Can Trump bomb Iran and still be 'America First'?
Sam Hawley: Donald Trump was elected on the promise of putting America first and staying out of foreign conflicts. So the US president's decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities caused the first and very public split among his Make America Great Again base with influential figures like Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon leading the charge against it. Today, senior political correspondent for the Wall Street Journal, Molly Ball, on the fighting MAGA factions and what it means for Trump. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Molly, there has been a ceasefire in the Iran-Israel war this week. Just tell me, how big a win is that for Donald Trump? Is Donald Trump a peacemaker?
Molly Ball: That is certainly the impression he would like everyone to take away from this episode. I think we are all waiting to learn more about the results of this American intervention in the conflict between Israel and Iran before we can say for sure that that's the case. But the case being made by the Trump administration is that this was an overwhelming victory, that the United States got involved in a very limited fashion and was able to deploy overwhelming force to bring the parties to heel, to bring everyone to the negotiating table and force a very quick end to this conflict in a way that leaves everyone better off and leaves the nuclear threat from Iran potentially permanently, or at least in the very long term, disabled. I think the caution is that there's still a lot that we don't know about what is left of Iran's nuclear capabilities and whether this ceasefire will hold. But for now, as Trump was boasting in the Netherlands, the administration would like this to be seen as an overwhelming success.
Donald Trump, U.S President: That had ended the war. I don't want to use an example of Hiroshima. I don't want to use an example of Nagasaki. But that was essentially the same thing. That ended that war. This ended that with a war. If we didn't take that out, they'd be fighting right now.
Sam Hawley: All right, well, let's unpack how this all played out for Donald Trump and his MAGA base, because there really is a fascinating backstory to this. To understand it, it's good to remember that the MAGA movement is all about isolationism, making America great again, America first.
Molly Ball: Well, on the one hand, yes. Trump has distinguished himself among Republicans by being relatively skeptical of the use of military force, and in particular, being a very harsh critic of the wars that the US was still somewhat embroiled in when he began campaigning for president in 2015, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was very critical of the administration, former President George W. Bush, for going into Iraq under what he, and I think most people would term, false pretenses.
Donald Trump, 2015: And I said, if you go after one or the other, in this case, Iraq, you're going to destabilize the Middle East. That's what's gonna happen. You're gonna destabilize the Middle East. And that's exactly what happened. We totally destabilized the Middle East. We have now migrations, largely because of what's happened afterwards. You know, Iraq was horrible. It was stupid to go in. We should have never gone in.
Molly Ball: He also vowed to pull the United States out of Afghanistan, although it was his successor, Joe Biden, who ended up rather messily completing that task. And he has consistently said that he believes in peace. He doesn't believe in nation building or expending American resources on fighting other countries' battles abroad. I think he and many of his allies would argue that he is not an isolationist per se, but he stands for America first, which means that we only become involved when we see it in our clear national interest to do so. And there's a skepticism of multilateralism and of large-scale foreign alliances that of course we've seen play out over both of Trump's terms.
Sam Hawley: Well, let's Molly, step through how all this played out. When Israel first started its strikes on Iran on the 13th of June, Donald Trump's administration was really like, we have nothing to do with this. The Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, stressed that Israel was acting on its own. Just remind me about the initial response.
Molly Ball: That's right. It was this very interesting dance that played out where at first it did appear that the administration wanted to separate itself from what was happening. And this came after some weeks, if not months, of Trump seeming to distance himself from Israel and from Prime Minister Netanyahu. Trump recently took his first foreign trip to the Middle East. He went to Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region, but he did not visit Israel, as is somewhat traditional for American presidents to do. So the initial impression of what was unfolding in the Middle East was that the administration was distant from this and was even potentially disapproving of it. We've subsequently reported that there was a lot of discussion and argument within the administration between different officials who had different views of the conflict. But it was only a matter of hours until Trump himself weighed in. And he seemed much more eager than his own Secretary of State to sort of take ownership of what was happening. He was saying no, no, that he had spoken to Netanyahu before this happened, that he approved of what was happening and viewed the US as much more of a partner in the conflict. So those early signals turned out to have been a bit of a red herring.
Sam Hawley: So then Trump grows more publicly supportive of the Israeli strikes. And at that point, it becomes pretty clear, doesn't it, that there's a split emerging in the MAGA world. And there are these two factions. Just explain those.
Molly Ball: You know, for many in Trump's political base, I'm thinking of extremely Trump loyal politicians, elected officials, such as Marjorie Taylor Greene, the Congresswoman from Georgia. She spoke very strongly against any kind of American involvement. The media personality, podcaster Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News host, who of course is very close to Trump and introduced him at the Republican convention last summer, also spoke very strongly against what was happening as well as the sort of MAGA propagandist and former Trump White House strategist, Steve Bannon. So you did have these very prominent forces who are seen as sort of speaking for the populist nationalist Trump ideology, who were all counseling very strongly against any kind of American involvement.
Sam Hawley: So these figures, Molly, they're going pretty hard against America getting involved in this conflict between Israel and Iran. You mentioned, of course, Marjorie Taylor Greene, a big supporter of Donald Trump's. She was on CNN.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican Congresswoman : The MAGA is not a cult and I'm entitled to my own opinion. I can support the president at the same time as I say, I don't think we should have foreign wars.
Sam Hawley: And she also appeared on Steve Bannon's podcast, War Room.
Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican Congresswoman : Six months in, six months in, Steve, and here we are, turning back on the campaign promises and we bombed Iran on behalf of Israel. Yes, it was on behalf of Israel. And you wanna know the people that are cheering it on right now? Their tune is going to drastically change the minute we start seeing flag-draped coffins.
Sam Hawley: And there was this exchange between Tucker Carlson on his podcast with the Republican Ted Cruz.
Tucker Carlson, podcast host: How many people live in Iran, by the way?
Ted Cruz, US Senator: I don't know the population.
Tucker Carlson, podcast host: At all?
Ted Cruz, US Senator: No, I don't know the population. Yeah, I-
Tucker Carlson, podcast host: How could you not know that?
Ted Cruz, US Senator: I don't sit around memorising population tables.
Tucker Carlson, podcast host: Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.
Sam Hawley: They're really not holding back.
Molly Ball: That's right. I think these are also voices that have tended to be a bit more skeptical of the American relationship with Israel than many in the Republican Party and on the right have traditionally been. On the other hand, you know, other voices both in the political movement and certainly in the administration were counseling that this was something that we should be involved in, you know, reminding Trump that he has always said for many years that for Iran to have a nuclear weapon would be bad for the United States, bad for Israel, and bad for the world. And this was invoked by Trump repeatedly as he began to accelerate his threats toward the Iranians, talking about the ultimatum that he had given for the negotiation of a new nuclear deal, which had elapsed and which he said was the reason that the Israeli strikes were happening when they did, and basically saying that if they weren't going to negotiate, this was going to be the consequence. And then there was this period of waiting where it wasn't at all clear what he was going to do. And he in fact came out and said, nobody knows what I'm going to do. And the world was sort of on tender hooks for about a week.
Sam Hawley: So on the one side, there's these isolationists, Tucker Carlson, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and then of course on the other side, there's this deeply pro-Israel camp. A fascinating split though, right, in the MAGA world.
Molly Ball: It is a fascinating split, although in retrospect, it looks perhaps less significant if it does turn out to be the case that this was simply a matter of a limited strike and not, you know, a years-long American-involvement in a new war. I think it's a very interesting point. in terms of the American involvement in a new war. I think if that were what was happening, we would see much more dissent. If all it was was an airstrike, I think very few people would ever have argued that America first means that the United States never deploys any kind of military force. And indeed in Trump's first term, there were several occasions in which he deployed American military force, but the point is that there are not ground troops, there are not Americans dying in another country, and there is not a prolonged entanglement in a foreign conflict. So I think everyone's being cautious and wary and wants to see how this plays out, but if in fact that was the end of it, then I don't think there's a lot of hurt feelings on either side.
Sam Hawley: Yeah, although there was a fair bit of concern, wasn't there, when Trump then went a bit further and started talking about the idea of regime change in Iran?
Molly Ball: Well, regime change is very much what the America first movement is against. It's sort of a part and parcel of the nationalism that Trump and his allies believe in, that countries should look out for their own interests and should not be fighting the battles of others and recklessly spill American blood and treasure. I think if you did have the United States setting out to change the Iranian regime, you would likely have much more dissent from MAGA World. If he then embarked on something that looked similar to those regime change wars of the past, he would come in for quite a bit of criticism.
Sam Hawley: All right, well, Molly, the MAGA base that supported his actions say he should get a Nobel Peace Prize. I think that's what Donald Trump would really like. But if the strikes didn't actually obliterate Iran's nuclear program and there is deep uncertainty over whether or not they did, there'd still be, wouldn't there, some seemingly unhappy people within MAGA? Or do they just let that go?
Molly Ball: I think that remains to be seen. I think the lodestar of the MAGA movement is and will always be Donald Trump. His critics would call it a cult of personality, but they believe very deeply in his wisdom and his decision making. So there is a lot of trust in him. There is a lot of willingness to be guided by what he sees as best and by the arguments that he makes, even when they can sometimes be quite inconsistent. I think we're all waiting to learn more about what the end result of all this has been and how tenuous this momentary peace actually is. Trump has said many times that he wants and believes he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize, whether that's because of the competitiveness that he feels with former President Obama or simply a manifestation of his rather sizable ego. But if it does turn out that this is the beginning of a lasting peace in the Middle East, it sounds far-fetched, but that would certainly be a remarkable thing if it were to happen.
Sam Hawley: And what about those early critics, Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Molly, we do know that Donald Trump likes to surround himself with true loyalists. So is he really going to keep them in the fold or would he prefer them not to be there anymore? What do you reckon?
Molly Ball: I don't think anybody's getting exiled or kicked out of the movement for this. And I think a vigorous debate was had that was quite interesting and quite revealing about the sort of contours of the Trump movement. But at the end of the day, people come and go from Trump's orbit, but as long as he feels that they ultimately believe in what he believes in and have his sort of political best interests at heart, he doesn't tend to kick them out.
Sam Hawley: Molly Ball is a senior political correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. ABC News Daily will be back again on Monday. Thanks for listening.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News.com.au
25 minutes ago
- News.com.au
‘Bad and sick people': Donald Trump cries ‘fake news' again as media reports on Pentagon intelligence
At the turn of the century, or thereabouts, our world entered its 'creep' era. Hindsight tells us Bill Clinton was the harbinger. 'Mega-famous man who is obviously, palpably creepy, but thrives anyway because he has a legion of fans whose sunk emotional costs compel them to excuse pretty much any indiscretion' has become an entire genre of human being. Bill walked so bizarre mediocrities like Russell Brand could run. (You can insert your own, more colourful verbs there, should you wish.) But the creep era is not just about lecherousness. The word has many uses. There's mission creep, like we saw in Iraq, where the effort to neutralise non-existent weapons of mass destruction morphed into a decade of glacial 'nation building'. There is bracket creep, the tax problem everyone acknowledges but nobody fixes. There's Internet Brain creep, a serious disorder best illustrated by the cautionary life of balding fecal stain Andrew Tate. And now we also have definition creep. Particularly insidious and frustrating, that one, for those among us who still think words should mean things (me, my primary school teacher Mrs Wright, whoever is in charge of compiling the Oxford dictionary, and surprisingly few others, it would seem). Consider, as an example, the word 'woke'. It began its life as the successor to 'political correctness'; as a descriptor for the political left's weirdest overreaches. It still masquerades as that. But the word is now used, all too frequently and lazily, to mock and undermine anything to the left of oh, say, Pauline Hanson. That is definition creep. The bucket of things that could be described as 'woke' has kept growing, and growing, and growing, to the point that it now includes even the blandest, most conventionally progressive of stances. I do not have a problem with the Aboriginal flag flying atop the Sydney Harbour Bridge. I love the Maori verse of my country's national anthem. Illegal immigrants should get due process under the law, like anyone else, before they are deported. We probably should have more women serving as major CEOs. If someone is born biologically male, but ends up identifying as female, I don't give the slightest s***. For these incredibly boring opinions, which place me smack bang in the middle of modern Western society, I could now be labelled irredeemably woke. Let's go in the other direction for the sake of balance. Fascism! The word has a meaning. Yet it's applied to almost everything Donald Trump does. Enforcing America's immigration laws? Fascism. Firing the inspectors-general inside the US government? Fascism. Trying to implement policy changes through executive fiat rather than legislation, which is something every other president in living memory has done? Fascism! There's a 'boy who cried wolf' dynamic here, don't you think? If you scream 'fascism' every day, no one will listen to you when something actually fascistic happens. Something like ........ a sustained, deliberate effort to discredit any news coverage that strays beyond the sycophantic and flirts with seeking accountability. Which points us to perhaps the single greatest victim of definition creep in recent years: the term 'fake news'. It sprang from the American presidential election in 2016, and originally referred to literal fake news, i.e. foreign actors concocting entirely fictional stories, and making them go viral, in an effort to influence voters. And what does it mean now? Any news coverage Donald Trump or his followers don't like. Even when the coverage is accurate. Simple as that. The latest example concerns Mr Trump's strikes on Iran, which targeted three nuclear enrichment sites. In the immediate aftermath of those strikes, the President claimed, 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated'. That was echoed by White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, who said the strikes 'took away Iran's ability to create a nuclear bomb'. All of which may be true. You and I, sitting on our bums in Australia, don't know. Nor did Mr Trump when he uttered that unambiguous quote above. It will take time for the American intelligence community to reach anything approaching a certain conclusion. A couple of days after Mr Trump's triumphalist announcement, multiple American media outlets, led by CNN and The New York Times, revealed an initial assessment from US military intelligence at the Pentagon, which said the strikes had actually left most of Iran's nuclear infrastructure intact. Those reports were accurate. They conveyed a real intelligence assessment compiled by Mr Trump's own Pentagon. The White House did not dispute the assessment's existence, nor its source, nor the idea that its contents had been characterised correctly. The CIA later offered a sunnier view on the effect of Mr Trump's strikes, and the President himself cited Israeli intelligence to suggest the Pentagon's assessment was wrong. But again, the key point here is: neither CNN nor The New York Times concocted the story out of nowhere. They correctly summarised the Pentagon's initial assessment, which did not fit Mr Trump's narrative. For that, both outlets were subjected to a deluge of abuse. 'FAKE NEWS CNN STRIKES AGAIN,' said Ms Leavitt. 'The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission to obliterate Iran's nuclear program. 'Everyone knows what happens when you drop fourteen 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.' 'We just caught the Failing New York Times, working with Fake News CNN, cheating again!' said Mr Trump. 'They tried to demean the great work our B-2 pilots did, and they were wrong in doing so. These reporters are just BAD AND SICK PEOPLE. 'You would think they would be proud of the great success we had, instead of trying to always make our Country look bad. TOTAL OBLITERATION!' At another point, speaking to reporters, Mr Trump again accused the media of demeaning the efforts of the American pilots. 'They put their lives on the line, and then they have real scum, real scum, come out and write reports that are as negative as they could possibly be,' he said. 'It should be the opposite. You should make them heroes and heroines.' Heroines! So woke, Donald. One last little rant, here, against CNN's national security reporter. 'Natasha Bertrand should be FIRED from CNN! I watched her for three days doing Fake News. She should be IMMEDIATELY reprimanded, and then thrown out 'like a dog',' said Mr Trump. 'Her slant was so obviously negative, besides, she doesn't have what it takes to be an on camera correspondent, not even close. FIRE NATASHA!' Rightio. So. Putting aside the fact that the President of the United States, amid a potentially catastrophic conflagration in the Middle East, is spending his time posting unhinged critiques of TV news reporters on social media, as though he has nothing more important to do. And the fact that everyone just accepts this as fine and normal behaviour. Putting that aside. Ms Bertrand reported nothing false. And as penance for her crime, which was to convey the news accurately, the most powerful man on Earth, who leads what is supposed to be a liberal democracy, says she should be 'thrown out like a dog'.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
Is regime change in Iran possible without a united opposition or clear alternative leader?
More than 46 years after the Iranian Revolution, there is still talk among Iranians — both those living in the country and among the diaspora — that the end of the regime is nearing. "It [the Islamic Republic of Iran] will not survive … whether they like it or not change is coming," says one Iranian in Hamadan in western Iran speaking to ABC News. It's the early hours of the morning in Iran. US President Donald Trump has just announced on social media that he's brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. Eventually Israel and Iran agree to end attacks on each other, and Mr Trump will change his tune on the possibility of regime change in Iran, saying he doesn't want to see 'chaos" in the Middle East. But at this moment, when I join the chat group with Iranians speaking in Farsi, talk of a ceasefire is still up in the air and attacks are continuing. These Iranians are debating — some joking — about which airports Iran's leaders may be using to escape to other countries. I introduce myself and ask them how they are feeling post news that there may be a ceasefire. The feelings are mixed. Some are happy that the conflict could be over and say regime change should come from within rather than through any foreign intervention. But some also didn't want Iran's government to be thrown a lifeline and say had Israel further weakened the regime's apparatus, it could have paved the way for another uprising. I have promised to keep the identities of these young Iranians — aged in their late 20s to late 30s — anonymous as revealing it could endanger their lives, especially at a time when human rights groups including Amnesty International report scores of arrests across the country for alleged "espionage" or "collaboration" with Israel, along with "chilling" orders for expedited trials and executions. These young Iranians believe that after decades of civil unrest, and with Israel's recent attacks on the regime, there is no way the country's rulers can indefinitely cling on to power, but they seem less certain about how change will happen and who will lead it. In fact, there's much disagreement over who should step in to lead if the regime falls — should it be political dissidents locked up in Iranian jails or so called 'reformist' elements of the regime? Or should it be Iranians outside the country — like the US-based exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi — who have for decades floated the idea of a secular democracy? This is as contentious among the Iranians in this chat group as it is among experts who have spent decades researching and writing about Iran. Experts who spoke to ABC News say unless and until large factions of the regime's military, police and intelligence forces begin defecting, it will be hard for the people of Iran to overthrow the regime. And, as history in the Middle East has shown, while citizens may desire democratic change, the pathway to freedom is often fraught. US-based writer and historian Arash Azizi, who has firmly been opposed to the regime, argues the Islamic Republic knows that its ideals are not popular in society, yet its general apparatus is still intact. The Islamic Republic, he argues, stays in power for two primary reasons: "One; sheer brutality, and two; a lack of an organised alternative." "The regime's heavy repression and its jailing of opponents inside and killing them in Iran and abroad has helped keep it that way," Mr Azizi says. For the people to overthrow the regime, he says there would need to be an organised opposition with "political heft" that can unite Iranians of different faiths, ethnicities, and political persuasions. "This could theoretically be a liberal democracy that's a common demand for the opposition, but the Iranian opposition is more divided and incoherent than ever," Mr Azizi says. It was the major difference in 1979 when there were organised efforts against the shah, and it was "the unifying leadership of Ayatollah Khomeini who brought Marxists, Islamists and nationalists together against the shah". Some Iranians now living around the world still long for a return of the Pahlavi dynasty and see the son of the former shah, exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, as the best option. Crown Prince Pahlavi has been talking of regime change for 46 years. He has spent most of his life outside Iran, in the United States. The crown prince has consistently said he would only play a "transitional role" towards a new secular democratic Iran. Then, he says, it is up to the people of Iran to choose their own leader from within. "I am stepping forward to lead this national transition — not out of personal interest but as a servant of the Iranian people," he said at a press conference in Paris on Monday. He added that he would establish a "secure platform" for military, security, and police personnel who wish to defect from the regime to directly contact him and his team. On the chat group I ask the young Iranians participating whether they think the exiled crown prince can lead a transition. The Iranian man living in Iran near Hamedan thinks it's not possible, saying it would take time to establish a liberal democracy. He mentions potential leaders could come from "reformist" elements of the regime such as Hassan Rouhani, an Iranian religious cleric and politician who previously served as president of Iran. He also mentions political dissidents including Iranian human rights activist Narges Mohammadi — who has been a vocal critic of the regime using sexual violence against women. She was arrested 13 times and sentenced to 31 years in prison and 154 lashes. In October 2023, when her selection as the Nobel Peace Prize laureate was announced, she was locked in Tehran's notorious Evin prison. "These are the liberals of Iran ... and they have power within Iran," the Hamadan Iranian argues focusing again on Rouhani. But before he can elaborate on this thought, another Iranian in the chat group interjects, saying: "If Rouhani or any of the reformist elements [of the regime] are brought forward, they are not motivated to bring down the regime … Their hands are dirty." For that reason, he thinks Reza Pahlavi is a far better choice. "Bring Pahlavi's name and every Iranian knows him. It's very important to have recognition," he says. "I am not a monarchist. I don't want a monarchy. But I think someone different needs to step in and help lead a revolution," he says, again citing Pahlavi as the best person to head that transition. But revolutions don't occur without mass civil uprising. Roya Boroumand, the executive director of the Washington-based Abdorrahman Boroumand Center, which works to promote human rights and democracy in Iran, says while she wants to remain hopeful, she's not certain Iranians can, once again, mobilise and protest for regime change. "This [regime change] requires a really mobilised and unified opposition, asking people to strike, asking people to show resistance in a very intelligent way," she says. She also rejects the idea that regime "reformists" can lead Iran to a democracy. She says during the 2009 Green Movement protesters disputed the election of the then incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. They turned to the streets in support of opposition candidates including Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. This, she explains, was based on the idea at the time that they were more centrist politicians. She says up until this point, the survival of the Islamic Republic was not under threat. "It was more discussion about reform of the Islamic Republic rather than getting rid of it, and the so-called reformist movement was part of the ruling elite," Ms Boroumand says. By 2019, the idea that the regime could reform itself was waning, as the Iranian people's deep economic troubles saw their discontent grow into anti-government protests. A 50 per cent plus spike in fuel prices led to calls to overthrow the regime. This became known as the Bloody Aban (Bloody November) protests, which spread across Iranian cities and left up to 1,500 people dead according to Reuters. By 2020, Ms Boroumand says support for the regime continued to diminish. That was the year Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 was shot down by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shortly after take-off, killing all 176 occupants on board. And by 2022, with the death-in-custody of Mahsa Jina Amini, protests spread from the cities to rural areas. Once again, these protests were met with regime brutality. The Human Rights Activist News Agency estimated about 500 people were killed and more than 20,000 were arrested, with Amnesty International accusing Tehran of conducting "sham trials" that resulted in executions. Ms Boroumand says the 2022 protests and the resulting violent crackdown by the state, have brought out a "more diverse spectrum of the population that is clearly against the state and want it gone". She says the international community has brought greater focus on the regime's human rights violations, citing the UN Fact Finding Mission on Iran, the expelling of Iran from the UN Commission on the Status of Women, and world leaders globally expressing solidarity with the women of Iran as examples. Mariam Memarsadeghi, a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute in Washington, also argues the road map to regime change is not clear when dealing with a "totalitarian regime that is really bad in almost everything other than taking on the opposition". She doesn't throw her support behind any individuals but says before there can be talk of regime change, there needs to be systems created that enable a democracy to evolve. "Honestly, it's very premature to talk about political leadership when we don't even have a situation where the regime is gone and there is security and rule of law," Ms Memarsadeghi says. "It's really important, particularly in the case of a country like Iran coming off of nearly half a century of totalitarianism, that security is established, a sense of stability is felt across the country. "That the beginnings of democratic institutions are taking shape — an independent judiciary, a school system that is democratic, that actually focuses on development of children and learning opportunities rather than Islamist ideology. "When you have all of that … people feel the freedom and the critical thinking to be able to elect leaders that represent them and represent their interests." Kylie Moore-Gilbert, Australian academic and former political prisoner in Iran, explains that in every major revolution in history we've seen defections. "And unfortunately, in every protest movement in Iran since the [1979] revolution, that hasn't happened — the protesters haven't convinced significant individuals within the regime to step away and join them," she explains. Dr Moore-Gilbert says there is also the reality that there are "sizeable ethnic groups like the Kurds, who will be calling for greater autonomy as well, and they could act as spoilers if some kind of central opposition government was established". "A lot of these issues need to be ironed out," she says. While US President Donald Trump has said he wants the war to stop, she fears that if regime change is once again on the table, there is a danger of Israel or the US "attempting to force their will on the people of Iran". Saeed Ghasseminejad, a senior adviser on Iran at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) — a Washington DC-based think tank that is viewed by some to be pro-Israel's government and anti-Iran's government — argues Israeli attacks on Iran have weakened it and paved the way for defection. He says there is a segment of supporters of the regime that are "brainwashed" and will never defect. But there are others who serve the regime because "they are getting lot of benefit in a society" including economic gains, and that "there is a chance of defections". He fears a greater level of oppression and violence if the regime remains in power in the wake of the conflict with Israel and the US. "There will be mass executions, there will be rape, there will be torture at a level that you have not seen before," he says. Back in the chat group, there's a young woman who moved from Iran to Europe in 2017 but seeks to return one day. She is in constant talk with family and friends in Tehran. "They [Iran's authorities] are checking everyone's mobiles — to see if they can find collaborators with Israel," she says. Asked whether regime change towards a democracy will now eventuate, she says it "will inevitably happen because that is the will of the Iranian people". She says Iranians spread around the world left Iran for a better life but seek to return under a democracy.
ABC News
an hour ago
- ABC News
How Israel's vow to change the Middle East has reverberated across the map
The geopolitical conditions for the Israel-Iran war have been brewing for decades, and the past 20 months have seen a titanic power shift. In the early 1960s, bombs arrived at the offices of multiple German scientists. The bombs, wrapped like letters and parcels, were sent by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad. The scientists were helping Egypt build rockets that could potentially carry radioactive waste. A 60-year-old campaign against Egypt might seem a strange place to start a story about the Israel-Iran war, but these events are seen as the beginning of an Israeli political doctrine that is still being applied today. It is called the Begin Doctrine — named for former Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, who in June 1981 stated: "We shall not allow any enemy to develop weapons of mass destruction turned against us." Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin (front) and foreign minister Moshe Dayan arrive at Andrews Air Force Base in 1978. ( Image: MSGT Denham ) Begin made the declaration as Israel launched air strikes on a nuclear reactor in Iraq, an act he called "anticipatory self-defence". The language will feel very familiar to anyone listening to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today. "This attack will be a precedent for every future government in Israel," Begin said in 1981. "Every future Israeli prime minister will act, in similar circumstances, in the same way." The same doctrine was at play in 2007, when Israel carried out another covert attack on an undeclared nuclear site, this time in Syria. And it has been at the centre of the Israel-Iran war over the past two weeks, too. A map of the Middle East shows Israel and Iran highlighted. Iran's nuclear program — and the desire to stop it from obtaining a nuclear arsenal — has been Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's focus for decades. Israel itself will not confirm or deny whether it has nuclear weapons, but the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute says it is among the nine countries that do. Since Iran's theocratic regime took power after the revolution in 1979, the two countries have been sworn enemies. Israel, according to Iran, was the "Little Satan" to the "Great Satan" United States. And for its part, Israel sees Iran as "the head of the snake" poised to strike it. For decades, Israel and its allies — particularly the United States — have worked to ensure Iran doesn't expand its nuclear program to develop weapons. Those efforts have come in various guises, including extensive diplomatic efforts but also allegedly the assassination of nuclear experts and targeted computer viruses aimed at crippling Iran's nuclear systems. Throughout this time, one of the key factors seen as preventing a full-scale Israeli assault was Iran's 'axis of resistance' — a loose coalition of allied groups across the region, many with the ability to strike militarily against Israel. But after Hamas's brutal attacks on Israelis on October 7, 2023 — which killed 1,200 people and saw more than 250 taken hostage — Netanyahu declared that Israel would "change the Middle East". Since then, Israel has taken military action against a wide range of its neighbours, moves that have significantly weakened Iran's supporters. In Gaza, Israel is fighting a long and bloody war that has killed more than 56,000 Palestinians, including 17,000 children, according to estimates from the Ministry of Health in Gaza. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs says the situation in Gaza is dire: "Amid starvation and a growing likelihood of famine, attacks on civilians attempting to access food supplies continue, resulting in mass casualties." Israel's stated goal has been to destroy Hamas, which it says is armed and funded by Iran and has proven its capacity to strike at the Israeli state and civilians. Children in Gaza sit atop an unexploded ordinance. ( Majdi Fathi/NurPhoto via Getty Images ) In the West Bank, Israel has launched the widespread demolition of homes in refugee camps, displacing tens of thousands of Palestinians. The operation initially targeted Palestinian militants in Jenin, before branching out to neighbouring cities and towns in a "significant" effort against Iranian-backed groups in the region, according to Netanyahu. An Israeli soldier directs a bulldozer as it begins tearing down a house outside of Hebron. ( Reuters ) In Lebanon, Israel has launched deadly strikes into Beirut, the Bekaa Valley, and elsewhere in the south of the country, as well as a pager attack that struck at the heart of Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah. Smoke and flames erupt from a building hit by an Israeli air strike in Chiyah, in southern Beirut. ( AP: Bilal Hussein ) Syria's previous ruler, Bashar al-Assad, was a staunch enemy of Israel. As a war against the Assad regime was waged inside the country's borders, Iran stepped up to provide extensive military supplies and troops. When the regime fell and Assad fled to Moscow last December, it was a crucial blow to Iran's strongest ally in the region. Syrians rejoiced the collapse of Assad's regime, waving the flag of the rebel group that ousted it. ( Reuters: Amr Abdallah ) In Yemen, Israel has launched air strikes to eliminate senior members of the Iran-backed Houthis. The group, which also partially controls Yemen's air force, has launched attacks against Israel in support of Palestinians in Gaza. Last month, they orchestrated a ballistic missile attack on Israel's main international airport, an incident that sparked a series of retaliatory air strikes by Israel. What all of these military moves — and perhaps most crucially the fall of the Assad regime in Syria — add up to is a new position of strength for Israel, opening the door for it to strike at Iran without facing strong, potentially deadly attacks from Tehran's allies in the region. As such, the campaign against Iran could be seen as the latest stage in a fight to change the geopolitical landscape in the region for good. "The big thing about the Middle East is that there are so many areas where the issues connect with each other," the former Australian ambassador to Lebanon, Ian Parmeter, said. "What is happening now with Iran needs to be seen in the context of what started in October 2023. "It moved on to Lebanon, has to some extent involved Yemen with the Houthis, and now has gone across to Iran." Netanyahu himself spelled out the strategy this way in January: "We are acting methodically and with determination against the Iranian axis wherever it reaches — in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Judea and Samaria." And most recently, those operations expanded to striking Iran directly. Smoke rises following an Israeli attack on the IRIB building, the country's state broadcaster, in Tehran, Iran, June 16, 2025. ( Reuters: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) ) "It's the first war between Israel and Iran ever," said Hussein Ibish, senior resident scholar at the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington. On June 13, Israel launched strikes on dozens of targets in Iran, hitting nuclear sites and killing both scientists and Iranian paramilitary officials. One of the men, nuclear physicist Fereydoon Abbasi-Davani, had already survived a 2010 assassination attempt, which Tehran blamed on Israeli intelligence. The strikes have so far left 4,870 Iranians injured and 627 dead, according to the country's health officials. Iran fired back with multiple waves of ballistic missiles. While Israel intercepted many of its missiles, over the following days, they made deadly strikes in Haifa, Tel Aviv, Be'er Sheva, and elsewhere. The locations of some of the key Iranian missile strikes on Israel. Israeli officials have reported at least 28 people killed and more than 3,000 injured by Iranian strikes. And this week, the United States joined the fight, with president Donald Trump sending B-2 bombers and submarine-launched missiles to strike at the key nuclear targets of Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. Iran retaliated, shooting ballistic missiles at a US military base near Qatar, though they reportedly provided advance notice beforehand. US and UK officials warned their citizens in Qatar to shelter in place following a threat to Al Udeid air base on Monday night. At least 13 Iranian missiles were "knocked down" by air defences, according to Mr Trump, with one more "set free". Iran said it had launched as many missiles as the US had launched at its nuclear sites. There were no reports of casualties. Two hours later, Mr Trump said Iran and Israel had agreed to a ceasefire. While the ceasefire appears to be holding for the moment, it remains unclear exactly how much damage was done to Iran's nuclear program. Jessica Genauer, a senior lecturer on international relations at Flinders University, says it is hard to imagine Israel will walk away from an opportunity to push for regime change in Iran while the regime is historically weak. And experts fear Iran could yet decide to accelerate its nuclear program as a result of these strikes, because they only serve to reinforce the need for a nuclear deterrent. So, has Israel reshaped the Middle East? Dr Genauer said it very much depends on how you define Israel's political and security objectives. "If Israel's objective after October 7 was to severely degrade Iranian political and military capability, set back Iran's nuclear program, and undermine Iranian-backed forces across the region, then Israel has succeeded. "We are looking at the weakest Iran has been militarily and politically for many decades. "The leadership and military capability of Hamas and Hezbollah have been decimated — two of Iran's key military groups in the region. "Regime change in Syria has curbed Iranian influence in the country. The Iranian-backed Houthi group in Yemen has been hit by Israeli and US strikes. Iran itself has been weakened by Israeli and US air strikes." Fire from an Israeli attack on a Tehran oil refinery is seen following strikes south of Tehran on June 15, 2025. ( Reuters: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) ) Police stand next to a crater at an impact site following a missile attack from Iran, in Herzliya, Israel, June 17, 2025. ( Reuters: Ronen Zvulun ) Iranian flags fly as fire and smoke rise from an Israeli attack on Sharan oil depot, following Israeli strikes on Tehran on June 15, 2025. ( Reuters/Majid Asgaripour/WANA ) Emergency personnel operate after missiles were launched from Iran at Tel Aviv, in Israel, on June 16, 2025. ( Reuters: Ronen Zvulun ) But, Dr Genauer said, if Israel's objective was to effect regime change in Iran, or to create a Middle East with a transformed geopolitical and security landscape, then they had not succeeded. "We are no closer, since October 7, to a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians that guarantees both Israeli and Palestinian security," he said. "Iran and Israel remain deeply hostile towards each other. While Iranian-backed groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah may be severely weakened and take years to rebuild, their objectives have not changed. "So, ultimately, the security situation in the Middle East looks much like it did prior to October 7. "The main difference is the strength of capability of Iran and Iranian-backed groups, but there has been no fundamental shift in strategy or outlook from either Israel, Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, or other groups."
