The key U.S. interest is that Iran not be able to amass enough fissile material to ever build a nuclear bomb that could threaten the region, trigger nuclear proliferation in the Middle East and one day even threaten American interests. So, I’m going to strike a deal with them that’ll be grounded in the most stringent inspections that will keep them away from a bomb for at least 15 years, if not more. And who knows, in those 15 years, Iran might change.
That was the simplicity of Obama’s approach.
Now, Trump tore up that agreement. I’m sure he never read it, but he tore it up out of his, I think, hatred and jealousy of Obama and said: I’ll deliver you a better alternative. Of course, he didn’t, and in the intervening period, Iran amassed enough fissile material for nine or 10 bombs that it could assemble actually very quickly, and that’s what brought us to this place.
Now, Trump’s approach was, Oh, this is easy. This isn’t a wicked problem. It’s just a question of will, of toughness, and you need a genius like me. So, what did he do? He basically relied on Netanyahu and Netanyahu’s Mossad director’s analysis, which is that if we topple the regime, we’ll quickly trigger a popular uprising.
Dan, I’ve been covering the Middle East my whole adult life, almost 50 years. I’ve actually learned something observing the Mossad. If you want someone assassinated in Beirut or Tehran, Dan, call the Mossad. If you want to understand political and social trends in Beirut or Tehran, do not call the Mossad, OK?
Because the same reason they’re good on the first, they’re bad on the second. What is that? They’ve penetrated these regimes by relying on people who are turning against their own country, who are spying for you. In other words, they’re people who hate the regime, and because they hate the regime, what do they do? They exaggerate the weakness of the regime.
