The President's Daily Brief - PDB Situation Report | June 14th, 2025: Anti-ICE Riots Rock American Cities & Iran Dares Washington to Respond

Episode Date: June 14, 2025

In this episode of The President's Daily Brief: Riots erupt across Los Angeles and other U.S. cities in response to ICE operations, with vehicles torched and streets shut down. Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies, joins us to assess the situation Iran rejects the latest U.S. proposal to curb uranium enrichment. Jonathan Sayeh from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies explains what Iran’s move means for the stalled negotiations Please remember to subscribe if you enjoyed this episode of The President's Daily Brief. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Not loving your AT&T or T Mobile Bill? Yeah, we've been hearing that a lot. Good news. Bring your AT&T or T mobile bill to Verizon and we'll give you a better deal. So get away from that unfortunate phone bill and get to Verizon. Run, ride, canoe. Whatever it takes, we'll be here. Bring your AT&T or T mobile bill to a Verizon store today and we'll give you a better deal on the best network. A better deal. No surprises. That's Verizon. Best Network based on Route Metrics, Best Overall Mobile Network Performance U.S.

Second Half 2025, all rights reserved. It must provide a recent consumer mobile bill in the name of the person who gave me the deal. additional terms, conditions, and restrictions apply. How many discounts does USAA auto insurance offer? Too many to say here. Multi-vehicle discount. Safe driver discount? New vehicle discount. Storage discount. How many discounts will you stack up?

Tap the banner or visit usaa.com slash auto discounts. Restrictions apply. Welcome to the PDB Situation Report. I'm Mike Baker. Your eyes and ears on the world stage. All right. Let's get briefed. We'll start today's show with a week of anti-ice riots across Los Angeles. Angeles and other major cities. Rioters have torched vehicles, clashed with police, and shut down streets all in protest of immigration enforcement. Oh, all that sounds mostly peaceful, doesn't it?

We'll talk with Mark McCorion. He's the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies about what's really driving the unrest. Later in the show, Iran has officially rejected a U.S. proposal that would have curved its uranium enrichment program, calling it, quote, not acceptable to us. so sorry about that. Jonathan Sawye, from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, joins us to break down what this means for the ongoing talks. But first, today's PDB spotlight. It's been a week of unrest, as you have no doubt seen,

as anti-ice demonstrations continue across the country. Now, what started as a local protest in Los Angeles quickly escalated into coordinated riots from coast to coast. According to ICE officials, the unrest began as the agency-targeted individuals involved in criminal activity, specifically money laundering tied to drug cartels. But that explanation has done little to calm the crowds. Activists and agitators, they're always, always anxious to get out on the streets and throw some bricks,

have now taken to the streets and cities like New York, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, and Atlanta, clashing with police, blocking roads, and setting fire to federal vehicles. Again, sounds mostly peaceful. The riots are raising serious questions about how immigration enforcement can function in this kind of environment, and whether political leadership is fueling the flames. Joining us now to discuss is Mark Corcorian. He's the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Mark, thanks very much for joining us again on the Situation Report. Glad to be here. Thanks for having me. Let's start with a pretty broad question. Give me your

take on what's been happening in Los Angeles, and now, of course, it's popping up and protests are popping up in other parts of the country. But give me your perspective. Well, I mean, what the Democratic politicians who are taking advantage of this rioting are saying is that immigration enforcement is an optional thing, that if they opt out of it, they get to, you know, that it's okay for illegal immigrants to live there. A sanctuary city in the limited sense is a jurisdiction or a state that says, look, we're not going to help whites. We're going to stand aside. These guys are going a step beyond that into actual nullification, like South Carolina in 1860. And they're saying that we get to pick and choose which federal laws apply in our jurisdiction. And sorry, that's not the way it

works. What's the legal basis? Let's talk about the way the Trump administration has handled this in terms of their actions with the National Guard. Are they on firm legal ground there? Oh, absolutely, completely. I mean, the president has the right to nationalize the National Guard in cases, as the law says, in cases of rebellion or a danger of rebellion, or if federal law can't be enforced by the regular agents of federal law, whatever it is, whether there's been a case about the delivery of the mails was being somehow interrupted. And I forget which president it was, used the National Guard to make sure that federal processes were carried out. Obviously, enforcing immigration law is a lot more important than the mail getting delivered, but the

principle is the same. If the normal process of enforcing federal law is being interfered with at the local or state level, the president has explicit authority for. Congress to use National Guard to make that happen. This may be a simplistic question, or may show my ignorance on the matter of sanctuary cities, but are they, I mean, meaning the sanctuary cities, are they on firm legal ground for doing what they did? I mean, it's been in place for some time now, but how did that process start? And did anybody ever ask, are they actually allowed to do that?

Yes, unfortunately, they have pretty broad authority. in that regard because of the 10th Amendment. Under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, the feds can't, the way the courts put it, can't commandeer the resources of states. They can't say, you have to use your resources for this objective that we have selected whether you like it or not. Often they do anyway. They cooperate. But what the issue here in L.A. is it's not that they're not assisting, it's that they're obstructing federal law. And that they do not have the right to do. There's one wrinkle to this. Congress in 1996 said it was illegal for any state or jurisdiction to prohibit its employees, its law enforcement people, from communicating with immigration.

In other words, they're not allowed to say, like L.A. County is not allowed under federal law to tell it's deputies, you're not allowed to communicate with ICE. And yet, they are getting away with it and the law has no consequences, no punishment for jurisdictions that do that. Yeah, I mean, it really is fascinating because they do seem to be walking a very fine line here, meaning the city management Karen Bass in Los Angeles, you know, telling the LAPD to stand down and to not respond, I mean, she's potentially contributing to violence, contributing to potential, you know, danger to human life, et cetera, by telling them and giving them those instructions. Now, if we look at, I'm not even sure how to describe it, the behind-the-curtain-the-curtain-support

for this, I'd like to take some time talking about that, because my belief is always any time to see a protest. You know, it's not organic, some sort of grassroots, you know, just earnest people taking to the streets. There's always some element of organization there. From your perspective, what do you know about the individuals, the groups, the entities that are helping to organize this that are providing funds and material support to these protests? Yeah, I don't have, I haven't, there's other people who've looked into this and there is, It's clearly not just an organic thing that's bubbling up from the bottom. This is, I'm not sure how much money is necessary.

What's needed is a kind of, it's almost like honeybees. They send the message out and they will all, you know, focus on, because they all kind of have the same instinct. They just need to kind of be activated to do it. So it doesn't require, you know, George Soros in his mountain layer pushing a button or something like that. That's not the way it works. There are just large numbers of these anti-borders folks who are just waiting for an opportunity to, you know, to vent their opposition to border enforcement or immigration enforcement in general. And the thing is that it's kind of like these Hamas protests.

It's just sort of, some of them are the same people as I understand it. They're just switched issues and the Democrat, the regular Democrats elected kind of mainstream establishment Democrats much prefer that their street thugs work on immigration issues than on, you know, then supporting Hamas because that creates tension within the left, whereas opposing the very concept of limits on immigration is something that's a litmus test at this point on the left. So it doesn't create those kind of internal conflicts. Yeah, I mean, there is a fairly deep pool of professional agitators and activists. And it doesn't really matter what the cause is.

They're just, they're happy to get out there and throw a brick or spray paint a police car or set fire to something. But again, the point that I think is really valid here is people need to watch this what's unfolding on the streets and understand that it's not. not just, you know, some, you know, well-intentioned individuals taking to the, there are some, right? There are some, just like there are some, you know, gormless, well-intentioned students out of universities protesting. But for the most part, there's an active effort behind there. That's why you see, you know, materials handed out. That's why you see the same signs. That's why you see porta-bodies out at protest. There's a reason why these things happen the way that they do, and that's because they are being supported by a variety of organizations that tend

to oftentimes not really care what the issue is. I mean, I take your point on sort of the broad-based support within that element for open borders. But, you know, they still, whether it's that or whether it's, you know, Hamas or Gaza or anything else. I think they're just looking for an opportunity to get out on the streets a lot of times. What do you think of the messaging from the Trump administration in terms of what they're doing, what they're trying to do. I mean, are they helping themselves? From your perspective, is it a good messaging effort in terms of explaining to the general public why they're out there on the streets with this effort?

Yeah, and I think yes, but with a little bit of a reservation. The yes part is the administration has handled this pretty well so far. People don't like anarchists, burning cars, waving foreign flags, all that stuff. And as long as they don't overreact, they're going to win that narrative because that's what this is about. Rioting is politics by other means to borrow from Klauswitz. And so the reaction, in other words, it's a political act and you have to win a political fight, not just bash the heads in of a couple of dirtbags, as satisfying as that might be

to watch. And so far, I think they're doing that fine. National Guard is not actually enforcing immigration laws, even though federal law would permit that. They're doing security for federal buildings and federal officers. So it's a kind of defensive thing. It's a smart move. The only area, the reservation I would have is that the administration and the president have talked all the time about this being about deporting criminals. And a lot of the people they're getting are real scum of the earth criminals. But most illegal aliens aren't criminals. And if you're going to reassert authority and end impunity in immigration law, that means lots of non-criminals have to be also taken into custody and made to leave. And the reason for that is that they compete with

American workers unfairly, they burden the welfare state, they create problems for assimilation, and you need to make that argument as well as the argument about criminals, because everybody, even the people on the left, some most of them anyway, think that, you know, serious criminals should be deported. It's just that that's, you know, there's just not that many, I mean, it's okay, to say there's a lot of criminals among illegals. Most of them still aren't. And if you want to deport illegal immigrants, you need to make a case to the public that this is

about both deporting criminals and deporting regular criminals. illegal aliens. Yeah, that's a really important point. I want to pick up on that in our next segment, Mark, but if you would stick around, we've got to take a quick break. We'll be right back with Mark McCoyan, executive director of the Center for

Immigration Studies, and more on the Situation Report. Don't go away. Now's the time to save on new carpet at the Home Depot. Receive 10% off your total carpet project and 12 months special financing. Plus, we'll measure your space for free.

from a variety of stylish on-trend options fit for everyday life with life-proof, life-proof with pet-proof technology, home decorators collection, and trafficmaster carcuits. Save 10% and get 12-month special financing now at the Home Depot. Offer valid April 16th through May 3, 2006. Exclusions apply for licenses, see Home Depot.com slash license numbers. This episode is brought to you by Redfin. You're listening to a podcast, which means you're probably multitasking, maybe even scrolling home listings on Redfin. saving homes without expecting to get them. But Redfin isn't just built for endless browsing.

It's built to help you find and own a home. With agents who close twice as many deals, when you find the one, you've got a real shot at getting it. Get started at redfin.com. Own the dream. Make Mother's Day even more special at Whole Foods Market. Kick off brunch or dinner with quality cheese and charcutory with no synthetic nitrates.

Then go seafood. There's an abundance on. sale at Whole Foods Market, where it's all sustainable while caught are responsibly farmed. At the bakery, grab seasonal treats like their strawberry pretzel cream pie, and you can't go wrong with a ready-to-heathe Kish Lorraine, Deviled Eggs, and fresh-cut fruits to go. Celebrate Mom with Whole Foods Market. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining us again is Mark McCoyan.

He's the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Mark, thank you very much for sticking around. you made a really important point here. We were talking about the messaging from the White House, the effort to kind of push back against the narrative of what's out, for the most part, in the media, that ICE agents are just out on the streets, conducting random raids and splitting up families

and all the typical things that you hear. And, you know, the question being is, what grade do you give the Trump administration in terms of their messaging and their ability to help shape that narrative? and get people understanding what they're doing. Your point, I think, is absolutely spot on. It's one thing to say, we're going out there and picking up criminals. I think you're right. Most people, and I would argue there are some on the hard left that would not be in favor, but most people are in favor of getting the criminals off the street.

But when you start going into Home Depot, so you start going into, you know, wherever, Walmart's and starting arresting people who are working, right, it creates a different feel. different dynamic, and particularly among the folks who are not in the Trump base, perhaps, the moderates or the independents, the people that he needed to vote for him, and they did to win this last election. But they're the ones who get a little sideways, get a little squirrely when that happens. How would you advise them on that? How do you do that? There's two things I'd point to. One is, like I said in the previous segment, they need to talk about the issue as both

getting rid of criminals, but also workers and people who just shouldn't be here have to go, even if they're not criminals. But the other thing is I think they, and I think they're working on this, they need to find a few employers to make examples of them, employers of illegal aliens. Because the way the law is now, it's illegal to employ an illegal alien. Before 1986, it wasn't. It was explicitly permitted in the law to employ illegal aliens. In 1986, that changed, but there hasn't been that much enforcement since then.

And the law was written such that it's hard to make a case against an employer who has illegals on his workforce, because you have to show that he knew they were illegal. and there's all kinds of games they can play to avoid that. But the law says, look, if their documents are plausible on their face, you have to hire them. Because if you don't, we're suing you for discrimination. So the employers, to some degree, are caught kind of between a rock and a hard place. And so, but they know, there are employers they know are dirty. And when you arrest illegals, now you have them and you can get them to sing like canaries

about who in the HR department gave you the fake documents, that kind of stuff. Because that happens all the time. They're not, the illegal immigrants aren't going to talk unless there's some incentive for them. It's like arresting a street-level drug dealer in order to get his manager kind of. You know what I mean? So they need to get some employers and they need to make the case that employers that employers need to follow the rules, use things like E-Verify, which is an online system to screen out

illegal workers, and sort of share the burden, say that look, illegal workers have to go, but employers that are knowingly hiring them were coming down on them like a ton of bricks. That is both right in a policy sense, but it also will help, as you were talking about, help sell this program to kind of people in the middle who want immigration enforcement, but maybe a little squirrelly about it? Would it have made more sense, this is all just speculation, but would it have made more sense for the administration to simply focus their energies and their efforts only on the criminal element within this community, right, of the illegal

elements to say, okay, all we're going to do in the first phase is pick up the criminal element because that's what people understand. And then you say, okay, now we're going. And maybe that gave you enough time, A, you're building up goodwill by taking these people off the streets, but B, you're also allowing, you're giving yourself more time to create the message for perhaps a second phase. Because, I mean, this is, I know I'm throwing a lot at you right now. But But what I'd also like to talk about is the numbers. What numbers, they're all over the map, right? You hear, it's 12 million, it's 20 million.

They're all over the map. From your perspective, if the goal is anybody who's here illegally, how many people are we talking about? Well, let me get to the first point first about the criminals only. Tom Holman had said, is always said, they're going to follow a worst first policy. but worst first doesn't mean worst only. And, you know, the analogy I use is to say traffic enforcement. If you're a state trooper, obviously, if someone's driving 100 miles an hour through a school zone

and shooting a machine gun out the window, you're going after that guy first, obviously. But there's not that many people doing that, and you need to have routine enforcement if deterrence is going to mean anything. You can't concede that non-rapist illegal aliens get to stay. And that's what the left really wants, even their mainstream Democrats. That's what they want to get that idea in people's heads. And you can't let that go. Like I said, the president of the administration are partly responsible because they haven't joined,

combined the talk about criminals with the talk about the rest. But as far as the numbers go, our estimate now, our best estimate, is something like 16 million illegal immigrants in the United States, and it may be off by another million or so, but the 25, 30 million, 50 million estimates people come up with, it's just not true. Because if it were, you would see it in the birth records, in the death records, in the school records. In other words, you can't have 10, 15, 20 million extra. people than you thought without seeing evidence of that. And one of the reasons, though, people say, how can that be? One of the reasons is illegal immigrants come and go. Even under Biden,

there were illegal immigrants who went home, too. People do that for their own reasons all the time. The goal has to be to have more people go home and fewer people come in. But at the same time, our legal, so-called, I put that in quotes, our legal immigration system, about one out of four people every year are former illegal aliens. So the population of illegal immigrants is kind of always changing and there are people leaving the illegal population even if they're still here. Eminem, the ones who have children are U.S. born, so they're U.S. citizens. So there may well be 50 million people who once were illegal or whose parents were illegal,

that kind of thing, but actual illegal immigrants today, probably 16 million? I realize I'm playing devil's advocate here. but realistically, they're not deporting 16 million people. So what is there a number they're looking to hit? I mean, what's the end game from your perspective with the administration on this issue? Because I don't see them sending 16 million people home. Right. A couple of points here.

One is, I don't know, the administration hasn't articulated an end game and they really shouldn't in a sense, at least not yet. I just hope they have one in mind. You know what I mean? But they're talking about, their goal is deporting a million people a year. I don't think they'll get there this year, but they might next year. It takes real resources. That's ambitious. But the goal also is to get a comparable or greater number of people to self-deport. That's, in other words, to go home on their own because they don't want to get arrested. And they made a big push in that direction.

If you turn yourself in, they give you a free airline ticket, oh, I'm and a thousand bucks when you get off the plane. So, but that ties into my earlier comment. People aren't going to self-deport if you're only going after criminals. Because most illegal immigrants aren't, I mean, they've committed immigration-related crimes, but they're not rapists or murderers. They're just regular working stiffs.

If you go after regular working stiffs, well, now you've increased the odds that they're going to getting arrested by ICE. And to avoid that, there are some significant number of people who will say, look, we're thinking about going home anyway, let's pack up and get out of here before we get arrested. Is there an accurate or somewhat accurate number for those who have self-deported so far during this administration? Yeah, it's only been four months. The government data like this takes a long time to come up.

We're not sure about those numbers. my number cruncher research director has said, well, I don't know, that's kind of iffy numbers, but it is going down. And some people are going home. And the goal is you've got to do everything plausible to increase the number leaving and decrease the number coming in. And then what you end up with is attrition. Over time, the illegal population shrinks. But the end game should be at some point when they've reasserted control, there's still going to be some illegal aliens left. And for me, the end game is, amnesty, the rest, rip off the Band-Aid in exchange for cutting legal immigration in the future, because ultimately we just have too much immigration period,

legal or illegal for purposes of assimilation, economic purposes, the welfare state, all of it, we need to dial immigration down from 11, which is where it's been for a long time. I think you touched on a really interesting point that sometimes gets lost in the wash there, which is the sort of the attrition, right? If you're going after individuals, if people are self-deporting, if the message, basically you're talking about messaging again, if the message is, look, this is not acceptable, right, you do start getting fewer people saying, I'm going to make the trip into the U.S. You know, it's difficult, it's costly, it's dangerous, and you get fewer people even starting

that process to try to come into the U.S. to the U.S., and I think that's a very, that's an important part of what you're talking about. It's just, you know, I know we started out by talking about the protests. I'd love to be talking more about those to get your perspective on where you think that's going to go, but that's going to have to wait for next time because we have run out of time. Mark Kukori, an executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. Look, it's always a pleasure. Very much appreciate your time.

appreciate your insight, and I hope that you'll come back again on the Situation Report. Okay. We'll speak with Jonathan Salyer from the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. We'll be right back. Some follow the noise. Bloomberg follows the money, because behind every headline is a bottom line. Whether it's the funds-fueling AI or crypto's trillion-dollar swings, there's a money side to every story. and when you see the money side you understand what others miss get the money side of the story

subscribe now at bloomberg.com Mom, can you tell me a story? Sure, once upon a time a mom needed a new car. Was she brave? She was tired, mostly. But she went to Carbana.com and found a great car at a great price. No secret treasure map required.

Did you have to find a dragon? Nope, she bought it 100% online, from her bed actually. Was it scary? Honey, it was as unscary as car buying could be. Did the car have a sunroof? It did actually. Okay, good story. Car buying you'll want to tell stories about. Buy your car today on... Carvana. Delivery fees may apply. Hey there, it's Wayfair here, where delivery and setup are as easy as a few taps on your phone. You're relaxing in an old

hammock, scrolling Wayfares app when you spot it, a brand new patio set. Next thing you know, Wayfair delivers it right to your patio and sets it up. Oh, you need a new grill too? All right, Wayfair's got you covered. With Wayfair's room of choice delivery and back. expert set up on qualifying orders, life gets a little easier. Visit wayfair.com or the Wayfair app. Wayfair, every style, every home. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. This week, the Islamic Republic formally rejected a U.S. proposal that would have curved its uranium enrichment capabilities. Now, Tehran says the offer was, quote, not acceptable and is now preparing a counterproposal of its own. Meanwhile, President Trump weighed in during an interview with Miranda Devine on her pod

Force One podcast. He expressed growing skepticism about reaching any meaningful agreement with Iran and made it clear the Moas, quote, will not get nukes on his watch. All this comes just days before planned a sixth round of nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran. I'm sure that will produce the same as the previous five rounds. Joining us now to break it all down is research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Jonathan Sallier. Jonathan, thank you very much for joining us today. It's a pleasure to be with you. Thank you. Let's start with this upcoming sixth round. It's six rounds of talks already.

That's going to be taking place between Washington and Tehran. What are you anticipating to come out of this latest round of discussions? The latest round is particularly important because we're approaching a critical deadline called the snapback, which is arriving in October 2025. So if the West, America and the European partners of the JCPOA, which be Britain, Germany, and France, if they fail to agree on reimposing sanctions on Iran, they would automatically be lifted by this deadline. So from Tehran's perspective, their strategy has been to drag out talks, the best of their ability to, one, revive their economy, and two, try to delay this potential snapback mechanism that would hold them accountable for their nuclear violations, such as enriching uranium and undeclared sites, weaponization efforts, and other similar matters.

Let's imagine that they are successful in dragging this past the deadline. Then what? I mean, then what takes place? I mean, if you could explain it to our viewers, I mean, what would be the options should the U.S. for instance, want to lay on additional sanctions? So one angle would be, which is a very likely possibility, is for them to postpone this deadline. And that would signal to the Iranians that this administration is really, really keen on making a deal and is not necessarily seeking to leverage the existing weaknesses that Iran has.

That is one perhaps approach. The other approach would be to, of course, if they were to, in fact, initiate Stap Act, everyone has reiterated more than once that they're going to fall through with even more violations of the JCPOA that they've already withdrew from. So as we approach this deadline, it's more so about the signaling as to where Washington and Europe stand on the issue, and it would be indicative of how much leverage Tehran thinks it has over the negotiations. Do you think they have any leverage? Their leverage is gradually, I think, building. So when the talks first started, Tehran's defensive missile capabilities were a lot weaker. So their air defenses were destroyed by Israel's October 2024. In addition to that, they didn't have any ballistic

missiles and their stockpiles were also destroyed. So that diminished their deterrence. In addition, their economy was definitely, I mean, it's still weak, but especially back then, the Rial was trading for over more than a million to the U.S. dollar. As time has gone and as Iran has bought time and as Washington has played into Tehran's strategy, their leverage is gradually actually building up and tilting the other way. So their economy is now in a better shape than it was slightly, because of course, you know, the market is greatly about perception, and they've started to redeploy some of their air defense systems around their nuclear sites. So from their perspective, they see Washington's reluctance.

They also see that Trump is not providing Nanyahu the green light to attack, and they see that as leverage for themselves. So it has definitely shifted since the beginning of the talks. Okay. I mean, let's look at the economy just briefly. It's interesting that you said that it's in a, well, relatively speaking, it's in a better position than it had been. What accounts for that? It's come down to perception in that particular case.

So when the average Iranian foresaw a war happening and saw a potential military strike led by both the United States and Israel, that immediately stole panic. And what we saw as a result of that was the real went up over a million. And as soon as there was discussions of continuation of talks and when both sides were, we saw, mentions that talks are looking more and more productive. The economy kind of revived to an extent, I think that we all dropped to maybe about 7 to 800,000, which is still very, very high compared to years ago. But another angle of looking at this is the domestic discontenticist the regime, specifically by a sector that has been historically pro the Islamic Republic talking about laborers. So truck drivers, people who work in the energy sector.

And we saw massive, massive strikes very recently, like about a month ago that was taking place all over the country. So the momentum is there internally. And I think ultimately when we say the regime's Achilles heel, it's his economy that means you would have to leverage this domestic discontent against the regime. On the PDB, we've talked about the protests, the truckers. But it seemed to go away as soon as it, you know, as quickly as it popped up. And yet the initial coverage, the initial talk was this looks like it could be sticky,

right, that these protests could build for a change. Because it was, as you said, it was involving elements of the population that typically hadn't been out on the streets. Where did the protest stand at this point? The way to analyze the Iranian protests, the key there is the interval. So what we've seen so far is that post-2009 and then you had 2017-18, then to the 2019 and then 2020, what you see is they're happening at significantly shorter intervals. And that's for major nationwide protests.

When it comes to demonstrations and strikes, they practically have not stopped. And the fact that those truckers strikes were able to continue as long as they did, I think it went over about two weeks. That was unprecedented for the supply chain sector across the country to be stagnant to that extent. Another angle of looking at it is there is no necessarily wise-put organization between the different sectors, and that perhaps continues to be the weakness of the Iranian civil society. So if there were to be one strike fund for these strikers, and there were to be more coordination across sectors, so people in the energy, oil, electricity, working at power growth, if they were to join the truckers, that would definitely yield longer results.

But the issue at hand is the average Iranian who opposes the regime currently sees the the West, the Europe, and currently Washington saying, well, there's a possibility with a deal. We don't want to attack Iran. Trump has even said that Iran can be a great country with his current leaders. And that is perhaps the most demoralizing sentiment than Iranian can hear right now and definitely does not play into Tehran's weaknesses. Definitely demoralizing. If you think about people risking their lives and their families, their livelihood to take to the streets and then, you know, hearing the West, you know, say things like, you know, they could be a great country under their current leadership. From what you're seeing, are there protests still

ongoing or were they squashed completely? What we've known is that they don't really squash or they don't totally diminish. The resentment belts up because none of these grievances are ever addressed. For example, looking at 2022 with the Women's Life Freedom, the most major nationwide protest, it was not necessarily predicted when it would happen or what would be the prime catalyst. And same with 2019 over the gasoline prices. No one could have predicted just simply raising gasoline prices would lead to such major, major protests across the country.

So the fact that it's to an extent unpredictable, that means the resentment is just an underlying factor. Another angle of looking at this would be demographic. So Iran is 60% under 30. You're talking about a population that is young. You're talking about a population that is no longer in the Cold War era. They have access to internet to an extent, of course, there's limitations, but they see Instagram, they're worldly people, the youth definitely look up to the West.

So this gap between the society and the state has never been wider, which is why the momentum right now, specifically with Gen Z being as vibrant as it is, is crucial. But Iranian birth rates are in severe decline as they are with most parts of the world, but in the Iranian case, the point is right now is great, great momentum. And if we lose this in the next few years, it would be significantly more challenging. It's a fascinating statistic to say that 60% of the population is under 30 years of age. Approximately, yes. Maybe about half at this point.

But roughly, it's a very, very young country. And the important fact about that is these are people that no longer buy into the regime propaganda. When you talk to the average Iranian young person, they're fascinated by America. They're fascinated by Europe. They follow Western pop culture. Not to say they've lost their identity, but the closeness that you see by the regime is definitely not something you see on the streets talking to Iranians. Having actually grown up there, I've moved to the States in 2013 and I still talk to my friends back home, the sentiment is still

there. They're yearning for more support from both NGOs and, of course, governments. What's the access like for young folks to the internet, to information out there? Is it, I mean, how heavily censored is it by the regime? It's censored, but the most important component of that is the surveillance. So for the most part, most Iranians can theoretically have access to VPNs. That is basically an internet circumvention tool that allows them to browse the internet freely. And the regime, to an extent, has turned this into a racket. They benefit from it. But on the other hand, that means they might allow you to go on Instagram perhaps or maybe watch YouTube or watch foreign movies. But as soon as you utilize that internet access for political

protests or if you were to organize, then the regime would immediately crack down on that. So it definitely has changed a lot. The Trump administration limiting foreign aid through U.S.A. to Iran has hindered the NGO's ability to an extent to provide VPNs, but technology is always advancing. So what we're seeing now is actually Starlink getting smuggled inside the country, which is, again, really, really helpful with Iranians maintaining their connection to the outside world. Another angle, when we look at it when it comes to political protests, originally, for example, in 2019, the regime fully shut down the internet overnight and they killed less than 2,000

people over a weekend. They just shot them on the street. But what we saw in 2022 was a pivot from that. They didn't fundamentally shut down internet. They did internet throttling, which means certain areas didn't have access to internet, because a nationwide internet shut down is even costly for the regime itself. I want to pick up on that point, but Jonathan, Soye, if you can stick with us from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, we do have to take a quick break. So don't go away.

We'll be right back with more of the situation report. Stick around. Who cares about your poops? Ollie does. That's why Ali's science-backed gut health lineup helps support your family's regularity. From daily probiotics to fiber gummies your kiddos will love. Find it all on Ali.com. That's OLLLY.com.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. Chronic migraine, 15 or more headache days a month, each lasting four hours or more, can make me feel like a spectator in my own life. Botoxalin A prevents headaches in adults with chronic migraine. It's not for those with 14 or fewer headache days a month. It's the number one prescribed branded chronic migraine preventive treatment. prescription Botox is injected by your doctor.

Effects of Botox may spread hours to weeks after injection causing serious symptoms. Alert your doctor right away as difficulty swallowing, speaking, breathing, eye problems or muscle weakness can be signs of a life-threatening condition. Patients with these conditions before injection are at highest risk. Side effects may include allergic reactions, neck and injection site pain, fatigue, and headache. Allergic reactions can include rash, welts, asthma symptoms, and dizziness. Don't receive Botox if there's a skin infection. Tell your doctor your medical history, muscle or nerve conditions, including ALS-Lugherics disease, Asthenia Gravis or Lambert Eaton syndrome and medications, including botulinum toxins, as these may

increase the risk of serious side effects. Why wait? Ask your doctor, visit Botox Chronic Migraine.com or call 1-800-44 Botox to learn more. Choice hotels get you more of what you value. Here's a little tune to help you remember. Same drive, different day. Don't you wish you were getting away? Pack your beds and come on through. Texas, Ohio, Alaska, we're up there too. Comfort in. It's calling your name. Save on the stay. Oh. And free waffles are yours to claim.

Well, I hope you like my little song. Book direct at sourcehill-tales.com. Welcome back to the PDB Situation Report. Joining me once again is Jonathan Soye. He's a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. We've been talking all things Iran. Jonathan, let's look at another U.S. administration's dealings with the Iranian regime up to this point over the past few months. What do you make of

the gap between what we're hearing from the administration in the U.S. saying absolutely, you know, no uranium enrichment. You know, that's a red line. And then we're hearing talk that, you know, they've submitted a proposal that would allow them to continue enrichment, but only up to obviously civilian levels, civilian purposes. What do you make of all of that? To give credit to this administration, the latest proposal that was, of course, rejected by Iran was a clever diplomatic play. So what my understanding, of course, we have to rely on leaks and open social information when it comes to these. But the understanding here is that Iran would have theoretically have had the opportunity to enrich, but they have to have built new facilities.

And that would be under US supervision, actually a consortium that would involve different countries. But until that infrastructure was built, Iran had to dismantle its existing centrifuges. And that's why probably they rejected the deal, because the Supreme Leader has invested significant funds on these new centrifuges that they have thousands of, the IR6 and force, I believe, that can enrich at a much larger scale and more rapidly. So that was, I think, the clever play that, hey, if you're claiming that your military use is civilian, then so be it. will allow you enrich under our supervision, but you have to get rid of these high-tech ones and you have to ship out, you're already in rich uranium, I think is about 400 kilograms.

Yeah, and what's the likelihood that we would have transparency? Say that that happened, right? Say we got that deal. But in your mind, what's the likelihood that we would have full transparency to know that, in fact, they've shut down and dismantled all the facilities, It's not just the ones that we know about and that they've shipped out their highly enriched uranium. Very low. So as we saw even in 2015, Iran had in theory allowed inspectors to come in, but we had to unfortunately rely on Israeli intelligence to tell us that there are undeclared sites throughout the country that were enriching uranium.

And when that was brought up to the foreign minister of Iran, he just laughed it off and said, well, no, that is bogus until the IAEA actually went and found signs of enriched uranium across. So that has always been the pattern with Tehran, that they try to always do it covertly to the best of their ability. When it comes to this specific current one, of course, in the short term, it might limit their ability to enrich. But again, we don't know how many sites there are. Another angle on that would be that Washington has started the negotiations by saying one, no enrichment and two inspections anywhere and any time. And the fact that they're spending months effectively, just arguing over enrichment itself, that means Washington is unlikely to fall through with inspections anywhere at any time.

And they would, in theory, would have to just agree to limit it to just whatever enrichment they agree on. So it seems like inspections are becoming not a priority as much as enrichment is. And that, again, has been to everyone's tactic of delaying and trying to cause distractions for the process. Yeah, I mean, you could argue if you were a cynical person like I am, you know, had to watch this situation over the years, that any agreement that doesn't allow for full transparency is worthless, right? It means nothing. And if you base your expectations on past behavior, right?

I mean, that's usually what a logical person would do, then you would have to assume that they would continue to cheat and not, you know, a body. by any agreements. So I guess where I'm going with this is if we don't get a deal, right, you either get a deal or there's another option. That other option, of course, is a military strike against their infrastructure. I want to move in that direction. Again, nobody wants conflict, obviously. We're just, you know, we're hoping there's no conflict. But, you know, hope doesn't tend to be a very good foreign policy strategy. So talk to me about the military option here. what that might look like. From your perspective, is that something that the U.S. would support?

Would Israel, even without U.S. support, go at it on their own? I know I'm throwing a lot of questions in there. There's some speculation. I want to turn the floor over to you now. Sure, absolutely. Israel has signaled that it might contemplate a possible scenario where they would unilaterally bomb Iranian nuclear sites. They've indicated their capabilities of doing so. So in October 2024, where they bombed over 20 different sites, some of them were 500 kilometers east of Tehran, which is further than Yemenis to Israel, which means they have the capabilities to do that. They've eliminated Iranian S-300s that Russia provide for them. So Israelis to an extent have that capability. Now, even if American B-2 or B-52 bombers were involved,

it is still debatable how much damage it can do. And of course, it's not going to be a over-not-off operation is probably going to be a campaign because if you're going to escalate to that extent, then you would have to ensure that there's credible deterrence for Iran to follow up or not. So in addition to targeting the different sides in athanas-Forda, you have to also take out their ballistic missile stockpaws like they have, and they're rapidly getting more and more fuel from China to further advanced their domestic manufacturing capabilities. So as we analyze all these angles, I think the underlying factor is, it's again a matter of time until they rebuild their nuclear infrastructure

because they see it as deterrents. Which brings with them the main point being that the most effective way of ensuring that these weapons, Iran doesn't, the Islamic Republic, doesn't acquire nuclear weapons, is to ensure that the regime is in a fragile state that could, you know, you can push it towards this collapse given that it's already so fragile.

But if they're going to pursue the nuclear, sorry, the military angle, I mean, the underlying question that I think I really have is whether they're going to limit it on the military front or they're going to go further and actually target the RGC and the army and even the Iranian police's headquarters to perhaps provoke a sense of anti-regime uprising throughout the country or whether they would limit it strictly to military and not pursue, I guess, a regime change angle with that.

Yeah, I think once you start putting a potential scenario on the table with the title of regime change, you know, I think that that's where people get very squirly, right? They, you know, they can understand a strike on the actual infrastructure. And I agree with you. Look, I think, you know, if I was a betting person, which I am, I would put money on a military strike having to take place because, you know, I don't see these negotiations

resulting in a meaningful agreement. Now, the caveat there is maybe the U.S. administration is just so keen to get any agreement that they're willing to sign up to something that would look very similar, frankly, to the 2015 agreement. So there's that angle to it. But I think you're right. You're absolutely right. A military strike is just putting Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound, right?

It's a temporary fix. It kicks the can down the road. And so you are talking, if we're going to be pragmatic and realistic, you are talking about regime change, the fall of the Mullahs and the IRGC as the only thing that actually improves changes, provides for a much better, more stable, prosperous Iran for all the people and for the region. Now, what do you think about support from the region in the event of a military strike? Would this be the sort of thing where they'd all say, Yeah, publicly they'd be against it, but privately they all be kind of nod their head and say, well, it's about time. If you're talking about the region specifically of the Persian Gulf Arab countries, I think would be at stake. So we're talking about Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, the UAE. And open source intel suggests that they have signal to the Iranians that, hey, if this were to escalate to a military confrontation, we're staying out of it.

We're not going to allow them to use our airspace. And that is in part because I think Saudi still remember what has. happened when Iran basically bombed Aramco with both missiles and drones, and they didn't necessarily get a slap on the wrist even. So when Iran targeted Saudi infrastructure, America did not respond immediately. So from the Gulf's perspective, I don't know if they can necessarily see America stepping in on their behalf to defend them in case Iran retaliates. So, and of course, Saudi Arabia being perhaps to an extended leader like in the region, I guess a regional power, if you will. Their policy has shifted a bit. You know, the MBS started by waging a war in Yemen and

the Khashoggi scandal. And of course, they were very staunchly anti-Iran at the time. But I think they've pivoted away from that. And they're focusing on building their economy, building their tourism industry, just turning Saudi Arabia into a, in their vision, perhaps a leader in different sectors that is just beyond military endeavors. So from the Gulf East perspective, I think they do prefer de-escalation. They don't want to get involved in this. But that's it. I don't know if necessarily there's a major need for their direct involvement. Of course, the more support there are, the better. Ideally, we would see a coalition in this context. But as we've seen, Israel was able to take out their air defense systems and the American bombers are able to target Iranian nuclear infrastructure

that are very, very deep underground. Ideally, we would have European support as well that would further legitimize this because we don't want to clash with the Europeans the same way we did. during the first Trump term over Iran. And it seems like Washington and Europe are more aligned this time around. Yeah, I think that's a very interesting assessment. I think it's and it's accurate as well. Look, I've really enjoyed, and I know our viewers have really enjoyed this conversation. Jonathan Nassauye, research analysts at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

We really appreciate your insight and your comments here today. And I hope that when we call you back, because we're going to call you back, that you'll pick up the phone and agree to come back on the Situation Report. Look, that's all the time we have for this week's PDB situation report. Oh, sad trombone. Come on, perk up. We'll be back again next week. If you have any questions or comments or humorous anecdotes, please reach out to me at pdb at thefirsttv.com.

Every month, of course, our amazing team, we even let the interns participate. They sit around the table and they select some of the best questions and comments, and we produce one of our critically acclaimed Ask Me Anything episodes. One's in the hopper right now, ready to launch. Finally, to listen to the podcast. cast of this show ad-free? Well, it's simple. Become a premium member of the president's daily brief by visiting pdb premium.com. I'm Mike Baker, and you know the drill. Until next time, stay informed. Stay safe. Stay cool. Pay off your home, travel for life, drive a Ferrari. In celebration of the

world premiere of the Monopoly Big Board Buckslot Machine by Aristocrat Gaming, Yamava Resort and Casino at San Manuel is giving one person a $1.6 million dream package. The biggest prize in Yamava's history. Club's Toronto members can earn daily instant prizes and secure a spot in the finale May 29. Don't pass go and own it all. Only at Yamava, celebrating its 40th anniversary. You win?

Details at yamava.com must be 21-20. Please gamble responsibly. Monopoly is a trademark of Hasbro. Hasbro is not a sponsor of this promotion.