Episode 619 Show Notes- U.S.-Iran Talks: Will Trump Strike Iran’s Nuclear Program?
↓ The P.A.S. Report Podcast is on every podcast platform! ↓
Episode Description
As the U.S. and Iran engage in their first direct nuclear negotiations since the Obama administration, tensions in the Middle East are escalating. In this episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast, Professor Nick Giordano analyzes the implications of these high-stakes talks held in Muscat, Oman, and the potential for a U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. With Iran’s uranium enrichment nearing weapons-grade levels and the deployment of U.S. B-2 bombers to Diego Garcia, the situation is precarious. Professor Giordano explores the broader geopolitical ramifications, including possible actions by China, Russia, and Venezuela, and the risk of a global conflict.
Episode Highlights:
- U.S.-Iran Nuclear Talks: Insights into the recent negotiations in Oman and the challenges ahead.
- Military Posturing: Examination of the U.S. military buildup, including the deployment of B-2 bombers, and its strategic implications.
- Global Flashpoints: Analysis of how a conflict with Iran could trigger broader geopolitical tensions involving major powers.
📲 Subscribe, listen, and share The P.A.S. Report Podcast to stay informed on the latest political issues shaping America.
Click play above to listen to the entire episode or you can listen on any podcast platform
Show Notes- U.S.-Iran Talks: Will Trump Strike Iran’s Nuclear Program?
Welcome to The P.A.S. Report Podcast
[Auto-Generated Transcript]
What’s up, everyone? Welcome to The P.A.S. Report Podcast. This is your host, Nick Giordano. I am glad you could join me. Make sure that you follow and subscribe to the podcast so you never miss an episode. Also, visit the P.A.S. Report website, pasreport.com, and share this episode with your family and your friends.
Now, if you haven’t checked out the America’s Founding Series, I suggest you do. Last week, I talked about George Farragut, an American patriot, someone who came over here from the Spanish island of Menorca. He is someone with a fascinating history who really defines what America is all about. This week, I have another great episode lined up for the America’s Founding Series. I’m not going to tell you who the patriot I’m speaking about is, but you’re not going to want to miss it. I can assure you it’s someone very few people have heard about, and it’s going to make for a great episode.
Also, I have George Hill coming in on Wednesday. It’s a really great discussion I have with him about some of the things we’re talking about today. You’re going to want to check that out. There’s a lot going on. We see the Trump administration has come in, they’re shaking things up, and they’re trying to change the global economic structure that’s existed for the last 30 to 40 years. Obviously, it’s a system that hasn’t really been working out too well for us. We’ve seen adversaries gain, we’ve seen America’s power and influence decline, and we’ve seen individual Americans suffer because of some of the policies on the global economic front. This president is trying to change that.
Now, when it comes to tariffs, it’s like having whiplash. One day tariffs are on, the next day they’re off. Markets up, markets down. A lot of people are questioning. Does he have a plan? Is this just shooting from the cuff? Is this good? Is this healthy? The reality is that you have to shake some trees to understand that changing a system that’s been in place for 40 years is not going to be easy. There are going to be speed bumps in the road.
A lot of people say, well, Trump dropped the tariffs because he saw what was going on in the bond market and he saw that America’s influence was shedding. That may be part of it, but he’s also someone who recalibrates. He remains flexible. Just because he says something doesn’t mean he’s going to stick to that policy. He also saw that 70 nations reached out to us and said they want to start negotiations.
America has been getting the short end of the stick for quite some time. The way trade takes place and the trade imbalances all over the world. There’s a reason we allowed a lot of unfair deals in the past. We were living in a bipolar world. After World War II, it was the United States and the Soviet Union. There was a competition going on. We would negotiate deals with other countries that gave them some advantages to side with us or at least remain neutral and not go to the Soviets.
Well, the paradigm has shifted. The Soviet Union collapsed throughout the 1980s, officially in 1991-92, and it’s a new world. Yet the mindset hasn’t really changed among American policymakers.
Now, I just want every American to understand, if President Trump can get countries to move 20, 30, 40, even 50% in our direction, give us 40 or 50% of what we’re asking for, that’s a huge win. I don’t understand what the problem is with that. If we can blunt China’s growing power and influence, that’s a huge win. China is in a desperate economic situation. And finally, we have a president leveraging America’s hard economic power to advance our interests on the world stage, not the other way around. That, too, is a good thing and should be embraced.
But for this episode, I’m not going to focus on the economy. Economics will come into it, but there’s something much bigger going on. There are a lot of war hawks out there, and there’s a lot of talk about Iran and Iran’s nuclear program, and whether or not the United States is going to be attacking Iran.
Talks began on Saturday directly between the United States and the Iranian regime. This is the first time official diplomatic face-to-face talks between our two nations have taken place since the Obama administration. This administration appears to be no-nonsense. They want to give Iran one last chance to strike a serious agreement, not a delay tactic, not a stall tactic, but a serious agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. If Iran is not serious, and if they are using the talks as a delay tactic, then there will be a military strike.
George Hill, a few weeks ago during the Signal chat debacle, when Congressman Mike Waltz brought in an Atlantic reporter and the conversation was leaked, was the first to reach out to me. He said the whole thing is a haversack, meaning a diversion. He believed the leak was intentional to divert attention from Iran. He pointed out that we have two carrier action groups, including the USS Carl Vinson. There’s a major U.S. military presence in the region.
George also explained that the C-17 traffic going into the area is enormous and that the B-2 stealth bomber fleet is stationed at Diego Garcia. He said we are not deploying these assets to go after the Houthis. We’re not going to use America’s premier B-2 stealth force to blow up a few Houthis. The U.S. is positioning itself for a large-scale coordinated strike to destroy Iran’s nuclear program. That’s what it’s really about.
And that’s what I want to talk about in this episode. What happens if we strike Iran? Should we strike Iran? What may be the fallout? And what else is going on that people aren’t paying attention to?
Break
Iran’s Nuclear Program: Serious Talks or Delay Tactic?
Welcome back to The P.A.S. Report Podcast. Now, right before the break, we were talking about moving our military assets into position for a potential strike on Iran’s nuclear program. I referred to a conversation George Hill and I had a few weeks back, and that’s what is the impetus for this episode. I’m going to talk more about it with him on Wednesday, so tune in for that. If we look closely, the pieces are now falling into place for a strike on Iran’s nuclear program.
Iran has been beaten down over the last year. They have faced some really devastating losses. Iranian power and influence are much lower today than they were just a year or two ago. The fact of the matter is, you have Israel that decimated Hezbollah and Hamas, two groups aligned with and working at the behest of Iran. These groups have been decimated. Their leadership has been killed off, and their operational capabilities are extremely limited.
When you look at Gaza, it’s in shambles. When you look at what’s going on in Lebanon, Hezbollah is on the brink. They can’t even trust pagers anymore after the Israeli operation. Then Israel launched a coordinated strike on Iran, taking out Iranian anti-aircraft weaponry and air defense systems. That should have been the first sign that Israel was clearing a pathway for a strike on Iran’s nuclear program. That should have been the first signal, because it cleared the flight paths.
Now, factor in the movement of American military assets into the region and the strategic positioning of the carrier groups. When you look at the B-2 bombers at Diego Garcia, you can see President Trump is giving Iran one last chance to come to the table, negotiate, and prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, or he will launch a strike.
Here’s the thing: Iran has a history of using talks to delay. Talks constantly fall apart. We’ve seen this pattern among several countries, including nuclear powers. When you look at North Korea, going back to 1993, they’d engage in talks, receive economic and food aid, then suddenly the talks would break down. All sides would retreat, no talks would take place for months, and North Korea would keep advancing its nuclear program, until talks were revived again. We’ve seen this game played before.
Unfortunately, too many foreign countries have proven that the United States gets taken for fools on the world stage. We keep negotiating even when there’s no real intent to come to an agreement. We should be aware of these tactics, but our policymakers suffer from a groupthink mentality that I’ll talk more about in a few minutes.
When it comes to Iran, they have a history of doing exactly this. And it’s an interesting situation. I remember back in 2004 or 2005, everyone was talking about Iran potentially getting a nuclear weapon, they were supposedly one to two years away from a bomb. Here we are, 20 years later, and now we’re saying they’re a couple of weeks away from a nuclear bomb.
I know a lot has taken place. You had the Stuxnet virus that disrupted their nuclear capabilities. You had internal sabotage at their nuclear facilities. Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated. So certain events have delayed them. But the reality is, when you look at intelligence, it’s not an exact science. Intelligence is often used as political propaganda. That one-to-two-year estimate from 2004-2005 was political propaganda.
The real intention, if Iraq had gone successfully, was to shift focus toward Iran and potentially pursue regime change. Since Iraq didn’t go our way, those plans were shelved. Americans had no appetite for another Middle Eastern war, especially with Iran, which is far more capable than Iraq or the Taliban. So those plans were quickly scrapped. But that doesn’t mean policymakers gave up.
It doesn’t mean elected officials stopped thinking about strikes on Iran. They’ve been itching for regime change since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. And it’s not just Republicans, both Democrats and Republicans want this strike. Many are trying to push the administration in that direction.
So the question becomes: at what point does Trump make the decision? At what point do we recognize that the nuclear negotiations aren’t yielding results and the president decides to strike Iran? If we do, what’s the logic? Obviously, the goal is to eradicate their nuclear program. But what do we expect Iran’s response to be?
That’s where things get tricky. There’s little doubt that Iran’s mullahs are bad actors. They operate in bad faith and have done so for decades. But we also have to recognize that the mullahs are backed into a corner. Given what Israel has done to them, and given the amount of power and influence they’ve lost, especially since Bashar al-Assad had to flee Syria, Iranian influence has been waning throughout the region.
Yes, they have some rebel-backed groups and terrorist organizations like the Houthis that are thorns in our side. But let’s face it, the Houthis are an incompetent bunch. They’re not well-coordinated or organized. I’m much more fearful of groups like al-Qaeda than the Houthis. While the Houthis can cause disruption, the Trump administration has no qualms about hitting them.
We’ve now moved beyond the Biden administration’s foreign policy of “don’t”—don’t attack ships in the Red Sea, don’t respond to terrorism. These groups just laughed and ignored him. Trump is clearly taking a different approach, especially with Secretary of Defense Pete Hengsteth at the Pentagon.
So ,as we look at this, a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities may be taking shape. When this administration determines that negotiations are stalling and Iran is using delay tactics, it will be critical. I don’t believe the Trump administration will waste time. The mullahs in Iran would be wise to take these talks seriously if they want to prevent a strike.
Now, let’s say a strike does happen. That’s a game-changer. What happens next? Do we just go in, blow up their nuclear facilities, and move on? The reality is that the United States has a stronger, more dominant military. Iran’s military can’t truly compete with us. On any battlefield, the United States would win.
But we can’t take that for granted. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and military are far more capable than Iraq’s was, and more capable than the Taliban. The Taliban is now in power, 24 years later, and better armed and equipped than they were before 9/11. So it’s not like Iran can’t pose challenges.
More importantly, look at the geography. In the Persian Gulf, if Iran attacks, it could lead to conflict in the region. The Iranian Navy may try to shut down the Strait of Hormuz. Thirty percent of the world’s oil supply flows through the Persian Gulf. A war in this region would be extremely disruptive, especially during a time of global economic uncertainty.
So what would Iran’s response be if we attacked its nuclear program? I want to explore that question when we come back from this quick break. So everyone, hang tight, we’ll be right back.
Break
What Happens If We Strike Iran’s Nuclear Program?
Welcome back to The P.A.S. Report Podcast. We’re talking about what would happen if the United States strikes Iranian nuclear targets in an effort to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. And that’s the real question: what would Iran do in response? Would Iran simply take it on the chin, realizing the United States has the larger, more dominant military, realizing they can’t possibly win a war with us?
Would they say, “Alright, we tried. We attempted to build a nuclear program, but we didn’t succeed. We’re not going to war with the United States”? Is that how the Iranian government is thinking? I don’t believe so. What scares me, and what worries me, is that this might be the thinking going on inside the White House. It’s reminiscent of the 2003 Iraq War.
Back then, we thought we’d be greeted as liberators. The United States would quickly depose Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi people would turn around and love us. We believed we’d help build out a thriving democracy, and everything would go smoothly. Obviously, we were wrong. But because of the groupthink mentality in the Bush White House, they didn’t plan for alternative scenarios. They weren’t able to adjust quickly to a rising insurgency, and we were caught flat-footed. It cost many American soldiers their lives, returning home in flag-draped coffins. Tens of thousands suffered life-altering injuries. It took us two years to turn the tide against the insurgency.
So what conversations are happening behind the scenes now? We need to hope and pray that they’re not falling into the same groupthink, that they’re not assuming Iran will simply capitulate. We know Iran has ballistic missile capabilities. That’s not a secret. They have thousands upon thousands of missiles they could fire at American interests. The United States has bases throughout the Middle East. We have strategic interests across the region.
Iran has stated that any foreign government assisting the United States will also be targeted. We also know there are Iranian agents here in the United States. Hezbollah members, too. It wouldn’t surprise me if there are even Houthi rebels inside our borders. Some of these Iranian agents have been here for decades. I remember back in 2007 or 2008, a Hezbollah ring was broken up. They were smuggling cigarettes from North Carolina to New York, selling them on the black market, and sending the proceeds overseas to fund terrorism in Lebanon and Israel.
Would those assets be activated in response to a strike on Iran’s nuclear program? Have Hezbollah and Iranian agents here already surveilled targets they’d strike? That’s not outside the realm of possibility. If we strike Iran, we must be prepared for the possibility of attacks on U.S. soil. Innocent Americans could be targeted, and that must be taken seriously.
We also have to understand that this could lead to a broader Middle Eastern conflict. I’m not someone afraid of the Iranian military, we could easily destroy them. However, we are witnessing massive global instability, and it’s been building for years.
Our withdrawal from Afghanistan will go down as the worst foreign policy decision in American history. The problem wasn’t the withdrawal itself, it was how we withdrew. Biden announced we were pulling out, and within a week, the Taliban recaptured the entire country. They’re now better armed and equipped than they were 20 years ago.
We spent two decades at war, and what do we have to show for it? We killed Osama bin Laden and hurt al-Qaeda’s capabilities, but the rest of the world looked at that withdrawal and said, “America is a paper tiger.” That’s when Russia gave the green light to invade Ukraine. That’s when Putin made his final decision, figuring he could get away with it and face few consequences.
He understood that America had no appetite for another military engagement. The American people were war-weary. Morale was at an all-time low. It wasn’t just Putin who noticed. The Iranians became more aggressive. China and Xi Jinping ramped up their aggression. Maduro in Venezuela started pushing boundaries. The world took note.
So what does this all mean for a potential strike on Iran today? We have to understand the instability I’m talking about. If war breaks out in the Middle East, it will immediately impact oil supplies. You can’t safely transport oil in the middle of a war in the Persian Gulf. That would severely restrict how much oil can leave the region.
Cutting off 30% of the world’s oil supply overnight would cause dramatic consequences in a global economy that’s already uncertain and undergoing major shifts, especially as Trump tries to restructure it. The Iranians can cause real problems, and we’d be forced to focus all our attention on that region. That’s why people need to pay attention.
Our military is operating at one-third below readiness levels. It’s been that way since Biden decimated it a few years ago. Troops were discharged for refusing an experimental shot. Massive amounts of supplies and equipment were sent to Ukraine. We faced supply chain shortages. Semiconductor availability is still tight. We can’t just ramp up production of weapons-grade systems overnight.
Recruitment is down across the board. It’s starting to improve, but new soldiers won’t be battlefield-ready for another six months to a year. So yes, we could face major challenges in the Middle East, but this could also spread beyond the region.
I’ll talk more about that after this quick break. So everyone hang tight, we’ll be right back.
Break
Could a New Middle East War Ignite Global Chaos?
Welcome back to The P.A.S. Report Podcast. So, a strike on Iran’s nuclear capabilities isn’t just limited to the Middle East. If war breaks out in the region, you already have other foreign actors ready to get involved elsewhere in the world. If we’re looking at this as a strategic map, pay very close attention.
You have the Middle East, where we’re going to be involved in the Persian Gulf. But then you have to look at Turkey. One of the more powerful militaries in the world, one of the largest economies. There are already reports that Erdogan is looking to seize parts of Syrian territory, invade Syria, and claim it as Turkish land. He may try to take on some of the Kurdish regions to target them.
So you see, when instability starts, it quickly spreads. We’ve already witnessed instability in Eastern Europe, and we’ve been watching it for quite some time. I’ve warned on several occasions on this podcast that when these conflicts erupt, instability tends to grow.
If Vladimir Putin sees us bogged down in a Middle Eastern war, he knows we’re not going to be supplying arms to Ukraine, we’ll have to supply our own troops and forces. Everyone thinks America can do everything at once. Just think about how stretched thin we were in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, Putin will take advantage of that. I can guarantee he’ll increase attacks within Ukraine. He’ll get more aggressive because he won’t have to fear an American response or more American weapons being used against him.
Then you have to look at Venezuela, right in our own hemisphere. For the last year, Maduro has made no secret of his intention to seize land from Guyana. He wants to take oil-rich and gas-rich areas and declare them Venezuelan territory. Does this moment give Maduro the chance to greenlight such an operation?
Now, I’m not fearful of the Maduro regime or the Venezuelan military. They’re not powerful. But again, if we’re distracted in the Middle East, who takes care of the Venezuelan threat? What does a country like Colombia do? What do other surrounding nations do? Would they see Maduro’s encroachment as a threat and respond with military force?
So again, these are all flashpoints that could ignite. And then there’s the big one, East Asia. What does China do? As the United States and China engage in this tariff battle, remember that the Chinese economy has not been doing well for the last two years. It’s suffering. China is not as strong as people think. Yes, they’ve built power and influence over the last few decades, and they are certainly America’s closest competitor on the global stage, but internally, China is in serious trouble.
Their economy is collapsing. The construction industry has come to a halt. Youth unemployment is skyrocketing. Over the last 30 years, between 600 to 800 million Chinese people have risen out of poverty into the middle class. I don’t think they want to go back into poverty.
China also faces a gender imbalance, thanks to the one-child policy that was in effect for over 40 years. There’s massive water and air pollution. We don’t even know the full health picture. And here’s the key point: the one thing China fears isn’t American tariffs. It’s their own people.
Our tariffs won’t bring down the communist regime. China’s people will. As economic instability rises, as factories go cold and people lose their jobs, dissatisfaction will rise. Pressure will mount on Xi Jinping and the Communist Party.
How will they respond? If they see uprisings and growing public dissent, will they crack down brutally, risking greater backlash? Or will they try to instill a sense of nationalism, get the Chinese people to rally around the government in the face of external threats? Create a unifying national cause?
And that brings up an interesting possibility. Because if China goes that route, what’s the best way to stoke nationalism? I’ll talk about that after this quick break. So hang tight, we’ll be right back.
Break
Taiwan, China, and the Flashpoint That Changes Everything
Welcome back to The P.A.S. Report Podcast. Now, if China senses that the people are getting too unhappy with the communist regime. If they pose a threat to the party’s grip on power, what is China going to do? What will the Chinese Communist Party decide? More importantly, what will Xi Jinping do?
One area we have to watch is Taiwan. If the U.S. is involved in a war with Iran, and Putin escalates the war in Ukraine, and Venezuela takes territory from Guyana, and Turkey seizes parts of Syria, the world will be very distracted, right? That leaves China with an opening.
China has long viewed recapturing Taiwan as a strategic goal – part of their 100-year marathon from 1949 to 2049. What better way to rally nationalism than to take back Taiwan, especially knowing that the U.S. military will be stretched thin across multiple theaters and our response capacity will be limited?
Would Xi Jinping launch an attack? Recapturing Taiwan would cause chaos throughout the Pacific. That would send shockwaves around the world. Australia would grow deeply concerned and would likely have to respond. Go back to 2021 when a top Australian general warned that within five years, Australia could be at war with China. That warning was issued five years ago.
What about the Philippines, Vietnam, Japan, and South Korea? These nations recognize the threat China poses. Are they willing to sit back and do nothing if China expands its influence militarily through the South China Sea or invades Taiwan? What will their responses be? What countermeasures might they take? What about North Korea?
If the world is distracted, does North Korea see an opening to try to take South Korea, to create a unified Korean peninsula under its rule?
So you see, one conflict in the Middle East could ignite global chaos. These are the discussions that must happen in the White House. We can’t assume that just because we have the dominant military, we can take out Iran’s nuclear program without wider consequences. Especially now, with the global economy in decline and undergoing transformation.
Historically, economic decline is followed by war. That’s not a secret. It’s been the pattern for over 2,000 years.
There are a lot of moving parts. And just because I’m laying out what could happen doesn’t mean it will. But that’s the point of political science. That’s the point of the levels of analysis in international relations. We assess the ingredients and try to forecast outcomes.
As someone who’s naturally curious and understands strategic analysis, I always plan for the worst. That’s the emergency management in me, blame Steve Kuhr for that. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.
But do American policymakers still do that? Or do they plan for the best and never consider worst-case scenarios?
The world is in a precarious position. Watching the talks over Iran’s nuclear program and the negotiations unfold between the United States under the Trump administration and the Iranian mullahs. This is a different ballgame. The mullahs are on notice. They know Trump is a different kind of president. They know he won’t hesitate to authorize a strike if necessary.
So are the mullahs playing it safe? Are they going to take the smart path, engage in fruitful discussions and reach an agreement? Or are they so blind that they think they can stall, delay, and outlast another president?
We’ll see how it plays out. But Iran’s nuclear program has the potential to become a major global flashpoint. And we can’t lose sight of how quickly things could spiral out of control.
If you found this episode informative, please leave The P.A.S. Report a five-star rating on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. Take 30 seconds to write a review on Apple Podcasts or wherever you listen. Make sure to tune in Wednesday for my episode with George Hill. It’s going to be a great conversation. And if you haven’t checked out America’s Founding Series, make sure you do. You’re going to enjoy it.
Thanks for joining me, and I’ll be back Wednesday with another great episode of The P.A.S. Report Podcast.
To listen to the full episode, click play above or visit your favorite podcast platform!
George Farragut: An Incredible Forgotten Patriot of the Revolution
The P.A.S. Report wants to hear from you. Send your feedback to podcast@pasreport.com. Please leave a 5-star rating and write a review on Apple Podcast.
Please share this episode with others & on social media.
*PA Strategies, LLC. may earn advertising revenue or a small commission for promoting products or when you purchase through any affiliate links on this website and within this post.
Follow Nicholas Giordano
You must be logged in to post a comment.