you. It was just

announced that Mushtaba Khameney was elected as the new Ayatollah. Who is he and what does it tell us?

So, first of all, I want to hedge a bit about this. It's true that it was announced absolutely,

but not by the Islamic Republic as far as I know, but by opposition media as we are speaking now.

So, by the time that people are hearing this, it can either be verified by the Islamic Republic

or not. By the way, it was an assessment by Israeli security officials that they will hold the

identity of the Supreme Leader, the new Supreme Leader secret, or we'll try to do so at a certain

point. At any rate, this man is the son of Ali Khameney. It's considered a hardliner, was

sort of seen as a possible heir to the throne or was prepared as an heir. There was a lot of

resistance to this idea behind the scenes within the Islamic Republic, because this looks somewhat

like a monarchy, something that they desired to replace. But after the killing of Khameney,

his name was raised again, and this was partly because of the prestige that comes with the title

of Shahid, of Martyr, that was given to his father. I need to stop here and explain. I think that we

devoted a lot of time for the operational assassination of Haminey, and we also devoted time for the

symbolic nature of killing ahead of state, but it's also about Haminey now becoming the martyr,

the most significant martyr of the resistance, the so-called resistance to Israel and the United

States. His figure is going to last for a really long time, and we're going to see if he

amelicious even if this war is absolutely successful, and terror groups are going to use his name,

so of course his son becomes much more prestigious himself, but this tells you

done something important, even if it is not Mushtaba. It tells you that they are choosing a hardliner.

And all the candidates that I know of right now are hardliners. Every single one of them

is bad news. Considered a hardliner and considered a close ally of the Iranian Revolutionary

Guard Corps, so with the most militaristic, ideologically rigid factions within the Iranian

security system. Mark, anything to add to that? Yeah, Dan, first of all, I would say that's

hardly breaking news that the Islamic Republic has selected, not elected, but selected,

quote, a hardliner as the next supreme leader. Regardless of what would have happened, war, no,

or of course, Ali Haminey had made sure that whoever took over from him would continue the Islamic

Republic and the revolutionary tradition that Ali Haminey had started in 1979. By the way,

there are no moderates or pragmatists amongst the revolutionary elite, so we are getting exactly

what we expected. Nadav is right. I mean, he's a bad guy. Mushtaba has never had any public role

or of any significance, but he's very close ties to the revolutionary guards. He's also very

corrupt. He's estimated to be a $200 million empire and Switzerland and the Gulf.

Yeah, he has a Persian Gulf shipping business, a Swiss bank accounts, British luxury property.

He sounds like he's been living a pretty rich life. I'm looking at reporting here in Bloomberg

that has gone through his financial empire. Yeah. He's cut out as this guy Ali Ansari,

not the great British historian, but Ali Ansari, who's a corrupt individual, who's been building

this empire, including elite properties in London. And so, you know, as Karim Sajibor said,

this is a signal that the regime and the clerical leadership are to use Karim's words,

getting ready to position themselves to break rather than bend when they choose a successor like

this. These are people who are digging in for a fight and risking breaking the whole regime

rather than some kind of compromise. But your point mark is there's no alternative to that.

They're all directionally in terms of orientation in that mold.

Yeah, I mean, it was preordained. I mean, Nadav's right. I mean, there was a lot of controversy

because they are opposed to dynastic succession, of course, because that reminds them of the Shah,

the grandfather and the father. But this was preordained and this would be no surprise if

Moistaba was the supreme leader. I've on your show and publicly called for not only the elimination

of Chamanay, but the elimination of Moistaba. And I think the Israelis are hunting down Moistaba.

As we speak, regardless of whether he is the supreme leader or not.

I just spoke with Israeli security officials and they're saying absolutely at any rate,

even if he wasn't chosen as the new leader, that their task, this is how they put it, is to unite

the son with his father. Okay. Mark, key events that have taken place since we last spoke,

key events over the past 72 hours. Just tell us what you're looking at, what you're tracking,

and what these events suggest about the trajectory of the war.

Look, I continue to sort of obsess over the operational successes against Iran's most deadly

capabilities, nuclear and missile and repression apparatus. I think that's really important.

I think President Trump very much defined the first two as his goals of this war. They've gone

after nuclear weaponization sites in Parchin, very important. They've gone after Isfahan,

which the US had hit and Israel had hit during the 12-day war. And Israelis have just been going

step by step after missiles, after missile launchers. And now I think what, I don't know, Nidav,

you may have the most accurate number, but I think it's 49 or over 50 high-level senior

commanders, military, security, and nuclear. So I'm tracking in some detail what they're actually

targeting. Because I just think it's the most important thing to do in the first few days and

week is to strip Iran of the most deadly capabilities. Then the second most important thing is to do

severe damage to the repression apparatus. And then the third most important thing is to lay the

groundwork for the next phase of the strategy, which is maximum pressure, maximum support,

maximum fracturing to give Iranians the opportunity to take back their country. One more thing

that I thought was a note, the reporting on conversations that President Trump had with

Iranian Kurdish leaders, which I think is important and very good step. And that is to ensure that

they have boots on the ground. They have armed groups that can now tie up the security services,

force the IRGC in the besiege to spread their resources all around the front and

treat particularly to those peripheral areas. The United States knows them very well from our

experience in Iraq. And they are people who have a very well-trained force that is very capable of

taking on the IRGC and the besiege. Okay, Nadav, I want to talk about the strike in

comb today and what the strategic and political significance of this strike is for the wider conflict.

But first, can you just tell us a little bit about comb why it plays this very important role?

Are you believe in a more important role in revolutionary Iran than Tehran does?

What is the centrality of comb? And then we'll talk about this operation there.

comb is central because it's the holy city of the religious seminaries of the Shi'a clerics

and it's a censure, it's a hub of the ideas that led to the revolution. So I'm not big on equating

Iran with Nazi Germany. I know the Prime Minister is, but if you need to go through the

equation, comb is Nuremberg, comb is where the idea of the Valiat Afaki, as to the attack itself,

my intelligence sources in Israel are a bit hesitant as to the initial reports that this was

de-convening in which a person was to be chosen and all of them were in the room. And the Iranians

said that there's as far as they are concerned, they are not making any more convenings in the

Republic. And I tend to think that that's logical, although they do really very stupid things

in recent four or five days. So I cannot confirm there might have been a convening attached to that,

it disrupted something, but notice drama that we evaporated the entire council of guardians,

at least according to them. And I'm still waiting for more information about that.

As far as I know, and I'm speaking with Israeli officials, I have not spoken with American

officials about that. There is a phase B to this war. Phase one is kinetic and phase B is indeed

an attempt at the regime. We understand that the US is basically limiting expectations as to a

possible regime change. Israel isn't. Israel is shooting for the stars. And this could fail. But

Israel has attributed a lot of resources, not in the last few months, but in recent two years.

And I cannot go into specifics to the idea that it could assist a regime change in Iran.

It's a dangerous idea, by the way. It has its prose. If it works, it has its cons. We can discuss

that. Israel came to the conclusion that it's better than the current situation in which the

Iranians are having their secret war against Israel. And the fact that the Kurds, this is going on

the record, is extremely significant at this point. Now, I want to give another indicator there.

Launches towards Israel. So we're hearing sirens all day long down to Israel, right? Can you guess

how many launching of rockets have been to Israel yesterday when we're recording this? March 3rd

today. 20. 20. Do you know how many were in the first day after Israel killed the Supreme

leader was more than 90, 95. It's decreasing quickly. So when the president says they're out of

M.O. or we're hunting their rocket launchers, he's not just speaking. I'm hearing this from Israeli

generals. They're saying, unlike in Iraq, back then, we are actually in 1991, go for the Israeli

Air Force, the American Air Force are doing one hell of a job in taking out the entire supply chain

for these ballistic missiles. Now, who is paying the price? Mostly countries like the UAE,

because the ballistic missiles shorted Israel are mid-range ballistic missiles. But those

shorted the UAE and other countries are short range. That's much easier to do. I think over a

thousand Dan, a thousand missiles and drones that have been fired and they've done a remarkable

job of shooting them down. But Nadav is right. I mean, actually, it's interesting that the

Emirates have sustained much greater targeting than Israel has in this war compared to the 12-day war.

So let me just ask you, one US official said to me today that on the one hand, it's encouraging,

exactly what you're saying, that you're not getting the same velocity and volume of response

from Iran that Israel saw in the 12-day war or even some of the back and forths in April and

October of 2024. But one concern, I heard from one US official, is he was pleasantly surprised

by how well it's going. And he made the point that maybe Iran is holding back, that it learned

from these previous battles, previous wars, and that they are holding back some of their capabilities

to be able to fight a much more prolonged war than they have been able to in the past.

And so maybe we should not be overly rosy in our assessment that Iran just doesn't have the

capabilities that we thought they did. Yeah, I mean, I would say I think that's an absolute

German concern. Listen, if you're the Iranians, you're going to do that. You're going to hold it

back. So far, it's been just out of failure. But if you're the regime and you're, you know,

Mochitabahamenei, you're coming in as a new supreme leader or whoever it is. And you're in the

new IRGC commander because your predecessor, both predecessors, just got killed. You need a

inflict serious harm in the United States and Israel. And you need to hold back your short range

and medium range ballistic missiles. And you better make sure you've got missile launchers,

which are being hunted every night and day by both air forces in ambiance. And you will wait

and save that for that spectacular and very painful targeting of US and Israeli civilians and

forces. President Trump said today that it was unclear who would take over the country because

some many of the likely candidates were dead, likely candidates that gets from his perspective.

Ultimately, someone would have to negotiate a desire to end if the plan was to work with the

existing regime. It sounds like the idea is not to work with the existing regime. What does this

tell you about who Trump is thinking about as successor to this regime? Are there a successor

within the regime or successor to the regime? Look, I don't think Trump has ruled out the

possibility of talking to people in this regime. I think he might have in mind someone who

still is alive. And that's Ali Larajani, who Hamine gave the responsibility to coordinate

both the negotiations with the United States and the Iranian military response. If I were

the Israelis, I'd be hunting Larajani as well. But he may be somebody that Trump has in mind.

There's also Kalibaf, former revolutionary guard commander. I think it was the head of the parliament.

He's also somebody that Trump may have in mind. But Shamkani was somebody very, very senior. And he

was the head of the National Defense Council, top national security advisor. Shamkani could have

been somebody that Trump was thinking of. Shamkani is now dead. Mark, the president today rejected

the idea that Israel dragged the US into war with Iranian lunatics, as he called them. He even,

when as far as saying that he might have forced Israel's hand, I talked about this in the introduction.

What is your interpretation of that statement? Well, he's responding to a interview that

Marco Rubio gave that was taking completely out of context and in typical social media age,

part of what he had said was clipped and then spread out. And then you had all the lunatics and

the isolationist rights and the anti-Israel left going on about how even Marco Rubio had said

that Israel was going to attack. And so United States was therefore forced to have to move

preemptively because they would have faced consequences for an Israeli attack anyway. I mean,

essentially that was what went out. And I think Trump put that to rest. I mean,

and I think you rightly put that to rest and that Trump has had this plan in place

for quite a while. Of course, it's been closely coordinated with Israelis. Of course,

the IDF in Senkham are talking to each other daily. Of course, the integration is really at

historic levels. But President Trump has set the pace. President Trump has made the decisions.

I also find it Dan, very interesting. I don't know. We've talked about this on the show before,

but you know, you've got Tucker Carlson talking about how much he loves President Trump,

the greatest president since George Washington, the greatest commander of chiefs,

since Dwight Eisenhower. I mean, you hear this from the Magger right. And yet here is Carlson

and Megan Kelly in the Magger right, basically saying that President Trump ordered an attack

on Iran at the behest of a foreign power in an award that is contrary to American interests.

Dan, we have a term for that. It's called a traitor. Now, I find it interesting that Tucker

Carlson, Megan Kelly are calling President Trump a traitor while telling you also that he's the

greatest president and thank God that he's president and he's saving America and make America great

again and America first. I don't know how maybe in some kind of conspiratorial fever swamp,

you can reconcile those irreconcilable points of view. But Trump very quickly came out. Not only

did he slap back Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly directly and said, I am Magger. He also said,

I made the decision. If anything, I pressured the Israelis to go when I wanted to go.

Nadav, any response or anything to add to that? So first of all, Marco Rubio said that after a

briefing, and I find that meaningful because it wasn't only Secretary Rubio that said that,

but also Speaker Johnson and also an interview by Tom Cotton this morning.

Several people said again and again that Israel would have been doing this anyway and Iran would

have retaliated against American targets and therefore they needed to be a preemptive strike.

On the factual level, we're definitely in agreement. Here's where I'm definitely not in agreement.

I think it is extremely meaningful for the conversation in the United States because I see how

this was carried not only by extreme right extreme left, but also by people mainstream,

really mainstream, even sometimes conservative media. And I'm talking about not conservative media

that is against Israel. And I saw these reporters on on ex and many other places. And whatever is

going to be said now, the idea that Israel somehow forced the US to get into this war has been

injected to the American discourse. You're talking less about the set of facts and you're more

concerned about these manipulated optics that are now shaping a narrative about how we got here.

Yes. And as we know, facts are not that important in this world. And opinions and the velocity

and the sentiment behind opinions are really important. And what we're seeing here is that there

were a series of quotations coming from very serious people that were saying something about

Israel and the rest of it. Now I see Mark nodding his head. And really, I think that the facts

matter. And I explain on this show that it's the president. The president is calling the

shorts here. The president is deciding the president can stop this war picking up the phone telling

BB, hey, you need to stop in two hours. He can just hang up. And this is what's going to happen.

And everything that is happening throughout the White House is happening for the pleasure of the

president. However, what we're seeing here, even in terms of polls and media reportage. And then

you're welcome to weigh in on this in terms of the discourse that we're saying is not positive.

And if stuff don't go well, Israel is going to be blamed. Now Israel is going to be blamed anyway.

Many people say Israel is going to be blamed anyway. Yeah, well, I'm sorry, that isn't enough.

If I were advising the prime minister, I would have told him, here's what's risky. We know that the

IDF and the American army or the American army, Navy and the IDF can actually deal with the Islamic

Republic. What's dangerous for Israel is if Israel's position within the American public would be

further eroded as a result of this war because things are not going to work the way that they

are planned. If this is what's going to happen, you really need to think long and hard how this

is done, what's the Israeli position here, how people know that it's not Israel that's responsible

for that. And that's difficult. Here's why because Israel did think that there needs to be a war

against Iran. Prime Minister Netanyahu said that. I would say this is a moment with a lot of

opportunities for the region. We discussed this on this show, but there are dangers for Israel's

position. I'm saying this isn't Israeli. I know Mark has a lot to say. Okay, Mark is bursting

at the seams. Go ahead, Mark. I can say a lot because I don't disagree with Netanyahu on

a number of things he said. But let's sort of back up a second. Fact of the matter is Israel had to

go and eliminate Iran's nuclear and missile capabilities. Regardless of the political discussion

in Washington, what Tucker says or Megan says or Bernie Sanders says, whatever, who cares?

They are facing a significant threat from a regime that has used those capabilities

already, firing ballistic missiles on three now four occasions at Israeli civilians.

They're building up a nuclear weapons program. They have got a terror army around the region.

I'm sorry. An Israeli Prime Minister, I don't care if it's Netanyahu or Bennett or Lapid or

somebody from the left of the right has got to make that decision and would have made the same

decision. And that's why you've seen uniform support across the Israeli political spectrum for

decision made by Prime Minister Netanyahu. That's number one. Number two, the reason mainstream

Republicans are saying what they've said in Adav and your right is because in December at Mar-a-Lago

when Prime Minister Netanyahu met President Trump, the reporting from you and others and was

accurate according to my sources is that President Trump greenlighted an Israeli strike on Iran's

capabilities. And when the Prime Minister was back in Washington a while ago and met at the White

House with the President, President once again reiterated that. So yes, we all knew that Israel

was going to have to strike Iran at some point to remove those dangerous missile capabilities.

But there's a big leap from that to Israel pressured President Trump to do that and President

Trump wouldn't have done that without succumbing to the enormous pressure from an Israeli

Prime Minister of a country of 10 million people that's almost wholly dependent on the United

States, militarily, politically, and not entirely, but to a large part economically. That's

quite a large leap of logic. And I think that's when you start to get into the anti-Israel

cringes that I think those main street Republicans are not part of. And certainly we should avoid.

The third thing is, and I just want to again reiterate this, those missiles threaten the United

States. They threaten U.S. forces, they threaten U.S. embassies, they threaten U.S. bases,

they threaten U.S. Gulf allies, and Iran has an active intercontinental ballistic missile program

that when it's complete, and I don't agree with President Trump, I don't think it's imminent,

but when it's complete, we'll target the American homeland. So the United States of America has

every interest in removing ICBM capabilities, ballistic missile capabilities, and nuclear weapon

capabilities and terror capabilities from a regime that declared war against the United States

in 1979 is killed and maimed thousands of Americans. That is in the absolute interest of the United

States of America, and I'll just finish it finally this way. We didn't do the Israelis a favor.

The Israelis did us a favor, because what the Israelis did is they took on one of our most dangerous

enemies, and in the June war in the first 11 days, flying alone without American fighter deaths,

or American support or American boots on the ground, they devastated the air defenses

or our most dangerous enemy, and they allowed President Trump in the final in the 11th day to fly

B-2 bombers and destroy the 4-0 facilities. Thank you, Israel. And by the way, what are they doing

now, Dan? And we talked about it a little bit earlier. They are literally flying as a peer ally.

They were responsible for 50% of the strikes against Iran in this war. They flew a thousand miles

to bomb those targets, while our guys who incredibly brave and very effective were flying off

carrier strike groups just off the coast of Iran, and from bases close to Iran, we have never

in the history of modern American warfare had an ally that has carried that kind of burden

against a common enemy that has killed Americans. I just want to make the cases in American.

Thank you, Israel. You didn't pressure us. Maybe we pressured you, but at the end of the day,

you did us a favor, and thank you for helping us defeat an enemy with so much American blood on

its hands. I'm not at a political rally. I don't represent President Trump. I don't represent

Prime Minister Netanyahu. I'm an American who is furious that the Islamic Republic of Iran has

killed Americans and maimed Americans and taken our men and women hostage since 1979, and we have

been feckless often in responding to that threat. Listen, the brave pilots of the Israeli Air Force

have made it possible for us to finally confront an enemy and do so with less risk and pay less

cost than we otherwise would have had to. So just want to lay out that case. I agree with the case.

So we are an agreement on all the facts that you stated. Yeah. I will say this, Nadob, and I think

you have made this point, actually, that the Israelis and the Americans both calculated that there

were certainly risk in this war and certainly risk in removing the Supreme Leader, but the risk

of the Supreme Leader and the regime remaining in place was higher in the assessment of

the Israelis and the Americans than the risk of proceeding with action. That's the first point.

Now, it's important that action be successful. And as Mark laid out in June, we saw something that

looked and was spectacularly successful, which was able to be completed by US involvement to be

bombers and other bells and whistles that were sent along the way. But there's no doubt that

Israeli success made it much more alluring to the US to participate. And I think what we are

going through now, this war we're experiencing now, is in many respects much more complex than what

we dealt with in June. And it's going to have many more twists and turns and perhaps some setbacks

surprises and tragedies. But if we are successful and the Middle East is transformed from, as

John Potter or it's put at the other day, the Middle East has been the sinkhole of world history

and geopolitics for the last, you know, I don't know, half century. And you can go all the way

back to the oil embargo. And if this region could be transformed, it's a massive step forward.

It's a big win. And the finger pointing about how we got into this is not going to matter.

But if there are stumbles, there is going to be endless finger pointing and endless even conspiracy

theories about how we got into it. And I think that's the risk that everyone involved in this

has to take, right? If it goes well, then there are going to be very few questions asked. But if it

doesn't go well, there's going to be a lot of questions asked. And there are going to be a lot

of uncomfortable questions asked. I agree. What I'm saying that as far as the Israelis are concerned

and considering Israel's position today with younger voters in the United States and an erosion

of its position according to multiple polls, studies and others, what we're seeing here today

is something that could be extremely consequential to its position. Now, I don't think it's the Iraq war

and I'm explaining why I do think that the Islamic Republic has really put so many Americans,

Arabs, Iranians at risk. And of course, Israelis and it was responsible for an immense waste of both

human life and quality and money and resources across the region. And if you manage to take it out

or even somehow reform it from within something that the president is obviously open to and is

mentioning again and again, if this is the case, this could be huge for the region indeed the first

time in history that from the shores of the Mediterranean to the borders of Afghanistan,

the dominant force is going to be the United States of America. And it's going to be the dominant

force in an area that is essential for geopolitics and for energy. So the opportunities here are

huge for American security, deterrence of China. I've made all of these points. But for Israel,

it's not going to be about political big ring. It's going to be about its alliance with the United

States. This is what is at stake here. It's not only about Iran. This is my only point and this is

why, as a good Israeli, basically as a good Jew, I worry about this. And I think that there is

stuff to worry about. I have an update because as you were talking and you were hearing the insights

by Mark, I was speaking with a security official in Israel, it told me something really interesting

about the gathering of the Council of Experts, which I think wasn't published. He said we didn't

hit the place. There was a gathering of these people who are supposed to choose the leader. That's

true. But we didn't try to kill them all. And I was struck. Said, are you sure? He said, yes,

we wanted to have this as a signal. And I said, why? These people are an organ of the Republic. It's

not that you're shooting at the Mosque or something. We concluded that these are religious leaders.

And that signaling is more important and more effective than actually killing them all. And let

me translate what was said to me, I think they feared that if they're going to kill them all, this

might become much more religious and sort of even give more religious energy to that. But they did

want to say to these people, we know where you are and we are going to disrupt and know that we

can do this again. So it was a decision. And as far as I know, this wasn't published. I might publish

it before you air the episode. But this was like real time kind of gathering of info. Fast name.

A quick thing about some of these aims, because I you know, you mentioned John Potter, it's sort of

transformative impact, potentially, of down in the Islamic Republic and Nadavas, I think, eloquently

on this episode and previously talked about what a free and prosperous Iran could look like. I

must say, I, you know, I want to make sure I'm less what's the word, Peng Glossian, overly optimistic

about where we're heading, because I think it's very important to define narrow aims for the

president to achieve them, for the Israelis to say they have achieved them in order to beat back

against this potential public relations, political damage that Nadavas rightly worried about in America.

And again, I think that a successful military campaign that strips Iran of its nuclear and

military capabilities and missile capabilities will be an American success. But then the most

important thing is we don't just celebrate and go home, but that the United States and Israel

work very closely together, CIA and Mossad, NSA and 8200, IDF and US military. We make sure that

we have a program that builds on the military success to bring much greater political success.

And I know Nadavas is reluctant to talk about exactly what's going on, and I am as well.

But I think your listeners should be confident that a lot more is taking place behind the scenes

between the two security establishments in thinking through how to take advantage of a much

more weakened, fractured Iran, where we can use other instruments of American and Israeli power

in order to weaken, undermine, and if, you know, history smiles on us,

ultimately bring down the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Gentlemen, before we go, I just want to get a handle on a few other events that have been

happening and what to make sense of them. I guess, Mark, what is your sense of Iran's

strategy as far as you can tell? Generally, based on what they're doing and how they're fighting,

what's their strategy? We all agree that they're not folding quickly, so they're fighting,

even if we all agree that their munitions supply is probably not what it was. What's the game plan

here? I call it the Hamas strategy. It's survive, keep your weapons, declare victory, and wait out

Trump. That's what the Islamic Republic will want to do. And there's another something that they

could do, and I think that's the wisest thing they can do. They could nominate, like one Iranian

dissident told me today, a smiley president or a smiley leader. They could take people like

Rouhani or Musavi and make them foreign ministers or prime ministers or president or something,

and then give the impression that they have changed while they have not. And as far as Israel is

concerned, this is the most dangerous scenario that something would be presented as a meaningful

change when it is not. I don't think that the administration is going to fall for it. We didn't

say that. I want to say something about the things that the president has said today in the

White House, clarity, strategic clarity, the rise of coherence. There is a lot to say about that,

and he will be immediately, and he was immediately criticized. This is too simplistic and all the

rest. What I heard is a Ronald Reagan moment. I had the same reaction. When I listened to him, it's

like he totally understands what we're up against and who we're up against and that there really

was no other option. That's what I hear when he's speaking. In context, though, Nadav of Mark

just said as to what the Iranian strategy is, then over the past 24 hours Iran has attacked,

has increased its attacks on the UAE and Qatar. How do those attacks fit into that strategy? Have

those countries reacted either militarily, politically, diplomatically, whatever? How do you assess

the significance of the war broadening in the region? We are hearing that both the Saudis and the

UAE are considering joining the war. The Gulf countries are stunned, stunned, strategically surprised

by the brutality of the Iranian attacks against them. They are not angry. They are just beyond

themselves. Something strategic happened in the last few days. One of them is that Israel, with the

backing of the United States, killed Ali Hamine. The other one was the Iranians basically broke

everything they tried to build with the Gulf countries and would sell you Arabia. These countries

are not going to forget this for 100 years now. This is what they're telling me. This is not my

assessment. That's meaningful for the architecture of regional defense. Nadav, I want to close,

by asking you one question, and obviously Mark, feel free to add, from Israel's perspective,

what do you think the minimum threshold for Israel to consider this war a victory? I guess my

first question is, what is that minimum threshold? From your perspective, how plausible is it for

Israel to achieve that outcome? I think it's a great question. The idea is still skeptical about

regime change. A victory would be either a significant change in the regime, and by a significant

change, I mean a regime that is still the Islamic Republic, but says we're going to give up our

ballistic program. We're going to give up our nuclear enrichment, exactly according to the demands

that are supplied by the FDD and Mark Dubowitz. We're not going to fund his ball anymore. We're

not going to fund these militias. Even if this is still the Islamic Republic, it's not the Islamic

Republic anymore as far as Israel is concerned. It's fine, but a real victory is a change of regime

in Iran. Now, in between, there is a spectrum. In that spectrum, for instance, if Iran is weakened,

if it's degraded after two, three, four weeks, it has been fighting the Kurds, there is an

armed opposition that also would be seen as an achievement. Dan, I would just add to that,

I'm watching Pickaxe Mountain. FDD has been a bit obsessed about, and that is this sight

in the tons under a mountain where the Iranians are going very deep, hundreds of feet,

and the idea is to build a heavily fortified, immunized enrichment facility, centrifuge

manufacturing facility, and weaponization operation. If they succeed, and we don't bomb it and

severely degrade it, then I worry that even if we take out all the other nuclear sites,

all the other missile sites to grade the Navy, take out the top echelon, that they emerge

standing, declaring victory, not only heavily armed, but they have a facility that may not be when

completed, we won't be able to bomb with our massive oil and speditrators, and that these

railies would have a very difficult time degrading, certainly not from the air, and they might have

to resort to special forces on the ground in some creative ways to try to make that facility

inaccessible by human beings for a century, and without getting into the details of what that means.

But I think we have to take out Pickaxe Mountain, and we take that out and we take out all these

other capabilities. I think we can confidently declare success, even if the regime is still standing,

and then we've got two and a half years to grind this regime down and make sure that whatever is

left standing in January, 2029 is no longer a threat to the United States, to Israel, into the

region, because to get back to politics, I don't anticipate a present in the United States,

to the Oval Office in January, 2029, with the kind of commitment, resolve, and demonstration of

power, and credibility that President Trump has vis-a-vis the Oran issue.

Nadav, Mark, thank you for this illuminating, but also spirited conversation. I think it's important.

The most important thing I think Nadav said, which was also statement of the obvious is,

I'm just worried. I'm worried, which is like an evergreen statement for so many of us on this

podcast who are guests and hosts of the podcast, and I'm sure a big chunk of our audience,

we're just worried, okay? Let us express our worry. Let us reflect on our worry. Let us try to

concentrate our anxiety in one place, which is the coming back podcast. But then that's the reason

we have you, because you're such an optimist. Seriously, you wrote books, you wrote manifests,

of optimism. Not many people do that, and it's good that you're here to balance me being worried.

All right. Nadav, Mark, thank you for this, and we will be back in touch soon. Thanks, guys.

Thanks so much, guys. Thank you.

That's our show for today. If you value the Call Me Back podcast, and you want to support our

mission, please subscribe to our weekly members only show inside Call Me Back. Inside Call Me Back

is where Nadav, I'll meet Segal and I respond to challenging questions from listeners and have

the conversations that typically occur after the cameras stop rolling. To subscribe, please follow

the link in the show notes, or you can go to arcmedia.org. That's arkmedia.org. Call Me Back is produced and

edited by Juan Benatar. Arcmedia's executive producer is a Dom James Levin already. Our production

manager is Brittany Cohn. Our community manager is Ava Weiner. Sounded video editing by Liquid Audio.

Our music was composed by Yuval Semmo. Until next time, I'm your host, Dan Seenor.