The Munk Debates Podcast - Be it Resolved, Israel should take out Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Episode Date: April 30, 2024

Iran’s missile and drone barrage at Israel earlier this month was the most brazen attack the Islamic Republic has ever conducted against the Jewish state. While Israel did respond with a limited strike, some say Israel should go further and destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Islamic Republic doesn’t have nuclear weapons, but it has the material and know-how to put some together in a matter of weeks. But attacking Iran’s nuclear installations comes with enormous risks: It would likely result in significant military retaliation by the Iranian government – something that could lead to a wider regional war that could draw in Israel’s allies in the west. Arguing in favour of the resolution is Gadi Taub. He’s an Israeli historian, author, political commentator, and co-host of the popular Tablet Magazine podcast, Israel Update. Arguing against the resolution is Trita Parsi. He’s the executive vice-president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.    SOURCES: Al Jazeera English, Times Radio, BBC News The host of the Munk Debates is Rudyard Griffiths. Tweet your comments about this episode to @munkdebate or comment on our Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/munkdebates/ To sign up for a weekly email reminder for this podcast, send an email to [e-mail].   To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 15+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, newsletter 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/   Executive Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Senior Producer: Daniel Kitts Editor: Kieran LynchBecome 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.

You don't help the poor by making everybody poorer. The media has a frame, and the frame is Israel is the oppressor, and the Palestinians are the oppressed. I shouldn't be forced to acknowledge my privilege unless I desire for that to be part of my interaction with somebody else. What I know to be true and what all of my fellow Gen Z know to be true is that this is the most talented generation yet. With respect to every indicia of disadvantage, there is still a racial higher. And though I am, of course, an Anglo. I'm certainly not a Fri-Saxon. 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 is to arm you, the listener, with enough information to make up your own mind. Today's debate, be it resolved, Israel should take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Explosions lit up Israel's night sky as interceptors took down dozens upon dozens

of Iranian-launched drones. Iran's missile and drone barrage at Israel earlier this month was one of the most brazen attacks the Islamic Republic has ever conducted against the Jewish state. While Israel did respond with a limited strike, some say Israel should go further and destroy or significantly degrade all of Iran's nuclear facilities. The Islamic Republic doesn't have a nuclear weapon as far as we know, but it certainly has the material and know-how to put together a functioning bomb in a matter of weeks. That's according to former U.S. National Security Advisor, John Bolton.

Well, I think Iran could be a nuclear threat within about 72 hours if it simply wires the appropriate amount of purchase money to the Central Bank of North Korea and Pyongyang and get a couple warheads loaded on transports that would fly across China and deliver them to Iran. But attacking Iran's nuclear installations comes with enormous risks. It would likely result in a significant retaliation by the Iranian government against Israel, something that could lead to a wider regional war drawing in the United States. U.S. officials such as Secretary Anthony Blanken are urging caution. We're committed to Israel security.

We're also committed to de-escalating, to trying to bring this tension to a tension to a close. On this installment of the Monk Debates podcast, we challenge the essence of these arguments by debating the motion, be it resolved, Israel should take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Arguing in favor of the motion is Gaddi Talb. He's an Israeli historian, author, political commentator, and co-host to the popular tablet magazine podcast, Israel Update. Arguing against the resolution is Trita Parsi.

He's executive director of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. in Washington, D.C. Gatti, Trita, welcome to the Mug Debates. Thank you. Thanks for having me. Terrific debate on deck for today. Our motion, be it resolved, Israel should take out Iran's nuclear facilities. Gadi, you're arguing in favor the motion. So as per debate convention, you're going to open our program with your opening statements. Get us underway. Sure. Iran is a highly ideological, clerical regime. think we should take their ideology seriously. They are bent on erasing Israel off the map of the

Earth. And so Israel can't afford to have such a regime married to a nuclear weapon. It has to take its nuclear program out. That said, I don't believe the chances are very large that Iran will actually use the bomb, as they often say, that Israel is a one-state, a one-bomb state. I don't believe they'll actually use the bomb to eradicate Israel, but they will create a deterrence umbrella over what seems to be their favorite strategy, which is to a war of attrition through proxies surrounding Israel. And that is enough to justify Israel taking out by force Iran's nuclear program. Two short points to add to that. One is that the minute Iran has a nuclear bomb that would trigger a nuclear's arm race all over the region. Probably Saudis will be the first to buy a bomb,

but the world can't afford to have the whole Middle East, the most volatile region armed with nuclear weapons. And thirdly, Iran is not a normal state of the terror sponsor sponsoring regime, and letting it have the bomb would be a peril to world order. So I think that the world should unite with Israel in taking out that program by force and conveying a very strong message that terror sponsors cannot have nuclear weapons. Thank you, Gadi, for that opening statement. Concise and to the point, Trita, your opportunity now to weigh in on our motion. You're arguing against the resolution today, be it resolved, Israel should take out Iran's

nuclear facilities. Let's hear your opening statement. Thank you so much and thank you for having me. there's a premise with this motion that is problematic. It assumes that Israel has the capacity to take out the nuclear program of Iran militarily. It does not. And this has been a key problem from the outset, that it's pushing for an approach to the nuclear program that simply will not work. And what's also problematic, of course, is that we actually had an approach that was working.

There was a nuclear deal negotiated by the United States, European allies, Russia, China, and Iran. Iran, that was in place and that was working. The IEA had certified 14 times that the Iranians were actually living up to the agreement. Even the Trump State Department certified it twice that the Iranians were living up to the agreement and as a result were kept away from a nuclear weapon. The very same goal that Gaddi said that he supports. The crisis we have today is a direct result of the Israeli Prime Minister pushing the Trump administration to walk out of the deal.

a deal that was working. For years, he advocated for taking military action against Iran. He opposed diplomacy that led to the nuclear deal, and then later on took credit for Trump having pulled out of this agreement and creating the disaster that we have right now. When the agreement was in place, Iran was kept a minimum of one year away from having a breakout capability. That's the amount of time it would take the Iranians to make a political decision, to build the nuclear weapon to having the material for a nuclear weapon, a full year.

As a result of Netanyahu convincing Trump to pull out of the agreement, Iran's breakout capability is today assessed to be no more than a week. That's 51 weeks that have been lost. They were having less than 300 kilos of low-enrich uranium, as long as the deal was in place, far less than what you need for a nuclear weapon. They had zero stockpile of 20% enriched uranium. And they hadn't even begun 60% in rich uranium. You need about 90% to build a weapon. Today, as a result of Netanyahu convincing Trump to pull out of the deal, Iran has several thousand kilos of low and rich uranium. They have a stockpile of 20% uranium as well as 60% uranium. They are closer to a nuclear weapon they ever have been as a result of Netanyahu

pushing for a military solution that doesn't work and pulling out of a nuclear deal. that actually did work. So for Israel at this point, having been the arsonist in this equation to present itself, particularly the Netanyahu government, as the fireman is beyond preposterous, the only thing this would lead to, the three key things this would lead to if we were to go down this disastrous path, is that Iran would pull out of the nonproliferation treaty, push its nuclear program underground, and build a nuclear weapon. It's almost guaranteed that they will have a nuclear weapon if military strikes are taken. Secondly, the United States will be dragged into yet another disastrous war in the region that will weaken it vis-a-vis China

just as the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan did. And last but not least, the struggle of the Iranian people for democracy and freedom will be further set back as the regime will become even more radical and even more repressive internally, as has been the case when we have the tensions between Yvonne and the outside world increase. So it's important to understand that this is no longer a theoretical proposal. We have practical experience with what it means when the United States pulls out of this nuclear deal, moves towards a military solution or option per the request of the Israeli government. The track record is absolutely clear. And as a result, I argue that this motion should fall. Treeta, thank you for another excellent opening statement.

now go to rebuttals, an opportunity for you both to react to what you've just heard. Gatti, you're up first. Well, we can debate the past. I disagree with Trita about the past and the wisdom of pulling out the JCPOA, which did not limit Iran's capability for creating a nuclear weapon. Obama himself once said that Iran will be weeks away from breaking out to a bomb by 2028. These with the high days of the JCPOA, we also know that the Trump strategy worked very well because the beginning of enrichment of uranium accelerated the minute Biden became president

and also loosened the sanctions and everything else. But debating the past is one thing. I think Trita and I both agree that we are now one week away from a large enough stockpile of enriched uranium to create a weapon. In fact, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Director Grossi, said just a few days back that Iran is weeks away from such a capability. So we have to deal with the present. We can argue about the past theoretically historians can, but we are now weeks away from Iran having a large enough stockwild to create a nuclear weapon.

and Iran is a disruptive force all over the region. This is a very dangerous regime. This is not a normal state that we can make deals with. It undermines the sovereignty of all its surroundings. It created proxy forces all around. And letting it have a nuclear device is a danger to world peace. Just before we started recording, there was a resolution by the European Parliament. calling for snapback of all the sanctions.

Regrettably, that's too little too late. If I can have my own take of the past, if Trump was reelected, whatever the other repercussions might have been, and continued the maximum pressure, we would not be in this dangerous position that we are now because the Trump administration thought that the way to treat a rogue regime is deterrence, not coddling, which is what this administration is done.

doing and which alarmed even the European Parliament. So I think clearly the record shows that it's too late now. And when it's too late, you can only take strong measures. And I think the international community should support an Israeli attack on the nuclear facilities. Whether we can do it or not, I'm sorry that I'm not a real expert on all the military detail. My own country has surprised me many times with what it can do. And furthermore, it doesn't tell us Israeli citizens what it can and cannot do. I don't know if you know. But when we talk about Israeli nuclear capabilities, we always say according to the foreign press, because Israel has never confirmed that it has nuclear weapons. And lastly, the Iranians have now threatened to use nuclear weapons.

they have said that if Israel attacks them, they will, quote, reconsider the nuclear policy. Clearly, everyone in the region understand what this means. Thank you, Gadi for that rebuttal. Okay, Trita, your opportunity to react to Gadi's opening statement or what you've just heard now. Thank you so much. If I was in Gadi's shoes, I would also argue that we should not look at the history of this, because the history of this has been disastrous for him. argument. Reality is, again, we are in this situation because we unfortunately pursued the very

arguments and strategy that he has been advocating. When it comes to what Biden did versus what Trump did, or in terms of the last thing that Gadda said, I thought was very interesting, he is quite right. The Iranians have made a threat, not to use nuclear weapons, but to reconsider their nuclear posture if Israel attacked. Well, whether that's the tell us. It tells us that right now, according to Israeli intelligence, U.S. intelligence, EU intelligence, and the IEA, the Iranians do not have a nuclear weapons program. They have a nuclear program that brings them far too close to being able to have a nuclear weapons program, much closer than it would if the JCPA had been in place, because then would have been kept

quite a bit away from that line. But they will reconsider it if Israel attacks. So right there, you have the logic. If Israel attacks with or without the rest of the world, the Iranians will reconsider their posture and they will move their nuclear program underground. Israel does not have the capability of destroying the program, not even the United States most likely has that capability. And as a result, the very line, the very approach that has been advocated by this motion is the one that actually will guarantee that the Iranians will get a nuclear weapon. That has been the track record of the past 20 years. That will be the track record of the next 20 years, which is precisely why we have to return

to a negotiated settlement that makes sure that the Iranians are as far away from a nuclear threshold as possible without incurring the disaster of war in the region. The region is already tired of war. It's seeing what's happening in Gaza. The idea that we should expand that in the name of creating peace, is beyond preposterous in my view. Thank you, Trita, for that rebuttal. Let me join the conversation now with some questions

that would be top of mind for our listeners. And Gaddy, let me come to you first, not to get too mired in history, but I think it is an important precedent that the international community has been unable, so I might say unwilling, to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by a variety of different powers.

We can go through the list, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Korea, why is this time different? Why do you think that there would be an ability to remove, or at least significantly degrade the Iranian nuclear threat through the use of force? Let's hear that argument. Yeah, well, first of all, I'm arguing for Israel, and this is the first time that it puts us in real existential danger.

So arguing about our capabilities would not be a very informed conversation. here, but might I say that Israel, if pushed to the brink of existential danger, can cause great havoc in this region. And, you know, this administration has been trying to avoid escalation of tensions in this area by appeasing the bullies, and this has not worked. Their aim was to prevent any American United States being dragged into a conflict here, but they're almost inviting a conflict here by trying to appease Iran. and look at what's happening across the region. It's lit everywhere.

Iran's proxies are wreaking havoc everywhere. So a regional war is actually imminent. Secondly, Iran is not that strong. It is very, very smart. It's a very sly, very ideological regime. It completely lacks any moral scruples. We know that I can rephrase Trita's statement, half of which I agree with.

But if you just change the tone, realize what they are. This is the mobster telling you that, look, you have a very flammable structure, and maybe it's not a good idea to aggravate the mobsters because, you know, they're preventing the fire from erupting. This is Iran. This is what it's doing all over the region. And I talk to a strategist in the United States in the aftermath of October 7, and I asked, what would you have done? what the United States actually did was prevent a joint declaration saying that Iran is behind October 7. And what this guy told me is that if he were to make the decision, the next day the Iranian fleet would have been sunk. Because what we know is that after the United States took out Qasem Soleimani, the Iranians were after that very careful.

So I guess I can explain the difference of worldview between Trida and the Quincy Institute and my own, my own view of the Middle East is that appeasing bullies does not work. This is what the administration has been trying to do, and it's been creating havoc all over the neighborhood. What it did from the minute the Biden administration came in was to loosen the sanctions and release about $100 billion to Iran to finance its proxies. I'll have just one short sentence about history. The J-Saintain. The JCPOA was never intended to prevent a nuclear weapon from Iran. It was supposed to give a cover for its allegedly civil nuclear program, and it forbade inspectors from coming into Fordo and other places where it was cheating the international community. But remember, it had sunset clauses.

By the end of this decade, Iran can have a nuclear and military nuclear program approved. by the Security Council. That is the best that this murderous terror sponsoring regime could ever hope for. And the Obama administration gave it to. If you listened to Obama's Cairo speech, you would have realized that appeasement was the approach all along and not prevention and not containment and certainly not preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Thank you, Gadi.

Okay, Trude, let me come to you. Now, again, just refocus us around our resolution. This is about Israel taking out Iran's nuclear facilities. Are you sympathetic to the reality that Iran has created a pretty unique security dilemma for Israel? It is surrounded Israel with proxies that are attacking it from Lebanon, from the West Bank, the horrific attacks of October 7th from Gaza. Why isn't Gaddi right that even the threat of an imminently nuclear? Iran creates a new level of deterrence against the scope of Israeli actions against imminent threats

to Israeli security on behalf of these proxies. My point is, aren't the proxies the fly in the ointment of an argument to say that Israel should not take out Iran's facilities? Because Iran is at war against Israel right now. It is maiming, killing, and murdering Israelis. How can Israel legitimately, realistically tolerate a nuclear Iran? There's a lot packed in your question that I would have to unpack, but let me get to the last part of the point. It is precisely because a nuclear weapon in the hands of Iran being bad, not just for Israel, but for the region as a whole and for the state of non-proliferation, that we need to prevent a nuclear weapon in Iran. However, military action by Israel will do the opposite.

This is not a theoretical assessment. We have the track record of seeing what has pushed back Iran's nuclear program and what has not. The only time the Iranians gave up 98% of the low-enrich uranium accepted inspections beyond anything that has ever been negotiated is through the nuclear deal. But when we pull that of the nuclear deal, or when there's been talk about military action, then we have seen the nuclear program accelerating. The premise of your question seems to assume

that military action will work and everything else will not work. That is completely divorced from reality. Reality has shown that the nuclear deal was working, and there's absolutely zero evidence and the assessment of the U.S. military itself, that a military strike against Iran by the Israelis will not take out the nuclear program. It will give them the excuse to be able to invoke Article 10 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would have them exit the treaty.

Their program would go underground. The eyes and ears of the IAEA and the international community would be lost, and as a result, we would end up with Iran having a nuclear weapon. Don't take it from me. Take it from the former head of the IAEAEA. Both El Baraday as well as Hans Flix, the former Swedish foreign minister, who was also the head of the IAEA, have said, the only thing that bombing Iran would guarantee is that Iran would end up with a nuclear weapon. So precisely for the reason that you just mentioned, that it would not be good for Israel or for the region as a whole,

we cannot go down the military path because the military path will ensure a nuclear Iran rather than preventing it. What has prevented it so far and has been successful, has been the diplomacy that, unfortunately, the Israelis, through the work of Netanyahu, according to himself, have sabotaged. Gadda, wanted you weigh in on those points? I'm beginning to realize that Trita's argument relies on the idea that if we do nothing now, the Iranians will not get a bomb. That seems to me counter-true. Is that an expression in English?

I guess not. We just had the warning from the International Atomic Agency Director General, who said they are weeks away from a bomb. We would prevent them from having a bomb by not attacking them. No. Stryda, no, no, please, please. Explain this, because that seems to explain it. What the head of the IEA is arguing is certainly not taking military action. He's arguing that we should get back into a nuclear deal that did prevent the Iranians from being able to advance

towards a nuclear weapon. So you're pointing to the first part of what he's saying, but there's absolutely no second part by him or any previous IAEA director that says that the solution to this is nuclear weapon. So what I'm arguing is exactly what the director is arguing for us to get back into a nuclear deal that actually does prevent a nuclear weapon in Tehran. No, no, it's not because the International Atomic Energy Agency has never certified the Iranian program as civil. And there are many. open questions, which Iran still refuses to answer. And may I remind you that the European Parliament voted for a motion to snap back the sanctions. That is, these people, unlike you, believe that

Iran is striving for a bomb no matter what. Your idea that Iran now in war with Israel would not want a bomb seems to me very strange and not exactly in stride with what I know about this, this murderous imperialistic regime. And so what you are arguing basically is a Chamberlien argument. Let's just appease Hitler. And then he would not be so angry. And then he would not get weapons of mass destruction. And then he would not destroy Europe.

You know, there's a very funny headline in the formerly funny newspaper called The Onion, where it said, Hitler's destruction of Europe, a desperate cry for help. This is how we are treating Iran. These people in this American administration, and what you're recommending is to hug the bully. I don't know of a single case where mob activity was stopped by police hugs. We are now on the brink of Iran having a nuclear weapon. It is clearly their plan to become a hegemonic regional power. They have been striving for this all along.

This is why they have been cheating the international community all along. As you know, Israel stole the whole archive and showed that Iran is hiding a military nuclear program. And you're saying now that the way we are at the precipice, the way to stop at the percipus is not to touch these angry people because it will make them angrier. No, there has never been a case that I know of that an ideological, murderous terror-sponsoring clerical regime has been stopped by a Western hug. This seems to be clearly off the mark as a policy. Given that we both want to stop Iran from having a weapon, I suggest, Trita, we stop closing our eyes to the inconvenient parts of the record, which were Iran has always strivening for

a bomb since Biden got elected. It increased its enrichment program. And we should stop it. Of course, is the only option remaining. Trudet, let's hear you a little bit on, you know, a hypothetical future where Iran has either broken out or, as we know, is very close to breaking out and therefore has a threat that Gatti would characterize as existential vis-a-vis Israel. Were you surprised by the scale and scope of the attack the weekend before last on Israel

in terms of its size, its sophistication, the risk that Iran ran in terms of a significant Israeli counterstrike and reaction. Does all that suggest to you, Trita, maybe a concern here that the kind of rational actor frame that we often apply to imminent or actual nuclear powers may not apply to Iran? So another question with a very interesting premise in terms of who the rational actor is in all of this in the midst of what the International Criminal Court of Justice is investigating Israel engaging in potential genocide. But let me first address what Gariz said. The reason we are at this precipice is because of the disastrous policies of Israel in destroying a nuclear deal that actually was working, that had this support. of the entire world minus Israel, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, had a 15 to zero vote in favor in the

Security Council that had the support of the IEA, the full endorsement of it. It was a functioning deal that did prevent. Godi is presenting the argument for diplomacy and a deal as if that is doing nothing. That is actually doing the prevention that Israel not only has failed to do, but has sabotage to do. Goes back to the arsonist now suddenly trying to play the role of a fireman. We are here in this crisis because of the policies of Israel, destroying a deal that worked and putting the entire world at risk to listen to their logic, to their argument, and then saying, oh, we're at a precipice now. We have to take military action. We're at a precipice because you desired us to be at this precipice. Because Israel has been trying for more than 20 years to drag the United

States into a war with Iran for its own purposes. That has far less to do with the nuclear weapons than it has to do with anything in terms of geopolitics and the balance in the region. In regards to what happened when Israel initiated this latest crisis by striking the consular section of the Iranian embassy in Damascus, to the surprise of the United States, which was not even notified of it until last minute, infuriating the Pentagon. And it, further validating the fears in the U.S. administration right now that Israel is trying to drag the United States into a broader war in the region. The Iranian response was quite an interesting one, and I think that the Israeli defense analysts are probably regretting the strike against

the embassy, because what it ended up doing is that the Iranians took action using both cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and drones. They gave the Israelis more than 72 hours heads up, which then enabled the United States, France, the UK, and Jordan to also help make sure that these projectiles were shot down. But despite all of that, despite the fact that they got 72 hours heads up, despite the fact that the United States was involved, which actually shot down most of these different missiles,

the Iranian still managed to get through nine ballistic missiles that hit two of Israel's military bases. What that tells you is that all of these different efforts to use maximum pressure sanctions in order to prevent the Iranians from having that capability has failed. They actually had the capacity. They showed that the aura of invulnerability that Israel had joined was now shattered. This is clearly to the detriment of Israel. Now, of course, Israel would not want to accept that there's been new red lines drawn in front of it.

So it wanted to take action, but the pressure from the Biden administration appears to have led to a situation in which it did take action, not at a scale that some Israeli cabinet ministers wanted. But what happened when the Israelis took action was not surprising. Israel has a formidable capability of getting through the Iranian air defenses. That was not a surprise. We knew that. What was a surprise was that Iran now also has the capability of getting through Israel's air defenses, even when giving 72 hours heads up. That has now shifted the balance in the region in a way that is to the detriment to Israel, which is again another example of Israel taking military action and then ending up in a worse situation than it was in before. same thing as with the JCPOA, taking action to undermine a diplomatic deal in favor of military action

and then ending up in a worse situation than it was before. The difference, of course, being it's not just Israel that suffers if Iran gets closer to a nuclear weapon. The entire region suffers as a result of it. The track record, the lessons here are clear, yet there is this bias in favor of taking military action, which at some point we have to be honest about. It's not because of the belief that it actually works in terms of preventing a nuclear weapon. It works. It's favored because there is a desire to actually have a larger war in the region.

And on the American side, the question that then has to be asked, does America want to have another major war in the Middle East, similar to what they have with Iraq and Afghanistan, although this one will be much, much worse. Israel may want to have that war, but it's absolutely clear the American public wants to have Z. zero part in such a war. And as a result, listening to Israel's advice, letting it lead the way will only lead to the type of a war that America does not want and does not need. Hi, monk listeners. I wanted to tell you about our upcoming monk debate on anti-Zionism. On June 17th, author and journalist Douglas Murray and UK-based international law expert, Natasha Hachstorff, will debate former MSNBC commentator and columnist. Median San and Israeli journalist Gideon Levy on stage in Toronto in front of a live audience of

3,000 people. The debate will be streamed, so if you can't make it in person, you can watch it from the comfort of your living room. Find out how to become a monk member and get your live stream access to the monk debate on anti-Zionism. Visit our website right now, triple w, the monk debates.com. As we start to move towards closing statements, it would be interesting for our audience to hear from you. What's the debate in Israel like on this topic right now? I assume that there are those who would feel that a war with Iran right now is premature, considering the war in Gaza remains unresolved. And you have a significant and ongoing threat along your northern border with Hezbollah. Is there support for a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities?

What is Israeli sentiment at this moment? I think that Israelis generally understand that we are already at war with Iran. I think what is missing in it. I agree with a lot of what Trita says, except we won't belabor history just for the record. Iran began to enrich uranium the minute Biden was elected. Maximum pressure was working. The JCPOA is a joke. It's a joke. It allowed Iran to do under the radar everything that it did, and the proof is in the pudding.

Now, the minute it wanted to, it emerged with enrichment of uranium. So it was patiently creating the capability. And now Israel is already at war with Iran. And let me, instead of saying, look, what's happening with Hamas is it's Iranian equipment. It's Iranian tactics. What's happening with Chisbala is the same. We're surrounded by Iranian proxies. And Iran wants to hide behind the proxies. What Israel did is we don't say is we don't believe you. We know that you are waging war against us through your proxies. And so I'll just put this on the table. Look at how Iran built its military capabilities. And you would see why Trita's idea that moderation and diplomacy all helped and we're creating a moderate Iran and all the rest of it. Iran does not have a considerable ground force. It doesn't have considerable armor.

It doesn't have an Air Force to speak of. It has only, or almost only, offensive capabilities, ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones. Iran is a state built on undermining all regimes around it and creating almost only offensive capabilities. The intentions are absolutely clear when it sees the opportunity to eradicate Israel, it will. And what we need to do is stop debating intentions in some abstract way and look at their capabilities. They're building the capabilities to do this. And they have begun their strategy to do this. I am sure that if Trita was sitting in Tel Aviv, which is close enough to Tehran, he would have felt the danger in the air. Israelis all feel that. Everybody knows that Iran is a rogue

sponsor of terror, a state that is not a normal state and should be contained. And regrettably, the European Parliament still believes that sanctions or something else will stop it. It's too close to a bomb. The danger is too near and Iran is still not willing to submit to international inspection. JCPOA or not JCPOA. So if we want to be realistic and we take survival seriously, I can't say that anyone in Israel would be willing to hinge their existence on the theoretical assumption that Iran would somehow be friendly if we just stop pushing it. That seems not to be the case and in any case irrelevant. As long as it has the capabilities, Israel is bound to dismantle them. Thank you, Gaddi.

Let's move to closing statements. This has been a terrific debate as per debate convention. We're going to have you up first, Trita. You've been arguing against an Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear capacity. What are the key points or ideas that you want to leave our audience with as we conclude this excellent conversation? Thank you so much. It's been great to have this and really enjoy this conversation. I think we are in a very, very clear situation in which we have seen the disaster that will follow if we pursue military approaches. Just take a look at Israel's own track record. Israel is now more isolated than it ever has been before. It's been engaged in killing more than 34,000 Palestinians. The entire world, with the exception of parts of Europe and parts of the United States, has turned against it. It had managed to actually improve its diplomatic relations and standing for quite some time,

but instead of pursuing that path further, even after the disastrous attack by Hamas in October 7, it went down the path of an unrestrained military approach with no regard for international law and conventions and as a result is now much worse off than it was before. It is now accused not just for being an apartheid state, but also of committing genocide. That is not a pattern that Israel should export to other countries or to convince them to sign on to that type of approach in dealing with other issues. But that is exactly what Israel is arguing in this motion for the rest of the world to accept Israel taking military action and invite further disaster into the region, a region that already is suffering too much from bloodshed and war and potentially even now genocide. side, the only thing that has worked in the last 40 years in making sure that Iran does not move

closer to a nuclear weapon is a diplomatic deal that actually ensured that there were inspections inside of Iran, that the Iranians accepted and the IAA certified that they lived up to their end of the bargain. It's a diplomatic deal that made sure that we did not count on or assume goodwill on the Iranian side, we did not trust it, but we had the mechanisms in place to make sure that they could not cheat without getting caught in very, very quick order and as a result, be able to take other measures if that scenario were to take place. It worked, it made the world safer, but then instead of continuing it, the prime minister of Israel succeeded and sabotaging it, convinced Trump, according to himself to pull out of the deal, and now we're in a situation

in which, as Gaddi points out, Iran is on the precipice of being able to build a nuclear weapon. The very same entity that created this disaster that took a working solution and made it a failure should not be the one that we listened to in terms of figuring out how do we get back to a situation in which we can prevent two disasters at the same time. The disaster of having further proliferation in nuclear weapons in Iran and elsewhere in the region and the absolute disaster of a major military confrontation in the Middle East. As a result, we have no option but to vote down this motion. Thank you, Trita, for that closing statement.

Well, Gadi, as per debate convention, we're going to give you the last word on our motion today, be it resolved. Israel should strike Iran's nuclear program. Wrap this debate up for us. Yeah, first, just a side comment on the preposterous idea that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. The numbers that Tshita is quoting are the numbers from Hamas who have not been known for their great honesty and accuracy. Hamas, we are fighting an urban warfare with a wild barbaric enemy, which is trying to maximize its own casualties. And still, under these conditions,

the ratio of combatants to civilians killed is between 1.7 and 3, according to available estimates. this is in comparison to the international average by the UN, which is one to nine to one to seven. So to call this a genocide is absolutely preposterous. But leaving that aside, I think the whole argument has been revolving around two things. First, Trita denying that Iran has been working for a bomb undercover under JCPOA, which I think is counterfactual. And secondly, that after we got to this point when Iran, is close to a bomb, what we should do is somehow appease them.

Regrettably, I agree that the world is behaving, is not supporting Israel in this endeavor, but clearly Israel is now at the forefront of a war between civilization and barbarism. Anyone who saw the footage, and I don't want to put your listeners to details about the atrocities of October 7, about dismembering children alive and other horrible things that we actually saw on videos and are undeniable. So Israel is now fighting a war that the whole West should be fighting against a rogue fundamentalist, murderous, terror sponsoring regime. The West should unite behind Israel and not hug the bullies, but put the bullies in their place. And the way to put them in their place is to begin this.

dismantling their arsenals, not just their nuclear arsenals, but also the proxies that are wreaking havoc all around the Middle East. Mind you that the whole appeasement policy of the West is based on its guilt feelings about imperialism. Now we have an imperialistic force in the Middle East called Iran. It's undermining Arab regimes around it, and it's dedicated to eradicating the single democracy that there is in the Middle East, the world should understand that it is already in a war with Iran and that currently only Israel is fighting it. We are fighting for Judeo-Christian civilization and the world should unite behind us against these supporters of barbarism, terrorism, and genocide. Thank you, Gadi, and thank you Trita for a terrific debate. This is a

needless to say, a hot button debate and topic. Both of you approached it with real civility and substance on behalf of the monk debate community. We greatly appreciate your analysis and insights. So thank you again so much for coming on the program. Thank you for having us. Thank you so much for having us. That wraps up today's debate. I want to thank our participants, Gaddi and Trita. They've certainly given us a lot to think about. If you have questions or feedback on what you've just heard, please send us an email to podcast. at monkdebates.com. Thank you for lending your time and attention to our efforts to bring back the art of civil and substantive debate one conversation at a time. I'm your host and moderator, Rudyard Griffiths.

The Monk Debates are a project of the Warrior and Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundation. The Monk Debates podcast is produced by Rudyard Griffiths, Ricky Gurwitz, and Daniel Kitts. Karen Lynch is the editor. Be sure to download and subscribe where, you get your podcasts and if you feel like it give us a five-star rating thanks again for listening