The Daily Signal - #493: As Tensions Between Iran and US Rise, What You Need to Know

Episode Date: June 26, 2019

Today Daniel Davis sits down with The Heritage Foundation's Jim Phillips, an expert in Middle Eastern affairs, to discuss what’s going on with Iran. Is war on the horizon? Why is Iran suddenly so aggressive? And what’s driving the conflict? We also cover these stories:•The Supreme Court hands down a major decision on gerrymandering.•Twitter takes a step that could affect President Trump's presence on the platform.•Oregon GOP lawmakers aren't showing up to work--because they're trying to block a cap-and-trade bill. The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It's Canadian Tire's Black Friday sale. With the lowest prices of the year. Hello, can we go? Limbo again. Shop the Black Friday sale at Canadian Tire and save up to 60%. November 27th to December 7th. Conditions apply. Details online.

This is the Daily Signal podcast for Friday, June 28th. I'm Rachel Del Judas. And I'm Kate Trinco. Today, Daniel Davis sits down with the Heritage Foundation's Jim Phillips, an expert in Middle Eastern affairs, to discuss what's going on with Iran. Is war on the horizon? Why is Iran suddenly so aggressive?

And what's driving this conflict? They'll discuss all those questions and more. By the way, if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star rating on iTunes and encourage others to subscribe. Now on to our top news. When it comes to gerrymandering, a new decision for the Supreme Court Thursday makes it clear that it's lawmakers, not judges, who get to decide. The court looked at two cases, one from Maryland where Democrats were believed to have benefited from how districts were divided, and another from North Carolina, where Republicans were considered the winners. Heritage Foundation's Hans von Spikosky, once a member of the Federal Election Commission, said, it's a political question and not something the court should decide on. This is something that should be decided by state legislatures or Congress.

Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the majority opinion, said, quote, For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities. And if left unchecked, gerrymanders like the ones here may irreparably damage our system of government. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court punted to a lower court, sidestepping their chance to rule whether or not the citizenship question should be left off the 2020 census, forcing it to go to a lower court for further review. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion, said that he could not find a sufficient reason for why Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross wanted to include the question in the 2020 census.

Robert said, quote, neither respondents nor my colleagues have been able to identify any relevant, judicially manageable limits on the secretary's decision to put a core demographic question back on the census. Roberts wrote. The evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Commerce Secretary gave for his decision. On Twitter, President Donald Trump decried the development, saying, quote, seems totally ridiculous that our government and indeed country cannot ask a basic question of citizenship in a very expensive, detailed, and important census in this case for 2020. I have asked the lawyers if they can delay the census no matter how long, until the United States Supreme Court it's given additional information. from which it can make a final and decisive decision on this very critical matter. Can anyone really believe that as great a country we are not able to ask whether or not someone is a citizen, only in America? End quote. According to an April report, however, from the House Committee on Oversight and Reform, a citizenship question has appeared on the U.S. census in one form or another for nearly 175 years.

advice columnist eugene carroll who is out with a new book what do we need men for a modest proposal has accused president trump of attacking her her two friends who she confided in about the alleged attack in the 90s have now come forward publicly speaking to the new york times this clip from the new york times podcast, The Daily, features E. Jean Carroll herself, her friend Lisa Burnback, and New York Times journalist Michael Barbaro and Megan Toey. Please note, this clip does include some content regarding what is alleged to have happened that isn't suitable for children. This is going to be the funniest thing I've ever thought up. This is hilarious. So I came out with this. I got to tell somebody. So I told Lisa. You know, she had adrenaline coursing through her body. She was just,

looking for a release from what had just happened. And in her mind, as she tells it, she'd gone into this exchange with Trump, sort of seeing it as, like, good material, like a great story. I remember her saying repeatedly, he pulled down my tight. As Lisa tells it, she at first was laughing along. He pulled down my tight, which got me to think that was as far as it went. But as the story continued, she stopped laughing and started to realize that what Eugen was describing

sounded to her like rape. Honestly, you did say he put his penis in me. And I said, my face just did it. What? He raped you? And you said, well, I. He kept pulling down. He pulled down my tights.

He pulled down my tights. And Lisa was emphatic. She said what you're describing as a rape and you should go to the police. It just, it was horrible. We fought. And I said, let's go to the police. No. Come to my house.

No, I want to go home. I'll take you to the police. No. It was 15 minutes of my life. It's over. Don't ever tell anything. I just had to tell you. Ejean, while I think at this point had stopped laughing,

was not seeing this within a criminal framework. It was an episode. It was an action. It was a fight. It was not a crime. It was I had a struggle with a guy. Well, you felt you encouraged it probably. Oh, yeah.

I know I did. I know I did. Oh, advise you, fabulous. Wadre, great. It was getting better and better. It was getting better and better. So you felt responsibility for what had happened? 100%.

So what does EGene do after getting off the phone with Lisa? President Trump has asserted that he is innocent. I have no idea who she is. What she did is it's terrible. What's going on? So it's a total false accusation. And I don't know anything about her. And she's made this charge against others.

And you know, people. People have to be careful because they're playing with very dangerous territory. And when they do that and it's happening more and more, when you look at what happened to Justice Kavanaugh and you look at what's happening to others, you can't do that for the sake of publicity. Twitter will now be singling out tweets from government leaders who don't follow the platform's rules according to an announcement Thursday. Users who wish to view the flag tweets will have to click or tap through before you see the tweet to provide additional context and clarity,

Twitter said in a blog post. The new rule will apply to verified government officials, representatives, and candidates for public office or government positions who have more than 100,000 followers. Well, in Oregon, Republican state senators have been showing their objections by refusing to show up. Eleven Republican lawmakers aren't coming to work since last week, which means the Democrat-dominated state Senate can't pass anything because they don't have enough lawmakers for a quorum. A top issue is a cap-and-trade bill. Democrats now claim they couldn't pass the bill even if Republicans came back because they simply don't have the votes. But Republicans want Democrats to commit to putting the issue on the ballot, not tackling it in the legislature. Oregon NBC affiliate KGW8 reported on a protest against a capital.

trade legislation. It's going to be a loss of jobs, families, communities. It's really going to affect not just us rural businesses, but even the consumers of these products that are freighted in. Earlier this week, Senate President Peter Courtney said the bill doesn't have enough votes to pass, but some are suspicious, worried Democrats could flip their vote if Republicans come back. Earlier this morning, we spoke with loggers about the issue as they headed to Salem. We don't believe it. We don't want the Republicans coming back. If this pass, Rural Oregon is basically dead. We understand the climate change ordeal, but this is not the proper way to take care of it. Meantime, today in the Senate chamber, Republicans were nowhere to be found, leaving more than 100 bills up in the air.

Earlier this week, Governor Kate Brown, a Democrat, spoke out against the Republican senators in hiding. Let me make this perfectly clear. The Republicans are not standing against climate change. They're standing against democracy. receive. That's right. Make sure that the legislative branch operates and we need to make sure that the Republicans come back and do their jobs. Next up, we'll feature Daniel's interview with Jim Phillips. Tired of high taxes, fewer health care choices, and bigger government, become a part of the Heritage Foundation. We're fighting the rising tide of homegrown socialism while

developing conservative solutions that make families more free and more prosperous. Find out more at heritage.org. Well, tensions are steadily rising between Iran and the United States. And here to unpack the latest developments is Jim Phillips. He's the Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs here at the Heritage Foundation. Jim, thanks for your time. Thanks for inviting me. So, Jim, this week we saw the president issue new sanctions against top Iranian officials

just days after he called off a retaliatory attack on Iranian military assets. Walk us through what led to those new sanctions. Well, last week, the Iranians ratcheted up their shadow war against U.S. allies in the Persian Gulf by increasing attacks on mines. And I think the beginning of last week, actually Thursday of last week, they shot down an unmanned drone flying over the Gulf. And at that point, President Trump considered a military attack on the Revolutionary Guard missile batteries that had shot down the drone and the last minute decided to withhold that military action instead opting for a cyber attack and another round of sanctions he announced on Monday. So right now we're kind of in a pause, but the slow motion confrontation between the U.S. and Iran is, markedly accelerating.

Now, from reports, a number of folks inside the White House were recommending that he'd go forward with that attack. What did you make of him pulling back? Well, I would take him at his word. He said that he was concerned that the attack would be disproportionate in terms of the loss of Iranian lives. And that may be true. The problem with that is that the Iranian regime doesn't necessarily feel those constraints. And so that may give them an edge in the future if they think the president will refrain from going ahead down the military path. But I think on a one-off situation, I think the fact that he did launch a cyber attack, covers him on that and that score.

And I think they'd be crazy to challenge his determination by pressing their luck again. Well, the Wall Street Journal today is reporting a new strategy in the Gulf that the U.S. is putting forward, trying to put together. Can you unpack what that's about? Well, it looks like there's a lot of vague lack of details, but it appears that the U.S. is appealing to, to allies in the Gulf, in Europe, and oil importing countries that have a stake in the continued flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, about 20% of the world's oil goes through the Strait of Hormuz. And by appealing to allies to help monitor the flow, that would free up U.S. naval forces

for offensive action if needed. So this is kind of a replay of what happened in the 1980s when the Iranian Revolutionary Guards attacked neutral shipping and the U.S. responded by reflagging Kuwaiti tankers and escorting them. This time it would be done more by an international group instead of just the U.S., and I think that would be an improvement. So tell us about these new sanctions. They're really just on the top, some of the top leaders in Iran, the Ayatollah and a few officials. The Iranian president Rwani called them outrageous and idiotic. What impact do you expect these to have? Well, I think they've already definitely unsettled the Iranians.

And they argue that the Supreme Leader doesn't have billions of dollars. of money inside the U.S. However, he does have an empire, a network of hundreds of companies with an estimated $200 to $200 billion around the world, and these sanctions would make it much more difficult for the Iranians to manage those financial assets and move them around. Also would expose any foreign firms that cooperate with the Revolutionary Guards of the Supreme Leader in moving that money, that would expose them to sanctions. So if nothing else, it will drive up the cost of the Supreme Leader's normal business activities. And of course, these are just the latest round of sanctions.

We've seen Trump administration really piling on the sanctions since he took office. What kind of impact have those sanctions had in the last couple of years? Well, the administration says that since the oil sanctions kicked in in November, Iran has lost an estimated $10 billion in oil export revenues, and the price is going up every month because the administration further tightened the oil sanctions in May when it deprived of eight oil importing countries. of waivers which allowed them to continue importing Iranian oil as long as they were gradually diminishing it. Now those oil exports have gone from about two and a half million barrels a day

to less than 500,000 barrels a day, and that is really suffocating the Iranian economy. And what does that mean in terms of Iran's ability to fund not only their own aggressive activity, but terror groups? Well, it really takes away. their latitude in moving these funds around. They've been forced to cut their military budget, their budget for the Revolutionary Guards, although it's interesting they did raise their budget for internal security, kind of the regime thugs that keep Iranians off the streets. So they are anticipating further protests, which is interesting. But also they've been forced to cut back their subsidies for their network of proxies. Hasbala, which is their leading proxy, the Lebanese,

Shiite revolutionary terrorist group, Hasbala has been forced to cut back its budget and has been forced to appeal for donations from Shiites around the Middle East. So that's an interesting development. Yeah, certainly. Well, you mentioned Iranians themselves becoming dissatisfied with the state of the economy. This week, President Trump tweeted, I'm going to quote here, the wonderful Iranian people are suffering and for no reason at all. Their leadership spends all of its money on terror and little on anything else, end quote. Do you think that the people's anger is mainly directed toward the U.S. or are they increasingly blaming their own government? Well, they do blame their own government not only for political repression,

the human rights abuses, but also incredible economic mismanagement and corruption. And I think the president is trying to tap into that. And a series of anti-regime demonstrations, the Iranian people spontaneously have broken out into chance, you know, not for Syria, not for Gaza. We give our lives only for Iran. And so that shows that there is resentment about the, you know, adventurous military interventions, the regime has staged in Syria, increasingly in Yemen, and its efforts to stir up conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

And Iranians want their money to be spent at home. And that, I think, is a long-term sore point that will continue to generate opposition to the regime at home. Well, we saw in 2009 the uprisings against the government in Iran, which were violently put down. Do you think regime change is a possibility in Iran within the next 10 years or so? I think it is a possibility, but it's like predicting of volcanic eruption. It's hard to say exactly when, and when it happens, you know, it's difficult to say who would end up on top. I would anticipate that the Revolutionary Guards would step in with some kind of military coup, but I'm not sure how long they could hold on.

But what's interesting to me, I think, is Iran is looking for regime change in Washington. And it initially adopted a policy of strategic patience hoping to outlast the Trump administration and deal with what it hoped would be a more tractable future successor administration. And then recently, I think it's been forced to give up that strategy because the sanctions have really bitten a lot harder than Iran anticipated. And they also may be seeing that he's got a good chance of being reelected. So I think part of their strategy in kind of confronting the U.S. is not only to defuse political opposition at home with a rally around the flag kind of strategy, but also to accentuate the cost to the U.S. of this policy of maximum pressure. And I think they were hoping to drive up gasoline prices this summer

in order to kind of wear down the popularity of the president. And I think the Iranians remember that they played a role in bringing down the Jimmy Carter administration and depriving him of re-election. I think they hope to do that with Donald Trump as well. Interesting. So you think that's what's driving the aggression? I think that's part of their strategy.

I think really their ideology is what's driving this aggressive grand strategy because Iran and the regime especially has defined its legitimacy in terms of resistance to the great Satan, the U.S., which it defines. as a world-devouring, infidel and corrupting force. And the regime sees the U.S. as great Satan, not just because it thinks the U.S. is evil, but because it knows U.S. culture, American culture, or Western culture, more broadly, the regime sees it as a corrupting force on young Muslims.

And so it's stressed this resistance at all costs. And so I think regardless of what the U.S. does, the Iranians, the regime will take a hostile attitude. What should the U.S. strategy be here? Should we be trying to crush the Iranian regime with sanctions so that there's internal dissatisfaction and regime change? Or should we just accept the fact of an Iranian Islamic regime and try to manage that? Well, the problem with regime change is we really can't count on it. And as a conservative, you know, I think it's our ability to predict what's going to happen inside Iran or identify so-called moderate elements that could replace other elements really has been shown to be pretty minimal. And then, you know, once changes start coming in Iran, I don't think the U.S. is going to be able to control it. But we can, through a maximum pressure strategy, encourage political change in Iran and penalize heavily the hardliners that are leading Iran in this confrontational course and undermining the long-term economic welfare and political welfare of their own people.

And I think that could eventually lead to regime change, but that's something we can't really count on. So until then, I think we need to manage this problem, present Iran with very hard consequences for hostile acts and seek some kind of a more effective nuclear deal that would bar Iran for a much longer time from any kind of a nuclear breakout. But if the Iranians continue dragging their feet on negotiations that the president wants on the nuclear deal, then either a long-term regime change strategy or eventually some kind of, kind of a war with Iran was likely to result. I would prefer to avoid a war, but I would also argue that Iran has been at war with us since 1979, their revolution, but they prefer to fight a low-intensity shadow war and not elevate it to the point where the U.S. would take military action against

their homeland. At this point, it's difficult for me to see a negotiated settlement of the nuclear agreement. So really, if Iran continues on this collision course, I think it's increasingly likely there will be at least a military clash, if not a full-scale war. Would you expect that to be a U.S. preemptive strike on nuclear assets or Israel, perhaps? It's possible. I think Israel will be more likely to do a preventive strike than the U.S. at this point, but if these present trends continue, and, you know, Iran has warned the Europeans that it will be leaving the nuclear deal, and it is increasing its enrichment of uranium, and as soon as tomorrow could be in violation of that deal. And that would start a new timetable for confrontation

that would put the pressure more on the U.S. to take military action if a negotiated solution cannot be reached. Do we know the time frame, how long it would take for Iran to get a nuke if they start ramping up their uranium enrichment? We don't have a precise timeframe, but one expert, Ali Heinen, who was a former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector who worked in Iran. He has said that Iran probably is at least six months away, maybe more depending on whether it has mastered the art of shaping enriched uranium into a warhead. That apparently is pretty difficult, but Iran has been doing experiments along those lines.

So I think that could be the key factor. Well, if there's not much hope for a new nuclear deal, as you mentioned, then it certainly looks like they're going to keep enriching and that would provoke a military strike. Should we expect that within the next couple of years? If they continue accelerating the way they are now, that could lead to a war. But I think the Iranians are master negotiators too, and they know that if there is a war, they're going to come out on the short end of the stick. So I think this really is part of its negotiations.

And I see these symbolic attacks on the tankers, you know, which they could have sunk if they wanted to, but they purposely put the mines above the water level just to send a message. I think that's the opening skirmish in the negotiations over the nuclear issue. And for that reason, I think the administration is wise to react in a restrained and patient fashion to the shootdown of the drone because the real issue is Iran's uranium enrichment, and that's the next crisis. Well, we'll keep looking at that and we'll have you back on to discuss that. We'll hope for the best. Jim Phillips, thanks for your time. Thank you.

And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal podcast. brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud, and please leave us a review or a rating on iTunes to give us any feedback. Rob and Virginia, we'll see you Monday. You've been listening to The Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis, sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visit DailySignal.com.