Um, and let me loop back before I sort of open this out to John b- because I thought your article was very good, and this point is sort of still not resonating with people, that what we are doing here may be making the world more dangerous, and I was wondering if you could sort of hit the key points of that.

Sure.

Well, the, the article that I put together for The New Republic was focused on one particular issue, which is you now have the most extreme example where a country that, um, was interested in nuclear weapons many years ago, had some latent capability to build a bomb and before Midnight Hammer, maybe a couple of months after Midnight Hammer, maybe a year or two, um, is the subject of a, a joint attack between Israel and the United States, two countries with nuclear weapons.

Um, that comes after us, um, supporting the, the destruction and death of, uh, Muammar Gaddafi, who gave up his weapons of mass destruction program to George W. Bush, uh, our attack on Iraq in 2003 under the false pretenses of them having a nuclear weapons program, but not going after North Korea, not going after Pakistan.

And so this completes the narrative that if you have a nuclear weapon, you're safe.

And when you add to it Ukraine, which, uh, cooperated with the US in returning Soviet nuclear warheads to the Soviet Union, puts a fine point on if you don't have nuclear weapons, you're vulnerable.

And now you're particularly vulnerable potentially to the United States.

Is that off the table at this point? Is, you know, and is, is a deal with the Iranians, which was his whole point in doing this, I think, in building up the military, is that something seems unlikely?

When the Saudi crown prince says that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will do the same, how confident can the US be that Saudi enrichment would remain exclusively peaceful?

I, I think we have to be extremely skeptical that that's the case.

One of the reasons I think the agreement should not authorize, um, enrichment in Saudi Arabia, and there are options beyond that.

The Saudis could invest in a US-based facility.

There could be a multinational facility somewhere else.

But one of the reasons that you don't want a Saudi Arabia-based facility is because they've said if Iran goes nuclear, they will too.

I'm also very concerned, however, that the Saudis have relationships with Pakistan that has a nuclear weapons program, and they could buy equipment from China, which has a nuclear weapons program.

How does the, how does the US government justify that distinction?

When the Saudi crown prince says that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will do the same, how confident can the US be that Saudi enrichment would remain exclusively peaceful?

I, I think we have to be extremely skeptical that that's the case.

One of the reasons I think the agreement should not authorize, um, enrichment in Saudi Arabia, and there are options beyond that.

The Saudis could invest in a US-based facility.

There could be a multinational facility somewhere else.

But one of the reasons that you don't want a Saudi Arabia-based facility is because they've said if Iran goes nuclear, they will too.

I'm also very concerned, however, that the Saudis have relationships with Pakistan that has a nuclear weapons program, and they could buy equipment from China, which has a nuclear weapons program.

How does the, how does the US government justify that distinction?

When the Saudi crown prince says that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, Saudi Arabia will do the same, how confident can the US be that Saudi enrichment would remain exclusively peaceful?

I think we have to be extremely skeptical that that's the case.

One of the reasons I think the agreement should not authorize enrichment in Saudi Arabia, and there are options Beyond that, the Saudis could invest in a U.S.-based facility.

There could be a multinational facility somewhere else.

But one of the reasons that you don't want a Saudi Arabia-based facility is because they've said if Iran goes nuclear, they will too.

I'm also very concerned, however, that the Saudis have relationships with Pakistan that has a nuclear weapons program, and they could buy equipment from China, which has a nuclear weapons program.

So the question is not... do they do business with us and nobody else, is if they do business with us, are they less likely to develop a nuclear weapon if they do business with the Chinese or the Pakistanis?

How does the U.S. government justify that distinction?

That's okay

... and we're, we're up early, uh, in the Wolfsthal house.

Um, it, there was a text that appears to be accurate on CNN.

Uh, it's a page and a half.

It seems to cover the issues that Trump and J.D. Vance have talked about being covered.

Uh, and interestingly, Trump himself has said, "Well, don't, don't react to the text.

We have all of these other understandings and back channels that, you know, so, so you're, you're overreacting.

Yeah.

Um, and that that just is another sort of strategic level conclusion or, or subs- substantive level conclusion I come to from this.

It, I mean, there is a big meta point here about how does the United States exercise power in all of its aspects around the world? And there's no doubt that American power has been diminished, political, economic, brand, military, all of it.

What does it mean to have a trillion dollar plus defense budget if you can't achieve your military goals? But I would redirect this a little bit, David, to say, I don't believe anything that comes out of the United States government today because Donald Trump has co-opted it entirely.

He's a pathological liar.

Pete Hegseth is not to be believed.

Doug Burgum is not to be believed.

The ODNI is not to be believed.

I want you to tell me what you're worried is gonna happen at this point.

Do we know that they're actually able to do this?

Well, unlike, unlike our president, Joe always tells the truth.

Um, yeah, uh, uh, the Iranians have indicated both privately and I think even publicly, they've said, "You know, look, you wanna negotiate, right? The, we don't have to have this material." They, they have clearly in the negotiations said, "We will downblend this material." They wanted...

They did it before.

They are willing to do it again.

Remember, this is material they would never have had under the agreement that we negotiated in 2015.

Um, but if the price is right, they're prepared to sell it.

Go on

... colorful

...

it, if the Trump administration wants Iran to say, "We will never have a nuclear weapon," then we really are back to the future, because that's what they have agreed to since 1970 in international treaties, what was enshrined in the agreement that the Obama administration, of which I was a part, negotiated with Iran, and that the supreme leader, who was killed by, uh, either Israeli or American airstrikes, had said, "We will never build a nuclear weapon." So Iran's formal position is, "We have no interest in building nuclear weapons.

We're not gonna build a nuclear weapons.

There's a religious edict against building nuclear weapons, at least until you started bombing us." And so that's achievable.

What it appears the United States was saying is, "Iran, you have to renounce your stated right to enrichment and give up all of your enriched uranium on day one," to which Iran said, "Make me." Because Iran has maintained this position for decades under sanctions, under threat of military force, and now through military force, and it's quite unrealistic to expect that on the first day of a negotiation they're gonna cave on that position, having no guarantees from the United States or anybody else about the things that they would like through a negotiation, including sanctions relief, the release of Iranian assets, uh, andBeing free of the threat that they will be bombed by the United States or Israel.

And so, uh, we all joked about the marathon, uh, quote.

Do I have that right?

Like, I feel like that's sort of the attitude you would have to have.

Yeah, it's a great point.

And, you know, my mother was worried I would never get married because I'd go to a bar and, you know, a woman would ask me what I do.

And I'd say, oh, I'm into plutonium.

And she's like, walk away.

You know, my old boss had a saying we actually put on cocktail glasses that said, yeah, I think about it.

And then I have a second cocktail.

Maybe I'm, maybe I'm listening to myself here.

And I was wondering if you could sort of hit the key points of that.

Sure.

Well, the, the article that I put together for The New Republic was focused on one particular issue, which is you now have the most extreme example where a country that, um, was interested in nuclear weapons many years ago, had some latent capability to build a bomb and before Midnight Hammer, maybe a couple of months after Midnight Hammer, maybe a year or two, um, is the subject of a, a joint attack between Israel and the United States, two countries with nuclear weapons.

Um, that comes after usUm, supporting the, the destruction and death of, uh, Muammar Gaddafi, who gave up his weapons of mass destruction program to George W. Bush, uh, our attack on Iraq in two thousand and three under the false pretenses of them having a nuclear weapons program, but not going after North Korea, not going after Pakistan.

And so this completes the narrative that if you have a nuclear weapon, you're safe.

And when you add to it Ukraine, which cooperated with the US in returning Soviet nuclear warheads to the Soviet Union, puts a fine point on if you don't have nuclear weapons, you're vulnerable, and now you're particularly vulnerable potentially to the United States.

And so to US adversaries and to US friends and allies, it says, uh, a nuke is good for you, and not having a nuke leaves you out in the cold, and I think that's a, just a strategic implication that we will live with forever.

Is that off the table at this point? Is, you know, and is, is a deal with the Iranians, which was his whole point in doing this, I think, in building up the military, is that something seems unlikely?

And, and my first question before we get into where we are going from here is why? Who benefits?

Um, it's a really hard question to answer, David, um, and the only response I can give you is that this taps into this Republican bent of American exceptionalism married with this far-right MAGA isolationist American first mentality.

We're in the middle of the Olympics, right? What's the only country that doesn't dip its flag when it goes by the central stands in the Olympics? It's the United States, right? We're special.

We were the world superpower from 1945.

We defeated the Soviet Union, and so those rules don't apply to us.

That's part of the mentality that has killed the ability to negotiate and implement treaties.

We rejected the treaties on, uh, protecting, uh, disabled people around the, the world, international treaties on, you know, protecting the rights of handicapped and, and, um, uh, people with mental, uh, uh, um, uh, uh, challenges.

Thank you

John, what's your reaction?

So, um, I, I agree with the assessment that, um, what Trump is doing is not about incrementalism.

Um, it...

he has decided to throw in as part of the network of autocratic revisionist states around the world, Russia, Hungary, uh, Argentina.

Uh, this isn't just sort of a tactical shift.

This is about a new alliance among, uh, corrupt, um, uh, despots.

Uh, and so Putin is naturally in that.

But I'm, I'm interested in your response to the same question.

And so, you know, as we sort of try to understand what's real and what's not, what's your take?

Well, I mean, I, I'll echo Marc and, and Steve and say w- we really don't know, and there are more questions than answers at this point.

Um, the, the campaign, call it what you want, was designed to destroy Iran's nuclear infrastructure, and I think it's already clear that that is not possible.

Um, there's at least one person in Iran who's been thinking for the last several years, "How do I have backups for centrifuges? How do I have backups for enrichment? How do I have backups for nuclear material and uranium?" Um, and the IAEA, the international inspectors, have not had full access to Iran for years.

They've had limited access to the facilities at Natanz and Fordow, um, but, uh, we don't know what Iran may have squirreled away, uh, and it's possible that Iran could reconstitute its program in some time, even if these facilities have been destroyed.

There is a press report already this morning that US officials are acknowledging that Fordow was likely damaged but not completely destroyed.

Um, I think there were actually 14 massive ordnance penetrators that were dropped, um, but, uh, which is most of our stockpile, by the way.

Go ahead, Jon.

Yeah, go on.

More countries have given up nuclear weapons programs than have actually built nuclear weapons, and that's because the United States has led this international effort through alliances, technical cooperation, and when necessary, using military force to stop these weapons from spreading, because the more proliferated the world is, the more dangerous it is for the United States.

Underneath President Trump's retrenchment, pulling back from alliances, putting tariffs on our friends, uh, sowing discord, is this growing demand or interest in nuclear weapons? And we see this in South Korea, Japan, potentially Taiwan, Poland, Finland, other countries in Europe.

Um, that's a world we've wanted to avoid and one that we could see develop.

And we now, one of the smaller stories coming out of the president's trip to Asia is he's agreed that South Korea should build nuclear-powered submarines.

They've wanted this for a long time because the material to power the submarine is the same material you use to build nuclear weapons.

It's not clear whether they're gonna get to do that themselves.

But, but, you know, if Donald Trump was on that helicopter, you know, with Pete Hegseth sitting across from him, um, you know, how'd that turn out, Jon?