The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved, don’t stop now. The U.S. should join Israel and take out Iran’s nuclear program

Episode Date: November 1, 2024

Israel’s retaliatory air strikes against Iran last week targeted strategic military locations, including drone and ballistic missile manufacturing sites as well as air defense batteries. And while the mission has been celebrated as a successful one by both Israeli and US military officials, some argue that Israel should seize on the current moment – specifically the inability of Iran to defend itself against a large scale attack - to destroy its nuclear facilities, neutralize the threat to Israel, and restore stability to the Middle East. Critics argue that this plan would result in a significant military retaliation by the Iranian government that will lead to a wider regional war that will draw in Israel’s allies, in particular the United States. America must use all the resources and influences at its disposal to prevent Israel from further strikes against Iran and de-escalate this crisis before it’s too late. Arguing in favour of the resolution is Mark Dubowitz. Mark is the CEO of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a non-profit, non-partisan research institute focusing on foreign policy and national security. Arguing against the resolution is Christopher Chivvis, senior fellow and director of the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.   You can vote on who you think won this debate. Go to our website www.munkdebates.com to become a free member and cast your vote. The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths.  To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Paid Members receive access to our 15+ year library of great debates in HD video, streaming of our upcoming debates, and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran Lynch  Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

We tried socialism all through the 20th century, and it failed every time. We should restore dignity to the working class and stop saying you need a credential in order to achieve the most basic, modest version of the American dream. Netanyahu is the worst leader the Jewish people ever had. He should be impeached. Genocide is the latest modern blood liable that anti-Semites use to justify their anti-Zionism. we should prioritize making sure that no more Ukrainians die, that this war is brought to an end. All parents want to help children with their feelings, but I argue that not every feeling is worth paying attention to. Why are these students covering their faces? I think it says something about their movement, about their ideology, and also simply the fact that they're also cowards.

Israel has ignored these calls for ceasefire and restraint, and what it's done, actually, is it's taken the fight to the enemy. It's presented a really, incredible opportunity. The reality is that the United States and Israel share many common interests, but their interests are not identical. Welcome to the Monk Debates. Every episode we provide you with a civil and substantive debate on the big issue of the day. Our goal with each and every program of the Monk debates is to arm you with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved. Don't stop now. The United States should join Israel and take out Iran's nuclear program.

Israel has launched multiple air strikes on Iran in response to what the Israeli military called months of continuous attacks from Tehran and its proxies. Israel's military says it hit factories where the missiles were produced and attacked Iran's air defenses. It's also saying it targeted Iranian air defenses to make it easier to carry out strikes in the future. Well, Israel's retaliatory strike against Iran, like that. last week has been celebrated as a successful one by both U.S. and Israeli military.

Some argue that Israel should have gone further. It should have seized the moment and destroyed Iran's nuclear facilities, neutralizing once and for all this profound threat to the state of Israel and restore stability in the Middle East. Critics argue that this goal would result in a significantly wider regional war by virtue of Iran's large-scale retaliation against any attack on its nuclear facilities. Far from supporting an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program, America must use all of its influence and diplomacy to prevent such an outcome. On this installment of the Monk Debates podcast, we challenge the essence of these arguments and ideas by debating the motion, be it resolved. Don't stop now. The United States should.

join Israel and take out Iran's nuclear program. Arguing in favor of the resolution is Mark Dubowitz. Mark is the CEO with the foundation for the defense of democracies, an influential non-profit, nonpartisan research institute focusing on foreign policy and national security in the United States and around the world. Arguing against the resolution is Christopher Chivas, senior fellow and director of the American Steakcraft program at the Cardi, Renegi Endowment for International Peace.

Mark, Chris, welcome to the Monk Debates. Hello. Hello. Important debate today, be it resolved. Don't stop now. The U.S. should join Israel and take out Iran's nuclear program. Mark, you're arguing in favor of the motion. So we're going to put two minutes on our proverbial show clock and turn the program over to you.

So five U.S. presidents since Bill Clinton have committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. As recently as two years ago, President Biden made that commitment in a written declaration to Prime Minister Naftali Bennett of Israel, where he said the United States would use all instruments of national power to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. All these presidents understood that Iran with a nuclear weapon would be extremely dangerous, a genocidal regime committed to the destruction of Israel, to producing ICBMs that would threat in the United States and proliferation in the Middle East that would lead to multiple

Middle Eastern countries with nuclear weapons, which could by accident of design, lead to nuclear conflagration in the Middle East. So critical that Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. And President Obama reached a deal in 2015, a deeply flawed deal that gave Iran hundreds of billions of dollars and restrictions on the program that begin to expire next year. And all of those restrictions go away by the year 2030. President Trump withdrew from that agreement. The Iranians did nothing in terms of nuclear expansion. President Trump killed IRGC-Kuds Force commander Kusum Soleimani. Iranians froze their nuclear program until President Biden was elected. After his election, the Iranians engaged in massive nuclear expansion, which they have for almost four years.

And they are now at the threshold of developing nuclear weapons. Just five days ago on October 26th, Israel launched strikes, retaliatory strikes against Islamic Republic, destroyed their strategic air defenses and basically left the Ayatollah naked. They demonstrated to U.S. military planners, to U.S. presidents, those in Washington, like Chris, have been very skeptical that the United States military would be capable of destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program and that the risk would be too great, given Iran's formidable air defenses. Well, the Israelis showed that that is possible. Israel is the ability to do serious damage to those nuclear facilities, but it will require the United States to honor the commitment of five U.S. presidents in order to neutralize the Iranian nuclear threat and for once prevent nuclear weapons from falling in the hands of a genocidal regime. Thank you, Mark, for that opening statement. Okay, Christopher, you're up next. You're arguing against our motion today. Similarly, two minutes on the show clock, and we will have you. give us your arguments in opposition to Mark. Kick us off.

Sure. I'm delighted to have the chance to do this. And actually, I agree with the, you know, significant portion of what Mark just said, the world would be much better off if Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon. It would be better for the United States. And it certainly would be better for Israel. But I have a lot of concerns and objections that I want to raise to acting now because I see a whole host of risks that I just don't think it would sense for the United States to run. I mean, the fact of the matter is that this would involve getting embroiled in a much, much broader war in the Middle East. And this is a war that the United States simply cannot afford to get involved in right now. I mean, what we've seen over the course of the last year is an expanding conflagration across the region.

There's no question that Israel had every right to strike back at Hamas starting after October 7th of last year. But Israel's objectives have now gone far beyond that, to include Lebanon and now Iran. In the process, we've seen over 40,000 civilians killed and many, many more who have been severely hurt whose lives will be completely changed as a consequence of this war. the U.S. has become increasingly involved in this, for example, sending two aircraft carriers to the region. These are significant U.S. military assets that are not available for operations elsewhere in the world. The U.S. has even reported, according to open source reporting, sent special forces to assist the Israelis in their raids and targeting operations in Gaza. And of course, the U.S. has now deployed THAAD systems, which is a, a missile defense system to help Israel, which also involves putting U.S. boots on the ground to help protect Israel against potential strikes from Iran. So the question for me is, you know, should we want this escalation and deepening involvement to continue? Or should we say, enough is enough? Now is the time to negotiate. Now is the time to press seriously for a ceasefire,

both in Gaza and in Lebanon. Because the fact of the matter is that any operation against Iran's nuclear complex would be a large-scale operation. You're talking about, in order for it to have any real impact, at least, a major U.S.-Israeli operation that would last probably over the course of several days. This would completely cut off any hope of going ahead with the ceasefire negotiations that now seem somewhat promising in Lebanon and in Gaza, we put an end to that. Iran would strike back, probably destroying oil infrastructure across the region,

creating a global energy crisis, potentially. It would also retaliate against U.S. allies, both in the region and globally. Certainly, it would do everything it could to hit back against the U.S., both conventionally and especially in the gray zone. So the question is, you know, can the U.S. at this point in time afford to be sucked into this kind of a broader war? Thank you, Christopher. Mark Dubowitz, let's have your rebuttal from what you've just heard from Christopher.

Christopher talked about everything but Iran's nuclear weapons program, which is clearly expanding. The Iranians are seven days away from breaking out to one nuclear bombs worth of enriched uranium, 15 bombs worth in about four or five months. They clearly have the long-range missiles to deliver nuclear warheads. They, in fact, attacked Israel. Kristen mentioned this, but they attacked Israel on April 13th with 321 ballistic missiles and drones. And again, on October 1st, with over 200 ballistic missiles. So they clearly have nuclear warhead carrying missiles.

And also intelligence estimates believe that the Iranians have begun initial weaponization work on developing a warhead, and that could be 12 months or 18 months away from. from completion, or even faster if they have a crash program, and even faster if they're working with Iranian and Russian nuclear warhead scientists. So Chris has told you everything about what's going on in the Middle East, except how to stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Now, the problem, of course, is that in Chris's analysis, the causal connection is backwards. I mean, Hamas attacked Israel on October 7th, a brutal invasion, as we all know. On October 8th, Asbala started firing missiles and drones at Israel, and it fired over 9,000 rockets, missiles, and drones since then.

So Israel is clearly responding defensively against Hamas, defensively against Hezbollah, and defensively against the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the two occasions in which they have fired hundreds of ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones at the Jewish state. So the question is, how do we actually get to the point where Iran does not develop nuclear weapons? Chris Menton, Ukraine. Ukraine is a good example of what happens when. when a brutal dictator has nuclear warheads.

Vladimir Putin has threatened nuclear escalation. He's threatened to introduce tactical nukes into the battle space. And as a result, President Biden has refused to give the Ukrainian military the long-range missiles and weapons systems to strike Russian forces, mobilizing on the Russian-Ukrainian border, providing a level of immunity for those forces.

So this is what happens when a brutal dictator has nuclear weapons. Even if he doesn't use those nuclear weapons, he threatens nuclear escalation. And if he did so, The US would be telling the Israelis after the next God forbid October 7th that they have to stand down and can't respond because of the threat of nuclear escalation. So of course, we have to deal with the problem.

And the problem is that can solve two ways, either through nuclear negotiations and an agreement that permanently cuts off all pathways to nuclear weapons without sunset provisions and restrictions that disappear and hundreds of billions of dollars and sanctions relief for the regime that will fill its coffers and allow to fund its terror armies, or they're have to be military strikes in order to neutralize that expanding nuclear program. I'm not suggesting preemptive strikes against the nuclear program right now, but if the United States and Israeli intelligence communities are able to detect a nuclear breakout or a nuclear sneakout, there is no other choice. But to use military force, they think the Israelis have demonstrated that they have

the capabilities. And with U.S. armaments and U.S. weapons systems and U.S. fighter jets, the United States and Israel together could destroy Iran's nuclear program. Thank you, Mark, for that rebuttal. Okay, Chris, your opportunity for the same. You can react to Mark's opening statement or what you've just heard now. So, I mean, look, let's be clear. I think we agree that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is a bad thing. It's a bad thing, especially for Israel, but also for the United States.

The question is about, you know, the extent of the pressure to take action right now. I mean, there are a growing number of advocates out there. who believe that now is the time to strike, given that Iran's missile defenses have been taken out by this successful Israeli raid of last week. And my first concern about that is that this is actually misleading to conclude that because Iran's missile defenses are down, that there is some kind of a greater pressure to act now than there will be, for example, in a year or that there was a year ago. The reality is that the United States can carry.

out an operation against Iran's nuclear infrastructure, you know, a year from now, two years from now, next week, a year ago, the U.S. has the capability to do this. So the fact that Iran is in a weakened position and not back on its back heels is actually not, should not be driving the decision as to whether or not to go. That decision should be driven by other factors, such as the broader state of the political situation in the region, whether or not you believe that diplomacy has really been exhausted. And also the broader state of the world, from a U.S. perspective, the United States has many commitments in the world and needs to balance these and try to reduce risk across all of them.

And in addition to that, I just want to point out, you know, as in discussions like this, you know, because it's very fundamental to the argument that Mark is making, any kind of an operation against Iran's nuclear infrastructure, would A, be very large. You're talking about multiple waves of, you know, advanced U.S. aircraft, B-2 bombers probably flying with, you know, F-18 escorts or something like that in multiple rounds to really take a dropping large amounts of munitions to take out what is a very sophisticated infrastructure. Even in that scenario, where the United States and Israel cooperate, because obviously Israel is not capable of doing this on their own. But even in that scenario where there's cooperation between the United States

and Israel, an extensive campaign, the reality is it would not eliminate Iran's capability to build a nuclear weapon forever. What it would do is postpone it. We don't know for how long. Some people would say it would postpone it for five years. Some people might say it would postpone it for a bit longer. But the fact that we can almost be certain about is that the day after that, a massive raid against Iran took place, the escalation in this war took place. Iran would be doing everything it could to accelerate its program and move towards ensuring that it does, in fact, have a nuclear capability as soon as possible. And it would be doing this now under circumstances where it's aligned itself much more closely with Russia and with North Korea, both of which have this capability. So my view is that actually the amount of time that you would buy by doing even a large-scale strike right now is actually fairly small.

And in the long run, Israel would be much worse off. There would be absolutely no hope of negotiation. And Iran would enjoy a nuclear weapon with the protection of these new other adversaries of the United States, Russia, North Korea, and to some degree, China. Thank you, Chris. Let me join the conversation now with some thoughts on the minds of our listeners tuning into this excellent debate and come to you first, Mark. And I guess just to build on what Chris was saying there, have we simply left this to, late. Is there an argument, as Chris said, that even if there was a strike, who knows, Iran has already enriched not insignificant stockpiles up to 60 percent, I believe, or more purity of uranium?

Who's to say that those stockpiles haven't been secreted away in different parts of the country, able to be reassembled and furnished into a fissile bomb. So as much as, you know, there might be at 30,000 feet a case to bomb Iran, what's your argument for why we just haven't, for all kinds of bad reasons, left this issue unresolved for too long and it's frankly unsolvable at this point? Well, I want to go back to the resolution here. It's be it resolved, don't stop now, the U.S. should join Israel and take out Iran's nuclear program. So Christopher is either conceded my point, which is that there has to be a plan to stop Iran's nuclear weapon expansion, or he's conceded Iran a nuclear weapon. It'd be interesting to ask Christopher which one it is. Because I am

suggesting that take out could involve military strikes or it could involve building up the kind of negotiating leverage through the credible threat of military pressure that five presidents are promised, massive economic pressure that President Biden and first term President Obama imposed, and a negotiated agreement that actually permanently cuts off all pathways to nuclear weapons. So if Chris agrees with that, that we should take out Iran's nuclear program either through military force or through coercive negotiations, then we're in full agreement. If Chris, on the other hand, concedes Iran a nuclear weapon, then Chris needs to explain how an Iranian nuclear weapon in the hands of a genocidal regime is going to be good for American national security and good for Middle Eastern

stability and good for the United States as we confront the axis of aggressors, which includes China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. On your point on whether we can detect, I mean, I don't think Chris or I know exactly what are the capabilities of the Mossad and the CIA right now. It certainly seems that Mossad and CIA deeply penetrated the Iranian nuclear security and intelligence apparatus. I think we've seen a lot of evidence of that over many years. So it's possible that they can't detect it. It's possible that there is enriched uranium sitting somewhere in some covert facility.

But to the best of the knowledge, at least public knowledge of the intelligence community is right now, they believe they'll be able to detect an Iranian nuclear breakout. And if they can detect that, then it is incumbent as five U.S. presidents have demanded that the United States use all instruments of national power to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, unless Chris wants to tell us all right now the word of five U.S. presidents since Bill Clinton has no credibility and no legitimacy. And therefore, what are the implications for the United States as we confront the broader access of aggressors and defending our allies in the Indo-Pacific and in Europe and in trying to secure American stability and prosperity. Chris, let's have you come in on those points.

I mean, it sounds as though Marcus favorable to negotiations, which I'm glad to hear because that is indeed my position. What I'm arguing is that now is not the time to take action against Iran's nuclear weapons. The risks are simply too high, and there's no reason to do so at this point in time. As Mark laid out, we don't know how long it will be before Iran develops a nuclear weapon, if it indeed decides to do so. There is no certainty that it will,

well, let's put it this way. There are two issues. One is how long would it take Iran to develop a nuclear weapon, to build and construct a nuclear weapon that it could deliver against a target? And there's another question. is, you know, at what point does Iran decide to actually go ahead with building and constructing

a nuclear weapon that it could deliver against a target? So the answer to the first question, analysts have a range of different views. Most of them range, as Mark said, somewhere between several months up to a year or two for Iran to construct a nuclear weapon that it could deliver against a target. And it's true they might actually be able to construct more than just one. They might construct two or three. And that does make a difference. But that, is assuming that they decide to do so today. We don't actually know that that has occurred. So the time range that we are talking about is actually fairly large. We have some room for action, some room for maneuver here. Given the other pressing needs, such as to de-escalate

and find a ceasefire in Lebanon to de-escalate the situation in Gaza and try to bring what, again, I have argued is an escalating war in the Middle East that is really escalating out of control. back under control, it would be a very, very bad idea to take action against Iran's nuclear facilities at this point in time. And that's how I interpret the resolution as it has been stated. If the resolution is about negotiation, then that is a different kind of an argument. Because obviously, I do not want to see Iran get a nuclear weapon. As I said in my opening statements, this would be a bad thing for the United States. It would be a bad thing for the region.

probably lead to a regional nuclear cascade, which would greatly complicate security arrangements in the region. And of course, it would be a bad thing for Israel. Well, Mark, let's dial in a little bit here on the first part of our resolution, which is, be it resolved, don't stop now. The U.S. should join. So I think the intent of this resolution is to say, look, Israel, as you mark in your opening statements laid out, has rendered effectively Iranian air defense is worthless. We will have to wait and see whether there is another Iranian strike on Israel, but that's TBD and nonetheless a not insignificant threat.

So just in the context of this conflict, which is escalating, spreading in different ways, Mark, is it time now to deal with this? Or are you arguing that it may not be time now? I'm just trying to understand your sense of the earth. urgency around dealing with this in the short term. Sanctions, I mean, sound like a great idea. It sounds terrific to go back to the negotiating table. But one, that sounds like something that could take many months, if not years. And second, if we look at the example of North Korea, diplomacy, sanctions, the usual toolkit certainly didn't seem to work in that case. And now the world

is living with a belligerent and increasingly nuclear armed North Korea. Look, I'm really glad we all agree that we need to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I'm glad we all agree that five presidents' credibility is on the line, as is the United States credibility on the line, that we must stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I think we all agree that negotiations could be tried, but if the Iranians break out or sneak out to a nuclear weapon, and if they do that over the coming months, then certainly the United States should use military force along with Israel to honor the commitment of five presidents. to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. For all the reasons that Chris, I think,

eloquently put it, it really is a cascade of horrors that occurs if the Iranians develop tactical nuclear weapons. So certainly, the thing that is very worth emphasizing is that the Office of Director of National Intelligence has recently come out, and for the first time since 2007, in the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, is unable to say today that the Iranians are not taking steps to develop and acquire nuclear weapons. We've seen from public reporting in the Wall Street Journal in Axis, that Iran is engaged in the initial computer modeling work and metal atelagy work designed to actually advance a nuclear warhead.

So what we know now is that the U.S. intelligence and Israeli intelligence assessment of maybe 12 to 18 months, that clock may be ticking as the Iranians have begun initial weaponization work. So I think we all agree that if Iran moves to a warhead and moves to a warhead in a way that will allow it to complete a deliverable nuclear weapon, that the United States and Israel need to stop that. There may not be time for negotiations to stop that if the Iranians begin to move in that direction. And if not, then we need to use military force to stop it. I would say on the question of escalation, Roger, I think it's very important to note that actually the Biden administration,

the Biden-Harris administration have been telling the Israelis not to use force against the Islamic Republic and its axis. And in fact, every time the Israelis have ignored the Biden-Harris administration, they've actually succeeded. They've succeeded against Hamas in destroying

most of Hamas's military capabilities. They succeeded against Hezbollah in severely degrading Hisbalah's capabilities. In fact, not of us are even talking about the retaliatory potency of Hisbalah if the United States and Israel were it actually launched strikes against Iran's nuclear facility. That's been a discussion for 20 years in Washington and around the world. Well, Hezbollah has been effectively neutralized as a severe retaliatory threat.

And with respect to the regime in Iran, Joe Biden said, take the win, and yet the Israelis have struck twice and essentially neutralized strategic air defenses and really, I think fundamentally reshape the assumptions in Washington for military planners that a U.S. Israel coordinated strike would be possible. Now, how long do we have? Well, estimates are that it'll take a couple years for the Iranians to rebuild and reacquire their strategic air defenses. And so again, it's not necessary to go today. It may not be necessary to go in the lame doc unless Ali Khamenei decides the lame doc period is exactly the period that he needs in order to create the kind of leverage for the next administration. And if he breaks out or sneaks out to a nuclear

weapon, negotiations are not possible. Five U.S. presidents have their reputation on the line. The United States has its credibility on the line. United States and Israel should join together to stop the cascade of horrors that Christopher has so eloquently described. So Christopher, let's hear you on this because I think Mark is making an argument here, which has resonated certainly around the world of the last couple of months as Israel has moved not only, as he said, to serially degrade Hamas, but make unprecedented progress against Hezbollah reports that it may have neutralized upwards of 80% of Hezbollah's rocket arsenal. To what extent are people needlessly catastrophizing a strike on Iran?

Who's to say that Iran isn't similarly in the ways that Hamas and Hezbollah turned out to be paper tiger? equally ill-equipped to deal with the combined military sophistication and might of Israel and the United States. And why isn't this an opportunity once and for all to deal with this problem and to understand that the fallout may not be as bad as people have long assumed? It's obviously there's a lot of different complexities in that question, which is really central. But I'll just say to start with, my view is that. that, yes, Israel has made significant progress in dismantling Hezbollah and also dealing a blow to Hamas. We don't know exactly how much progress is made in destroying Hezbollah's missile arsenal,

but, you know, we can assume that it's pretty significant. But my strategy would be to take that progress and cash it in right now in the form of a ceasefire that deescalates this war and brings some hope of stability to the region. I mean, it is the very fact that Israel has made these advances that has opened the possibility towards a real ceasefire, both with Lebanon and in Gaza. And that's where I would be focusing my energy right now if I were the Israelis and the U.S. government. It's not clear to me that that's where the Netanyahu government is right now.

But I think this would be, this for me is the most important strategy. I think it's a mistake to assume that just because Israel has been fairly successful in eliminating Hamas and Hezbollah, that it would have the same success with Iran, which is a large nation-state actor with a lot more capability and a lot more international support than either of those two other actors. So now is the time for restraint. It's the time, again, to cash in the gains that have been made. and not engaged in some kind of a risky operation that could lead to a much, much larger conflagration or even a complete breakdown of order across the whole country of Iran, which would open up a Pandora's box of woes for the whole region and probably for the world. I would add, by the way, Richard, it's worth noting Christopher has been calling for this for 12 months.

He's been calling for restraint. He's been calling for ceasefires. It's a view that has been also the view of many people in the Biden-Harris administration, in European capitals and around the world. It's precisely because Israel has ignored the calls by Christopher and others for, quote, restraint and ceasefires, that it is actually able to deal the blows that it has against the enemies not only of Israel, but of the United States, right? Israel has ignored these calls for ceasefire and restraint. And what it's done, actually, is it's taken the fight to the enemy.

it's presented a really incredible opportunity. I think Christopher's right. I mean, I do think there's an opportunity at this point. I think the Israeli government is considering this to convert their military leverage into political gains. And we'll see what ensues over the coming weeks with respect to both Gaza and Lebanon. But it's precisely because Israel has ignored Christopher and ignored the Biden administration's repeated calls for ceasefires that it was able to actually do such damage to Hisbalah and

Hamas and actually demonstrate to the Iranians and to the world that maybe the regime, as you say, Richard, is not, you know, 10 feet tall. I'm not sure it's a paper tiger, but I think it's certainly not the formidable enemy that many people have assumed. So the real question now is the way forward. And my major point here is that if Iran, if the Supreme Leader decides to break out or sneak out to nuclear weapons, and the U.S. and Israeli intelligence, communities detect that. I think Christopher and I both agree that the United States should join Israel in using military force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Now, if on the other hand, that military leverage that the Israelis have built by ignoring Christopher and ignoring the Biden

administration can be converted into coercive negotiations with the Islamic Republic for a nuclear agreement that unlike the 2015 deal permanently cuts off all pathways to nuclear weapons, then of course we can come up with a peaceful resolution to an agreement and an objective of stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I mean, let me just say because I think there's a very important element that is being left out here, which is that, yes, it's true that Israel has scored military victories, especially against Hezbollah, and also against Hamas with the assassination of Sinwar in particular. But look, these have come at extraordinary costs. and it's just wrong to ignore that

because these are not only costs that are measured in terms of the humanitarian costs that the Palestinians have been suffering, now the humanitarian costs that the people of Lebanon are suffering from various different parts of Lebanon. There are also costs in terms of Israel's international reputation, which is now in Tatters, let's be honest about it,

on account of this campaign. And the United States has, unfortunately, despite its efforts to restrain Netanyahu, yes, and it's true, I would have gone further even than the Biden administration has in trying to get the Netanyahu government to restrain its military. What would you have done? Mark, let me finish. What would you have done? I'm interested to know how you would have gone further. Would you have cut off arms sales to Israel? Is that something that you've been recommending? Going back to what I was saying, there were extraordinary costs that have been incurred over the course of the last year in terms of the campaign that the Netanyahu government

has carried out. And they've also been costs for the United States. And the fact of your Australian-Nanyahu. I mean, you're criticizing President Biden for not having gone far enough to stop Prime Minister Netanyahu and the IDF from doing serious damage to Islamic Republic and its proxies. You said you would have gone further. You would have cut off arms sales to Israel? Is that what you're advocating? Can I finish the point that I? Can I finish the point that I was making. Well, I mean, let's have a conversation here. I think that's what's being encouraged.

I mean, you've talked about the damage humanitarian, no doubt. You didn't talk about the humanitarian damage to Israel, clearly thousands of Israelis who've been killed and made by the terror armies of the Islamic Republic. But I want to ask you a serious question because I think it's important for American credibility. Would you have cut off or significantly reduced arms sales to Israel in order to force Nat Netanyahu to not have gone into Rafah, which ultimately helped Israel, kill Sinwar, not to have taken the fight to Hisbalah after 9,000 rockets, which ultimately led to the killing of the entire Radwan leadership, and not have taken the fight to the Islamic

Republic after over 500 missiles, drones, and other projectiles had been fired at Israel. Is that what you have done? You would have cut off arms sales? I think there have been moments over the course of the last year when the United States should have leaned in further in terms of threatening to reduce U.S. support of certain types of offensive weapons to Israel. Yes, I would have done that. I'm not talking about all weapons. We provide Israel with billions of dollars of weapons every year. Obviously, defensive weapons are not something that should have been on the table. But yeah, I think there were moments in which the Netanyahu government should have exercised greater restraint and that the fact that it has not done so

has not been good for U.S. interests. I mean, the reality is, is that the United States and Israel share many common interests, but their interests are not identical. Israel is in a position where it has to take on greater risk than the United States does. America has global commitments. Its major interests are increasingly in East Asia, no longer in the Middle East. It has a hot war in Europe that it has to deal with, and it simply cannot afford to take on the same amount of risk

that Benjamin Netanyahu has taken on in this campaign. So, yes, we would differ. So you talk about our global commitments to allies, and obviously our credibility with respect to adversaries. You talk about a hot war in Ukraine where we're supporting the Ukrainians against the Russians. You're obviously very concerned as I am about Taiwan and the Chinese Communist Party taking over and invading Taiwan. And yet you're saying here in this debate, right, that you would actually support cutting off arms to an ally that has been attacked viciously by an American enemy that is building nuclear weapons and that

arms terror armies. And you think the credibility is enough. So now I'm going to interrupt you because I need to have a chance to make my points. You think the credibility of the United States. I mean, this is getting a little. Let's not be hard by cutting on arms sales for our allies. We're getting diverted into a completely different conversation here that, you know, is not even part of the resolution. But Chris, let me just give you a, because we're going to move to closing statements, but let me just give you an opportunity to react to Mark's key point there about the seeming at times. incongruency in terms of how the United States looks at one conflict and one ally, Ukraine, versus, let's say, Israel.

And how that plays into our discussion about Iran and its nuclear program. Our commitments to some allies do at times seem to exceed some of the limits or conditions that at least this administration, the Biden-Harris administration, has chosen to put on the conflict in Gaza. and now potentially a conflict with Iran. But Chris is an isolation. Hold on, Mark.

Let's see. Come on. This is not great. This is not great. Let's see this is no longer. Chris have his word here. Go ahead, Chris. So look, good strategy focuses on U.S. interests.

And the reality is that the intensity of U.S. interests differs from one region to another. That's natural. Right now, America's vital interests are much more centered on events in East Asia than they are on events in Europe, and they're much more centered on events in Europe than they are on events in the Middle East. And that's just a reality of broad trends that have taken place over the course of the last 20 years. So the United States is naturally going to offer different levels of support to different allies and partners around the world. And the idea that the level of support that it offers to one has to be exactly the same as the level of support that it offers to another,

or otherwise its credibility will be shot, is completely baloney. Anyone who studied any international relations knows that this is not how adversaries make decisions. They don't look at what the United States did in Israel or what the United States did in Europe in order to judge whether or not they ought to, for example, conducted operation against Taiwan.

There are many, many factors that come into decisions that affect deterrence. And U.S. commitments to its allies in other regions is a very, very minor one at back. So there's a whole set of arguments that we could get into there. But the fundamental premise of what Mark appears to be implying is faulty. And I think if you asked anyone who seriously studied this, they would say that it is very, very, very superficial. And finally, to be clear, I am not saying that the United States should cut off military assistance to Israel.

The United States provides a large range of different types of military assistance to Israel, most of which, are, many of which at least are defensive and ought to continue. What I am saying is that certain points in this conflict, the Biden administration ought to have gone further, really for its own credibility with its allies, and imposed a larger cost on the Netanyahu government. This does not involve cutting off all American weapons or support for Israel, just to be very, very clear. I think it's simplistic and frankly simple-minded of Mark to portray it as such. If you're enjoying the Monk Debates podcast, come over to our website at triple W monkdebates.com. That's MUNK Debates with an S.com and check out our free monk membership. As a complimentary monk member, you get all

kinds of great perks and benefits, access to our weekly email, summarizing our best debates, and ticketing privileges at our main stage debates, special news information, and offers all courtesy of the monk debates. You can grab your complimentary monk membership again right now at triple w monk debates.com. Simply look to the top navigation on the website and follow the links. Thanks in advance for joining our community. You've been listening to our debate today. It's been a lively one. Be it resolved, don't stop now. The U.S. should join Israel and take out Iran's nuclear program. Let's go to closing statements. Give you both an opportunity to kind of wrap up for the audience. What are the key

points, the key objections that you'd like to take with each other's arguments and we'll bring this terrific debate home. So, Mark, you're up first. Well, I think Christopher, I clearly, we disagree on a lot. I clearly wasn't in the same international relations class that he was in. And we can certainly go back and re-examine that. But let's get to the central point. He and I are absolutely an agreement that Iran cannot acquire nuclear weapons. Christopher has done a very good job of explaining the cascade of horrors that would ensue if Iran did acquire nuclear weapons. Christopher are both in agreement that it is worth actually using instruments of American national power, coercive power and coercive negotiations in order to stop Iran from developing nuclear

weapons. And we also are in agreement. I think Christopher is an agreement that five U.S. presidents have committed to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons. And it matters for U.S. credibility that we honor those commitments. And adversaries and allies are indeed looking around the world to see whether we support our allies and whether we actually honor our commitments to stop our adversaries. So the question really at the root of this is when should those military strikes take place if Iran decides to break out or sneak out to a nuclear weapon? I think we both agree that if the U.S. and Israeli intelligence community detects a breakout to nuclear weapons and coercive diplomacy will not work and sanctions will not work and we've exhausted all diplomatic

options that the United States should join Israel and using military force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If Christopher doesn't agree with that, then Christopher is conceding a nuclear weapon to Iran. And if he's conceding a nuclear weapon to Iran, his argument actually contains an inherent contradiction. He acknowledges the cascade of horrors that will ensue, but then he's not willing to actually use military force to stop that cascade of horrors. So one has to ask Christopher, for which is it? Yeah, I mean, as I've made clear, that that's not my position. So that's the second or third time that you've, that I've had to correct you on that.

But in any event, I mean, let's go back to the resolution here. This is, after all, a debate. And I'm going to read it. It says, be it resolved. Don't stop now. The U.S. should join Israel and take out Iran's nuclear program. What that clearly implies is that now the United States and Iran ought to act in order to take out the United States and Israel ought to act in order to take out Iran's nuclear program.

It sounds just, though, Mark, you actually are against this resolution because you have made the point that now is not the time. You favor negotiations, as I understand you, with Lebanon. You favor negotiations to bring about some kind of a ceasefire in Gaza, and you are willing to wait potentially as long as a year or more in order to take military action. So it sounds to me a lot like you're actually arguing against the resolution, which makes my job a lot easier, because I obviously think it would be a terrible idea for all of the reasons that I've stated to take action against the Iran's nuclear program now. This doesn't mean that we should absolutely never take action against military action

against the Iran's nuclear program. It simply means that at the position that we're in right now, the risks and costs far outweigh the benefits. Okay, so we've reached a consensus view in this debate, because certainly I don't think the month debates thought that now, meaning today, the United States and Israel should bomb Iran's nuclear program. I don't think any of the thing about you things now is today. I think we've reached a consensus view that if actually U.S. and Israeli intelligence detects in the coming days, months or year that Iran is breaking out to a nuclear weapon,

then you and I agree the United States should join Israel and using nuclear force to stop that. Now, of course, in the interregnum, if there's chances for negotiations, if the Iranians are prepared to come to the table and give up their entire nuclear program and reach a compromise that stops Iran permanently from developing nuclear weapons. I think you and I would agree that would be a better option than military force. But I'm glad we've reached consensus. Nobody's bombing Iran's nuclear programs today. I think we're all going to have a relatively peaceful weekend.

But if there's any sign of an Iranian nuclear breakout or sneak out and then negotiations cannot work in the next coming months, I think, Christopher, it sounds like you and I agree in order to stop that cascade of horrors that would ensue from an Iranian nuclear weapons breakout and the Ayatollah of Iran, a genocidal dictator, having nuclear weapons, we would do everything possible to honor the commitments of five U.S. presidents to stop that. Sounds like that's a consensus view. And, you know, let's hope we don't have to get to the point of military strikes, but let's hope to God we don't get to the point of an Iranian nuclear weapon.

Chris, let me give you the last word if you just want to indicate because it's always interesting here at the Monk debates. In some ways, the best debates are the ones that can end on a point of conciliation. Do you agree with Mark's contention here? Or do you want to modify your view? This is your opportunity to conclude this debate for us. Well, again, I mean, I think Mark is arguing against the resolution, which effectively means that we do agree, at least in part, that now is, is not the time for military action, but that military action shouldn't be ruled out entirely. I think that we have a range of disagreements about what the timing might look like. But in any event, it sounds as though we all agree that the best path here is to de-escalation

and negotiation, which is what I think. Gentlemen, thank you so much. Look, this is a high-stakes conversation, and we certainly had some debate today. I expected that, but you've both approached this with civility and substance. And maybe, as you say, we've ended the debate with a sense of a path forward, maybe not shared all the steps together along the way. But let's hope it meanders to a place that promotes greater peace and security in the region and ultimately does, however, through negotiation or military action, prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb. So thank you, gentlemen, for coming on the program today.

And we will, no doubt, revisit this conversation in the months and years to come. Thanks for having us. And great chatting with you, Chris. Pleasure to meet you both. Well, that wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Mark and Chris. They've certainly given us a lot to think about. A reminder that you can vote on who you think won this debate.

Go to our website right now, triple-w monkdebates.com. to become a free member and cast your vote pro or con our resolution today. If you have feedback or reflections on what you've just heard on this or any of our other debates, please send us an email to podcast at monkdebates.com. Thank you for helping us bring back the art of public debate and dialogue one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffith. The Monk debates are a project of the Aurea and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundations. Rudyard Griffiths and Ricky Gerwitz are the producers.

Be sure to download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. And if you like us, feel free to give us a five-star rating. Thank you again for listening.