Latest news with #AliVaez
Bloomberg
25-06-2025
- Business
- Bloomberg
Bloomberg Surveillance: Market Outlook and NYC Race
Watch Tom and Paul LIVE every day on YouTube: Bloomberg Surveillance hosted by Tom Keene & Paul SweeneyJune 25th, 2025 Featuring: 1) Brian Levitt, Global Market Strategist at Invesco, joins to discuss his outlook for equities and the economy in the second half of 2025. Fed Chair Jay Powell told lawmakers that if inflation pressures remain contained, the Fed will cut rates sooner rather than later, but didn't point to a particular meeting, and markets are telling Powell that he will be lowering rates more quickly than he portrayed. 2) Fred Neuman, Chief Asia Economist at HSBC, joins for a discussion on how an oil spike could lead to an inflation spike, and why the Israel-Iran conflict's impact on oil is crucial to China and Asian economies. It comes as President Trump announced on social media that China can continue to purchase oil from Iran, potentially undermining years of US sanctions on Iran. The announcement surprised oil traders and officials in Trump's own government, and it is unclear how the US Treasury and State Department will interpret and enforce related sanctions. 3) Ali Vaez, Iran Project Director of the Crisis Group's Iran Project, joins to discuss the conflicting views about the whether the US destroyed Iran's nuclear capabilities and whether there is any room for diplomacy in the Israel-Iran conflict. President Trump disputed an intelligence report that found the airstrikes he ordered on Iran had only a limited impact on its nuclear program. The ceasefire between Israel and Iran remains fragile, with a focus on nuclear diplomacy and assessments of how much damage was done to Iran's nuclear program. 4) Alicia Levine, Head of Investment Strategy and Equities at BNY, joins to talk about volatility in equities and offers her S&P target. Traders are shifting their focus to the US economy and how trade risks and fiscal pressures could affect corporate earnings and growth, with a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Iran appearing to hold.
Time Magazine
25-06-2025
- Politics
- Time Magazine
How Bombing Iran May Have Made Nuclear Diplomacy Much Harder
What began as a military campaign against Iran's nuclear infrastructure may have given way to a more enduring crisis: the collapse of decades-long efforts to contain nuclear proliferation through diplomacy. After days of escalating airstrikes between Israel and Iran that killed hundreds in Iran and dozens in Israel—and the United States' decision to involve itself—one of the most lasting, and difficult to quantify, losses may be the fragile framework of international nuclear cooperation. Read More: Trump Brokers Ceasefire to End '12 Day War' Between Israel and Iran While the full scope of physical damage to Iran's nuclear facilities remains unclear, analysts warn that the attacks may have pushed Iran to the brink of abandoning the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the foundational agreement designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and promote peaceful atomic energy that Iran has been a party to for five-and-a-half decades. Iran is now 'quite likely' to withdraw from the NPT under which it pledged not to develop a bomb, warned Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at the International Crisis Group. Outlining 'worst-case scenarios' in an essay for TIME, Vaez suggested: 'Over time, Iran's regime could attempt to reconstitute its nuclear activity from the rubble, only with an explicit aim of fashioning a weapon in the shortest possible time as a means of deterrence in the future.' Read More: Where Iran's Nuclear Program Goes From Here Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute in Washington, D.C., said in a post on X that Iran's nuclear program 'has at best been set back, but certainly not destroyed, while dramatically increasing Tehran's determination to achieve nuclear deterrence.' He added that Iran having a damaged but not fully dismantled nuclear program makes any future peace between Iran and Israel even more precarious. Israel, which is believed to have its own clandestine nuclear weapons program and is not a member of the NPT, has stated that it cannot allow nations hostile to it to develop a nuclear weapon. 'While Trump may have genuinely envisioned a one-and-done,' Parsi said, U.S. intervention at the request of Israel has signaled that, should Israel or Iran choose to reignite the war, Israel will have 'succeeded in trapping him in a long, if not a forever, war.' Read More: In Bombing Iran, Trump Looked Past 80 Years of U.S. Regime Change Mistakes For diplomacy to resume, he argues, 'Trump's only exit out of this is to discard the Israeli red line of zero-enrichment and return to the American red line of no weaponization.' A blow to non-proliferation diplomacy The diplomatic fallout is already materializing in Tehran. Iran's parliamentary national security committee passed the outline of a bill on Monday to suspend Tehran's cooperation with the United Nations' nuclear watchdog—the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)—so long as Iran's nuclear sites remain vulnerable to military attack. Committee spokesperson Ebrahim Rezaei reportedly told semi-official Tasnim news agency that the bill would mean a suspension in installing surveillance cameras, inspections, and submitting reports to the IAEA. Mohammad Eslami, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, said the government is planning to restore its nuclear program as it evaluates what damage has been done. 'Preparations for recovery had already been anticipated, and our plan is to prevent any interruption in production or services,' Eslami said in a statement reportedly carried by government-affiliated Mehr News. Iran's envoy to the IAEA, Reza Najafi, told reporters on the sidelines of an emergency IAEA board meeting on Monday that U.S. involvement in the strikes had 'delivered a fundamental and irreparable blow to the international non-proliferation regime conclusively demonstrating that the existing NPT framework has been rendered ineffective.' Scope of physical damage to Iran's nuclear facilities remains unclear The breakdown in diplomacy is unfolding as questions hang over just how significant the physical damage is to Iran's nuclear infrastructure—an element that may carry long-term consequences for non-proliferation efforts. After the U.S. dropped 30,000-pound bombs on three of Iran's key nuclear facilities and risked a wider war, President Donald Trump declared from the White House that 'Iran's key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated.' 'THE NUCLEAR SITES ARE COMPLETELY DESTROYED!' President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social on Tuesday. Earlier the same day, he posted: 'IRAN WILL NEVER REBUILD THEIR NUCLEAR FACILITIES!' But Iran's nuclear program has at most been set back a few months, according to a reported initial assessment by U.S. intelligence. A leaked Defense Intelligence Agency preliminary report, which members of the Trump Administration have claimed is wrong, found that Iran's nuclear facilities were damaged, but not severely degraded, and that Iran still has the ability to enrich uranium. Earlier damage assessments by U.S. and Israeli militaries using satellite images of Fordow also suggested that the site had not been obliterated. Read More: Democrats in Congress Fume as Iran Strike Briefing Is Abruptly Cancelled Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said at a news conference on Sunday that the country is 'calculating the damages' from the strike. IAEA Director-General Rafael Grossi told the U.N. Security Council that there are visible craters at Fordow, and that entrances to tunnels used to store enriched uranium appeared to have been hit at Isfahan. But he also cautioned that 'no one, including the IAEA, is in a position to assess the underground damage.' Some observers believe Iran may have preemptively moved enriched uranium to undisclosed locations. The IAEA confirmed last week it was unable to track Iran's stockpile amid the ongoing bombardment. Iran had previously warned the IAEA that its stockpile, which is typically secured at Isfahan, could be moved in the event of an Israeli attack. Grossi said after the U.S. strikes that 'Iran has informed the IAEA there has been no increase in off-site radiation levels at all three sites,' suggesting that the strikes may not have hit uranium stores directly. Still, he urged Iran to disclose the new location of any relocated nuclear material and reaffirmed Tehran's obligations under the treaty. Read More: Breaking Down the Environmental Risks From Strikes on Iran's Nuclear Enrichment Sites Iran's legislative response suggests a hardening stance. 'Iran has no plans for non-peaceful activities, but the world witnessed clearly that the IAEA has not honored any of its commitments and has turned into a political instrument,' parliamentary speaker Mohammed-Bagher Ghalibaf said during Monday's session. 'This war makes it more, not less, likely that the Iranian government will eventually build a nuclear weapon,' argues Sara Haghdoosti, executive director of Win Without War, a progressive Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group. 'Israeli—or even U.S.—airstrikes cannot wipe out the knowledge behind the nuclear program or reliably destroy all centrifuges and uranium in a country over twice the size of Texas.' Iran more likely to withdraw from nuclear diplomacy Whether Iran was actively pursuing a nuclear weapon remains in dispute. U.S. intelligence concluded earlier this year that the country had no plans to develop a nuclear weapon, while Trump and Israeli officials have insisted it did. Iran has maintained that its uranium enrichment is in line with its right to peaceful enrichment for energy purposes under the NPT. Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian reiterated that view on Tuesday, reportedly telling regional officials that Iran is interested only in pursuing its 'legitimate rights' and has no ambitions 'to acquire nuclear weapons.' Iran and the U.S. had been in the midst of protracted talks centered on Iran's nuclear program when Israel launched its surprise attack on Iran. The war put a halt to further talks with the U.S.—although Iran continued talks with European officials—and it is unclear whether they will begin again. Several agencies and countries, including the European Union and Grossi, have urged Iran to return to the negotiating table. But Iran's envoy to the U.N. Ali Bahreini said on Sunday that it can't return to something 'it never left.' He said the NPT has been 'manipulated into a political weapon' and 'exploited as a pretext for aggression and unlawful action.' Read More: A New Middle East Is Unfolding Before Our Eyes Iran ratified the treaty in 1970, and signed another deal with former President Barack Obama in 2015 agreeing that its nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful in exchange for the relief of economic sanctions. Trump exited the deal in 2018 during his first term, reimposing heavy sanctions on Iran, which pushed Iran to restart some nuclear operations. Foad Izadi, a professor at the University of Tehran, told Al Jazeera that Iran's collaboration with the IAEA as a member of the NPT has clearly not benefited or protected Tehran. 'Iran doesn't have to be there,' Izadi said, 'given the fact that Iranian nuclear sites that were under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that were under the monitoring of [the IAEA], were attacked.' Haghdoosti, the Win Without War activist, tells TIME that the airstrikes on Iran, which the Trump Administration has framed as part of a deliberate strategy to pursue 'peace through strength,' will erode diplomatic efforts around nuclear programs for all countries now and in the future. 'The lesson of this war for the Iranian government and any other government contemplating acquiring nuclear weapons is that even if the U.S. is negotiating with you to end that pursuit, it will still support—and even join—a war against you,' Haghdoosti says. 'That's a strong incentive for governments to skip diplomacy entirely and go straight to getting a nuclear weapon.'
Al Jazeera
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
Iran hoping to 'draw a line' under confrontation with US
Iran hoping to 'draw a line' under confrontation with US Quotable Ali Vaez says Iran doubts Israel is done with its war, even after both sides accepted Trump's proposed ceasefire. Ali Vaez, the Iran project director at the Intl Crisis Group, says that despite Iran and Israel accepting Trump's ceasefire, Iran believes Israel isn't done with its war on Iran. Video Duration 00 minutes 44 seconds 00:44 Video Duration 01 minutes 17 seconds 01:17 Video Duration 01 minutes 06 seconds 01:06 Video Duration 01 minutes 28 seconds 01:28 Video Duration 01 minutes 48 seconds 01:48 Video Duration 00 minutes 50 seconds 00:50 Video Duration 00 minutes 24 seconds 00:24
France 24
24-06-2025
- Politics
- France 24
Trump announces ceasefire between Iran and Israel
"It has been fully agreed by and between Israel and Iran that there will be a Complete and Total CEASEFIRE," Trump wrote Monday on his Truth Social platform, although there was no official confirmation from either of the Middle Eastern adversaries. Over a week of tit-for tat missile launches have killed hundreds in Iran and two dozen in Israel, according to officials on both sides. The United States joined the conflict over the weekend with unprecedented strikes on Iranian nuclear sites, spurring a retaliatory missile attack Monday on an American base in Qatar, which Trump said had been successfully defeated. Trump said the ceasefire would be a phased 24-hour process beginning at around 0400 GMT Tuesday, with Iran unilaterally halting all operations. Israel would follow suit 12 hours later, the president said. "Upon the 24th hour, an official end to the 12-day war will be saluted by the world," he said, adding that both sides had agreed to remain "peaceful and respectful" during each phase of the process. Several loud explosions were heard in Tehran overnight, AFP correspondents said, after the Israeli army warned residents in a central area of the Iranian capital to evacuate. Any cessation in hostilities would come as a huge relief to world leaders frantic about an escalation in violence igniting into a wider conflagration. The adversaries had been swapping missile fire since Israel carried out surprise "preemptive" strikes against Iran on June 13, targeting nuclear and military sites, and prompting Trump to warn of a possible "massive" regional conflict. Strikes on US base The US leader's ceasefire announcement came hours after Iran launched missiles at the largest US military facility in the Middle East -- Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar -- in a move Trump shrugged off as "very weak." Calling for a de-escalation, Trump said Tehran had given advance notice of the barrage. No one had been hurt in the attack, Trump said. Iran's National Security Council confirmed having targeted the base "in response to the US aggressive and insolent action against Iran's nuclear sites and facilities." But it added that the number of missiles launched "was the same as the number of bombs that the US had used" -- a signal that it had calibrated its response to be directly proportional rather than escalatory. "This was calibrated and telegraphed in a way that would not result in any American casualties, so that there is an off ramp for both sides," Ali Vaez, a senior advisor at the International Crisis Group, told AFP. The Qatari offensive came after the United States joined its ally Israel's military campaign against Iran, attacking an underground uranium enrichment center with massive bunker-busting bombs and hitting two other nuclear facilities overnight Saturday into Sunday. As international concern mounted that Israel's campaign and the US strikes could ignite into a wider conflict, French President Emmanuel Macron insisted that "the spiral of chaos must end" while China warned of the potential economic fallout. 'Blatant aggression' Iran said its assault in Qatar wasn't targeting the Middle Eastern neighbor, but the government in Doha accused Tehran of "blatant aggression" and claimed its right to a "proportional" response. Iran's state media quoted the Revolutionary Guard Corps announcing that six missiles had hit Al Udeid, which had been evacuated beforehand, according to the Qataris. The broadside was made up of "short-range and medium-range ballistic missiles," a US defense official said. AFP reporters heard blasts in central Doha and in Lusail, north of the capital, on Monday evening, and saw projectiles moving across the night sky. Iranians gathered in central Tehran to celebrate, images on state TV showed, with some waving the flag of the Islamic republic and chanting "Death to America." Qatar earlier announced the temporary closure of its airspace in light of "developments in the region," while the US embassy and other foreign missions warned their citizens to shelter in place. Israeli strikes on Iran have killed more than 400 people, Iran's health ministry has said. Twenty-four people have died in Iran's attacks on Israel, according to official figures. After a day of tit-for-tat missile launches between Israel and Iran, the Israeli army called around midnight for residents in part of central Tehran to evacuate, saying it was "targeting the Iranian regime's military infrastructure." © 2025 AFP
ABC News
23-06-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Iran's three options after Trump's strikes
Sam Hawley: After the US bombing of key Iranian nuclear facilities, Donald Trump is now openly advocating for regime change to make Iran great again, he says. But is that really a possibility? Today, Ali Vaez from the International Crisis Group on the three options now open to Iran and why surrender is not the one it'll go for. I'm Sam Hawley on Gadigal land in Sydney. This is ABC News Daily. Ali, we're going to unpack what we should expect next in this Israel-Iran war. But first, I just want to discuss the messaging out of Washington, which is really quite mixed. Donald Trump and his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, say the American bombing does not mean the United States has joined the war, but it's also warning Iran it could very well go further. Pete Hegseth, United States Secretary of Defense: The United States does not seek war. But let me be clear, we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened. Donald Trump, President of the United States: There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. If peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Sam Hawley: What do you make of that? Ali Vaez: Well, this is one of the problems with President Trump, isn't it, that he constantly moves the goalposts. And this is one of the reasons I think that the Iranians are extremely reluctant to re-engage him in negotiations. He started negotiations with the Iranians in his second term based on the goal of Iran having no nuclear weapons. Then during the course of the negotiations, that shifted to zero enrichment, meaning that Iran should completely dismantle its nuclear program. And during the war, it basically asked Iran to completely surrender and now is asking for regime change. So it is very difficult for the Iranians to look at him as a reliable negotiating partner. Sam Hawley: Because, yes, Donald Trump is now openly saying this is not just about Iran's nuclear program. On his social media site, Truth Social, he said it's time to make Iran great again, hinting at regime change. Ali Vaez: Yes, that's right. It's very interesting because in May, the president was in the region visiting Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the UAE. And during his trip, he had a major speech in which he basically said that he believed that past regime change policies of the United States in the region were misguided and had always backfired. And the region is a better place to determine his own fate rather than it being imposed from the outside. In Donald Trump, President of the United States: In the end, the so-called nation builders wrecked far more nations than they built. And the interventionalists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand themselves. Ali Vaez: But now he seems to be back in the regime change business, which, of course, is also something that his MAGA base, America First isolationist base, does not like to see. But I do believe that also President Trump has this approach that is based on threatening in order to get what he wants. And he might be considering that threatening Iran with regime change at a time of extreme vulnerability for the Iranian regime might actually force them to come back to the negotiating table. But it would produce the exact opposite of what he has in mind. Sam Hawley: And Ali, interesting to note that Trump opening the door to regime change actually came on the same day that his vice president, J.D. Vance, and the Defense Secretary were insisting that that was not the goal of the United States. J.D. Vance, Vice President of the United States: We don't want a regime change. We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it's already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program. Pete Hegseth, United States Secretary of Defense: This mission was not and has not been about regime change. The president authorised a precision operation to neutralise the threats to our national interests. Sam Hawley: All right, well, Ali, of course, I want to discuss with you what could actually happen next and what Iran's response will be and the world's response to this. Can I just start briefly with the US's Western allies? Before the strikes, they were concerned, but they're now backing Donald Trump in, aren't they? Ali Vaez: That is right. The Western countries, especially European countries, they were still thinking that there is a diplomatic option that the US is interested in. And yet once the US took military action, they all supported it without condemning something that in international norms is considered a war of aggression. Sam Hawley: All right. Well, our response from our foreign minister, Penny Wong, has also shifted in this way, shifted behind Donald Trump. Speaker 3: The world has agreed Iran cannot be allowed to get a nuclear weapon. So, yes, we support action to prevent that. And that is what this is. Sam Hawley: Let's turn now to what Iran might do and what support it actually has in the region, which is very limited, isn't it? Just explain that. Ali Vaez: Yeah, look, Iran is alone. It doesn't have any outside security guarantors. It's not like North Korea that can count on China. It's not a member of any kind of security alliance. It doesn't have anyone who's rushing to its rescue. It has close relations with Russia and with China. It has strategic partnerships with both of those countries. But none of it includes a security partnership that they would actually rush to Iranian defence. And I think the Russians are even secretly happy because these tensions have increased global energy prices. And that's beneficial to Russia. And anything that bugs down the United States and prevents it from pivoting to focus on China is beneficial to China, even though China, unlike Russia, doesn't benefit from high oil prices. But overall, there is no one who's standing by Iran and its non-state allies have been really decimated and are on their back foot as a result of Israel decapitating Hezbollah, degrading Hamas and the fall of the Assad regime in Syria. Sam Hawley: Yes. So the so-called axis of resistance, including Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis, they're not in a position to actually help Iran at this point. Is that what you're saying? Ali Vaez: They are weakened. They can come to Iran's rescue to a certain extent. But the question is, when should that happen? At this stage, I think it is unlikely, especially for a group like Hezbollah, which has really been on its knees since last September, October, when Israel significantly diminished its offensive capabilities. But if Iran is facing an existential peril, then it is possible that these groups would also conclude that if the mothership goes down, that they will go down eventually as well. And they would decide as a last ditch effort aimed at survival to try to join the battle. There are still members of the axis of resistance that are standing, like the Shia militias in Iraq and the Houthis in Yemen. But again, I think they're keeping their powder dry for now until later stages if this conflict escalates and expands. Sam Hawley: What could they do if that does happen? Ali Vaez: Well, the Houthis have demonstrated that they can reach Israel. They just targeted Ben Gurion airport about two weeks ago. They have also effectively managed to shut down free flow of trade and energy out of the Red Sea. They can target U.S. warships in and around the region. They can shut down the key waterway of Bab al-Mandab. The Hashd al-Shaabi militias in Iraq, they can target U.S. bases and U.S. diplomatic facilities in Iraq. And there's also enormous U.S. economic interests in Iraq as well in the form of investments in the energy sector. So there are still things that they can do. But again, I think the time for that has not yet arrived. Sam Hawley: And there are 30,000 U.S. troops, of course, based in the region. So a lot of U.S. bases. A big concern, of course, Ali, as well, is the Strait of Hormuz that Iran could disrupt that, disrupt the flow of oil around the world, which could have a devastating impact. What's your view? Can it actually do that? Ali Vaez: I doubt that they would actually physically block the Strait of Hormuz because that would invite a massive U.S. military intervention that would be very devastating for the Iranians. And they have options short of blocking the strait, which is exactly what the Houthis have done in the Red Sea, which is to target shipping lanes and target tankers. That in and of itself will further rattle energy markets and would externalise the cost of this conflict, which the Iranians believe is one way of putting pressure on President Trump to pull the plug on further escalation. Sam Hawley: Hmm, all right. Well, Ali, Donald Trump says Iran's nuclear sites have been obliterated, although the Pentagon says that could be too soon to say. How is the world to know how much damage has been done? How can we be sure? Because there are reports as well that the Iranians, knowing that this could be coming, moved some of the material from these sites. Ali Vaez: That is a fantastic question and in fact, the most important question, because if we are to believe Prime Minister Netanyahu's justification for the strikes, it was primarily to prevent Iran from being able to weaponise its nuclear capabilities. Now, the two main ingredients you need for that are advanced centrifuges and a stockpile of highly enriched uranium. We know that in the past four years, Iran has produced hundreds of advanced centrifuges and probably has stockpiles of advanced centrifuges somewhere in the country. The only way of knowing where the material and the machinery are is through either having boots underground, which no one is considering at this point, or inspectors. And the UN inspectors, because these nuclear sites are war zones now, have not been able to access them in the past 10 days. And I do believe that even if the war stops tomorrow, Iran is very unlikely to allow the inspectors back in. So in the process of trying to advance the cause of non-proliferation, in fact, Israel and the United States have blinded us to the ability of having oversight over Iran's nuclear program. Sam Hawley: What about this idea of regime change? Will the Iranian people rise up, do you think, against what is a brutal theocracy? Or will they really rally around the flag and the regime while they're under attack? Ali Vaez: Look, the Iranian regime is very much de-legitimised and hated within the country. It's only a very small segment of the society, maybe 10 to 15 per cent, that has, for ideological or financial reasons, still vested interest in it. But the problem is that there is no viable, unified, organised, disciplined, united alternative available to this regime inside or outside of the country. This is not like Syria in 2024, when you had a militant group ready to march into the capital and take over power. So in a scenario of regime implosion, the likeliest alternatives to the Islamic Republic is either a military takeover of the Revolutionary Guards, which I'm not sure would be any better, or the possibility of civil strife. Iran has the same fault lines that exist in countries in the region that have descended into internal conflict, like Syria, Yemen, Iraq, Libya, Lebanon. And the Islamic Republic has mistreated Iranian minorities, ethnic and sectarian, more than other segments of the society. So the risks of that kind of instability is very high. And I do believe that even if Israel thinks that destabilising a country of 90 million is in its short-term interest, that is not something that is in the medium to long-term interest of anyone, including the United States. Sam Hawley: All right, well Ali, in your mind, Iran has three options here, fold, check or raise. Which one do you think they'll go for at this point? Ali Vaez: So I don't think surrendering is really an option, because I think the only thing that the Iranian regime sees as more perilous than suffering from Israeli and American bombs is surrendering to American terms, because then that would basically signal that this is a regime that is on the ropes and there's no reason for the US to throw it a lifeline or try to give it sanctions relief and rescue it. They would actually ask for more and they would push it over the edge. Now, the option of having some sort of controlled escalation, response, retaliation against the US, maybe sequentially after the war with Israel has ended or they have reached a balance of devastation with Israel, I think is probably their option of choice. But it is also possible that they would double down either by trying to dash towards nuclear weapons, and as I said, that pathway is still open to them, or that they would try to put the entire region ablaze as means of deterring the US and Israel from going any further. Sam Hawley: Ali Vaez is the director of the Iran Project at International Crisis Group. This episode was produced by Sydney Pead and Adair Sheppard. Audio production by Sam Dunn. Our supervising producer is David Coady. I'm Sam Hawley. Thanks for listening.
