Amna Nawaz:
For perspective on today’s talks and President Trump’s handling of Iran, we get now two views.
Alan Eyre a four-decade career in U.S. government, including in the Foreign Service focusing on Iran. He was part of the Obama administration’s team that negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or JCPOA, agreement with Iran. He’s now at the Middle East Institute.
And retired Colonel Joel Rayburn had a 26-year career in the Army. During the first Trump administration, he was on the National Security Council staff, focusing on Iran in the Middle East. He’s now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
Welcome to you both, gentlemen. Thanks for being here.
(Crosstalk)
Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.), Former Trump National Security Council Staff: Thanks for having us.
Amna Nawaz:
Alan, I will begin with you.
Just give us your assessment of how the talks have gone so far, and also your assessment of how President Trump has been handling this approach dealing with Iran, demanding it gives up a nuclear program, assembling a massive military force, and threatening strikes if there’s no deal.
Alan Eyre, Middle East Institute:
I think that, again, based on what we heard today, there has been progress. And I think if there were enough time given to the problem, to the process, there could, in fact, be a nuclear agreement between Iran and the United States.
They made progress, but there’s still key red lines. The problem is you have all that military hardware in the Persian Gulf and nearby, and you can’t keep that there indefinitely. So, I mean, the most salient fact of all of this is that the red lines for either side have not really shifted, not just since last year’s 12-year war, but since the beginning of the negotiations between the Trump administration and the Iranians.
So we can reach an agreement, but it depends on whether we’re willing to allow indigenous enrichment in Iran. In terms of how President Trump is handling it, it’s all a question of whether he wants to give enough time to the two sides to negotiate to reach a deal. And that’s his decision.
Amna Nawaz:
Colonel, how do you see it?
Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.), Former Trump National Security Council Staff: Well, I think what’s different this time around is that the administration, it’s not just a nuclear issue really. If you listen to the president, if you listen to Secretary Rubio in particular, it’s the other aspects of the Iranian regime’s destabilizing and aggressive behavior.
It’s the ballistic missile and drone production and proliferation, including, for example, into the Ukraine war through the Russians. It’s the support for the terrorist proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and so on, and the Houthis, which exploded on October 7 and October 8.
So I think what the administration is after right now, it does seem the Iranian negotiators will always try to sequester it down to the narrow issue of nuclear enrichment, leaving the rest of the aspects of the Iranian regime’s aggressive policies unaddressed.
And, frankly, that was one of the fatal flaws of the 2015 JCPOA that the Obama administration negotiated. It became just an agreement about the nuclear enrichment file and left Qasem Soleimani and Quds Force and Hezbollah’s behavior across the region unaddressed, the missile and drone aspect unaddressed.
And that’s what began to blow up in 2017, 2018, and so on.
Amna Nawaz:
Alan, to the point, this is what we have heard from the Trump administration, have they made a convincing case about why there is an imminent threat from Iran that would warrant a military strike? Have you heard that yet?
Alan Eyre:
I have not heard it. I obviously listened to the State of the Union speech.
Joel is right. Iran is — presents a type of threat to the United States, in that it is antagonistic to what we’re trying to do in the region, to what we’re trying to do in the world. But in terms of it being an imminent threat, other in the sense of its nuclear program, its missile programs or its decimated, if not destroyed networks of proxies, no, no threat, no imminent threat.
And what’s most interesting is that now Iran has lost almost all of its deterrence that it had before the October 7 attacks. So, finding an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue is theoretically possible. If you put missiles on the table, if you put proxies on the table, the odds of reaching an agreement with Iran is null, null set. It’s just not going to happen.
Amna Nawaz:
So, Colonel, if the goal is a deal, then why the military buildup? Why the expedited talks with the threat of a strike on the back end?
Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.):
I think we’re in a different world in a post-October 7 and October 8.
Remember, October 7 was the Hamas attacking against Israel. October 8 was the Iranian regime and Hezbollah decision to enter that war, which they didn’t have to do. That was a war of choice on the Iranian regime’s part, the supreme leader’s decision-making.
So I think we’re in a different world post-October 7 and 8. Their use of militant proxies, the ballistic missiles and drones which they provided that have done so much damage in Ukraine, the Houthis shutting down the Red Sea, for example, against commercial shipping, that’s not tolerated anymore. That kind of hybrid threat from the Iranians is not tolerated anymore.
Amna Nawaz:
And many of those proxies have been degraded now, right?
Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.):
They have been degraded. They have been degraded and the Iranian regime’s own capabilities have been degraded, but the intention still seems to be there.
And I think what the president and the administration are responding to is, after the 12-day war last June, I think there was an expectation that the supreme leader’s regime would abandon that aggressive policy, they would they would abandon their ambitions to get back to nuclear enrichment, to continue to produce and proliferate drones and missiles, and then they would they would be willing to sever ties or wind down the militant proxies.
And that just hasn’t happened. The evidence has been in the other — in the other direction. I think that’s what’s been compelling this action.
Amna Nawaz:
Are you concerned this will end with the U.S. military strike? And, if so, what do you think that strike looks like? What form could it take?
Alan Eyre:
I’m not concerned it will end with a U.S. military strike.
I’m concerned it will start with the U.S. military strike, in the sense that Iran has made it known that, unlike previous responses, were it to be attacked, either what we would characterize as a limited attack or decapitation, any type of attack, Iran has said, largely because it feels its deterrence has been eradicated and it needs to restore it, that it will respond aggressively and disproportionately.
So I’m concerned that despite the huge imbalance in military power between the U.S. and Israel were to join and Iran, that Iran will strike out and try to destabilize the region, strike at our allies, strike at our forces in the region, strike at Israel. And that would lead to events in the region that can’t be helpful.
Amna Nawaz:
Colonel, 30 seconds left. I will give you the last word here.
Col. Joel Rayburn (Ret.):
I just think, in a military confrontation, if it comes to that, between the United States and Iran, it’s not really a fight. It’s not even just a fair fight. There really won’t be a contest there.
The Iranian regime has adopted a security doctrine in which they essentially don’t have conventional defenses. They don’t really have an air force, a navy, an army. They barely have missile and air defense. So this would be a short contest. It could be sharp, I think, in the first couple of days, as it was in their confrontation with the Israelis last year.
But the military disparity there is just vast, I think more than people understand.
Amna Nawaz:
We will see what happens. We’d love to have you back as things develop.
Colonel Joel Rayburn and Alan Eyre, thank you so much for your time.
Alan Eyre:
Thank you, Amna.
