The Daily - The Standoff With Iran

Episode Date: June 21, 2019

The Trump administration has been debating a military strike against Iran as tensions with the country escalate. Here’s how we got to this point. Guest: Mark Landler, who covers the White House for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Background reading: President Trump approved military strikes against Iran in retaliation for downing an American drone, but abruptly called them off on Thursday night.Mr. Trump has veered between bellicose threats against America’s enemies and promises to get the United States out of foreign wars. He may soon have to choose. The United States and Iran, two longtime adversaries, are once again hurtling toward potential crisis. That course was set a year ago.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, the Trump administration is debating a military strike against Iran as tensions between the two countries reach an all-time high. How we got here. It's Friday, June 21st. Two oil tankers have been ambushed in the Gulf of Oman, the US placing the blame firmly on Iran. Iran says it will break the uranium stockpile limit that was set by the 2015 Tehran nuclear deal.

Just moments ago, the Pentagon authorized an additional 1,000 American troops to the Middle East. Some very talented people are going to the Middle East right now. In response to growing concerns over Iran. Iran's president says time is running out for European leaders to save the 2015 nuclear deal. An American drone was shot down in international airspace by an Iranian missile over the state of Hormuz. So, Charlie, does this bring us, do you think, closer to a wider conflict now? They do not want a war, but they're ready for one.

And invading Iranian airspace, as they say, was crossing a red line. There's any more disruption of shipping in the Straits of Hormuz linked to Iran, take out their navy, bomb their refineries. If there's any more attack on American interest, go after the Iranians so they'll pay pain. Mark, there's been a lot of news coming out of Iran over the last week or so. And it feels like things have been escalating very fast and that it all sort of started with those two tankers in the Gulf last Wednesday.

Yeah, that's right, Michael. These very dramatic, vivid pictures began circulating of a Japanese and a Norwegian tanker adrift in the Gulf of Oman with huge flames and smoke billowing from their sides. Mark Landler covers the White House for The Times. And so your first reaction when you see these pictures is, my God, you know, what does this mean? It's a true act of hostility. And then the plot, you know,

rapidly thickened as the United States accused Iran of being the culprit for these explosions. Good afternoon. It is the assessment of the United States accused Iran of being the culprit for these explosions. Good afternoon. It is the assessment of the United States government that the Islamic Republic of Iran is responsible for the attacks that occurred in the Gulf of Oman today. Mike Pompeo took the podium at the State Department, backed by these very dramatic pictures of the burning tankers, and he in, said that the U.S. had incontrovertible proof that Iran was behind the attack. This assessment is based on intelligence, the weapons used, the level of expertise needed to

execute the operation, recent similar Iranian attacks on shipping, and the fact that no proxy group operating in the area has the resources and proficiency to act with such a high degree of sophistication. And what he produced was military footage that showed a small Iranian boat coming around to the side of one of these stricken tankers and people standing on this little boat removing what's called a limpet mine, which is a small mine that had been affixed to the side of the ship. Presumably, this was an unexploded mine. Several of the other mines did explode, which is what caused all the flames and smoke. It's unmistakable what happened here. These were attacks by the Islamic Republic of Iran on commercial shipping, on the freedom of navigation,

with the clear intent to deny transit through the strait. This was on the Gulf of Oman. Much of the world's oil supply passes through the Straits of Hormuz. So this is Iran signaling to the United States and the world, we can interrupt this critical waterway. We can stop the supply of oil. So on two different levels, both economic and as an attack on American allies, it was viewed by Pompeo and the administration as a very provocative act. Taken as a whole, these unprovoked attacks present a clear threat to international peace and security, a blatant assault on the freedom of navigation, and an unacceptable campaign of escalating tension by Iran.

And so what is the response to this accusation from Mike Pompeo? Well, interestingly, a lot of skepticism. The Europeans initially responded by saying, it's too soon, we're not sure, it's too soon to say Iran is guilty of this. You heard the misgivings of Germany's foreign minister. What do you make of this video that we've all seen that was handed out by the Pentagon? I don't believe it's the smoking gun. It's not quite clear yet. So, to some extent, there was a credibility gap

on the part of the United States. The U.S. had presented this footage, and even with this footage as evidence, countries were not willing to say, you're right, Iran was behind it. It's logical, if you wish, but we're still missing, as I said, the smoking gun, the real, the concrete proof that the Iranians are behind the two attacks.

Instead, they all held back. They all withheld judgment. It really was a very, very vivid demonstration of how much trust has been lost between the U.S. and its allies that you didn't see the Germans, the French, the Brits immediately step up and say, well, of course the Iranians did it. The U.S. has shown us proof of it. And the idea is that the U.S. might be doing what exactly? If you're a skeptic, if you're one of our allies in Europe, what would blaming Iran for this accomplish that makes them so skeptical? I think the really cynical take, if you're in Europe, is that the Trump administration has been spoiling for a fight with the Iranians from the moment President Trump came into office. President Trump announcing that the U.S. is withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.

And in a way, the root of this was laid a year ago when President Trump pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal. President Donald Trump is to reinstate U.S. sanctions on Iran that were lifted as part of the 2015 nuclear deal. The sanctions that will be imposed are the toughest sanctions ever put in place on the Islamic Republic of Iran. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has announced that the U.S. is designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terror group. The IRGC will take its rightful place on the same list as terror groups it supports, all of which are already designated as foreign terrorist organizations.

And pointing the finger at Iran for this provocative act could give the White House the pretext for some kind of military response. If you're looking for a fight with the Iranians, what better way to precipitate it than to say, you guys are responsible for this act? Mark, just to clarify one point. Assuming Iran did attack these tankers, why would it have done it?

If the situation is so fragile right now, and the U.S. is looking for ammunition, why would Iran suddenly blow up some tankers? What would that accomplish in terms of motivating the people who remain in the deal to somehow start acting in Iran's interest? I think because it is such a vivid demonstration of Iran's capacity to disrupt the world's oil supply, it sends this unmistakable message to the Europeans who remain in the nuclear deal that you guys need to team up and figure out how to restrain the United States, how to make the case to Washington, make the case to the Trump administration that they just can't act with impunity toward Iran, that there is a price for them continuing to squeeze Iran's economy, hurting the Iranian people. The argument here is that the Europeans have to come off the sidelines. They can't just allow Donald Trump to act with complete freedom in this.

They have to make their voices heard and try to calm this situation down. And in an ideal world, after these tankers are attacked, what do the European countries and their leaders do relative to the U.S. that would satisfy Iran's goal?

I think they would make the case to the United States that, look, you know, we know that you hate the Iran nuclear deal. We know your goal is to pressure the Iranian regime, but you can't pressure them to such a degree that they feel compelled to lash out in a way that really threatens not just the security of the Gulf, but the entire world economy, because that's the implication that this single act really had, which is that we can throw the world oil supply into turmoil. That's something that raises the economic cost far beyond the region itself. It turns it into a global economic issue. And that presumably is the case the Europeans could make to the Trump administration. So where do things stand earlier this week?

The U.S. has accused Iran of attacking these tankers. Iran has denied it. What are you thinking at this point? Well, I'm thinking that the tensions are just spiraling up by the day. You're seeing ever stronger words from Mike Pompeo, from the president himself. You're seeing ever stronger denials and counter accusations from the Iranians. You're seeing the president start to take some concrete steps, deploying additional troops to the region. So the question in everyone's mind is, is this merely an exercise in bellicose rhetoric? Is it merely a war of words? Or are we

actually on the brink of some kind of military conflict? And I think we got at least an early answer to this on Wednesday night. We'll be right back. So, Mark, what happened on Wednesday night? Well, around 7.30 p.m. Washington time, in the pre-dawn hours in the Persian Gulf. Iran's state news agency is reporting the country's Revolutionary Guard has shot down what it says is a U.S. drone. Iran fired a surface-to-air missile at an unmanned American surveillance drone. The news was relayed by state media, which reported that the airborne object was a Global Hawk surveillance drone.

And essentially blew the drone out of the sky. Well, good afternoon. This is Lieutenant General Joseph Guastella, commander of the U.S. Air Force's Central Command. I'm prepared to give a statement, but I won't be answering questions at this time. And this led to an immediate dispute between the Iranians and the United States.

Where the two sides disagree is where the drone was flying at the time. The Americans said the drone was flying over international waters, and this amounted to a pure act of aggression against an American asset. Tehran counters that the drone was destroyed after it violated Iranian airspace.

The Iranians accused the drone of being over Iranian territory. Iranian reports that this aircraft was shot down over Iran are categorically false. Now, this was, as I said, an unmanned drone, so there were no American casualties. But it nevertheless elevated this whole conflict to another much more dangerous level. This whole conflict to another much more dangerous level. This dangerous and escalatory attack was irresponsible, possibly endangering innocent civilians. Thank you. So where are we now?

What is the current status of things? Go ahead, question? Well, for starters, President Trump delivered a somewhat confusing statement to reporters at his meeting on Thursday with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada. He opened by saying, Iran made a big mistake. Iran just made a very bad mistake. And when reporters said, what are you going to do about it? He answered kind of ominously, you will find out. You'll find out. So from that, one might judge that we are, in fact,

on the brink of some kind of a military response. But interestingly, as the reporters kept asking the president questions, you heard a slightly different narrative emerge. He went on to say... Are you saying you think it wasn't intentional to strike the drone? I don't know. I find it hard to believe it was intentional, if you want to know the truth. I think that it could have been somebody who was loose and stupid.

He's speaking of Iran's decision to take out the drone. But I have a feeling I may be wrong and I may be right, but I'm right a lot. I have a feeling that it was a mistake made by somebody that shouldn't have been doing what they did. So you almost have this picture of a president searching for a way out, rather than blame it squarely on the Iranian government. He seems to be letting the government off the hook by saying, well, maybe it was just, you know, some stupid general or someone who overstepped their authority or who acted recklessly. I would imagine it was a general or somebody that made a mistake in shooting that drone down. in very tough terms. And on the other hand, he's allowing a kind of an escape hatch

that maybe this was a mistake on their part and hence not a reason to take the pivotal next step, some kind of military response. Let's just see what happens. You just let's see what happens. It's all going to work out. And what might that be about, this escape hatch? Why suddenly be generous toward Iran?

Well, I think this goes to the tension that has always existed within President Trump. Remember, this is the president who, with the North Koreans, promised to rain fire and fury down on them, but then opened the door to this breakthrough summit with Kim Jong-un. to this breakthrough summit with Kim Jong-un. So you have this president who likes tough talk, but does not like being dragged into major military action. And I think with Iran, as with North Korea, you're watching this tension unfold in real time.

He wants to send an unmistakable message to Iran, but I think he doesn't want to close off all his options, so he really does have to start some kind of major military operation. But this is something, this is a new wrinkle. This is a new fly in the ointment, what happened shooting down the drone. And this country will not stand for it. That I can tell you. Thank you very much. And what role does Europe play in this moment? If the purpose of attacking those tankers and everything that seems to have followed was to draw Europeans out and to get their attention? Well, I think what Europe will try to do is say to the president, look, your strategy of pressuring Iran has succeeded perhaps more than anyone expected. But plunging the Middle East into yet another war

would be disastrous for the world economy. And I think likewise, they will probably pressure the Iranians and say, look, you can't continue to provoke the U.S. without precipitating some kind of response that's more than you expected or bargained for. You guys need to show restraint, too, because if you don't, the outcome for you will be far worse than just the economic pain you're suffering today. Mark, how has it succeeded? If we're in this tense moment, in what way could we look at this and say that the pressure has succeeded? Well, when I say succeeded, what I meant was that these sanctions that President Trump imposed were really designed in some sense to push Iran to the brink economically, but also politically. And I think that Iran's provocations over the past week show just how far the United States has gone in this.

They have truly crippled the Iranian economy. in this. They have truly crippled the Iranian economy. They have driven down Iran's oil exports, and they have made Iran's leadership desperate enough that they feel they have to lash out in this way to try to push back on the American pressure. So from that perspective, this pressure campaign has actually succeeded. The big question is, what is the resolution to all this tension? What is the outcome that's in the American interest? And that is a far more questionable issue. Right. What happens when Iran actually does get to the brink? How does this possibly end well? Well, I think the big question to ask about the Trump administration strategy, and it's one that the administration itself finds difficult to answer, is what's the end game? What is it that you're trying to achieve?

The administration would say, we want Iran to behave, quote, like a normal country. Well, so far, everything the United States has done has only emboldened Iran to behave even more like a bad actor, even more like a malfactor in the region. It's, in fact, driven Iran in the opposite direction. Rather than making Iran more moderate, less inclined to interfere in the affairs of countries in the region, less of an exporter of state-sponsored terrorism, it's making Iran an even worse player. And so, for the moment, at least, the endgame seems very far off, and we seem to be in the part of the drama where Iran really behaves even more badly. In other words, it's making Iran more dangerous.

Yes, it's bringing out the worst in Iran. Right. So I ask again, if Iran is only getting more dangerous, and its actions less and less normal, how does it end well? Well, one way it could end well, and President Trump himself has raised this prospect, is they come back to the bargaining table. They sit down and negotiate what he would claim is a better, stronger, more airtight nuclear deal. But that's if you believe that that is the true objective of American policy. You have around the president a series of advisors who are plainly more hawkish than he is, whether it's the Secretary of State Pompeo, whether it's the National Security Advisor John Bolton.

These are people who are, to some extent, itching for some kind of a fight. If the real objective, unstated, is collapsing the Iranian regime, which certainly some in the White House believe, then it's hard to see how this ends in anything other than some kind of conflict. Thank you, Mark. Thank you very much, Michael. On Thursday night, the Times reported that President Trump had approved a series of airstrikes against Iran in retaliation for the attack against a U.S. drone.

But he then abruptly pulled back on launching the strikes. On Friday morning, the president took to Twitter to explain the decision, saying he called off the strikes after learning that they could kill up to 150 Iranians, something he said would be out of proportion to the destruction of a single unmanned drone. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. I've been on this floor a lot, standing up for our friends in Saudi Arabia, which has not always been easy to do. But the days of treating Saudi Arabia the way I used to

treat them are over. On Thursday, the Senate voted to block President Trump from selling billions of dollars of U.S. arms to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates in a bipartisan rebuke of the White House. The president has invoked emergency powers to justify the sales without the consent of Congress, saying both countries need the weapons to fight Iran. But on Thursday, senators expressed alarm over the decision to work around them and objected to the countries receiving the arms,

especially Saudi Arabia. When you have direct evidence and when our own intelligence community has concluded that there is high confidence that the crown prince of Saudi Arabia butchered a dissident with a bone saw in a consulate in a foreign country, you would think that would give us pause as to giving Saudi Arabia or selling Saudi Arabia more weapons. The House is expected to pass the same legislation, but the president has vowed to veto it, and neither chamber is expected to override him.

And... We recognize that because of the acts of a few, and I say a few relative to the total number of officers in the police department, that in many ways, you know, we understand how this can tarnish or did tarnish our reputation. The Philadelphia Police Department has pulled 72 officers from the streets, and St. Louis said it would no longer prosecute cases from 22 of its officers after the revelation of bigoted social media posts by the officers. We are equally disgusted by many of the posts that you saw and that in many cases the rest

of the nation saw, not just people in Philadelphia. The social media posts were compiled by researchers into a database and included racist and Islamophobic material, as well as praise of officers who use excessive force. And so we will not be shy about meeting out the appropriate discipline, which could range from, in many cases, a day or so off all the way up to termination, which is probably something that's going to certainly happen for some of these officers. The Daily is made by Theo Balcom, Andy Mills, Lisa Tobin, Rachel Quester, Lindsay Garrison, Annie Brown, Claire Tennesketter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon-Johnson, Brad Fisher, Larissa

Anderson, Wendy Doerr, Chris Wood, Jessica Chung, Alexandra Lee Young, Jonathan Wolfe, Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnek, Michaela Bouchard, Stella Tan, Julia Simon, Annie Carney, and Maya Averbuch. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you on Monday. Thank you.