The NPR Politics Podcast - Will The U.S. Get Involved In Military Action With Iran?

Episode Date: June 20, 2025

As Israel and Iran continue to launch aerial assaults against each other, there are growing questions as to whether the U.S. will get involved in the offensive, too. President Trump said he'd make a decision within the next two weeks. Then, a look at the spending package currently working its way through Congress. This episode: senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith, congressional correspondent Deirdre Walsh, and national security correspondent Greg Myre. This podcast was produced by Bria Suggs and edited by Casey Morell. Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Support for NPR and the following message comes from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF is a national philanthropy working toward a future where health is no longer a privilege, but a right. Learn more at RWJF.org. Hi, I'm Erica. Hi, I'm Caroline. And we just graduated high school! You're listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. This podcast was recorded at 1222 p.m. on Friday June 20th. I'm off to UT and I'm off to OU

so now we're lifelong enemies. Enjoy the podcast! Oh that's fabulous! Congratulations. Congratulations. Graduation season, full swing. And I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe this is the first day of summer. Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Deirdre Walsh. I cover Congress. And I'm Greg Meyry. I cover national security. And today on the show, the latest developments between the US, Israel, and Iran. Greg, this conflict between Israel and Iran has been going hot for about a week, but remind

us why is this happening? Yeah, I mean it's sort of a decades-old rivalry that's burst into the open. Israel attacked exactly a week ago, Friday of last week, saying it could no longer wait. It felt Iran was making a push for a nuclear weapon, and it felt it needed to attack now. Israel really caught Iran by surprise and clearly has had the upper hand in this first week of fighting. It controls the skies over Tehran, the capital of Iran, and much of western Iran, where the fighting is primarily

taking place. The attacks, though, are very much going both ways. Israel is focused on Iran's nuclear facilities, number one, and then number two, the missiles and missile launchers that Iran is using to strike at Israel. Iran is still firing these missiles in waves. More hit today, one near the northern coastal city of Haifa, injuring a number of people. So this, I think, is important to note the obvious here, entirely an air war. There are really no ground troops involved, but it also means that neither side

is going to, in a sense, capture the other. And as long as they have weapons to fire, this air war could continue indefinitely. I do want to talk about the U.S. role here and what the U.S. role is now and what it could be. The White House said yesterday that President Trump would decide whether to get involved in the conflict in a big way in the next two weeks. So what could U.S. involvement look like? Yeah, Tim, I think the big question is will the US get involved? That's still very much an open question

and if President Trump decides to get involved in the sense of the US playing offense and attacking Iran, then we probably have a pretty good idea of what that will look like. The US would likely use these massive bunker busting bombs, 30,000 pounds, the biggest in the US arsenal, and it would target Fordow, which is a nuclear fuel plant to the south of Tehran. It's buried 300 feet inside a mountain. Neither Israel nor any other countries really believed to have a bomb that could could penetrate this deeply and do this much damage. And indeed we don't know that the US could actually do this. This weapon has been tested for at least a decade or so. It's

never been used in combat. It's considered a very precise weapon so it might take multiple bombing runs to hit the exact same site to keep penetrating more and more deeply until it would reach the Iranian facility. But again, no guarantees, and then of course we don't know what the unintended consequences could be afterwards. And one thing I think is important to add to this is the U.S. already is involved in helping Israel play defense. US ships in the Mediterranean, US warplanes in the region, and US air defense systems on the ground in Israel are helping shoot down missiles. We don't know the exact extent or the precise role they're playing, but Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu has stated this

publicly several times. We're hearing very little actually from the Americans about this, but the Americans are actively involved in Israel's defense already. The question is, will the Americans take part in offensive operations? Danielle Pletka Tim, I wanted to jump in and ask you about this whole two-week timeline, because earlier in the week on Capitol Hill, there was a feeling like that this decision was very imminent, that Congress was sort of bracing for what President Trump could do. But then, yesterday, the White House press secretary read the statement from the president saying he would decide in two weeks. It's kind of like a familiar thing he does.

2 weeks is a state of mind as much as it is a precise measure of time. President Trump often says something is going to happen in two weeks or ask me again in two weeks. And most of the time, it doesn't happen. Whatever it is does not happen in two weeks. Is this a Trumpian two weeks or is this a real two weeks? And we just don't know. He certainly is considering

options. He's hearing from a lot of people. He ran on America first. One of his core ideologies is that the US should not be involved in foreign wars and that he was going to end wars and get America out of wars. And this is indirect conflict with that. Greg, I do want to ask you what happens if President Trump decides not to use these bunker busting bombs to help Israel? If the US decides not to get involved that could have huge consequences. Israel believes and the US believes this as well, that the Fordo nuclear site as well as other nuclear sites need to be hugely damaged, if not destroyed,

for this to be a successful military operation. If those facilities survive and Iran still has a functioning nuclear program, then it would be hard to call this a success from the Israeli and US perspectives. So President Trump may be wanting to wait and see, see how Israel progresses in its air campaign, whether Israel can pull something out of its hat to carry this operation out on its own. It's not clear how it would do that, but it would give him a little bit of time both to see what Israel might be able to do on the battlefield and also whether there may be some diplomatic solution. So it buys him some time, but it doesn't necessarily

answer the key questions about what state Iran's nuclear program will be in. Before all of this, the Trump administration had been very actively trying to get a new nuclear deal with Iran. There were talks underway. It was more serious than we'd seen in years since President Trump pulled out of the nuclear deal that the Obama administration had cemented. Deirdre, how is this all playing up on the Hill? So a couple of the issues that Greg raised are sort of key threshold questions that people are asking on the Hill in terms of the intelligence. I don't think a lot of lawmakers have enough information or some of them want a lot more information about what is the state of the Iranian nuclear program. Could a B-2 US bomber with one of these bunker buster

bombs attacking one of those sites like Fordow actually finish the job? And I think that issue is something that a lot of members want to know before they sort of speak out in terms of whether they're for any kind of military action going forward. I do think so far the vast majority of congressional Republicans are giving President Trump the space to make a decision. Some of them have been more leaning into, we support a targeted attack on Iran's nuclear program. Even some Republicans that ran on

or echoed President Trump's America First campaign themes saying they don't support another war in the Middle East are saying, look, the president and Vice President Vance have always been saying we don't want Iran to have a nuclear weapon. So for them, they feel like that promise is the way they can support some type of military intervention with the US going forward. I mean, I think the other flip side of that is Democrats pointing out that what happens next?

If the US goes in and bombs these nuclear sites, what's the response? And how does the US military get dragged into protecting the US military personnel and diplomatic personnel that are in the region? Because there are a significant number of American troops and diplomatic people in the region that could face a serious threat from Iran and its proxies. So I think those issues are things that we're watching. There is a intelligence briefing scheduled for early next week. I think it's interesting because now it likely will come before the president makes a decision. I think a lot of people thought there could have been a decision without any briefing on the Hill and that caused a lot of alarms, especially among Democrats.

We're also going to see next week something that will also complicate this picture, which is Senator Tim Kaine from Virginia introduced a war powers resolution. It's a privilege resolution that says there can't be military action unless Congress votes on it, specifically military action against Iran. He will get a vote and he could get a vote as early as the end of next week. All right, we're going to take a quick break and when we come back, the president's one big beautiful bill. This message comes from Wise, the app for doing things and other currencies. With Wise, you can send, spend or receive money across borders, all at a fair exchange

rate, no markups or hidden fees. Join millions of customers and visit wise.com. T's and C's apply. Support for NPR and the following message comes from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF is a national philanthropy working toward a future where health is no longer a privilege, but a right. Learn more at RWJF.org. And we're back. And let's head over to Capitol Hill. Republican lawmakers in Congress are coming up against a self-imposed deadline to get President Trump's big tax and spending

cuts bill passed. Deirdre, we are talking about the so-called one big beautiful bill. It passed the House in the spring, but it is running into some issues in the Senate. So first off, remind us what is in this bill? Deirdre M. Bolling, Ph.D. So this is the president's big tax cut and spending cut bill. It has trillions in tax cuts. The current 2017 Trump tax cuts expire at the end of this calendar year. So this would make those permanent going forward and add some new ones that he campaigned on like no tax on tips, no tax on overtime.

It also has money for defense programs, for border security, increasing ICE agents, border enforcement. It also includes significant cuts to Medicaid. Republicans needed to find a place to offset the trillions in tax cuts with spending cuts. And the majority of the cuts come from major cuts to the Medicaid program. That's the health insurance program for low income,

elderly and disabled Americans. And a lot of those cuts come from changing the way the program's financed, adding new work requirements on who's eligible for the program. It could mean millions of people lose their health insurance. One recent estimate from CBO said as many as 16 million Americans could lose their health insurance as a result of the changes in this bill. And CBO is the Congressional Budget Office, an independent scorekeeper, if you will, for legislation, who also has found that this legislation, even with all of the cuts, would

add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. Correct. A lot of the same issues that split Republicans in the House are splitting Republicans in the Senate. There are some conservatives in the Senate who don't think that the Senate version of the bill that was introduced recently cuts enough spending. They would like the bill to go farther. There's also a tax break that a group of House Republicans fought mightily for to get in the House version of the bill. This is a tax break for so-called high cost states, blue states like California and New York with high state and local property taxes sort of reinstates an old tax break that they

wanted to get back in. The Senate reduced that. Those House Republicans are saying if you don't fix this when this comes back to the House, we'll kill the bill. So there's just sort of internal divisions threatening the, as you said, self-imposed deadline of trying to get this bill passed before July 4th. The Senate comes back next week. They're planning to start debate and hopefully get the ball rolling on voting the bill through the Senate by the end of next week. If Senate Majority Leader John Thune can't get the 51 votes, he can't resolve these issues, that deadline could

slip. Remember, four Republican no votes sink this bill. So there's a lot of tough negotiations that Thune and President Trump will likely have to get personally involved in to get this over the finish line. Jared Ranere Dear Drew, how are they going to sort out all these differences? It sounds like the existing House bill and the things the Senate wants to do have a lot of differences. Drew Drescher I think it's all going to come down to President

Trump again. I think that there are some things that senators will put up a big fight on, but at the end of the day, they don't want to block the president's signature legislative accomplishment. They don't want to be seen as blocking tax cuts because if these tax breaks aren't renewed by the end of December, most people, most Americans will be looking at a tax increase. And I think that is the sort of hammer on most congressional Republicans overall. So I think that there's going to be some increased pressure from President Trump personally on these members.

We saw his White House Chief of Staff, Suzy Wiles, was on the Hill meeting with Senate Republicans on Wednesday saying, you guys got to get this done. But you know, my question, Greg, is if he's overseeing a major decision about what to do in Iran, how does he juggle lobbying senators on a tax bill? I feel like that's there's a lot on the president's plate. Tam, you might have a better sense of how that's going to work out. Well, yeah, let me just add another spinning plate to this circus act, which is the president also has a July 8th deadline that he has set to get trade deals with more than 100 countries, you know,

or the tariffs will go back up. And obviously, like, this is a deadline the president created, it is a deadline the president can extend, but there have only been two trade deals so far, lots of promises of other ones coming within two weeks, but there are a lot of outstanding negotiations. And then the president is focused on what's happening with Iran. We haven't even talked about Russia and Ukraine, which has somehow fallen off the radar, but is entirely possible that comes back up. Presidents don't get to choose their crises. The president is now dealing with a bunch of different things, and he is the ultimate closer. And he's very effective at helping them find a way to yes, but that takes time and effort. There's just a lot

on the president's plate. I mean, I would say, Tam, that a lot of the same conservatives who say, hell no, I'm not going to vote for a bill that doesn't decrease the deficit as much as I want it to fold it in the House. And some of these Republicans who are looking for the state and local tax break, you know, they knew going into this, the Senate was not going to be friendly to their cause. So they're going to, at the end of the day, likely be forced to take something less than what they want. I think they know that.

But a lot of this is politics. They got to put up a fight until the last minute. So next week, Deirdre, what are you watching for? I think the intelligence briefing on Iran and whether we learn what they're hearing and what their comfort level is about backing the president's decision based on what they hear about Iran's nuclear program and whether in fact this big tax and spending bill ends up getting a vote at the end of next week. I think it could slip.

Yeah. And we should be clear that it could slip. There aren't huge consequences until August. Right. Any delay in the Senate action sort of impacts the ability to negotiate on a final deal with the House before we get to that real deadline, which is August in terms of the debt limit staring Congress down. That's the real deadline they're all worried about. All right. Well, we are going to take one more break and then it's time for Can't Let It Go. And we're back and it's time for Can't Let It Go, the part of the pod where we

talk about all the things from the week that we just can't stop thinking about politics or otherwise. Greg, what do you got? Well in the world of professional hockey there is a new Stanley Cup champion, the Florida Panthers. They won on Tuesday night four games to two over the Edmonton Oilers. The second straight year the Florida Panthers have won the Stanley Cup. So for those of our listeners who are not hockey fans, you may be surprised to see that South Florida is becoming the capital of the hockey world. So that tradition may be a little new, but there's another tradition that's still very much intact, and that is damaging the Stanley Cup after you win.

Oh no! What did they do to it? I mean, I know you like drink out of it, right? Oh absolutely. This is not some precious item that you put behind glass at your team headquarters and everybody looks at it reverently. No, you take it out and go drinking with it, you have big celebrations and they give it to players and individual players get to have it for a day or two and run around town with it. So you see in Fort Lauderdale, the day after the Panthers won, one of the players is holding it up.

It's got a huge dent at the base of it. Oh my gosh. But there's nothing new about this. It was sort of a really famous video a couple years ago in the Colorado Avalanche one, and the players are out on the ice gathered for like a team photo, and the guy with the big Stanley Cup is skating there. He trips and falls, bangs it on the ice gathered for like a team photo and the guy with the big Stanley Cup is skating

there. He trips and falls, bangs it on the ice, and leaves a huge dent in there. So basically every year, the Stanley Cup, which they've been playing so hard for all year, gets mangled and they have to bang it back into shape and get it ready to be handed out next year. So it's going from player to player and may get a few more dings in it before they they send it back and repair it for next year. This is just making me think of JD Vance at that White House ceremony. I think it

was like the National College Football Championship or something. He picks up the trophy and it just like disintegrates in his hands. That's right, yes, absolutely. I come from a big hockey family and I think from the Walsh family, I think that we want the Stanley Cup back in DC. The Caps need to get it back. Yes, absolutely. I can agree with that. I am going to go next and I will keep it short, I think. I'm just back from vacation and I am in an era where I will unapologetically take time off. Everyone should.

So as to stay sane. Yes, because the news is a fire hose, so sometimes you just have to go on vacation. And we took our boys to Costa Rica and I didn't fully realize that we had signed up for as many adventures as we did, but I am afraid of heights and yet somehow in order to be strong and prove to my kids that I am not weak, we did zip lining, we jumped off of cliffs into the

base of a waterfall. I rode a waterfall like it was a water slide, which was utterly frightening, and I thought I had broken my nose, but it's fine. We rappelled off of cliffs. Yikes. I mean, it was completely insane. I want some video of the cliff jumping. There's gotta be video, Tam. There is video. Maybe I'll put it on my- That to me is the scariest part of all the things you listed. It's all scary. It was all scary. And I can't say that I have conquered my fears of heights, bridges, jumping off of things, falling.

But I can say that I did all of that. Man, you powered through. Good job. Deirdre, what can't you let go of? So the thing I can't let go of is Mariah Carey, who said in an interview in the UK in the last few days she just doesn't believe in time. She doesn't believe in time, she doesn't have clocks, she doesn't use clocks, she no longer has any birthdays and I think this is her

way of just not getting any older. I think she's maybe around 56 and getting into that age and I maybe I just want to agree with Mariah Carey. Maybe that should just be my thing. There are no more clocks. There is no more time. I'm sure the producers of this podcast would be thrilled. Try that with an editor when you're on deadline. That's not gonna work in radio.

But the weird thing about this whole Mariah Carey thing is she doesn't believe in birthdays or clocks, but she does celebrate anniversaries, which I would say come after passage of time. Yeah. I think that there is a logical fallacy here, but whatever. I guess when you're Mariah Carey, everyone's on your time. Mariah Carey, you do you. Yes, I believe that when you become a diva in the greatest sense, like you are Mariah Carey, you do you. Yes, I believe that when you become a diva in the greatest sense,

like you are Mariah Carey, yeah, people run on her time. She earned it. Life goals. I don't even aspire to that. All right, that is all for today. Our executive producer is Mithani Maturi. Casey Morell edits the podcast. Our producer is Bria Suggs. Special thanks to Krishna Dev Kalamur, Lexi Shapittle, and Ben Swayze. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House. I'm Deidre Walsh. I cover Congress. And I'm Greg Meyery. I cover national security. And thank you for listening to the NPR sponsor Home Instead.

Home Instead provides adaptable in-home senior care plans from qualified, compassionate caregivers that lend a hand when you need it most. Learn more at homeinstead.ca. Home Instead. For a better what's next. Support for NPR and the following message comes from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation RWJF is a national philanthropy working toward a future where health is no longer a privilege, but a right learn more at RWJF.org