The Ben Mulroney Show - Iran fallout and the former Canadian Ambassador to Israel

Episode Date: June 23, 2025

Guests and Topics: -Iran Fallout - Jon Allen If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! https://link.chtbl.com/bms Also, on youtube -- https://www.youtube.com/@BenMulroneyShow Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the Ben Mulroney show on this Monday, June 23rd. I want to welcome everybody to the show. And I think a lot of us over the weekend were holding our breath wondering if another shoe was going to drop as it relates to the expansion of hostilities in the Middle East to now include Iran or the past couple of weeks we have watched I have watched in amazement with the surgical precision and the sophistication with which Israel has weakened the Iranian regime by targeting its nuclear facilities

and it's the leadership of the IRGC as well as those members involved with its nuclear program. But one of the biggest sticking points was obviously what to do with the nuclear facilities that were buried deep, deep, deep, deep, deep, deep underground, 300 feet underground. Well, enter the United States with its bunker-busting technology and really setting back that regime's nuclear ambitions.

I mean, I don't know if it takes it right back to the beginning or pretty gosh darn close. But obviously, when the United States decides it's going to bomb another nation, people will take positions. And in the world that we're living in, anything that the Americans do is bad and anything that they do it to,

any country that they do it to is the hero of the story according to a certain type of social justice warrior. So the battle lines were drawn and those who found themselves on either side, very predictable. Well, there are some surprises. There's some people on the right in the United States who are so isolationist

that they're taking issue with this as well. But one of the questions that I have that we will be exploring on the Ben Mulroney show in the next few days and weeks is in the event of regime change in Iran, what comes next? And a lot of people who are taking issue with the weakening of that regime by Israel and the United States is that it's such an unknown

that we could find ourselves in a situation like Afghanistan where what replaces it is worse than what we had before. I challenge that, I dispute that. I can, I may be wrong. I'm one man with just one opinion, but the known threat of what we actually have, the bird in the hand of the IRGC and the Ayatollahs, is just about as bad as it can be.

And there is a history of secular government in Iran and the Ayatollahs is just about as bad as it can be. And there is a history of secular government in Iran that exists bubbling under the surface. And there is an argument to be made that the people of Iran are not represented by the regime of Iran. And therefore, if given the chance, then a more rational, better faith actor

in a new secular government could arise. And I'd rather take that risk than live in a world where Iran was this close to getting a nuclear weapon. The, now, it's not a straight line from turning the bad guy into a good guy. And the previous regime in Iran was run by the Shah. And the Shah had some good days and he had a lot of bad days.

And you could argue that the reaction to the Shah was the Iranian Revolution of 1979. He effed around and we found out. And so a lot of people are apprehensive when his son Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of the last Shah of Iran, starts popping up on people's social media feeds because some people are, I think, rightly apprehensive that we could be witnessing a return to essentially a king in Iran. And I don't know that that's what people want.

However, in my estimation, this man has been saying a lot of the right things. He said in a speech over the weekend, this is our Berlin Wall moment, which is a powerful metaphor that we could be on the cusp of the falling of the wall that the Iranian regime has put up between them and the rest of the world. He said, the people are united. The foundations of this 46 year old tyranny are shaking. He says, I do not seek political power, but rather to help our great nation navigate through this critical hour towards stability, freedom and justice. That is something I am very happy to hear.

Perhaps he holds a figurehead role. Perhaps he helps with the transition. Perhaps he's a spokesperson for whatever comes next. Perhaps he's that galvanizing force that the democratic forces can marshal and rally around. I don't know But him going on record saying he does not seek political power is I think what people want to be hearing in this moment but back to the

Political military action rather of the weekend. Here's the US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth on War with Iran as President Trump has stated the United States does not seek war. But let me be clear, we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners, or our interests are threatened. Iran should listen to the President of the United States and know that he means it every word. I want to give congratulations to our commander in chief. It was an honor to watch him lead last night and throughout and to our great American warriors on this successful operation. God bless our

troops. God bless America. And we give glory to God for his providence and continue to ask for his protection. All right, a little bit over the top near the end there, but I do completely appreciate the fact that this was a demonstration of US military sophistication and might. And Iran, even before the decapitation of so much of his leadership by Israel and the bombing of its nuclear facilities,

even before that, they weren't playing the same game as the Americans and they would be, I mean, they would be demonstrating just how insane of a regime they actually have if they decide to try to go toe to toe and reciprocate with the Americans. That would be a bad move. Now that being said, the UN secretary general, who's essentially the CEO of an organization devoted to moral and

political equivalency, where everybody is the same and nobody is better than anybody else, we're all just different. The Iranian regime isn't worse than America, isn't better than America, or worse than America, it's just different, which I reject categorically. And he suggests that the bombing was a perilous turn. I dispute that I challenge that now I'm not suggesting I'm a hundred percent right But I think this guy has lost the plot if you want to hear moral clarity if you want to understand why this Happened with no BS no spin no political correctness just cutting to the quick here is Marco Rubio

Explaining very clearly why the United States did what they did. Let me follow up on a phrase you just word weaponization ambitions. Are you saying there that the United States did not see intelligence that the Supreme leader had ordered weaponization? That's irrelevant. I think that question being asked on the media, that's an irrelevant question. That is the key point in U.S. intelligence assessments. You know that.

No, it's not. Yes, it was. That the political decision had not been made. I know that better than you know that, and I know that that's not the case. But I'm asking you whether the order was given. And the people who say that, it doesn't matter if the order was given. They have everything they need to build nuclear weapons. Why would you bury things in a mountain 300 feet under the ground? Why would you bury six? Why mountain 300 feet under the ground? Why would you bury six?

Why do they have 60% enriched uranium? You don't need 60% enriched uranium. The only countries in the world that have uranium at 60% are countries that have nuclear weapons. He also went on to say, why do they have a space program? Is Iran planning to go to the moon? No, it's because they are building inter continental ballistic missiles so that they can deliver nuclear warheads anywhere on the planet.

You don't need, sometimes the people who are the smartest ones in the room try to talk themselves out of the most direct route to a conclusion. And when you see those three pieces, that is evidence of nefarious intent. I don't need a document that says, oh, we heard them say we're building a nuclear weapon. And this is not, by the way,

anyone who suggests that this is the same thing as what happened before the second Gulf War when the Americans falsely claimed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, this is not that. Like, we need to talk to each other like we're not idiots. And anybody who tells me that with that evidence and the rhetoric of that regime and the behavior

of that regime, anybody who tells me that they are not seeking a nuclear weapon, you're talking to me like I'm an idiot. And I don't stand for that. And meanwhile, the protests are out in full force across North America, because again, if the Jews are involved, if Israel is involved, if the imperialist forces of America are involved, that means those that they are against are noble

and they are righteous and they are just, and they need the support of the useful idiots of which there are far too many across the Western world. Welcome back to the Ben Mulrooney show and welcome back wherever you listen to us. You may be listening on the radio, you may be listening on a streaming platform, you may be listening on a podcast platform, or most recently we have added a YouTube channel to the way you can enjoy us. So if you're not allergic to my face,

then enjoy both voice and face simultaneously. Thank you, YouTube. So earlier, we were sort of giving you the lay of the land, at least as I see it, in Iran right now, what the US's reaction was and what the reaction of could be by Iran moving forward. Here to discuss this with far more depth of knowledge than I is John Allen, the former Canadian ambassador to Israel.

He was there from 2006 to 2010. He's currently a senior fellow at the Monk School and a distinguished fellow of the Canada International Council. Mr. Ambassador, thanks for joining us on the Ben Mulroney show. Thanks for having me, Ben. So I want to read to you our prime minister's statement after the bombing of the nuclear facilities by the United States. He said Iran's nuclear program is a grave threat to international security. And Canada has been consistently clear that Iran can never be allowed to develop a nuclear

weapon while US military action taken last night was designed to alleviate that threat. The situation in the Middle East remains highly volatile. Stability in the region is a priority. Canada calls on parties to return immediately to the negotiating table and it continues. Now, I have been a critic of what I've seen as a trend across the Liberal Party, proceeding Mark Carney of sort of speaking out of both sides of their mouth and asking for a diplomatic solution when rational people know that sometimes you got to have the military solution first. I like this statement, sir. I like the fact that he starts by talking about the Iran's nuclear program and they can never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. The

fact that he started with that makes a lot of sense to me. How do you read it? Makes a lot of sense to me too. First of all it's the facts on the ground so there's no point in getting into it and he moves from there. I mean there's no question we're dealing with a bad set of actors in Iran on a variety of fronts. So everybody wants Iran controlled and they certainly don't want it to have nuclear weapons. And then of course, he moves on to what's important now to try and bring some regional stability, which is restraint and de-escalation and hopefully some negotiations that can stop the deaths in Israel and Iran and keep the United States out of a never-ending war.

And it feels to me, I mean, this attack was so sophisticated and I believe at least it looks at first blush as exceptionally effective. I mean, they did what they needed to do as far as drilling down hundreds of feet and exploding what the Iranians believed was an impenetrable nuclear facility. So in my estimation, they did what they needed to do. There are forces lining up against this decision in the United States who say,

we never wanna get involved in another land war. We don't wanna be, you know, we gotta put America first. I could argue very clearly that this does put America first because it sets back one of the worst actors on the planet from achieving a goal that had, listen, had, Mr. Ambassador, had Iran achieved nuclear capability under the watch of Donald Trump that would be viewed

as a failure by Donald Trump. Yeah, I mean, I should just say, it's not exactly clear what has happened at Fordo. We know that Natanz and Isfahan and some other facilities which were above ground have been seriously hurt and damaged and of course many, many nuclear scientists have been killed and I heard the former Israeli Minister of Defense talking about how important that is in the short to medium term. I don't think anybody quite knows what the total damage at Fordow is and whether they got some of the enriched uranium out of there long before. Clearly, there was damage. You don't drop 14,000-30,000 pound bombs and not cause damage. Yeah. Um, but so, so no question about it.

Um, it was successful, uh, and they got out of there and, and Donald Trump can try and convince people that he's not in a war. Uh, that was an, uh, an air activity, uh, and there's no war and therefore he hasn't broken his promise to the magrer crowd. I agree and you know there are there are a lot of reasons on a lot of fronts to criticize Donald Trump and his administration and he has a lot of personal failings that you could argue make him unfit for x y or zed but in my opinion Iran is such a bad actor that they, they so clearly and so almost relish wearing the black hat of the villain globally, that this fits very well

into the, let's say borderline simplistic view that Donald Trump holds of the world where there are good actors and bad actors. And so in that way, I think he was probably the right leader to have in this moment. He saw facts on the ground that told him that a bad actor was about to do something, had the capability of doing something even worse, and he took action. And he didn't think himself out of the right solution here. Well, yeah, I guess, you know, some of the criticism then relates to the fact that it is not clear just how close Iran was to a bomb. There's no question they've been enriching. There's no question they've been enriching past 60 percent, some say up to 87. It takes a bit more than just having enriched uranium to actually

make a bomb and to want to make a bomb. And there are those that have argued that that wasn't Iran's intent. Well, may I ask a question? Because Marco Rubio was pretty clear, and maybe you can explain this a little better to us, but in order to have a nuclear program for civilian use, you need to enrich uranium no higher, I believe five or six percent. Anything above that is questionable. You got to get it to about 90% to build a bomb. And if they were at 60 or 80... There no no question no question that nobody is suggesting that Iran needed 60% or 80% for civilian nuclear use the question is did they want to build a bomb or were they aware that if they actually constructed a bomb or got very close that what just happened

would happen? But I guess, Mr. Ambassador, what I would ask is, if we accept that they are one of the amongst bad actors, they are some of the baddest. Is that a question that we need to ask? If we know that they have ill intent on all sorts of fronts, they don't mind funding terrorism. They don't mind civilian deaths They don't mind killing their own civilians How much stock do we have that that they care one iota about anybody who isn't Iranian when they don't care about Iranians themselves? Absolutely, they're bad actors. There's no question about it, but there's a lot of bad actors in the world

Yeah, Vladimir Putin is a bad actor, and Donald Trump doesn't seem to have a problem with him. He went to North Korea in his first term, and he was going to make a big deal. And that didn't happen. And he's not doing much about North Korea. Yeah, but the argument is that the notion of mutually assured destruction that has kept the stalemate of nuclear peace

for generations doesn't necessarily apply to a nation of religious zealots that prioritize and idolize martyrdom, the idea of dying for your cause and you will be a hero in heaven. If you believe that that is a logical extension of your foreign policy, then nuclear war only brings you

that much closer to your ultimate goal of being in paradise with all the riches that are bestowed upon a martyr. Yeah, well, I'm sorry, but I don't quite, I think the preservation of the regime and the preservation of Iran takes place over a nuclear martyrdom in that sense. And I think actually you're going to see the fact that Iran's going to be very reluctant to even, nevermind set off a nuclear bomb, they're going to be reluctant to attack US

bases in the region because they know what's going to happen if they do. So you think, you think, you think rash or rational thought is now a guiding principle for them? I think preserving the regime in Iran is number one priority, number two priority, and number three priority. Well, in that case, it sounds like it was a win, Mr. Ambassador. Hey, I want to thank you very much for joining us. I hope you come back soon.

Take care. you