[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. We'll try to understand better what's happening between the United States, Israel and Iran now with New Yorker staff writer Robin Wright, who has covered Iran for decades, including two books explicitly about the country, In the Name of God, the Khomeini Decade and The Last Great Revolution, Turmoil and Transformation in Iran. Her latest New Yorker article has the headline, What is Israel's Endgame in Iran? That came out last week. To that headline question, we can now add, What is the United States' Endgame in Iran? With President Trump weighing in that, "We have control of the skies," telling the people of Iran's capital to, "Immediately evacuate Tehran."

That's more than 9 million people, more people than live in New York. Trump demanding, "Unconditional surrender," whatever that means. Would the US then occupy Iran like it did Iraq, where the US ousted Saddam Hussein, and that unconditional surrender took place? The prospect of anything like that is also dividing the MAGA coalition, with Steve Bannon, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene among those urging Trump in strong language not to get involved. Let's try to understand all this better as Iran expert Robin Wright from the New Yorker is with us. Robin, always good to have you on. Welcome back to WNYC.

Robin Wright: Great to be with you.

Brian Lehrer: I'll go right to the headline of your article first. What does it appear to you that Israel's endgame is in this new war? Israel first, then we'll get to Iran and the United States.

Robin Wright: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made clear that, publicly, that he's interested in changing the regime or seeing a change in the regime in Tehran. It's unclear whether he means that Israel will continue to target Iran, whether it's its nuclear facilities, its economic strongholds in the oil and gas industry, or whether it's trying to spur a counter-revolution. I think this is one of the problems the United States witnessed in both Iraq and Afghanistan. They knew what they didn't want, but they didn't know how far they'd have to go, how much they'd have to spend to get there, how many lives may be involved in eventually ending the hostilities.

The basic issue here, Brian, is that there's no military solution to this. Even if the US unleashes its bunker busters. The real question is, how do you ensure that there is a country that will deal with the outside world, will comply with the limits of enrichment, and that will no longer try to overtly or covertly develop a nuclear program. There's a lot of rhetorical talk about how far either Israel or the United States will go. Trump's call for unconditional surrender. Nobody knows what that means, but it's clear when he invoked the "we", that the United States now considers this its involvement or its responsibility as well. That's what worries me, then what comes next?

Brian Lehrer: Some reporting says Trump wanted to stay out of this Mideast war and let Israel and Iran fight it out. Then something changed. Some versions say Netanyahu convinced Trump to get involved. How clear is the timeline or internal processing on any of that?

Robin Wright: President Trump campaigned on no new wars, getting US troops home. If he gets involved in Iran, which would be in terms of strategic challenges, far harder than Afghanistan or Iraq. Trump clearly has changed his tune, even just since Monday, because at first he was willing to let the Israelis act, whether he gave them a green light or an amber light, as President Reagan had done with the Israelis in its 1982 invasion of Lebanon. That's unclear.

We've crossed a threshold that President Trump wants to be a part of taking on Iran. Let me just say, he gave Iran 60 days to come up with a deal on a very complex issue, a nuclear program, which Iran has a right to develop under the non-proliferation treaty for peaceful nuclear energy, which it actually needs. The question is, would Iran be able to enrich just for that at very low levels? The Trump administration went into talks in Oman. There were only five rounds, initially saying, maybe they could have it, and then taking a step further and saying, no, they can't have any enrichment at all, which is Prime Minister Netanyahu's position.

Remember that the deal that the US struck in 2015 took two years of torturous diplomacy and ended up in a 159-page document with annexes. This is not a simple question of bombing some facilities.

Brian Lehrer: Trump was holding those nuclear weapons talks with Iran, and he was talking in optimistic terms about striking some deal soon, just days ago. Then he pivoted to this. How clear is it how close they were to any deal?

Robin Wright: The US had presented a proposal to Iran after the initial talks, and Iran was scheduled to provide its compromises or its responses on that Sunday. Of course, that was preempted by the Israeli strike on Iran. I don't think they were very, very close, but they were talking and they were talking both directly and indirectly in their meetings. There was an atmospheric positivity about this being achievable. Iran wanted it, needed it. Trump thought this was a way that he would be seen as a peacemaker because he hasn't been able to do that with Ukraine or in the Gaza war.

This was a big deal. I think he was probably not happy when Netanyahu preemptively went after Iran. I think he wanted another round. The interesting thing is the Iranians are now convinced that-- excuse me, Israel and the United States were involved in coordinated deception, that this was all fake, that the United States didn't really want diplomacy, but it wanted-- give it a try to say, "Oh, you've had 60 days and we haven't come up with a deal so the door is open to military action."

Brian Lehrer: I've even read a theory that the nuclear negotiations were a decoy all along in coordination with Prime Minister Netanyahu to make Iran think no attack was imminent and keep their defenses down a bit, and make them more vulnerable to attack. Do you have any evidence to suggest that might be true?

Robin Wright: Oh, I think that is. As I said, Iranians believe this was coordinated duplicity or deception. I think the Iranians were sincere in terms of diplomacy. How far they were willing to go is unclear because all of these talks, all of the terms, have been in secret. We have no idea what Trump had proposed or what the Iranians were going to propose. They provided their original offer, and then Trump came back, and they were going to negotiate what could have been the real sticking points. That didn't happen. Yes, absolutely. I think there will be many in history who look back and say there was a moment to end this, and it was a lost opportunity.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, what questions do you have for Robin Wright from the New Yorker on the war that the US, Israel, and Iran are fighting now? I think it's accurate to include the US at least on some level, or anyone with ties to Israel or to Iran, or anything on what anyone's endgame is here, if they have their say. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692. Call or text. Trump called on the 9 or 10 million people living in Tehran, Iran's capital, to evacuate. Is any mass evacuation actually taking place?

Robin Wright: Oh, you can see videos of the stream of cars and the dense traffic trying to get out of Tehran. This is a huge city, and the Iranian government hasn't given much guidance about what to do. This is not a place like Israel, which has bomb shelters for hospitals. For everyone to find a place that's safe, the infrastructure to protect is very limited. This is a capital I know very well. I've been going to Iran on and off since 1973, and I've seen it mushroom in size, larger than New York. A lot of people don't have a place to go. This is a country that's two and a half times the size of Texas.

Brian Lehrer: Where are people going? Are we seeing a refugee flow even outside the country? I haven't seen that reported yet.

Robin Wright: No, I don't think so. I think there's a sense that with both Trump and Netanyahu saying evacuate Tehran, that a lot of people are taking that seriously. Where they're going is as yet unclear. To get out of the city, whether it's to go up to the Caspian, to go to other cities, but clearly to those places that don't have nuclear infrastructure. Iran has very cleverly spread out its nuclear program in diverse places across Iran, which is why Israel has struck in many cities.

Brian Lehrer: Does the warning to the people of Tehran mean some attack on the population is being considered? Not just on the nuclear and military sites, which have been the target so far?

Robin Wright: On Saturday, already, we saw the escalation from military and nuclear sites to economic sites. Of course, Iran has the world's third-largest oil and energy resources. This is-- Sorry, I've forgotten your question now.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, the question was whether there-- I think you're revising the premise of the question. Thank you for that correction. It's not just nuclear and military sites that have been targeted so far, you're saying it's also economic sites. I'm asking, if Trump is warning the people of Tehran to evacuate en masse, does that mean that some attack on the population is being considered?

Robin Wright: I think there's already been. There have been civilians who have died. We've seen pictures of them. This is not just top military brass and nuclear scientists who-- There's always unintended consequences in a war or collateral damage. Yes, I think because Israel has air superiority, it can fly anywhere it wants now. It can go after whatever it wants, that it may go beyond just the targets. It's clear that, as Bibi Netanyahu has suggested and President Trump and his call for unconditional surrender, that there is a political aspect to this as well. Just what that is is unclear.

Netanyahu made an appeal on Friday to the Iranian people, saying, "We've cleared the path for you. This is the moment to rise up against your oppressive regime." There's no question that Netanyahu personally, anyway, wants to see someone else or some other system in Iran as a government. I think that's an illusion. This is a country system that's been in place for 46 years. Yes, the majority of people don't like the regime, 80% maybe, according to a political scientist in Iran. He also told me that 80% of the population doesn't want an outside country to dictate who should rule or how the system should be governed. This is threading-the-needle, as they say, politically, is going to be very, very, very, very hard.

Brian Lehrer: Shaw in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC. Hello, Shaw.

Shaw: Good morning, Brian. Good morning, Ms. Wright. I just have a quick observation. Aside from maybe Trump's ego being bruised, I don't think he's particularly angry about Netanyahu doing whatever the hell he wants. This would be a major opportunity to rework the region. Syria is now much friendlier with the US. Iraq is an unfunctioning dismal mess still. If Iran is bombed and destroyed into submission, they can install whatever friendly puppet government they want. They'll have access to the oil, and maybe Netanyahu can even offload the Palestinians into Iran. There won't have to be a two-state solution.

Brian Lehrer: That-- Go ahead, Robin.

Robin Wright: Sure. I think that's taking this way beyond what anybody's talking about within the US intelligence or policymaking community. The Iranians don't really have much affinity with the Palestinians. It's the regime that's exploited the issue for its own political ends. When you say they can go in, who's they? The United States learned in both Iraq and Afghanistan that you cannot go in and put your designated choice in. If you do, there's a danger of a revolt from within.

The US was in Iraq for eight years and detained many Iraqis who ended up, from their prison cells, coordinating, and, as they were freed, creating ISIS, which changed the map of the Middle East. You're absolutely correct that the Middle East looks very different today. All of Iran's allies in the so-called axis of resistance are weakened. Be careful about assuming how far they've been destroyed. In local elections in Lebanon, for example, Hezbollah did very well within its communities. The Houthis are still the political power in Yemen. They hold the capital.

Iraq is dysfunctioning. One of the dangers, as you may know, is that the alternative to having a system or a structure in place is that you see either a worse government with the Revolutionary Guards taking over, moving aside the clerics, or you see a failed state that's so involved in internal chaos, and that could have a major impact on global oil supplies and passage of even oil from other countries through the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran controls.

Brian Lehrer: Shaw, did you tell our screener that you're in a first-generation American family from Iran?

Shaw: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: What's your best guess, or what do you hear from any of your relatives who might still be over there, if you're in touch, about what they think would happen to the scenarios that Robin was just speculating about if the regime were to be brought down?

Shaw: I do still have a lot of family there, younger cousins and older uncles and aunts that are still alive, and family in Tehran has had to flee. I don't know when the last time my parents were in touch with them, but it's been at least a few days. They haven't had that conversation yet. What I know or suspect or am cynical about from living here for 51 years and with respect to Ms. Wright's comment about the lessons we learned from Iraq and not being able to install or put your own footprint there, Iran right now is different than Iraq was socially and politically over there.

I think Saddam Hussein was a far more oppressive and barbaric tyrant than-- I mean, for whatever it's worth, comparing the two than Iran. There is a very vibrant political and social caste or diaspora in Iran that, if Western nations were involved in setting up some friendly government, or at least if the US did it on its own, I think it would have a lot more traction than what we tried to do in Iraq. Also, we sent our troops there. Israel is doing so far the dirty work for us. I'm not exactly sure that, or I'm not worried that necessarily it would dissolve or devolve into a failed state.

Brian Lehrer: Shaw, thank you very much for your call. Before we move on to some other aspects, Robin, any thoughts on his thoughts?

Robin Wright: Shaw, I think it's-- One of the most notable things about where we are right now is that when Netanyahu calls for regime change, it is clear that there is as yet no viable opposition inside Iran. Yes, there are exile groups that have, including the son of the former Shah, who have talked about mobilizing support, but I don't think they have a lot of credibility within Iran in terms of being alternatives. There's a sense that they left, they created lives elsewhere.

I think that the reality is, whatever your emotional sentiment, which is totally understandable, that Iranians would look inside. The problem is, we've seen over and over and over in sporadic protests since 2017, that there's no group that is well-connected, has formed a coalition of diverse forces, has a manifesto or a set of united goals. Again, they know what they're against, but how do they create something that can get them the majority behind them? This is the problem. Oh, that it were so easy that there was a group that could rise from within. I don't see that being viable.

Even though you're absolutely right, Iran is one of the most dynamic societies in the world, not just in the Middle East. These are well-educated people. Women play an important role in society, even despite the obstacles against them. They've had a female vice president, several females in parliament, some in cabinet jobs. Women are-- they can drive. They are big players. Even among the dynamic women's movement, we don't see a group, organized group, capable of creating a political alternative.

Brian Lehrer: Let me read a sampling of texts that are coming in. Here are two that are coming from opposite points of view. One says, "Israel is allowed to have nuclear weapons, US allowed to engage in war for regime change. The US doesn't have to reduce its nuclear arsenal, and Iran can't develop nuclear power, let alone weapons. Ridiculous." Another one, opposite point of view, says, "You seem to be whitewashing a country, Iran, that is repressive to its people, a country that exports terrorism to the whole world."

Another one, which we'll come back to, asks, "Doesn't this conflict run the risk of dragging Russia and China in? These two countries rely on Iran for their oil." Yet another one cites, "The population in Israel being attacked by the ballistic missiles, meaning to kill civilians there, much death and destruction." To that last one, we've talked about what the US endgame might be, what the Israeli endgame might be. What's Iran's endgame?

Robin Wright: I think Iran wants to see a diplomatic outcome so that it can see sanctions released. To address some of the texts, I have had many friends who have been imprisoned by this very repressive regime. I know people who were terrified to take actions. I'm not trying to whitewash at all. I know more than most anyone in the United States the levels to which the Iranians will go to crack down on dissent. I know people who have died in protests. I'm not trying to whitewash it.

Brian Lehrer: Let me take it one step further by implication from the texter. If Israel is so bent on destroying Iran's nuclear program, at least its military nuclear program, at least, is it your understanding that Iran had plans to drop a nuclear bomb or bombs on Israel if it developed one?

Robin Wright: The CIA estimate in March by Tulsi Gabbard, who was appointed by Trump, was that Iran had not yet moved to weaponize. That's an important point. Most of the--

Brian Lehrer: Everything I hear is that they could pretty easily move to weaponize if they chose.

Robin Wright: I don't think that's correct in terms of what the US intelligence assessment is, and it differs from what the Israelis believe. The US believes that Iran had enriched uranium, which is just one part of a bomb, to near bomb grade. It's 60% enrichment, 90% is where you have an easy bomb. You have to then develop a warhead, and you have to marry your fuel cycle to a warhead, and then you have to have a delivery system, which I think Iran has with its ballistic missiles.

Marrying all these different parts is where we forget that, yes, they have enough for a fuel cycle to make what would be a crude bomb, but they couldn't necessarily put it on a delivery system immediately, that it would take much longer. They're within days of having enough fuel, but they don't have some of the critical elements needed to actually have the bomb we dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. There's a little bit of-- not short change, but there's a confusion about the language, the semantics of what it takes to make a bomb.

I think the US said that it has not weaponized yet, and that Iran has not made the political decision to go there. I think it's increasingly likely, or has been recently, with the tensions between Iran and Israel, that Iran for the first time has had serious debate about moving beyond the fatwa issued by Ayatollah Khamenei, which forbid, at least for now, the making of a nuclear weapon. Again, some of these are uncomfortable truths, but I am just haunted by what the US did in Iraq and the aftermath. We need to think through how history is going to look back at this moment and what we do now, and what happens next.

Brian Lehrer: Let me ask you one Gaza question before we run out of time, because I know you're watching that, too, with your long experience covering the Middle East. Day after day, there are stories of Israeli airstrikes that kill many people at food distribution sites. Some accuse Israel of targeting desperate civilians on purpose in an unspeakable act of cruelty. Israel always says it's going after Hamas fighters or firing warning shots as suspects approach the relief workers, things like that. Can you tell if they're aiming at civilians lining up for food, per se?

Robin Wright: As an outsider, I can only look at the images coming out and what the testimonies are on the ground. That's not to say that all of them are civilians. Clearly, they've had a huge impact, killing thousands of Hamas fighters. The death toll among the Palestinians now exceeds 50,000, and the UN claims that the majority of those are women and children. Just to put Iran and Gaza in perspective, Iran, too, is two and a half times the size of Texas. Gaza is the size of Greater Philadelphia. Israel has spent 20 months trying to eliminate Hamas. It is still a functioning force in what is a very small piece of territory. Israel needs to be sanguine about what it is able to do militarily in either place.

Brian Lehrer: Then back, in our last minute, to one of the texters' questions. Doesn't the conflict run the risk of dragging Russia and China in? These two countries rely on Iran for their oil.

Robin Wright: Russia has its own oil, and China has in the past been the biggest violator of the US sanctions on Iran. It has bought smuggled oil for a long time. Dragging the two countries in, I think Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine. I think it doesn't want-- Neither country wants Iran to have a nuclear weapon. China is probably laughing all the way to the bank with the West absorbed in the war in Ukraine, the Middle East wars. China's really focused on Taiwan, it doesn't want to get involved in any way.

It may provide some weapons to somewhere along the line, but again, this just fills its coffers. It, too, doesn't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. At this point, I can't see either country playing a significant role. They may play some role, but not in a way that-- Not in a way they haven't. Just not now.

Brian Lehrer: Militarily. Yes.

Robin Wright: Yes.

Brian Lehrer: Robin Wright, New Yorker staff writer and author of books including The Last Great Revolution, Turmoil and Transformation in Iran, and In the Name of God, the Khomeini Decade. Thank you for joining us today.

Robin Wright: Thanks so much, Brian.

Copyright © 2025 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.