The Current - The US bombed Iran. What happens now?

Episode Date: June 23, 2025

With the US inserting itself into the Iran-Israel war,  dropping bombs on three nuclear sites in Iran, the CBC's Chris Brown reports from Jerusalem on the latest diplomatic efforts and what we know about Iran's nuclear capacity. We also talk to Esfandyar Batmanghelidj,  founder of the Bourse & Bazaar Foundation think tank, on how the war is shaping sentiments inside Iran. Plus, we talk to The Atlantic journalist Isaac Stanley-Becker about the debate inside MAGA about US involvement.

Ten years ago, I asked my partner Kelsey if she would marry me. I did that, despite the fact that every living member of my family who had ever been married had also gotten divorced. Forever is a Long Time is a five-part series in which I talk to those relatives about why they got divorced and why they got married. You can listen to it now on CBC's Personally. This is a CBC podcast. Hello, I'm Matt Galloway and this is the current podcast. The strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.

The U.S. has inserted itself into Israel's war with Iran. In a brief address to the nation on Saturday evening, President Donald Trump said the U.S. military struck three Iranian nuclear sites. Trump acted without congressional authorization and warned that the US would launch additional strikes if Tehran retaliates. Iran's foreign minister Abbas Arauchi accused Washington of crossing a very big red line. The war mongering and lawless administration in Washington is solely and fully responsible for the dangerous consequences and far-reaching implications of its act of aggression.

As the Israel-Iran war enters day 11, I'm joined by the CBC's foreign correspondent Chris Brown in Jerusalem. Hi Chris. Hi Susan. President Trump of course is saying that Iran's nuclear sites were totally obliterated but what do we know today from independent sources? Well the IAEA, that is the UN's nuclear watchdog, does have people apparently still in Iran but who have not been able to get into these sites but its director Rafael Grossi was in Vienna and just a little while ago gave an update. They're not saying obliterated, they're saying there was significant damage, likely very

significant damage, particularly at Forto, because all those spinning centrifuges way down below and those reinforced bunkers would have been very susceptible to even vibrations coming from bombs that were dropped on top of the facility. What I thought was interesting though, Susan, in the discussion was that even Grossi could not shed a whole lot of light on what the status of the enriched uranium that Iran had already produced, had already enriched, where that might be. Because he said on June the 13th, the Iranians sent him a letter saying they were taking quote-unquote special measures to deal with the equipment and with this enriched uranium,

to which Grossi said, well, you have to tell us what you're doing. And Iran did not tell Grossi's team what they were doing. So there have been a number of reports, unidentified Iranian officials talking to Reuters news agency, New York Times, all saying that this amount has been moved. You didn't need large tractor trailers to move it. You could literally pack it up and put it in suitcases, in some cases in the back of cars and move it. So we really don't know where this enriched uranium is.

And of course, enriched uranium is what you can make a nuclear weapon with. This morning, Chris, it appears that Israel is bombing Tehran again, including the notorious Evin Prison. What are you hearing from Iran? Well, we're hearing that it's in response to Iran's ongoing retaliations. I mean, Israel started this war, as you say, 11 days ago, but it's been a succession of back and forth strikes.

This morning, there were strikes, a very long 40-minute period of almost constant missiles fired somewhere in the sky here over our hotel in Jerusalem. And then once that barrage finished, that is when it seems that Israel's attacks on Iran began. And they're saying're saying the defense minister that these are Regime targets and in other words things associated with the government not civilian targets But they really encapsulate a very large category with that. They're saying that they hit the Revolutionary Guard offices internal security offices even this even prison where dissidents would be kept.

They hit the administration building of it, possibly even blew out some doors of this building as well. And briefly, Chris, what is the mood in Jerusalem today? I think there's quite strong support within Israel, particularly among Jewish Israelis, for the attacks on Iran, in particular for the US involvement in this. Last night they had the Knesset all lit up in red, white and blue. There were thank you Donald Trump posters at the very large ones, banners really, along the side of some buildings in downtown Tel Aviv.

And we're not really getting a whole lot of pushback from any of the opposition politicians on this issue. And don't forget, I mean, this was a very, very divided country before Benjamin Netanyahu, one of the most polarizing figures. A lot of people didn't like him. There was a lot of discontent over the war in Gaza and his failure to bring all the hostages home. But for the moment anyway, that's been put aside. And even though people are anxious and worried and spending hours in some cases every day in shelters, you're not detecting, I'm not detecting a whole lot of dissent anyway about the way this war against Iran has unfolded.

And Chris, just wrapping up here, what does this do to diplomatic efforts for peace now? You know, it's very hard to know where things go. The Iranians are saying they were in the middle of diplomatic negotiations, first with the Americans over this. They were supposed to meet in Oman on Sunday, and yet Israel attacked. Then they went back to Geneva, We're meeting with the Europeans the other day. Then the Americans attacked them. So Iran is saying there's no trust and they're not sure what point there is to having any more diplomatic negotiations. Very different messages

coming out of the EU foreign ministers who are meeting today from the IAEA, as I say, the atomic watchdog, they want people to get back talking because somehow this war has to end. A rapidly evolving situation. Chris, thanks for joining us. Thanks, Susan. The CBC's foreign correspondent, Chris Brown, is in Jerusalem. Asfandir Buttman-Ghelij is an Iranian-American and founder of the Bourse and Bazaar Foundation. It's an UK-based think tank focused on economic diplomacy and development in the Middle East and

Central Asia. Asfandir, good morning. Good morning, Susan. How does this US intervention change the conflict? Well, it certainly raises the risks of escalation. I think that the Iranian leaders are in a very difficult position now because on one hand they not only have to respond to Israel's continued attacks, but have to figure out how to respond to this really unprecedented military action by the Trump administration. And the dilemma that they face is that they need to show a strong response, but at the same time, they don't want to do anything that would perhaps draw the US into a larger conflict. President Trump did send some signals that this was meant to be a relatively narrow targeted

attack. The attack itself was focused on three nuclear facilities. And so there is scope to avoid getting the US involved in a wider military conflict with Iran, but that's going to be challenging given the momentum here that Israel has managed to create to bring the US as basically a force on their side. Yes, and you know, it's confusing the messaging now

because Donald Trump yesterday alluded to regime change, although his defense secretary, Pete Hegseth, says that's not what this is about. And we're hearing from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that this war is not against the Iranian people, but it's an opportunity for Iranians to stand up for their freedom. So what's the truth in these messages? How do you see it? Well, as your correspondent just explained, I think there is a lot of confusion about what the US and Israeli goals are with these discontinued kind of military pressure on

Iran. Iran was in the course of negotiations with the US and tried to get negotiations back on track by engaging with the Europeans on the eve of the US attack. At the end of the day, I think what we have is a US president who has little regard for the advice of his cabinet and of key figures in his administration who have intelligence available to them, who have sort of the responsibility to develop a coherent policy. And because he is sort of impetuous and works on his instinct, Trump is prone to change his mind very quickly.

And this makes it incredibly difficult for Iran's leadership to the extent that they wish to manage the risk of escalation here and try and keep the country from getting sort of drawn into a very devastating war, it's difficult for them to figure out what the path is forward. I think negotiations are absolutely critical and it does seem that so far the Iranian response has been somewhat calibrated. They're trying to keep the door open for diplomacy, but the challenge is, even if they can get back to the negotiating table, it's not really clear what they're

negotiating over. Is it that, you know, simply an attempt to try and get this nuclear issue handled or has the U.S. now adopted a much wider set of goals around fundamental political change in Iran itself. Is drinking raw milk safe like RFK Junior suggests? Can you reduce a glucose spike if you eat your food in quote unquote the right order? I'm registered dietitian, Abbey Sharp. I host a nutrition myth busting podcast called Bite Back with Abbey Sharp. And those are just some of the questions I tackle with qualified experts on my show on bite back.

My goal is to help listeners create a pleasurable relationship with food, their body and themselves, which in my opinion is the fundamental secret to good health, listen to bite back wherever you get your podcasts. As Fendi on Sunday, we were seeing images of Iranians in the streets in support of Iran and its actions saying, chanting death to America.

Uh, very angry. Of course, before this we've seen opposition to the regime in Iran. What happens to the opposition now? I think most, most ordinary Iranians are very clear that in many ways this conflict actually reinforces their frustrations with the Islamic Republic and with the view that the leadership in Iran has been for various reasons unable to at least keep the country away from

coming to the brink of war. From the end of the Iran-Iraq war in the late 1980s, one thing that the leadership of the Islamic Republic really reinforced was this idea that they would keep the country safe and sort of keep the many wars in the Middle East away from Iran's borders. And they have essentially now failed in that mission. And I think this is weighing heavily on the aspiration of most Iranians for a kind of political transition. But at the same time, I think the Iranian people understand that

the question of whether there is to be a new political system in Iran is something that only they can answer, and that there should be an organic and domestic movement that leads to a political transition in the country. They also see, because they're good students of history, that attempts to engineer political change in the region on the back of military intervention, whether in Afghanistan or in Iraq have generally led to really negative outcomes. Even if the political system can be changed, the country tends to emerge more dysfunctional and more insecure than before. And so really what's at stake here is a question of basically Iranian sovereignty.

And I think that matters for ordinary people people even if they are deeply frustrated with the political system and want to see change they would like to achieve that change through something like a constitutional referendum and not through something like aerial bombardments of the capital city. A very perilous time for everyone in the region and Iranians. Thank you so much for speaking with us. Thanks for having me. Asfandir Batmenghelaj is the founder of the Bours and Bazar Foundation and we reached him this morning in London, England.

You know, it was just days ago that Donald Trump said he would decide within two weeks whether he'd get directly involved. His decision, of course, now clear. And it's led to some very public infighting among his MAGA allies. Isaac Stanley Becker has been reporting on this for the Atlantic magazine. Isaac, good morning. Good morning. Well, that was quick. I mean, what do you know about what led up to this surprise attack for many made without Congress, the decision?

surprise attack for many made without Congress the decision? Well, what my colleagues and I actually were able to reveal on Saturday night, early Sunday, just in the hours after the US bombing was that this two-week decision window was something of a head fake, that the decision had actually been made midweek to launch this attack and that the two weeks was designed in some ways to throw the Iranians off guard and is somewhat consistent with the kind of stream of confusing messages that the president was putting out on his social media platform really throughout the week. Now, this is Donald Trump, so he could have always changed his mind pending additional

information or last-minute desire to try to negotiate, but our reporting indicates that this decision had really been made and there was very little chance that there was ever going to be a real two-week window to come back to the table. I'm curious, you had been reporting on the split really within the ranks on the Trump team about getting more involved. Can you tell me a little bit about that and particularly if you see that anything has changed since Saturday night? I think it has changed in some notable ways. We saw before the decision to launch the attack a really fierce internal debate within MAGA about the best path here and what the president should do and

and and claims by both sides that this would really be a defining moment for the president because people in favor of US involvement saw American strength is hinging on this. The relationship with Israel was just foundational for many of the president's supporters, but also others who believe that he campaigned and staked his presidency on his ability to end these kind of foreign entanglements and refocus US resources and US strength on domestic priorities. And so there were really vocal figures on both sides. I think after the attack,

there remains some critical voices within MAGA, but it's at the same time been very interesting to watch certain people fall in line and basically say, this is the decision that the president made, he's the president and we have to trust our leader. And someone who I'd single out in this regard is Charlie Kirk, the head of Turning Point USA, a really important pro-Trump youth group, someone who is kind of key to his political movement, who started out by being firmly opposed to this, but after Saturday

night essentially said the decision is made, we support the president. Wow. Now, one of the elements in this fog of war as we see unfolding is the idea of whether Iran was or was not moving toward building nuclear weapons. I mean, Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, has told members of Congress that they weren't. What is the consensus, do you think, now

in national security circles? Well, my understanding is that the intelligence has not changed greatly. And what Tulsi Gabbard said in March is pretty consistent with what US intelligence has been saying for a number of years, which is that, yes, the Iranians have increased enrichment, and some of this, of course, is consistent with the reporting to the IAEA, as your correspondent in Jerusalem was saying, but that there had not yet been a decision to pursue nuclear weapons, to reignite

that program that was suspended in 2003. And Trump's director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, stated this to Congress at the end of March. Now there have been accounts of intelligence and when a split with the president emerged between Gabbard and Trump, she tried to clean this up and say that there was intelligence indicating that the Iranians could move quickly toward a nuclear bomb. But my understanding based on US officials familiar with that intelligence and also members of Congress who have been briefed on it is that that really conflates something important, which is are we talking about a very crude

weapon or are we talking about the capacity to miniaturize and place this on a warhead and really come up with the kind of nuclear weapon capable of causing damage to neighbors, damage to Israel? And my understanding based on intelligence assessments is that that would take quite a bit longer. Tell me something in the minute or so we have left about Russia's role in this. The Iranian foreign minister met with Vladimir Putin,

the Russian president this morning, and there's Trump's confusing relationship with Putin. How does that all insert itself into this latest attack? I think that there were expectations at the outset that Russia would play a more active role in responding here and potentially defending Iran. We know that there has been a close relationship and provision of military assets and so on and so forth. Russia's role has been relatively limited. I've been interested in accounts that point to the number of Russians living in Israel as one

important factor here that Russia certainly does not want to be involved in aiding any Iranian attempts to strike Israel that would harm its own citizens or Russian people. We also know that, of course, Russia is bogged down in its own war with Ukraine and opening up another front is something that could be extremely damaging but as you say there was a meeting today between the Iranian foreign minister and the Russian president and so clearly there's an effort to display a friendship there and join opposition to the United States.

Isaac we just have a few seconds left could you describe in a word or two what you're watching for next? I think a damage assessment from these sites is extremely important as you and your correspondent, again, were discussing statements on Saturday and Sunday from the administration was that there had been complete obliteration or severe damage. There has not yet been a comprehensive assessment, also some accounts about the movement of some of the uranium. So it'll be really important to track how successful these strikes were and what happens next.

Indeed. Thank you very much for speaking with us. Isaac Stanley Becker is a staff writer with The Atlantic. You've been listening to The Current Podcast. My name is Matt Galloway. Thanks for listening. I'll talk to you soon.