TERRY GROSS, HOST:
That is FRESH AIR. I am Terry Gross. President Trump has mentioned he’ll use navy pressure in opposition to Iran until its authorities agrees to U.S. calls for that Tehran shut down its nuclear program and pledges to by no means once more pursue making a nuclear weapon. As I document this this morning, negotiations are underway in Geneva between Iran’s international minister and Trump’s particular envoy to the Center East, Steve Witkoff, together with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who would not have an official place throughout the present administration. Are we headed towards a navy battle with Iran? If that’s the case, wouldn’t it be a restricted sequence of airstrikes on choose targets? Would the U.S. try regime change, leading to a bigger warfare? My visitor David Sanger cannot reply these questions, however he can inform us how we obtained to this precipice and what the implications is perhaps for the U.S. if the president does use navy pressure. Sanger is a White Home and nationwide safety correspondent for The New York Occasions. For years, his protection has included Iran’s nuclear program and U.S. and Israeli makes an attempt to sabotage it. He is additionally the writer of the e-book “New Chilly Wars.”
Though I am recording this introduction this morning, we recorded our interview yesterday morning. We began with a clip of what President Trump mentioned about Iran throughout his State of the Union deal with Tuesday.
(SOUNDBITE OF STATE OF THE UNION ADDRESS)
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: They’ve already developed missiles that may threaten Europe and our bases abroad, they usually’re working to construct missiles that can quickly attain the USA of America. After Midnight Hammer, they have been warned to make no future makes an attempt to rebuild their weapons program, specifically, nuclear weapons. But they proceed. They’re beginning it throughout. We wiped it out, they usually need to begin yet again and are, at this second, once more pursuing their sinister ambitions. We’re in negotiations with them. They need to make a deal, however we’ve not heard these secret phrases – we are going to by no means have a nuclear weapon. My desire…
(APPLAUSE)
TRUMP: My desire is to unravel this downside via diplomacy. However one factor is for certain. I’ll by no means permit the world’s No. 1 sponsor of terror, which they’re, by far, to have a nuclear weapon. Cannot let that occur.
(APPLAUSE)
GROSS: David Sanger, welcome to FRESH AIR. So I am positive you are ready to listen to extra about Iran. So initially, have been you shocked at how buried it was throughout the speech and the way little he needed to say about it, contemplating we is perhaps on the point of warfare with Iran? After which inform us what you made from what he did say.
DAVID SANGER: Effectively, Terry, fantastic to be again on with you. I used to be a bit of shocked. I had thought that he was going to set some form of deadline for the Iranians as a result of the backdrop to the speech, after all, was that he has engaged in one of many largest examples of gunboat diplomacy that we have seen in a while. He is put an enormous pressure of two service teams, different ships, fighter plane, bombers, refuelers all inside attain of Iran. It is the biggest buildup of American navy forces that we’ve seen because the run-up to the Iraq Conflict in 2003. So it is an enormous navy stress marketing campaign. And I believed he would refer extra explicitly to that. He did not.
As a substitute, what he did was form of run collectively a few completely different information and some fantasies concerning the Iranian program. To begin with, the issue with the Iranian nuclear program isn’t that the Iranians have not mentioned they’re going to by no means construct a nuclear weapon. They are saying that each week. They have been saying that for years. The international minister of Iran tweeted it out once more simply earlier than the president spoke.
GROSS: After all, that does not imply you’ll be able to consider them on it.
SANGER: No, you’ll be able to’t, Terry. And naturally, the issue isn’t what they are saying. It’s the proof that has been gathered patiently over 20 years about work they did on weaponization, the conversion of nuclear materials into precise weapons that might solely be defined by both an energetic or a once-active nuclear weapons program.
Now, for the president, he had a specific hurdle to cross right here as a result of, after all, he has mentioned – and mentioned once more in that clip that you just performed – that their nuclear program was destroyed. It wasn’t, however the nuclear gas was buried. And whereas the Iranians could also be attempting to reconstitute their capability to complement uranium, and we have seen some very modest proof of that, if they do not have the gas and notably the gas that’s closest to bomb grade, they cannot make a bomb. And there is not any proof I’ve seen that they’re anyplace near a missile that might attain the USA.
GROSS: Let me play what Trump mentioned on June 21 in 2025, after bombing three main nuclear services in Iran. And Israel had attacked Iran in June in a warfare that lasted round 12 days, and the Trump administration moved ahead with bombing these three nuclear services. So this is what Trump needed to say June 21.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
TRUMP: Our goal was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capability and a cease to the nuclear menace posed by the world’s No. 1 state sponsor of terror. Tonight, I can report back to the world that the strikes have been a spectacular navy success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment services have been utterly and completely obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Center East, should now make peace. If they don’t, future assaults will probably be far better and rather a lot simpler.
GROSS: After which after praising Israel and singling out Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the U.S. navy for his or her roles within the strike, Trump mentioned this.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)
TRUMP: With all of that being mentioned, this can’t proceed. There will probably be both peace or there will probably be tragedy for Iran far better than we’ve witnessed during the last eight days. Bear in mind, there are a lot of targets left. Tonight’s was probably the most troublesome of all of them, by far, and maybe probably the most deadly. But when peace doesn’t come shortly, we are going to go after these different targets with precision, velocity and talent. Most of them will be taken out in a matter of minutes.
GROSS: OK. So Trump appears to be contradicting himself as a result of Steve Witkoff made it appear – one among Trump’s negotiators on this. Witkoff made it look like the bomb is imminent. We – you recognize, we obtained to maneuver now. And Trump was saying that, you recognize, their capability was obliterated. So how do you make sense of this?
SANGER: Effectively, if it sounds contradictory, that is as a result of it really is contradictory. The assault on these three services – Natanz, Fordo and Isfahan – which have been the biggest enrichment services that Iran had, have been extremely profitable as a result of they managed to implode the buildings down onto the centrifuges, the machines that spin at supersonic velocity to purify uranium and switch it into bomb gas, and to bury the stockpiles, most of which have been in Isfahan, of what is known as 60% enriched uranium. And that’s to say uranium enriched to a stage of purity that is simply shy of bomb grade. And it will solely take a number of weeks to deliver that – perhaps even a number of days to deliver that from 60% as much as bomb grade, which is 90%. However the truth of the matter is, the Iranians cannot get at that gas now. It’s buried down deep. We’ve got not seen any proof that they have been capable of take away any of it. Persons are watching this website like a hawk, as you could possibly think about. And so for Mr. Witkoff to step in and say, properly, they’re simply inside a hair’s breadth of industrial-grade enriched uranium that you could possibly use for bomb gas, you might need been capable of say that previous to the June assault. You’ll be able to’t say it right now.
GROSS: So what is that this about? Why are we probably on the point of warfare with Iran?
SANGER: Fascinating query. As a result of the president has provided 4 completely different rationales for the present navy buildup there. Considered one of them, the one you heard about probably the most within the State of the Union deal with there was the nuclear program. However the precipitating cause for the buildup was that the President promised to come back to assistance from the protesters who had been on the streets. And he talked about {that a} bit final night time as properly, and he mentioned that there had been 32,000 protesters killed in the course of the uprisings in January. And whereas there may be some dispute concerning the numbers, that is roughly appropriate, it appears. And so that might be a second cause to come back to assistance from the protesters, although in most components of the world, the president has not been notably involved concerning the destiny of protesters who’re going after authoritarian regime.
The third cause he is provided, Terry, has been to cease the help of terrorism with Hezbollah and Hamas. However the truth of the matter is, the Iranians are fairly broke proper now. They can not spend the form of cash that they did earlier than, and Hamas and Hezbollah are usually not actually in form proper now to be conducting massive operations. And the fourth cause he is talked about have been the missiles. So he form of jumbled these all collectively within the State of the Union deal with. However he did not actually clarify at any level what his goal is. Is it merely to set again the nuclear program and the missile program, what the Israelis name mowing the garden? Is it as a substitute to topple the regime? To principally seize the second?
As a result of Ayatollah Khamenei is at his weakest level. The economic system is reeling. The navy suffered large setbacks in the course of the 12-day warfare with Israel. The protesters are on the streets. Wherein case, the president could also be fascinated about a preventative warfare, which is to say a warfare if you’re sturdy and your adversary is weak. That is completely different than a preemptive warfare if you see that your adversary is on the point of strike you and also you strike them first. Preemptive wars are thought-about comparatively reliable. However preventive warfare has typically been thought-about beneath the principles of simply warfare to be unlawful.
GROSS: Particularly with out the consent of Congress.
SANGER: And it is fascinating that within the State of the Union, he didn’t even briefly elevate the query of whether or not Congress would give him an authorization to make use of navy pressure, much like what it offered to George Bush previous to the invasion of Iraq, a lot much less a warfare declaration. Now, if we have been being threatened with imminent assault by one other nation, on our services right here in the USA, we might take into account that an act of warfare, and it appears cheap to suppose that if we’re threatening that in opposition to Iran, that too can be an act of warfare and thus worthy of congressional participation.
GROSS: Effectively, when you’ve gotten so many, like, ships and missiles and weapons in hanging distance of Iran, Iran would have each cause to understand that as a menace.
SANGER: They’d, they usually would possibly make life straightforward for the president by hanging first, proper? That might be the simplest factor. I imply, think about, for a second, both due to a deliberate act or due to a – some navy officer someplace who’s getting approach forward of himself and even simply an accident, they take a shot at an American warship within the Persian Gulf – proper? – the place Abraham Lincoln is and so forth. That would set off one thing. And so a part of the issue of placing such an enormous pressure there may be the chance for somebody to make a miscalculation is large. And the issue of placing that pressure collectively at a price of a whole bunch of tens of millions, if not billions of {dollars}, and protecting it there may be that it is actually onerous to disassemble. And so if the president was going to resolve to not use the pressure and to not assault Iran, he must make the case that he obtained an settlement, and never solely any settlement, however an settlement that went far past the one which the USA and Iran reached in 2015 in the course of the Obama administration.
GROSS: The deal that Trump known as the worst deal ever, and he pulled out of it proper after he was elected.
SANGER: That is proper. And you could possibly argue that had he not pulled out of it in 2018, that we’d not be on this scenario right now as a result of the actual fact of the matter is that whereas the deal was extremely unpopular and positively had some holes in it, and I wrote about these fairly extensively on the time and after, the Iranians have been complying with it.
GROSS: For those who’re simply becoming a member of us, my guess is David Sanger, and he is a White Home and nationwide safety correspondent for The New York Occasions. We’ll be proper again. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF SOUNDRIDEMUSIC’S “FUTURE”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. Let’s get again to the interview I recorded yesterday with David Sanger, a White Home correspondent and nationwide safety correspondent for The New York Occasions. And we’re speaking about the potential of warfare with Iran.
Effectively, let me see if I perceive you appropriately. The way in which you describe the rubble over the deeply buried uranium in Iran, it appears like they’d have numerous bother transferring ahead with their nuclear weapons program. So it actually would not pose a menace proper now, they usually don’t have any missiles that may attain the U.S. So am I summing that up precisely?
SANGER: That is proper. Let’s not underestimate their missile functionality. It could actually attain components of Europe. It could actually attain American bases all through the Center East, and we’ve numerous them. And so they have hit American bases at varied moments in conflicts. These are usually not nuclear missiles. They’re standard. So there may be undoubtedly a menace to People within the Center East. There’s undoubtedly a menace to American allies within the Center East, Israel first amongst them. And a few of the Iranian missiles obtained via air defenses and antimissile defenses again in June and killed some civilians in Israel. So I would not underestimate the ability of their missile program, however they cannot attain New York or Boston or anyplace shut.
GROSS: However we’re not speaking about these missiles. Trump is speaking about nuclear.
SANGER: He’s speaking about two various things. He is speaking about nuclear weapons and he is speaking about their standard current missile pressure, and he continuously conflates the 2. However these are the 2 completely different threats – and they’re very completely different – that he’s discussing. And by the best way, if the Iranians ever made a nuclear weapon – and to date they haven’t, and it has taken them longer than any nation – it most likely would not be for a warhead that might match inside a missile. It might most likely be a crude weapon.
The opposite fascinating approach to consider this, Terry, is evaluate it to President Trump’s massive diplomatic effort – a failed effort – within the first time period that handled North Korea. Now, what is the distinction between the Iranian program and the North Korean program? The Iranians have labored towards the aim of a nuclear weapon, we consider, based mostly on the proof. The North Koreans obtained to nuclear weapons almost 20 years in the past, they usually have now constructed up an arsenal of 60 or extra. And there is each little bit of proof that they do have the missiles that may attain the USA or will quickly be capable to attain the USA.
GROSS: Whereas we’re speaking about nuclear weapons, in a single article you requested, like, is the period of nuclear weapons treaties over? As a result of one with Russia simply expired. Are you able to speak a bit of bit about the place Russia and China are when it comes to nuclear weapons?
SANGER: Effectively, this will get to the central query of whether or not or not Iran is our most severe nuclear downside proper now. And I believe you could possibly argue that the fastest-growing program is China’s, and the one that you just would possibly need to fear about probably the most is Russia’s. So let me simply take these aside. When Xi Jinping took over in China, the nation had gone via many years of concept of minimal nuclear deterrent. It was created by Mao Zedong. The nation had roughly 200 nuclear weapons. It wasn’t an arsenal even large enough for the U.S. to wrap into arms management talks. As soon as Xi got here in, he appeared all over the world and mentioned, if we’ll turn into a fantastic energy, we have to have the nuclear arsenal of a fantastic energy. By present Pentagon assessments, they have barely greater than 600 nuclear weapons now, so that they’ve tripled. They’re on the best way to a thousand by 2030, perhaps 1,500 deployed weapons, which is about what the U.S. and Russia deploy at present, by 2035. And there aren’t any nuclear arms management talks underway with China. And the Chinese language say, we’re not even going to begin such discussions till we have an arsenal akin to yours. In order that’s downside one.
Drawback No. 2 is that the final arms management settlement, as you prompt, with Russia expired on February 5. So, Terry, with the Russians, we now don’t have any type of arms management – nuclear arms management – in place for the primary time in additional than 50 years. And I am not predicting an imminent breakout of a brand new arms race, however there aren’t any authorized constraints on that proper now. And what worries us concerning the Russian nuclear program is each the event of those unique weapons – undersea nuclear torpedoes that might hit the West Coast of the USA, not be picked up by regular missile interceptors and so forth ‘trigger they’re operating underwater, hypersonic weapons that each the Chinese language and the Russians are engaged on. So every kind of latest nuclear weapons. However extra regarding is the truth that President Putin has proven no compunction about threatening nuclear use at varied factors within the battle with Ukraine. He hasn’t achieved it.
So there’s rather a lot to concentrate to right here, and I am unsure that the Iranian program is the one which I might placed on the highest of my checklist. It is definitely a nuclear concern, however perhaps not probably the most fast one.
GROSS: Let’s take a brief break right here. For those who’re simply becoming a member of us, my visitor is New York Occasions White Home and nationwide safety correspondent David Sanger. Our interview was recorded yesterday. We’ll be proper again. I am Terry Gross, and that is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF BILL FRISELL’S “GREG LEISZ”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. I am Terry Gross. Let’s get again to the interview I recorded yesterday morning concerning the chance that President Trump will order a navy assault on Iran, both restricted airstrikes or an try at regime change, which might result in an extended, probably wider warfare. My visitor, David Sanger, is explaining how we obtained so far and what the implications is perhaps for the U.S. if we do get right into a navy battle. As I document this introduction this morning, talks are underway in Geneva between Iran’s international diplomat and Trump’s particular envoy to the Center East, Steve Witkoff, together with Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, who would not have an official place within the administration.
So if we do assault Iran as a result of the Trump administration isn’t happy with the end result of the negotiations, there are a number of ways in which this might go. One is restricted bomb strikes in opposition to key locations, and one other is, go for the regime change. By way of regime change, I imply, what I have been studying – and also you would possibly’ve been the one who wrote this – is that the Ayatollah Khamenei has a succession plan in place and plans on turning into a martyr. So, you recognize, it isn’t like you’ll be able to – you could possibly assassinate him. And, you recognize, it isn’t going to vary something. And there is most likely a fairly lengthy succession line there.
SANGER: We assume there may be. Look, the actual fact of the matter is the ayatollah is 86 years outdated. If he did not have a succession plan previous to…
GROSS: level (laughter). Yeah.
SANGER: …This newest confrontation with the USA, then one thing is unsuitable with the Iranian system. What we consider he has achieved now, although, is construct a sequence of succession plans that go down three or 4 ranges. However the truth of the matter is, there are individuals on the streets who’re sick of this regime, who’re outraged by the killings of tens of hundreds of protesters, who’re uninterested in not solely the financial sanctions however the financial mismanagement. The corruption, the truth that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has gotten wealthy by operating the black market of products, together with oil.
And so nobody is aware of what occurs if the president is profitable and regime change begins to happen. However one factor we do suspect, this does not look something like Venezuela. So, in Venezuela, he additionally massed a naval pressure, and never as massive because the one we have seen round Iran. He despatched in a Delta Pressure that pulled Nicolás Maduro and his spouse out of their mattress and flew them off to the Brooklyn detention middle. However the remainder of the federal government stayed in place.
And to date, the administration has been extra profitable than I might’ve anticipated, principally attempting to run the federal government by distant management via the construction that Maduro left. It is virtually unattainable for me to think about, Terry, that you could possibly do this in Iran since you can be counting on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which runs the nuclear program, and which has large financial pursuits in protecting the established order to function the nation. And clearly, that doesn’t match with the president’s aim of supporting the protesters.
GROSS: I do not know the way related it’s, however the identical basic who’s operating the violent crackdown in opposition to the protesters, he is the identical one that’d be operating the warfare if there may be one.
SANGER: Sure, there’s a construction to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard and its most elite unit, the Quds Pressure, which operates these terror operations that I used to be referring to earlier than. And they’d largely be in day-to-day management of each the inner uprisings and responding to the U.S. There have additionally been, Terry, some fascinating leaks out of the discussions happening on the White Home and the Pentagon that had prompt that Basic Dan Caine – who’s the chairman of the joint chiefs, was appointed by President Trump – whereas not taking a place on whether or not or not the president ought to assault, has warned him that this may increasingly not go as simply as Operation Midnight Hammer. That was the assault on the Iranian nuclear websites in June.
Or the operation in opposition to Venezuela. That the U.S. may take casualties. That the Abraham Lincoln service group that’s within the Persian Gulf is susceptible to these Iranian missiles. And you could possibly think about what this might appear like if it turned out that we misplaced an plane service or a destroyer or another ship to an Iranian missile in the midst of an change with them.
GROSS: Do you suppose that the navy leaders, together with Dan Caine, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Workers, are involved about Trump being commander in chief at a really risky, harmful time like this? He is not consulting Congress, so there is not any limits that he is permitting to be placed on his energy to declare warfare and to form the form of warfare that it’s.
SANGER: Effectively, initially, if the navy did have these issues, they might exit of their solution to keep away from discussing it, even internally, as a result of they’ve a fairly good thought it will leak. I’ve spent quite a lot of hours with President Trump prior to now couple of months. And, you recognize, I do know I hear from lots of people, oh, he, you recognize – I am positive he cannot know, function the best way he as soon as did. I do know that he is impetuous and all that. Effectively, Donald Trump is Donald Trump.
However I did not see any proof, in the midst of our encounters, that he was considerably completely different from once I handled him within the first time period. And I believe that in navy operations, he is obtained to have at the back of his thoughts the popularity that if one among these goes dangerous in an enormous approach, that that would be the defining attribute of his second time period. It’s fascinating, Terry, that the international locations that he picks fights with are international locations that basically cannot struggle again in a big approach. Venezuela can be a great instance of this. The extra modest navy operations he is had in Syria, largely in opposition to terror teams, or in Nigeria or different locations the place he has simply made a present of U.S. air energy.
He’s very reluctant to place troops on the bottom. And that is due to the MAGA worry in his base that we’ll get into new perpetually wars. And he obtained elected on the thought that we’re not doing this anymore. And so there’s numerous the bottom that’s fairly involved that he is spending an excessive amount of time on international affairs, but in addition that he’s risking getting the U.S. into quagmires that he cannot emerge from. And I believe that is one of many greatest limits on him.
However you might keep in mind that throughout that interview in early January once I went in with three of my colleagues, we requested him, what’s the restrict in your energy? And he mentioned, solely my very own morality. And we requested him whether or not or not worldwide legislation was a restrict on his energy. And he stopped and he mentioned, properly, perhaps, nevertheless it’s actually how I outline worldwide legislation. So here’s a president who believes that his powers are virtually utterly unfettered and who is not asking Congress for extra as a result of he’s merely asserting he already has these powers.
GROSS: Effectively, we have to take one other break right here, so let me reintroduce you. For those who’re simply becoming a member of us, my visitor is David Sanger. And he is a White Home and nationwide safety correspondent for the New York Occasions. We’ll be proper again. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF SIDESTEPPER SONG, “ME VOY ANDANDO (REMIX)”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. Let’s get again to the interview I recorded yesterday with David Sanger, a White Home correspondent and nationwide safety correspondent for The New York Occasions. And we’re speaking about the potential of warfare with Iran.
Let’s discuss who’s operating the diplomacy, who’s representing the U.S. in diplomatic efforts. It isn’t Secretary of State Marco Rubio, so far as I can inform. It is Jared Kushner, who would not actually have a place throughout the Trump administration, however he’s the president’s son-in-law. And Steve Witkoff, who – his background is massive offers in actual property and finance. And Jared as properly. I imply, he performed a task in diplomacy within the Abraham Accords, however he would not have a diplomacy background. And so they each have conflicts of curiosity within the Center East.
SANGER: In order my colleague, Anton Troianovski, and I wrote a couple of week in the past, it is a fascinating experiment in diplomacy with out diplomats. And also you’re completely proper, this has not been…
GROSS: I really like that headline, by the best way.
SANGER: (Laughter) And, you recognize, Terry, I assume I might say that there are some upsides and disadvantages of this. The best diplomats I’ve seen in 4 decades-plus of masking this type of factor for The New York Occasions is that the diplomats are considered as having the boldness of the president. And since all choices in these affairs go straight to Donald Trump – they don’t seem to be churning via the State Division paperwork or the Nationwide Safety Council, which has now shrunken to a fourth of its earlier dimension.
I believe there are some within the Center East who’re completely completely satisfied coping with Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff as a result of they know they will get the president on the primary ring and have nice affect with him. So that is the upside. The second is that they’re true dealmakers. As you level out, they each spent their life in actual property, not in diplomacy. And they’re on the lookout for compromise.
Now, in a case the place you are simply attempting to get to the center, which will make sense. In a case like Ukraine or maybe even Iran, the place there are large human rights points at stake, that might not be a bonus as a result of in placing collectively a deal – any take care of the prevailing regime – they may find yourself really propping up the regime. For example diplomacy wins right here, that they arrive to an settlement on the nuclear program or the nuclear program alone. I believe lots of the protesters on the bottom are going to say, what you’ve got simply achieved is assist cement the present regime in place for an additional couple of years. Thanks rather a lot.
GROSS: What about Marco Rubio, the secretary of state? The place is he on this?
SANGER: Fascinating query. Within the State of the Union speech on Tuesday night time, President Trump had this line the place he mentioned he needed to reward the person who Mr. Kushner and Mr. Witkoff report back to – Marco Rubio. And there was applause for Rubio, who, after all, isn’t solely secretary of state but in addition nationwide safety adviser. And the final one that held each posts concurrently was Henry Kissinger again within the Ford administration.
The fascinating query proper now’s, is Rubio actually deeply concerned within the Iran confrontation? Has he even taken a significant place on it? As a result of we noticed his fingerprints throughout Venezuela. There are a lot of who consider that Marco Rubio – whose household, after all, initially got here from Cuba – is deeply inquisitive about attempting to result in regime change in Cuba. He made no secret of that when he was a senator. However we’ve not seen him be extraordinarily vocal or notably concerned within the Iran negotiations, although we assume that he’s within the room with JD Vance and some others when the main choices are being made.
GROSS: What about JD Vance? Is he extra averse to international intervention?
SANGER: Effectively, definitely, for those who hearken to him previous to his election, he was deeply averse to international intervention and notably to the American dedication to Ukraine. Earlier than he was even operating for vice chairman, he confirmed up on the Munich Safety Convention and made the general public case for the U.S. to principally pull again from help of Ukraine, and positively from ever permitting Ukraine into NATO, which was thought-about on the time to be heresy and right now is form of nationwide coverage. So one has to imagine that he was deeply involved about Venezuela. However as we indicated earlier, that wasn’t a full navy assault on Venezuela. That was a snatch and seize operation to grab the chief. And so I believe he was at peace with that. Similar factor with the earlier assault on the three main enrichment facilities in Iran. There have been no American troops concerned. It was a query of whether or not you could possibly ship B-2 bombers and Tomahawk missiles there and go in, bomb and go away. And there was form of a surgical precision and a quick time interval to that that I believe made that acceptable to JD Vance. However we do not know his place on Iran. And whereas he is been cautious to not separate himself from the president, one has to imagine from every thing that we’re listening to leaking out that he’s at the very least elevating numerous questions on how this might go unsuitable.
GROSS: So let’s discuss conflicts of curiosity as a result of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, who’re negotiating with Iran, each have enterprise pursuits within the Center East. Do you need to run via a few of them?
SANGER: Effectively, definitely, Terry, we have seen investments that got here from the Arab states into a few of Jared Kushner’s companies. And for Steve Witkoff, whose enterprise is now run by his kids, there have additionally been some investments as properly. My colleagues and I introduced this subject up with President Trump throughout our interview in January. And we famous to him that within the first time period, he made positive that the Trump group didn’t spend money on abroad tasks as a result of it is rife with alternatives to go affect a president or to get their kids concerned in enterprise offers that might appear like an effort to affect the administration. And I believed the president’s reply to us was simply fascinating, Terry. He mentioned, you recognize, you are proper. We did that within the first time period, and we did not get any credit score for it. So within the second time period, we’re not even bothering. We’re simply going forward with these transactions. And that advised you a lot about President Trump’s mindset right here, Terry, as a result of he wasn’t saying, we’re abstaining from these transactions as a result of we would not need to create the impression of any form of battle of curiosity. As a substitute, it was a, I did this, and nobody rewarded me for it. Nobody even credited me for it. Nobody praised me for it. Subsequently, let’s not hassle.
GROSS: Effectively, let’s take one other brief break right here. For those who’re simply becoming a member of us, my visitor is David Sanger. He is a nationwide safety and White Home correspondent for The New York Occasions. We’ll be proper again. That is FRESH AIR.
(SOUNDBITE OF THE OCTOPUS PROJECT’S “THE ADJUSTOR”)
GROSS: That is FRESH AIR. Let’s get again to the interview I recorded yesterday with David Sanger, a White Home and nationwide safety correspondent for The New York Occasions.
Give us a quick sense of what you suppose the best-case and worst-case state of affairs is that if we do bomb Iran and whether or not this might result in a wider warfare within the Center East and what that may appear like.
SANGER: Effectively, Terry, I believe, you recognize, the perfect case right here can be – because the president himself mentioned within the State of the Union, can be to come back to a diplomatic consequence right here that did not require any navy motion, proper? And it will be straightforward to think about what that might be – a suspension for some variety of years of all enrichment exercise in Iran, perhaps the permission to do a really restricted quantity for medical functions, as I described earlier, and a long-term settlement that Iran would get its nuclear gas from operations outdoors the nation. Perhaps construct – have an Iranian curiosity in a Center East supplier of enriched uranium so that you have been positive it was for vitality functions, not weapons functions. That might be supreme or the closest to supreme you could possibly be. And the president may argue that he obtained greater than Barack Obama obtained in 2015. And that basically weighs on his thoughts as a result of having denounced the Obama settlement, if he will get – discover a approach out of this field, he is obtained to declare that he is gotten greater than Obama did.
The second possibility is perhaps some form of a surgical strike in opposition to the missile capabilities, another nuclear websites, and perhaps a few of the navy models which have been suppressing the protests on the road. That would go away the Iranian regime questioning whether or not President Trump was keen to come back again for extra in the event that they continued to kill protesters on the road. However that might require sustaining that navy posture off of Iran for an extended time frame. And that definitely doesn’t match with both our present budgets or our present nationwide safety technique, which barely talked about Iran.
The third possibility can be the all-out bombing marketing campaign. The president deciding, I am simply going to go for it. I will go down in historical past because the president who’s solved the Iran downside as soon as and for all. No American presidents handled these guys straight up and down because the 1979 revolution, and I am simply going to go do it. And there are some, like Lindsey Graham, in Congress who’re principally within the president’s ear, arguing that that is the proper course to go take. However that is costly, and the longer you’re there, the upper the possibilities that you just undergo some form of vital casualties or that one thing goes unsuitable.
And one would hope that the president’s advisers are at the very least laying out these choices. And admittedly, Terry, that is what worries me concerning the shrinking of the Nationwide Safety Council, as a result of the NSC over historical past has been all about arising with situations and choices and laying out for the president what may go unsuitable, what are the worst-case situations so that you just’re fascinated about them earlier than you act fairly than tripping into them.
GROSS: Do you suppose that this might lead – if we do assault Iran, that this might result in a wider regional warfare?
SANGER: I believe the issues about which might be a bit of bit overblown. That was definitely the priority after the October 7 assaults – proper? – and that there can be further assaults that might happen that might deliver within the Arab states and Iran. I believe the Arab states listed here are holding again. They don’t see an imminent menace from the Iranians. In actual fact, for those who ask Arab diplomats what they suppose proper now, their very own perception is that the Iranians are weaker than they’ve ever been, and possibly in a worse place to do mischief within the area until they’re pushed to the wall. And their greatest fear about Iran right now is that if Iran’s leaders consider that regime change is on the best way, then there is not any cause for them to carry again in the event that they suppose that is, you recognize, the struggle to the demise. And so their curiosity isn’t pushing the Iranians to that time.
GROSS: David, earlier than you need to go, any ultimate ideas you need to add?
SANGER: The opposite day, in an interview on Fox Information, Steve Witkoff mentioned that the president was shocked that the Iranians had not but capitulated, and he was questioning after they would possibly capitulate. My very own view is you are by no means going to see them totally capitulate as a result of the governing thought of the present Iranian regime because the 1979 revolution has been to be in opposition to the USA. And so folding to an American president merely is not going to occur.
And the query is, can we give you sufficient face-saving diplomacy right here to principally push this downside a number of years down the street and hope that with an getting older supreme chief and a restive inhabitants on the streets, regime change occurs organically, fairly than one thing that the USA as soon as once more tries to result in? And that is the actually – the massive debate. Do you push them over the sting as a result of they’re weak now, or do you attempt to create situations that preserve the protests alive and preserve the stress on the present regime till it cracks from inside? It is the implosion versus explosion debate.
GROSS: David Sanger, thanks a lot for speaking with us. I do know you’ve got had numerous deadlines. I recognize you carving out a while to be on our present.
SANGER: All the time nice to be on FRESH AIR, Terry.
GROSS: Thanks a lot.
David Sanger is a White Home and nationwide safety correspondent for The New York Occasions and writer of the e-book “New Chilly Wars.” We recorded our interview yesterday morning.
If you would like to compensate for FRESH AIR interviews you missed, like this week’s interviews with Oscar nominees Stellan Skarsgard and Kate Hudson or with novelist Tayari Jones, try our podcast. You will discover numerous FRESH AIR interviews. And to search out out what’s taking place behind the scenes of our present and get our producers’ suggestions for what to look at, learn and hearken to, subscribe to our free e-newsletter at whyy.org/freshair.
(SOUNDBITE OF BRAD MEHLDAU’S “MONK’S DREAM”)
GROSS: FRESH AIR’s government producer is Sam Briger. Our technical director and engineer is Audrey Bentham. Our interviews and evaluations are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers, Roberta Shorrock, Lauren Krenzel, Ann Marie Baldonado, Monique Nazareth, Therese Madden, Susan Nyakundi, Anna Bauman and Nico Gonzalez-Wisler. Our digital media producer is Molly Seavy-Nesper. Thea Chaloner directed right now’s present. Our co-host is Tonya Mosley. I am Terry Gross.
(SOUNDBITE OF BRAD MEHLDAU’S “MONK’S DREAM”)
Copyright © 2026 NPR. All rights reserved. Go to our web site phrases of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for additional data.
Accuracy and availability of NPR transcripts could differ. Transcript textual content could also be revised to appropriate errors or match updates to audio. Audio on npr.org could also be edited after its authentic broadcast or publication. The authoritative document of NPR’s programming is the audio document.
