The Munk Debates Podcast - Friday Focus: A crisis over nuclear weapons with the most incompetent set of leaders

Episode Date: June 20, 2025

The full version of today's Friday Focus is available to all members.  Rudyard and Janice start today's show talking about the long term prospects of this war: while Israel has had amazing military successes in the first week, their ability to intercept Iran's ballistic missiles will diminish as this war drags on. Is there a diplomatic opportunity to bring this conflict to an end? And if this is a matter of survival for Iran's top brass, will they finally concede to US demands and dismantle their nuclear program? Rudyard and Janice then turn to Trump and the most consequential test of his presidency so far. Janice argues that his indecision and uncertainty around striking Iran - stoked by the infighting between the hawks and isolationists in his coalition - is fueling a dangerous escalation between Iran and Israel. And even if America decides to strike Fordow, the underground nuclear facility in Iran, there is no way of knowing what the outcome of such an attack will be. Both Rudyard and Janice agree that we are in a crisis over nuclear weapons with the most incompetent set of leaders. To support the Friday Focus podcast consider becoming a donor to the Munk Debates for as little as $25 annually, or $.50 per episode. Canadian donors receive a charitable tax receipt. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue. More information at www.munkdebates.com.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.

Welcome to Friday Focus for the 20th of June 2025. I'm Rudyard Griffiths Chair of the Monk Debates. I'm joined remotely by Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs. Janice, great to be in conversation with you. Good to see you, Rudyard, and it is summer in a day. It is summer. We miss spring. It missed us.

Yeah, I think high 30s here in Toronto, where I'm recording from, starting early next week. going to get hot and humid and boy, those could be words to describe what we've seen in the Middle East in the last seven days since you and I last talk. So so much to unpack for our audience. Before I do that, though, let me just acknowledge once again a whole bunch of generous donors who've come on to the Monk DeBase to support our efforts to reinject some civility and substance into the public square. So a big thank you to Michael. R, who joined as a curator and then a whole bunch of supporters this week. Gabrielle A. Farouk J. Annette K. Ian M. Diane K. Bruce M. Richard W.

Sorry, Richard U. Sandra M. Craig M. Nimi N.S. Susan C. Jim Wilkinson, Jonathan V. Kristen K. Jack S. V. V. Shrude G. Craig J. Patrick K. and Ken M. So thank you all so much for your generous support of the Monk debates as supporters. I love this, Janice. It's always a great way to start Fridays with you. It really is. It really is. It is really encouraging that this level of support comes in for an informed conversation. That is civil. Yeah. Shameless brag this morning. If you are a big fan of Ezra Klein and you caught our most recent main stage debate on Trump's America. Ezra Klein has the Monk debate on Trump's America featured in his much-aclaimed podcast

fee this morning. So go over and check out Ezra's participation in the debate, his discussion of the debate. You can do that right now on the New York Times website or on Ezra Klein's podcast wherever you get your podcasts. Well, Janice, let's do our community a favor this week because it has been such a momentous week. We're going to make this whole show available to all of our members. We will not be going behind the paywall at the midway mark. I'm just going to make that audible call just in service of our mission to educate and inform Canadians and American listeners too about global events at a time of real risk. and uncertainty.

So Janice, what do you take away from the last seven days since we talked? What are the important events or moments that you've watched that maybe would give us some indication of what we might be talking about seven days from now when we next convene? Rudyard, there were notable military successes by Israel because they were able to achieve surprise,

which is astonishing. itself in the first 24 to 48 hours. The big headline, that alone is not sufficient to bring a satisfactory end from their perspective to this conflict. We are right now at an inflection point, whether either there is some diplomatic breakthrough here or there is escalation that neither side can actually control. So more dangerous than it was last week with a promise of getting even more dangerous. Let's talk about the diplomatic channel because it's clear that President Trump, for whatever set of circumstances,

we can talk a little bit more about some of the divisions that are merging within his conservative movement and the administration. But let's put that aside for a moment. Instead, it seems that the president is saying, who's not at the negotiating table, Iran's foreign minister meets today and this weekend with his European counterparts. His condition seems to be that Iran must abandon all enrichment. In other words, not simply can they ship off their higher enriched stocks of uranium. They would need to ship everything out, all gone. Whatever uranium did come into the country for civilian purposes would be carefully monitored and control.

And it seems so far, Janice, that we are hearing not only from the hardliners like Komene, the Ayatollah, but also from, you know, the so-called moderates. I guess that's always a bit of a euphemism when you're talking about the Iranians, but the moderates within, let's say, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and elsewhere, that this is a non-starter, that Iran will and must maintain the right to civil enrichment of uranium as guaranteed under international treaty and law? That is correct. They are signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty and Rudyard,

and they have that right. And they are dug in and you are quite right to say this is across the political spectrum inside Iran. Now, Steve Whitkoff, just before the Israeli attack, put a very creative, proposal on the table, which was to have a regional enrichment center with the Saudis, the Americans, the Iranians, all participating together. It might well have been even on Iranian soil. It could have been in Iran, elsewhere in the Gulf, but it had to be monitored by all of them and the uranium that Iran receipt would have been monitored. They would not have an independent

capacity to enrich. That was the deal that Iran rejected before all this started. There's no indication coming from inside the country, as you said now, that they're willing to accept that kind of condition today. And for Israel, it is a deal breaker if there is continued enrichment. Where Europe comes down, where the United States comes down, in particular is going to make or break this diplomatic opportunity. Do you think that it's possible that the Iranians finally concede on this, that in the face of having lost control of their skies to Israeli fighter jets and drones, on the basis of the IDF now reporting that it's destroyed half of all of their missile launchers, creating a real

choke point in terms of the number of missiles they can fire at Israel, I mean, is there a moment where the regime just says, okay, this is a matter of survival. We are facing, you know, regime collapse, and we are going to trade away our right to enrichment. We may think it's unfair. We may, you know, feel the sunk cost. I've seen estimates of to half a trillion dollars is basically what Iran has spent over the last 20-odd years in terms of this whole program.

It's creation, it's funding, the proxies that it had to arm to create a threat that it could in order to allow it to continue the program. This is a massive sunk cost for this regime. Understandably, therefore, they are reluctant to let it go. But Janice, does there come a moment where it's a choice between survival, and enrichment. There's certainly history that says that when the Supreme ruler perceives an existential threat to Iran, there is a capacity to concede.

They did that after eight years though record. An absolutely devastating a war with Iraq that Iraq started, not Iran, but Iranian cities were being bombarded by chemical weapons at that point. So there certainly is precedent for this, I had told, for the Supreme Leader, but it comes only when there is truly an existential threat. And that is not, I don't think, where we are yet. You're right that they have lost control of their skies. You're right that half the missile launchers have been destroyed.

But Israel is now already beginning to experience a shortage of interceptors. at the current rate at which they are consuming them as they defend against these launches. Iran, first of all, still has the capacity to fire considerable number of missiles, despite losing half its launchers. They did it this morning. Secondly, the only resupplier of interceptors would be the United States. And it's not only a case of will here or using resupply. plot as strategic leverage, which Henry Kissinger once did, it's the United States itself is low on interceptor missiles. The Iranians could well make a bet. We are going to outlast.

Israel, we're going to husband our missiles. We're going to go slow. And we, they will lose their interceptors faster than we will lose our missiles. I don't think we are anywhere near the desperate issue point. Yeah. Let's shift the conversation to the president because he seems to be, you know, if not the deciding factor in this conflict, then certainly one that will either accelerate the risk and accelerate maybe the end to it or the extension. We don't know how events will play out. But Jess, what did you make of his backflips and kind of convoluted? I don't know what I'm going to decide until I know what I'm going to decide.

I mean, how do we parse all this? And then finally, a decision, we don't even know if it's actually a decision. You don't. To quote, wait, two weeks, close quote. It's astonishing. These are very, very high stakes that are involved. This is a very, very dangerous conflict at this moment. So he starts, let's just put this into.

to a slightly longer time frame. He walks away. He breaks the agreement with Iran. He walks away from an agreement that President Obama had signed. So it was the worst deal in the world. And he predicts that when he becomes president, the Iranians will come back to the table

and he'll get a deal, much better deal. Well, he hasn't gotten it. Nathaniel took advantage of a window of opportunity that he saw thinking that when he started this, Trump would come in behind. Because there is, as everyone knows, I think, the enrichment center at Farno way underground, which, enriches over 20% of the uranium. And it takes very special equipment to really damage those centrifuges. Only the U.S. has it. He then leaves the summit. He leaves at the summit and get an accident.

allegedly for an emergency meeting in the National Security Council. What do you think some big announcement? No, nothing forthcoming and outcomes after he's pressured by, you know, MAGA supporters who from the beginning have been opposed to any further U.S. involvement in any Middle Eastern war, as is Donald Trump, who says he does not want to take the United States into another forever war. versus the hawks who are around him, who say, this is the moment. If you fail to take advantage of this moment,

you lose leadership. And out he comes with a kind of, as you said, frankly, almost incomprehensible statement, we'll have a decision in two weeks or maybe in two weeks. Well, it will be within two weeks. Creating uncertainty for both Israel, and Iran, a temptation for Israel to go for it now because it is disadvantaged by the long war and creating no incentive for Iran to come to the bargaining table, frankly, until it gets a

commitment that this war is over. Couldn't be worse. Jonas, it's like, you know, it is like reading chicken entrails thrown against the wall when you're trying to understand what this president means. But he, the White House did say something else yesterday, which is, and again, I don't know if it's factual at all, but it might be important to try to understand their convoluted thinking, which is a statement that Iran was within two weeks of obtaining a nuclear device should the Ayatollah order it. Does that, Janice, again, is that laying track politically and otherwise to set up this two-week deadline? Because what they're going to say once the two weeks is over is, you know, they were sprinting towards a bomb and

And we had to go to go now because there was this two-week clock that was ticking and we couldn't take the risk that, you know, that that order had been given and that, you know, we were unaware of it. So, first of all, I think it's important for our listeners. That statement was contradicted by the U.S. intelligence community within hours through a leak, right? So there isn't factual evidence to support that. No, no, I understand it's not factual. but the point is, is it political and is it creating, you know, for better or worse, a clock that is maybe more real, that it's not going to be, what's the acronym they use for Trump, taco, you know.

Trump always chickens out. Right. And that two weeks is really two months, is really two years. And none of this is, none of this is real. Is there a, did he take a pencil out and put some, you know, in a, And again, with a scratch, did he put some kind of line under this to make it a little bit more than his usual, you know, boviating? Well, I think you're right, Roger, that he's laying track for the possibility. And that's the strongest statement I can make for the possibility that he decides to use, you know, B-2s to drop these very, very,

very deep bunker buster bombs. I just think again for our listeners, this is not a one-off. There is that view in the public. Just drop a bomb. That's all the United States has to do. That is not the case. It is repeated number of bombs done with repeated flights over this area. It is not over in a day or in a night or anything like that.

And I think, honestly, that was tracked to lay, to provide a justification, should he decide, he has no idea yet what he's going to do. He's vacillating as he always does. And that's about the worst messaging that you could send to both of the parties right now. You're just creating incentives for both of them to exploit that indecision.

One other way to try to maybe get into Trump's head is that we have seen this kind of sharp debate between the likes of Steve Bannon being allied with Tucker Carlson against Mark Levin and Fox News and the so-called doves versus hawks. And it's just kind of strange, again, to see the nativist side of the MAGA movement really come out, actually, in kind of force. There were reports, I guess, that Steve Bannon had lunch with the president yesterday. Maybe this had been planned for a while.

but nonetheless, you know, the maga doves have some access here. And I wonder if what they're not whispering in his ear, Janice, is something like Mr. President, you know, only three other presidents have received the Nobel Peace Prize. You like small clubs. You like exclusive clubs. This is your chance. It may not happen, but if you don't give it a chance, you're not going to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Because isn't it true, Janice, that if there is an ability for the Americans to push the Iranians hard enough over this period of time, whatever it is, to capitulate on enrichment, then, you know, Trump wins on both sides.

He's going to win politically at home. He's going to win politically with his base. And he's going to get this thing that he's always wanted, which is to join Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, and Barack Obama. as a U.S. president awarded the Nobel Prize for Peace. But what a gamble to take, Roger. And Netanyahu is very aware of precisely that instinct in Trump. He's had a rocky relationship with Donald Trump, despite all the rhetoric. And he's going to push the envelope.

He, I would, I think it's reasonable to think that if this is, delay appears to be longer. And if the signals coming from the White House informally are the president's not going to do this, that Netanyahu gambles it all and goes for it on his own, hoping to lock the United States into a response if things go very badly. And Donald Trump doesn't control that. That's right. And let's remember, Netanyahu already did this against the United States.

explicit wishes of Donald Trump just a week ago. Yeah, we're not entirely sure of that, but we think so. It is interesting to see that Katz, the defense minister, and Netanyahu are now both talking about assassinating Kamene, the Ayatollah, and more openly talking about regime change, which then could support your argument that they are going to push now because they feel that, you know, one, there could also, as you said, be another clock running on them, which is the withdrawal of American military support in the face of some kind of deal that Wickoff cooks up that Trump thinks can win him, the Nobel Peace Prize.

I think Ockham's razor here, Janice, is always to think, what does Trump want? What is most in his interest? And I mean, like, personally, either financially or in terms of like self-enggrandizement. And I don't think he or the administration is that much more complicated in that. he's going to try to extract whatever he can out of this, whether it's a Nobel priest prize, probably his preferred option, or an entry in the history books as, you know,

the U.S. president who took out Fordor. And that's where I want to end our conversation, because the other kind of key topic that I think we need to address for our audience today is this third site, a four-door, a heavily fortified enrichment facility, basically buried within a mountain. Talk to us a little bit about what Fordor is

and the challenge that it represents in terms of both the Israelis and their ability to neutralize Fordor as an enrichment site. And then, as you said, even for the Americans, the challenge that this hardened, purpose-built enrichment facility made for precisely this situation, an attack on Iran's nuclear program. This is why they built this thing. So what is the threat that it represents in this conflict?

So let's start off, Roger, by saying, as you described, Fardo, it is half a mile down, reinforced inside a mountain, reinforced at every level by concrete and designed to withstand the most intensive form of bombing. Nothing like this has ever been attempted before, right? That's, I think, the key point. So anyone who says, one, it's impossible or says only the United States can do this, which is true, and they will succeed, nobody has any grounds for claiming success. Here, it's never been tried. The mother of all bombs, as it's called the deep penetrating bomb, heavy, heavy bomb that the United States has, was designed explicitly to attack Fardo.

That's how it was designed. 20 were commissioned, right? Some were tested in other environments. Who knows how many are left? And it is not one bomb. Think about it this way. You drop one bomb, you create a crater. The bomb goes deep.

You create, but not all the way. You create a crater. You then bomb into that crater to go deeper the next time. Nobody knows. how many bombs would have to be dropped to actually totally destroy. Would the mountain collapse on itself? And to be frank here, Roger, would there be some leak? Not likely radioactive leak, but certainly other gases,

like fluoride chemical gases that are part of this enrichment cycle, and how widespread would that leak be and what would the consequences be? These are all unknowns, Rudyard. And I think that's part of what we saw, which we haven't talked about. That's part of why Donald Trump pulled back. He acted, and he did pull back. There's no question. He got briefings, which, and you know, General Carilla was in the room.

There were serious intelligence people in the room, not Tulsi Gabbard, by the way, who explained to him the complexity of this and the uncertainty of it. And that's when he pulled back. So the question really becomes, too, and to return to Trump for just a minute, how much FOMO is there here? How much fear of missing out? Because when I read that tweet, we have control over the Iranian skies. Who's the we? Right? He wants to be, he wants to be on the winning side of this. It's also, Janice, that he wants to be at the center of attention all the time. Yeah.

And that the two weeks also, you know, satisfy that itch, that it means everyone hanging off his every word over the next two weeks. It's just, again, just an absolutely gobsmacking way to see the world's, you know, superpower run itself around one person's, you know, obsession with dominating. everything all the time in this attention economy that we live in. And I think he was getting jealous that Bibi and Israel effectively was dominating our attention. So he had to insert himself into that process. It is the most, I don't know, when in international relations have we, you know, seen something like this where one person's kind of personality disorder is basically, you know,

shaping a conflict of immense inherent risks and very high stakes. Look, I couldn't agree with you more, Roger. Let's just add in two other factors here, which is why I have felt from the beginning that this is so dangerous. Donald Trump and his, frankly, personality disorder. Benjamin Netanyahu has everything riding on this, everything, his whole legacy, his whole career. If this goes badly, he's finished.

All right? He has nothing to lose right now. So he will take every risky gamble and come and eat backed against the wall. If he loses or he escalates and loses, he loses everything. This is the worst recipe for careful decision making over one of the most serious crises we've faced. This is a crisis over nuclear weapons. Let's not forget that. And we have the most irresponsible set of leaders we can imagine. Great. The IDF, though, as we know, has been planning for this mission for going on two decades.

And I think we certainly saw in the opening week just the extent to which, technologically, in terms of intelligence and otherwise, that they are executing against a very detailed plan. So surely Janice, they wouldn't have just left Ford or off their chalkboard. Surely they would have had a series of contingency plans on the basis of the United States would not strike this one remaining kind of critical enrichment facility. So is there a possibility that we are in store for more surprises? And that assuming that this has to end with American participants, maybe isn't being creative enough in the light of, again, remarkable ingenuity and prowess

shown on behalf of the Israeli military. You know, there are so many possibilities here, and I think you are right, Radjeer, that that's what made me say, Netanyahu is going to go for this, if there's any sense that Trump is backing off permanently. He will go for this. Because if Fardo remains intact at the end of this operation, Israel failed, right? And Nanyahu failed. And this is, as you say, this is probably the singular issue of his entire political career.

I think people need to understand that. That at various times, he's walked up to this and he's walked away from it. but he has always stated and always had as his objective the de-fenestration of Iran's nuclear program. Absolutely. So what kind of plan? There's been all kinds of speculations about commando raids, you know, and it's not impossible. They would have people on the ground because we know they have people on the ground. But think about how much more difficult surprises now than it was week ago.

It's obvious to everyone that if the United States is not going to do this, that Israel will go for it. And the Iranians have reinforced that site because it is for them too. Use it or lose it at this point. Number two, and I don't think we should minimize this possibility, the Iranians have very likely moved some of the enrichment site. uranium to other sites. Black sites. Black sites that are, they could be in a barn. They could be in a shipping container.

They could have taken a lot of this 60% uranium enriched it to 90. We don't, I mean, we think we know, but do we really know? Absolutely. And I understand, Janice, it only takes about 40 to 50 kilograms of the 60% enriched to make a bomb. So you're talking about, I don't know what 40 or 50 kilograms of uranium looks. like, but it's not a tractor trailer even. It's probably a car trunk.

Yeah. So if you think about it that way, Redyard, and I know people are going to disagree with me when I say this. The best way for this to end is a diplomatic solution. The best way for this to end. For everybody involved, given the risks and where we are now, we actually need a fast-moving diplomatic solution. that walks both Netanyahu and Mahmany back from the edge of the cliff.

On this, just to wrap up our conversation, because it should be said, Israel has its own atomic weapons. They never claim, they're never stated, but there are reliable estimates that they could have 90 to 100 atomic bombs. So what does that mean, Janice? Why don't we talk about that more? Why isn't that more part of this conversation? I mean, it's a slightly bizarre thing that, and again, this isn't in any way to excuse Iran's

nuclear program or to, you know, argue that Israel shouldn't be doing what it's doing now, which is, I believe, removing a real and urgent threat. And people can say, well, that bomb wasn't ready in two weeks. Maybe it's two years. But the fact is they had a set of circumstances where they're not. They could go after this threat for the first time because Hezbollah was degraded. The radar systems were down. They had a window of opportunity.

The Chinese were resupplying Iran with missile parts to build a much larger ballistic missile. So look, I think Israel is doing what's in its national interest right now. But as I go back to this point, they could have 100. atomic weapons and and nobody's nobody's talking about this like nobody internationally talks about the president doesn't talk about it European leaders don't talk about it our prime minister doesn't talk about it why do the Israelis get this incredible pass where no one mentions that they are a nuclear power yeah you're absolutely right and it's a completely a semester conversation to just to elaborate for a second on what you're saying this is a nuclear

power trying to prevent another country from acquiring a nuclear weapon. And Israel has not signed the nonproliferation treaty. So why does this happen? First of all, Israel has never declared that it's a nuclear power. And nor has it threatened to wipe out any other country with its nuclear weapons, not even under these kinds of circumstances. You know, for a take of illustration, Israel could use a counterfeit, tactical nuclear weapon against Fardo.

That would be it. Right? That would be it. They have never suggested, nor have threatened, nor whispered in anybody's ear. They've made clear that whatever they have, because they won't even acknowledge they have all. We all know they have. We all know a lot about what they have. That would only be used in the event that there was an attack which they felt would wipe out the state.

So it is one of the most defensive postures, one could imagine. Secondly, and here's, I think, the big takeaway of this year. We've seen for the first time nuclear powers, nuclear states attacked by non-nuclear adversaries. Ukraine attacked Russia on land and in the air. Russia is a nuclear power. Ukraine is not. Iran used believers. ballistic missiles against Israel a year ago in April, right?

They were doing that knowing that Israel was a nuclear power. And I would add to that, Janice, you know, India, maybe for, again, I don't know, the reasons are ever valid, but four reasons attacked Pakistan. Now, they're both nuclear powers, but the Pakistani nuclear deterrence did not stop India from rocketing Islamabad, rocketing a military base, which is adjacent supposedly to where Pakistan stores its nuclear weapons. So like, do nuclear weapons have a deterrent? Well, that's the issue, isn't it, coming out of this list, these last two years?

How valuable are nuclear weapons? What do they deter? If you look at the scope of these attacks, what use are they? The country that has them, can't use them or won't use them for very, very good reasons. But they no longer. And in fact, they make it possible for conventional attacks beneath that nuclear threshold. That's a big, big question that we take away from all of this. Yeah.

What I worry is that one country will feel that it will have to reestablish the deterrent effect of its nuclear arsenal by doing just that, unfortunately, using one. That's where we don't want to be right to. Because what is the point? What is the point for these to have these expensive, dead. deadly, deadly arsenals. Well, Janice, a fascinating, far-reaching conversation this week. I'm so glad we opened this up to our entire community. I thank our monk supporters and monk curators for, in their own way, extending the generosity of

their support to all of our free members who've joined us for the entirety of this episode. We don't do this all the time, but from time to time, when we feel like there's a momentous week like the past seven days, it's great to get this knowledge and information to everyone. So thank you for sharing your wisdom and insights, Janice. And we'll do this all again next Friday. And who knows what will have happened by them. Let's hope we are less concerned than we are right this moment, Frederick. Absolutely.

Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for watching this edition of Friday Focus. I'm Roger Griffiths, Chair of the Monk Debates. I've been joined by Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs. Until next time, bye-bye. Thank you for listening to this edition of the Friday Focus podcast. I'm Rudyard Griffiths, the chair of the Monk Debates, who's joined on this program as I am each week by Janice Gross Stein, the founding director of the Monk School of Global Affairs.

Janice and I would love your reactions to what you heard on the program today. Also, your suggestions and ideas about future topics that we should cover on Friday Focus. Please send us your suggestions now to podcast at monkdebates.com. That's MUNK DebateswithanS.com. This podcast is produced by Aidan Moscovic and generously underwritten by the Peter and Melanie Monk Charitable Foundation. Please visit our website, www.w.w.munkdebates.com, to access hundreds of podcasts, dialogues,

and debates on all the big issues and ideas shaping our world. Again, you can do that right now at www.munkdebates.com. While you're there, consider, if you're not already, becoming a free Monk Debates member, you get all kinds of great benefits and perks as a complimentary monk member. You can grab yours right now at triple-w monk debates.com forward slash membership. Thanks for listening to this program. We'll do it all again soon. Bye-bye.