When they are ready, they'll let us know, very simple, ready to do whatever, doesn't make any difference, whatever they want to do. I'm ready. That's the President talking about Iran. And we said to ourselves, we said, we need to talk to somebody who knows a lot about that part of the world, about what could be going on with us. And Ran indeed a lot of strong statements, a lot of talking heads who don't have half an idea what
they're talking about. And then you have Ambassador face allil Estra Body, who's the former Iraq Ambassador to the u N one of the authors of that country's constitution and director for the center of Something behind Sean's head. Thank you, the Study of the Middle East at Indiana University. My apologies, Ambassador Alistra Body. How are you, sir? I'm very well, thank you, delighted to be with you again. Thank you.
It's been too long. So why don't we begin with uh Iran and their their recent actions, their motivations, what's their game, what are their goals? Well, I think that a couple of things. One, as is always the case, regime survival is the number one priority. And there are people in the US administration that have given conflicting signals about that. John Bolton, the National Security Advisor, very famously
wants regime change in Iran. Now it's interesting because the President has said that he is not interested in regime change. He only wants uh, he only wants UM to ensure that Iran doesn't obtain a nuclear weapon. Now, the problem with that is that the United States is actually transferring nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia as we speak UM, and so Iran will be looking back across the Gulf and saying,
uh uh, this doesn't look good for us. In the meantime, they were um, actually complying with the terms of the so called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which is what the President calls a nuclear deal, and very there is zero evidence that they were not in compliance with those terms. It's the United States which went out of compliance and withdrew unilaterally, couldn't even bring the UH European allies aboard. And so the Uranians are looking at this and saying,
what's our incentive for negotiating. We negotiated, we came to an agreement, we abided by an agreement UM, and the other side violated it. So what assurances do we have that if we negotiate again, we won't be in the same position a year, two years, three years down the road. Um. It's uh. It's one thing to renegotiate, it's another to withdraw and reinstitute sanctions without a justification under the original agreement at least um and then expect the other side
to negotiate again. It's it's a very tricky situation. The President has put the US in um and the Iranians aren't playing his game. Well, maybe that was the problem
with the agreement. I was watching Senator Mark Rubio make a point yesterday that while they were in a compliance with the agreement, as you just said, with the specifics that we discussed, they were not in compliance with the spirit of the agreement, and that they were continuing to be the world's number one exporter of terror and be involved in a bunch of things that we don't like. So, how do you how do we do with that? Well, the you deal with that as such? You don't that made.
First of all, there's no such thing as a spirit of an agreement. There's there's an agreement, and there are terms of an agreement. And Senator Rubio knows that UM. You know, you would be hard if if you had made every payment on your on your mortgage on time and in the proper amount. UM. You would feel mightily put upon if your mortgage company foreclosed on your house because it felt you were not in compliance with the
spirit of the mortgage agreement. There there are terms of a mortgage agreement, and if you're either comply or you don't. This is an international agreement that is sanctioned by UM six countries seven if you include Iran, but five some of America's closest allies, and the United Nations Security Council, on which the United States sits, where it along with
four other powers, has a veto. You have never had a guest on your show more critical of the Iranian government and of its actions in the Middle East than I. There may be others who hold it in the same lower regard the government of Iran as I do, but you've never had one that has holds it in lower regard than I do. UM. But this isn't a game of monopoly. This this is you know, playing at at the highest level in the international community. And there's ways
of doing things. And what the President did in unilaterally withdrawing US generally, is not it, particularly because I can't tell what the strategy behind the United States actions is. I know what the steps they're taking are, but sanctions are not a policy. What's the policy. I happen to agree with the President's point of view on the previous agreement, but walking away from it is an enormous gamble, by
the way, Donald Trump, candidate Donald Trump, agreed with that. Yeah. Look, Jim Mattis general matters of former Secretary of Defense was against the agreement, he thought, and he was out of government at the time, of course, and he thought the agreement that the Obama administration entered into was it was a mistake. But he also thought withdraw and testified in Congress when he was still Secretary of Defense that it was it would be a strategic mistake for the United
States to withdraw. And the problem and Trump said that as well. Well. What he said, he said it differently when he was a candidate. What he said was it's an international agreement. It involves our allies, and you can't just walk away from an international agreement. He's right about that.
But if you do walk away, you would have thought you would do it in a way that would bring the allies on board, so there would be international support other than Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Air Emirates. The United States has no support for what for what it did in walking away from the agreement, and therefore no way. You know, the United States maybe the sort
of eight hundred pound guerrilla in international affairs. But as as Vietnam proved, I think two generations ago, our generation ago, um, the United States still can't do it alone. It's it's not strong enough to take on the entire world. Um, it needs allies to get its strategic objections objectives. Sorry, it's strategic objectives accomplished. And here I don't even think we know what those objectives are. How about we start at the at the well at the top of this discussion,
which would be Iran getting a nuclear weapon. Is that something we should you hold them in low and low regard. Is that something we should just not allow, no matter what the price is to pay, We just cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. Well, believe me as someone as you know, in your introduction you played out I was an ambassador from Iran's from the country that shares
a thousand mile border with Iran. I am the last one that wants to see Iran with a nuclear weapon, but to to get us to that state, it would help if the United States weren't transferring nuclear arms technology to Saudi Arabia, Iran's chief rival in the region, and we're also transferring nuclear technology. United States is transferring technology to the United Arab Emirates as well, um another rival, although a much relatively minor arrival compared to Saudi Arabia.
Quick question about that if forgive me for interjecting, but is the hatred, the fear between Iran and Saudi Arabia primarily theological? The political? Sonny are So it's it's just your good old yeah. So you had to say it's it's geopolitics. A lot of the talking heads you were talking about it when you were introducing the topic. You can't, I mean, you can't think about the Middle East without
thinking about religion. It's politics. When the Shah was was was running Iran back until nine when the Middlers came to power, you had the same tensions between him and the other states, and he was as secular as you I could hope for um. But so it's uh. But by the way, if you want to know who started the Iranian nuclear program, it would be a minor, little country you might have heard of called the United States of America. Well, I've made mistakes through my life too,
I understand that. So whenever I hear about the nuclear transfers we're doing the Saudi Arabia always sort of in the back of my mind think what could go wrong? Ambassador facilel Istra, body is on the line from Iraq ambassador to the U N Obviously we haven't mentioned a little country there by the Dead Sea Israel. Uh. They certainly have a voice in the region and have made it utterly clear that they're not gonna wait till there's a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv. They're going to strike Iran.
Do you take them at the word? Um? Not really for a technical reason. Um, they don't have the hardware to do what would be necessary to do to take out a any Iran any restarted Irani and nuclear program. Um they there are they They were able to take out the Iraqi program back in the eighty two. I can't remember now because uh, well, the Iranians learned from the lesson that Iraq, the mistakes Iraq made, Um, they would need to First of all, they don't have a
refueling ability, they don't have the heavy bombers. They don't have the heavy bombs. Um. It's the basically the only country that can do this as a United States. Which is why I ne who's been trying to get the US to do it for for for years. He's been saying for more than a decade that Iran is a year away from a nuclear bomb. Which is the odd thing about withdrawing from the deal because the deal, for all all its flaws, and I agree with you, it's a it was a very flawed deal. Um. George W.
Bush walked away in two thousand and four. I think it was from a much stronger deal. He refused to sort of pull the trigger and make an agreement with the Iranians, and the Iranians just kept working, and by the time Obama made his deal in two thousand fifteen, the terms of the deal were much less in the favor of the United States than if the United States had made an agreement with Iran in two thousand four. But that's the that's the hand uh we were dealt UM.
I agree with strengthening the deal. I think there was a way to try to make the deal a little more permanent or more permanent or permanent, and to bring Iran within compliance with what's called the Additional Protocol Hall of the Non Proliferation Treaty. But a unilateral withdrawal without the support even of the European Allies, much less Russia and China as permanent members of the Security Council, I
don't think was the way to do it. So I've been reading a lot about the leader of the uh Airb Emirates m S what's mb zz and and his and his role in the Middle East, and now he and MBS with Saudi Arabia are working together to try to eliminate a Ran. So, uh this is a really high stakes game, isn't it. It's an extremely high stakes game, and it's unfortunately one that the US is getting drawn into.
And I don't think there's a happy outcome for the United States to be involved in these sorts of regional regional disputes. The Crown Prince of the U a E Is mb Z Mohammed bin zayat Um, and he is sort of rumored to be kind of the mentor of the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia. They're both, they both have the titles of Crown Prince, and they both run their respective countries for a variety of reasons. UM. And
they are indeed taking on Iran. Keep in mind, they have been trying to take on the whole sees of Yemen for what is it for or five years now. I can't remember exactly when the bombing started. I think it was two thousand and fourteen, it might have been fifteen, UM. And they haven't been able to take on a rebel group in a little country like Yemen, which they regard that little rebel group as one of Iran's proxies. If they can't take them on effectively, I don't know how
they're going to take Iran effectively. And one of my real fears. And keep in mind, I know you introduced me as an Iraqi ambassador, and I was, but I'm also a natural born citizen of the United States. I'm
a natural born citizen of both countries. So as an American citizen born in the United States, I'm really concerned that that that one or two regional powers in the Middle East have a real interest in trying to draw the United States into an armed conflict with Iran, and I see no uh no United States national security interest in getting into a shooting war with Iran, though improving the deal with Iran is certainly in the American interest
if it can be done through diplomacy. Facil Istrobody, former Rock Ambassador to the u N Director to the Center for the Study of the Middle East at Indiana University, Sir, it's always enlightening. We sure appreciate the time. Thanks a million. It's always a pleasure. I enjoy it very much. Thank you. Okay, follow up discussion, cetera. To come stay with us.