Todd Blanche Confirmation Hearing; Plus, US Escalates Attacks on Southern Iran, Iran Releases American Detainee

Good morning. It's Thursday, July 16th, 2006. This is up front. I'm Brian Upwards-Tieker. On today's show, searching for signs of life in the U.S. Senate. Donald Trump's pick to be Attorney General Todd Blanche came under some reasonably challenging questioning from a couple Republicans on the Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearings yesterday. We'll talk to John Nichols from the nation of what the prospects are of an extraordinarily unpopular president seeing resistance from within the ranks of his own party. In the second half of our program, what are the prospects for new negotiations with Iran? There were a couple slightly promising signals overnight. including Iran's release of an Iranian-American it had charged with espionage and held in a prison for two years, and some vague signals of approval and social media posts from Donald Trump. We'll talk with Mouin Rabani. All that and more coming up next. After the news. I'm Max Pringle with these headlines. The U.S. military expanded its air strike campaign today against Iran to targets beyond the street of Hormuz. Iran has retaliated with missile strikes on neighboring Gulf states. Ben Thomas has more. Tehran says U.S. strikes have killed more than 35 people in recent days and wounded more than 300. I had to take tough action because they did not... obey what they're supposed to obey. I mean, they just didn't do it. But at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania Wednesday, President Trump insisted Iran is looking to strike a deal. They want to settle so badly. They don't like what we're doing. But that interim deal to end the war appears to have been shredded. I'm Ben Thomas. Syrian authorities have thwarted and attempted weapons smuggling on its border with Iraq. State media said today the truck was reportedly heading to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon. Syria's state-run Sanae news agency quoted an unnamed interior ministry official saying the truck carried advanced weapons and rockets. Syrian authorities have thwarted and attempted weapons smuggling on its border with Iraq. State media said today the truck was reportedly heading to the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militant group in Lebanon. Syria's state-run Sana news agency quoted an unnamed Interior Ministry official saying the truck carried advanced weapons and rockets. A preliminary investigation concluded its intended destination was Hezbollah. which has been at war with Israel since early March. The new Syrian leadership has cracked down on smuggling along its borders. Hezbollah has not commented on the allegations. The new leadership in Syria, which toppled former dictator Bashar al-Assad in 2024, has cracked down on smuggling of weapons and illicit drugs along its borders, especially with Iraq and Lebanon, that for decades have served as strategic routes for supplying Hezbollah and other Iran-backed military.

groups. President Trump is scheduled to address the nation this evening on topics he says will include elections and voting machines. This suggests he could revisit long debunked conspiracy theories about his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden. The speech comes as he's escalated his calls for Republicans to pass tighter federal voting rules ahead of November's midterm elections. At Trump's last prime time presidential address in April, he said the U.S. would accomplish its Iran war objectives, quote, very shortly. But days of back and forth attacks by the U.S. and Iran across the Middle East and in the Strait of Hormuz have shredded the interim deal to pause the fighting. Trump has long claimed that the 2020 election was rigged against him. He's yet to provide any evidence to support his claims. An Associated Press analysis shows Americans are waiting longer for disaster aid under President Trump, with delays often lasting weeks or months. The report shows Trump is taking longer to approve major disaster declarations than any other president since 1989. Trump also has been denying more requests during his second term. The AP's analysis shows those denials are disproportionately hitting states that didn't support Trump politically. Trump has nominated Cameron Hamilton to become director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA. Cameron has said he wants to speed up disaster declaration decisions and ensure that reviews are objective and fair. The New York Times has filed a motion to quash subpoenas that the Justice Department served on journalists who reported on security concerns involving the new Qatari-gifted Air Force One. This sets up a significant court fight over press freedom and the government's ability to force reporters to identify sources. The filing was made under seal Wednesday in the Southern District of New York, where the journalists were summoned in subpoenas delivered last Friday to testify before a grand jury. The Times Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel says the subpoenas violate the constitutional rights of the Times and its journalists. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has moved to dismiss Defense Minister Mikhailo Federov. The move has sparked a protest. in Kiev today, Parliament appointed NAFTAGAS CEO Serhil Karetsky as the new Prime Minister at Volodymyr Zelensky's request. Volodymyr Zelensky nominated Koreski for his energy sector experience as Ukraine prepares for another wartime winter. Fedorov is known for modernizing Ukraine's military. He confirmed his dismissal on social media. Demonstrations against his exit occurred in several cities, with protesters criticizing the decision. Evacuation orders have been issued in southwest Texas during severe downpours. Multiple flash flood warnings have been issued for the area. Communities along the Guadalupe River are particularly affected with reports of people on roofs in Kerr County. The National Weather Service in San Antonio warns of catastrophic flooding.

Joining us to talk about the situation is John Nichols. He's executive editor of the nation. Good morning. Good morning. It's good to be with you. Thank you for joining us of another episode of Searching for Signs of Life in the U.S. Senate. Yeah. Well, there were a few times of life. And the hearing had some interesting clashes. And I think that particularly Sheldon White House, who may well be the next chair of the Judiciary Committee, depending on evolution of politics and who takes over the Senate, things like that, really grilled Todd Blanche in some very effective ways. There were some other Democrats, Cory Booker, and others who... did, I think, a credible job there. But as you point out, the questioning from John Cornyn of Texas and the signals from Thom Tillis are the essential messages, because if they were to oppose, that would be highly significant that could actually stall this out. And in fact, almost certainly would, because even if the procedure was developed to get this nomination to the floor if they would continue to oppose. Perhaps in the company of a couple other Republicans, Todd Blanche could be blocked. And you're right to point out that he continues to serve as Attorney General. But it was a very difficult hearing, and I think it highlighted a lot of the skepticism as regards Todd Blanche in this role, even folks who would almost certainly vote to confirm him were asked questions that were more aggressive than you usually see from Republicans for Trump cabinet nominees. So there's a discomfort here. I don't think there's any question of that. Thanks for the subtle correction there, John. For some reason, there is a circuit in my brain that permanently links John Thune and John Cornyn. Well, you're right about that. Absolutely. They were a team. I did want to... Push too hard on that, because I thought you'd know it as well. But yeah, it's important to understand that John Cornyn is not just another Republican on the committee or a Republican who lost his primary because of opposition from President Trump. John Cornyn was essentially the number two in the Senate. He was feelings. very able lieutenant. He's a guy with a long history in politics and frankly a long history in the law, might well have been a future chair of the judiciary committee, etc. So when he asked these questions, he asked them as a Republican who is well understood by the rest of his caucus as somebody who, you know,

It kind of comes from the core of the Republican Party, knows the issues, and frankly, if he's concerned, you know, whether they'll vote against Todd Blanche or not, it raises alarms, I think, even in other Republicans. He drilled down on the so-called slush fund, $1.8 billion fund, the Department of Justice under Todd Blanche, attempted to create through a settlement with Donald Trump over his lawsuit against the IRS. This is something that proved... spectacularly unpopular that they backpedaled away from. But then in his public comments, Donald Trump hasn't completely written off the possibility of revisiting. Even as all the lawyers who worked on this deal from the government's end are facing potential discipline from their respective bar associations after that referral was made by the judge presiding over the settlement. How, like, do you think this is something John Cornyn is sincerely troubled by, or is this just kind of like poking Trump in the eye on his way out the door? But definitely poking Trump in the eye on his way out the door. I think that's a real part of this. The question of whether John Cornyn would actually go to a no vote is, is. I think very up for grabs, even though his, his questioning pointed to every reason to vote no on this nomination. He is still, I think he's still very much a party loyalist, despite what he went through. He's clearly disappointed from his defeat in the primary. But. He probably has some ambitions as regards, not politics, but a future career in the law. I don't know if he's at the point where he actually wants to retire. And so I hate to tell you that all these things come into consideration for senators and former senators who sometimes become lobbyists, things of that nature. It'll be a real test. There's no doubt that based on the questions that John Cornyn asked. they point to a no vote. If he kind of swings around and votes yes, and frankly, if Thom Tillis does the same, that will be a lingering reminder of something that's been quite intriguing in watching this Senate. Even people who've been defeated. And even people who have been longtime foes of the Trump administration on particular issues are often talked into kind of getting in line and voting with the administration. And I think a lot of that falls to John Thune. It's an interesting thing about John Thune that he wants to maintain.

a good relationship with the president. That doesn't mean that John Thune doesn't occasionally, you know, block something the president wants or counsel the president not to do something, et cetera. But at the end of the day, when the president is insisting on a vote, uh, John Thune, I think uses a lot of his personal connections to some of these senators who've been voted out or are retiring, uh, to try and swing them over into the column. It's one of the, it's frankly, I would dare say the ugly underside of how the Senate operates. It operates on the very high level public, you know, what we see in the headlines. It operates also on, you know, this interplay with the White House. And then finally, there is a set of personal relationships, people who have sometimes worked together for generations, pressuring folks to kind of get on board. So we'll see where it comes. I'm not, I'm not in the camp that tells you that Todd Blanche is necessarily going to get. blocked but there were there were lines of questioning that at least raised that possibility and it also creates a circumstance where if more comes out about Todd Blanche in the you know ensuing days weeks that could that could really be a factor here Yeah, they're taking witness testimony today in Senate judiciary, including from at least one Epstein victim. Todd Blanche was heavily involved with the botched release of Epstein documents that outed victims they weren't supposed to. Also had that private meeting with Ghislaine Maxwell, the Epstein associate, that was immediately followed by her being transferred to a much more pleasant prison to spend time in. Yeah, I think this is an important thing to note, Brian, just for one, just one quick intervention there, in that I think Democrats on the committee were, um, frankly not as aggressive as I had expected yesterday. And my sense is that they are putting a lot of, uh, focus and energy into this line of attack on Todd Blanche, wondering if perhaps it will get amplified to a level that it might become, you know, not just a factor in Senate votes, but an embarrassment to the White House. It seems like the hearings are already in embarrassment to the White House. Well, first, the judge is scathing decision in the settlement case. Second, several of the exchanges during the questioning yesterday. Third, whatever is going to come up in the witness testimony today. Maybe I don't fully understand the procedural intricacies, but if the Trump administration has the power to keep him in office is acting regardless of whether or not he's confirmed, why even go to a confirmation hearing? Um, that's a good question. Uh, the president has, uh, in the past often kind of avoided doing that. And frankly, Democratic presidents do as well when they, when they don't think they have the votes. Uh, but at a certain point that becomes untenable. Uh, the attorney general is.

in the cabinet, along with the Secretary of State, one of two positions that sort of rise above the rest of the cabinet. Maybe Secretary of Defense Councilor as well, although I think the role has been somewhat diminished by its current occupant. But there historically has been a sense that you ought to have somebody in Secretary of State and AG who's fully vetted, fully approved, has the backing of the Senate because the Senate itself. uh at its best and certainly not at its best tends to take seriously oversight of those offices. And here's the subtlety of, you know, what we're talking about in this midterm election year. You can keep Todd Blanche there for a time. There's no question. But if the Democrats take over the Senate, which is not beyond the realm of possibility, difficult, but not beyond the realm of possibility in this midterm election, suddenly sometime in January, you have a Senate Judiciary Committee with a lot of power. to do oversight on Todd Blanche and what he's doing. And I think perhaps the Trump people think better to get him approved by a Republican Senate than face the challenges that might come if he's in this kind of temporary position once a Democratic Senate comes in. Is the Judiciary Committee the only prospect of blocking his nomination? I imagine if he gets to the floor of the Senate that puts Susan Collins, the Republican facing a stiff challenge in Maine, in an awkward position. Lisa Murkowski, the Republican from Alaska, has been voting against the Trump administration a lot lately. And they don't have a lot of votes to spare there. Well, Mitch McConnell is not there. Um, one assumes that, uh, Lindsey Graham's sister who's been sworn in to replace him would be a, a reliable vote for the administration, but we don't know that. Um, and yeah, you get yourself in a position where, um, you might well be one vote away one, one vote swinging one way or another. That could be folk, someone like Thom Tillis, someone like John Cornyn, um, that, that this thing could fall apart. So it's not beyond the realm of possibility. And, and frankly, Um, there are, you know, other senators there like Bill Cassidy and folks who, uh, you know, owe the administration very little. Um, this might be a place at which somebody would, somebody would make a break. I do have to warn you, however, that you have Senator John Fetterman from Pennsylvania in the mix. And, uh, Senator John Fetterman has been signaling a lot of, uh, indications of breaks with the Democratic caucus on a lot of issues. And so I think you'd have to keep an eye on that as well. Yeah, I can't really chalk that up to opportunistic politics. Yes. Is it just like a consequence of John Fetterman having a stroke?

I can't. I'm not going to analyze the guy's health condition or anything like that. I mean, that's for people smarter than I. What I can just tell you is that John Fetterman has sent a lot of signals in the last. Really, particularly in the last couple months, last month or so, of a openness to working with the Republicans and voting with the Republicans on a lot of issues. There is huge concern among Democrats in Pennsylvania, especially, about kind of where he's headed. This is a very live topic politically. And I think there's no question that John Fetterman would face a primary challenge if he remains in the Democratic. party and very probably get beat in a primary. And so the question becomes, does he remain in the Democratic caucus? Does he remain a Democrat? At this point, he signals that he will. And there are some issues on which he tends to still vote very much with the Democrats. But I mean, there's obviously this concern that he might go the route of, you know, that some Democrats have in the past. Remember, you had the situations with. uh, cinema and mansion before that with Joe Lieberman many years back. And so, um, obviously this is, this is a live concern within the Democratic caucus because everybody talks about the 2026 elections and they go down that, they go through that map and they say, well, the Democrats are probably going to flip a seat in North Carolina. Um, they have a very good chance of picking up a seat in Ohio. Um, they're looking pretty good in. Iowa. You've got that main prospect with someone who'll be nominated to run against Susan Collins, very good numbers out of Alaska, et cetera. You kind of look around the map, you see places of possibility, maybe even Telerico in Texas. And all of this, knowing that you probably won't win them all, but all this gets you to that zone of 51 votes, which the Democrats need. But if at that point, the Democrats have a member of their caucus who either leaves the caucus or who just doesn't vote with them on a regular basis, they end up in that, you know, difficult situation where... It's 50-50, and JD Vance starts, you know, breaking ties in favor of the Republicans. And also where you're kind of nominally in charge, so able to take some blame for things going poorly. You get the blame, but not changing how they go. That's exactly, and you know what, that is, if you want to write a history of the Biden administration, that was one of the realities that what Cinema and Mansion did in particular, and some other folks as well, in those early years of the Biden administration, when they had a Democratic Senate, but they had to constantly compromise away, you know, didn't, you know, close the deal on, like even a minimum wage increase, things like that.

And I think that ultimately that created a frustration on the part of a lot of Democrats with with the Senate and also more broadly I think created an image that Biden you know worked really hard to pass and things and some of those things were pretty good but that they were often insufficient and and you had this weird situation where you have a Democratic president Democratic Congress and yet what's coming out is very compromised legislation if at all and you know This is one of the realities of when you have a Democratic Party that is not all on the same page or potentially has people threatening to leave. So there have been a couple other developments among Democrats in Congress that I thought were notable and worth discussing in the few minutes we have left. Earlier this week. Democrats rallied in the Senate to block the advancement of the National Defense Authorization Act, sprawling $1.2 trillion congressional appropriation for the military. Kind of bill that would just sail through with overwhelming bipartisan support in prior political eras. Yep. Separately in the House on an amendment to a State Department funding bill, a majority of the Democratic caucus voted for an amendment that would have killed the $3.3 billion in aid that goes to Israel. Again, a previously kind of unthinkable showing at those levels. within the Democratic Party. What do you make if the shifts taking place? Unthinkable showing probably. three weeks ago. I think there's a huge shift going on in the Democratic Party. And I think that many of the most savvy Democrats in Congress are recognizing that their party's base has very clearly shifted on this issue and that it is willing to vote on this issue in primaries, not necessarily is the only issue, but one that really matters to a lot of voters. And so I do think that election results from New York in Colorado and Pennsylvania and other play in New Jersey, where you saw candidates who were running with a very clear message as regards Gaza, as regards the condition of the Palestinian people as regards the Israeli assault on Gaza, which has been broadly identified as genocide.

There really is, you know, this is a live issue within the party and it is one that is having an impact. I will note that Nancy Pelosi voted to cut aid to Israel. That is, I mean, in any historical sense, almost unimaginable. Also is he notable that Hakeem Jeffries, he announced he was going to vote against the amendment. No surprise there. He is like a career-long Israel supporter. But he did not whip votes against it, which I interpret to me. He doesn't necessarily think it's in the party's interest to twist people and twist people's arms into voting for Israel. Well, he also had a problem that the Democratic whip in the House voted yes on this amendment. So he would have had to go over his whip to himself and do the job, which would have been potentially very difficult. And yeah, Congressman Clark from Massachusetts. So I mean, when you look down the list and I was just doing it, it's fascinating because there's a lot of people who are in leadership or who are adjacent to leadership as ranking members of key committees who voted to cut aid to Israel. That is a very big. shift within the Democratic Party. It is not definitional in every sense. There's still a lot, you know, push and pull and stuff like that. But I do think it's a reaction. I think it's, in fairness to some of it, many of these members of Congress, I think it is a reaction to what they've seen, uh, Benjamin Netanyahu and others doing. And they, they genuinely are horrified and they think, you know, something has to happen. But I also think that politics often comes into play and those people who have. that discomfort didn't always in the past vote on it. I think now increasingly there is a willingness to vote to take bolder steps. And this is significant because there's still, by the way, a lot of primaries coming up. And the way that individual members voted on this could become a factor in, you know, Senate primaries in Michigan and Minnesota. House primaries coming up in Arizona and other places. So there's a moral side to this, unquestionably, that should have been there a long time ago. There's also a political side to it that I think is very much coming into focus at the moment.

Well, AIPAC's interventions are looking increasingly toothless. A, it clearly thinks Israel isn't an issue. It can change the outcome of campaigns on. When it spends money, it's spending it through third-party PACs to a candidate that doesn't like on completely unrelated issues. And it also doesn't seem to be getting traction with that. Yeah, look, let's see where it ends up. Apex money is still coming in in very huge amounts in a lot of states. We're going to see some real tests in Michigan and Minnesota and Senate primaries, other places. So at some fundamental level, there's still a lot of money flying around. There's also a lot of AI money separate and different issues. But at some fundamental level, I think you pointed out one of the most significant aspects of this. which is that APEC is not running on its issue, right? It's where, and it's adjacent groups. When they come in, they're doing entirely different issues. They're not talking about Israel, Palestine, or the Middle East or something like that. Their ads are talking about whether, you know, somebody's a good person or whether they've got some scandal or whether, you know, their attack ads against particular candidates. or they're building up a candidate that they're backing, not on foreign policy, but on, you know, cutting costs and domestic issues. So in an interesting sense, even APAC is avoiding, they're avoiding the actual issue that they're supposedly engaged on because I think they see that among the Democratic base in states across the country, there is simply a determination to shift U.S. policy on this issue. All right. John Nichols, we got to leave it there. Thank you so much. Pleasure to be with you. John Nichols is executive editor of the nation. That takes us to just before 732. The show is up front. My name is Brian Edwards Teakert. Coming up in the second half of our program, Mouin Rabani on Iran. That's next after the news. I'm Max Pringle with these headlines. The U.S. military expanded its airstrike campaign today against Iran to targets beyond the street of Hormuz. Iran has retaliated with missile strikes on neighboring Gulf states. Ben Thomas has more. Tehran says U.S. strikes have killed more than 35 people in recent days and wounded more than 300. I had to take tough action because they did not. obey what they're supposed to obey. I mean, they just didn't do it. But at the U.S. Army War College in Pennsylvania Wednesday, President Trump insisted Iran is looking to strike a deal. They want to settle so badly. They don't like what we're doing. But that interim deal to end the war appears to have been shredded. I'm Ben Thomas. Evacuation orders have been issued in southwest Texas during severe downpours. Multiple flash flood warnings have been issued for the area. Communities along the Guadalupe River are particularly affected with reports of people on roofs in Kerr County. The National Weather Service in San Antonio warns of catastrophic flooding, urging people to move to higher ground. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has issued disaster declarations for multiple counties. A primary focus right now, and throughout the remainder of this torrential rain,

It's saving lives. To achieve that goal, I've already issued a disaster declaration for 59 counties across the state. We can also add more counties to that declaration as needed. Dozens of rescues have been conducted mostly in Uvaldi County. More than a foot of rain has fallen with some areas receiving up to 16 inches. Flood watches remain in effect. A new poll in the race for California governor shows Democrat Xavier Becerra leading Republican Steve Hilton by a huge margin, 61% to 36%. Xavier Becerra leads Hilton across several demographics, age, gender, home ownership, income, racial ethnic groups, and across the state's major regions. The poll also found 85% of likely voters say that the gubernatorial candidates' positions on the environment are important. 60% of Democrats call it very important compared to 29% of Republicans. The Public Policy Institute of California conducted the poll. It surveyed more than 1,500 Californian adults from June 29th through July 9th. The poll was conducted in English and Spanish, and more than a thousand of those were likely voters. Mostly sunny today in the San Francisco Bay Area, highs in the 80s, lows tonight in the 50s, and the Central Valley, a heat advisory is in effect, highs around 100, lows tonight in the 60s. Those are the headlines. I'm Max Pringle on KPFA. About 7.35 in the morning, the show is up front. My name is Brian Edwards Teakard. Amidst the escalated fighting between the U.S. and Iran, there are actually a couple of glimmers that the two countries are heading towards a new round of diplomacy. Overnight, Iran released an American-Iranian woman. It had held in prison for two years under charges of espionage. In public statements, Donald Trump, said that was an encouraging sign. Also, a story broken in Axios by bureaucracy, a very reputable reporter, citing anonymous sources in the Trump administration, which probably means they wanted the information out there, saying that last week, President Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. that Israel should start pulling its forces out of Syria and start doing the same in Lebanon, which again...

would be a somewhat conciliatory gesture towards one of the points of conflict that have derailed efforts at maintaining ceasefires with Iran. I thought it would be worth revisiting the larger regional picture. We're joined by Mouin Rabani, a non-resident fellow with the Middle East Council on Global Affairs and author of the book, Gaza Apocalypse, which is coming out soon from O.R. Books. Thanks very much for speaking to us again. It's good to be with you. Thank you. Let's start with this story, confirmed by anonymous sources in the Trump administration and Israeli government, that Donald Trump is telling Benjamin Netanyahu to pull out of Syria and start withdrawing from Lebanon. How do you read the fact that the story exists and that it was leaked? It's interesting, though, I wouldn't put too much into it. We see these kinds of statements all the time. And there is another story this morning that the so-called Board of Peace has drastically scaled back its reconstruction plans for the Gaza Strip because it is anticipating another full-scale military. offensive by Israel throughout the Gaza Strip prior to the Israeli elections scheduled for this October. You know, often we see statements made and they may be real. They may even accurately reflect intentions. But what really matters is what happens on the ground. So for example, today we also have a statement that Israel is setting up permanent military basis. inside itself declared buffer zone in southern Lebanon. There have been similar activities in the newly occupied areas of Syria. Ultimately, what really matters is whether the U.S. is prepared to use the enormous leverage it has over Israel to compel Israel to fulfill its wishes. And the evidence so far is that on the whole it is not prepared to do so.

Israel, this wouldn't be its first occupation of southern Lebanon. Its last one during the Lebanese Civil War ended in, you know, I think what you could argue is Israel's most humiliating military defeat ever when it was basically pushed out by Hezbollah. Is it a matter of political controversy in Israel to be setting up for another permanent occupation in hostile territory? Thus far, it's not. And in fact, if anything, the Israeli government is coming under public criticism for not going all the way. So we're now dealing with a very different situation than we had in the late 1990s, where there was a growing and quite effective movement led by mothers of Israeli conscripts to get Israel to... and its occupation of southern Lebanon and what was essentially an unwinnable war. In the current situation, you know, Israeli public opinion has shifted very far to the right. And Benjamin Netanyahu came under sustained criticism for being forced to accept what was termed a ceasefire that was, that included Lebanon, referring to the Memorandum of Understanding, concluded between the United States and Iran last month. That memorandum of understanding appears to have completely broken down over the question of who is supposed to control traffic through the Strait of Hormuz and how. What's your assessment of it just as a matter of the craft of diplomacy? Well, Trump has said that it's, you know, that basically it doesn't exist anymore. The Iranians have said they see no reason to maintain their commitments under the memorandum of understanding if it's not serving their interests and is repeatedly being violated. I think the broader picture here is that the war on Iran has basically become the battle for the Strait of Gormuz. And both the United States and Iran are convinced that the results of this battle will have strategic consequences for their future relationship. At the same time, each party appears increasingly confident that it can compel the other to back down. What we've seen so far, it falls significantly short of a return to full-scale military hostilities between the u.s and iran but we are seeing growing escalation on a daily basis and it seems increasingly likely you know that

Every time the US escalates in the conviction that Iran is going to accept changes to this memorandum of understanding and basically accept that the US can dictate. how the Strait of Hormuz is going to be operated. And rather than doing so, Iran responds with escalations of its own and does whatever feels is necessary to maintain its control over the Strait of Hormuz, that this could end up. leading to a resumption of full-scale military hostilities, even if neither party intends to do so. And the highly respected analyst for the International Crisis Group, Ali Vez, yesterday had an opinion piece in the New York Times in which he basically said, you know, you either have a serious resumption of diplomacy, or you could end up with another U.S. Forever War in the Middle East. Sorry, in what way is what's currently happening short of full-scale war? I mean, the U.S. is bombing sites across Iran. Iran is sending airstrikes towards U.S. military bases in five countries outside its borders. They're both firing on ships in the Strait of Hormuz. Like, what more would it take to be full-scale hostilities? Well, if we look at the pattern of U.S. attacks on Iran, until... today where they began hitting the outskirts of teheran if i'm not mistaken they've very much been um focused on the iranian coastline um iran for its part has been heavily focused on u.s military facilities uh in the coastal states on the arab coast of the persian gulf and and in Jim Jordan what we haven't yet seen is for example sustained Iranian attacks on GCC infrastructure, attacks on Israel. or more widespread U.S. and potentially U.S.-Israeli attacks throughout Iran, the way we saw in March and early April. So, yes, you know, it's been very violent, but it is still significantly short of the full-scale war that we had in March and early April. You're talking about an escalation towards, say, Iranian strikes on ports, oil export terminals, softer targets than the U.S. military bases they're firing on currently? Yes, because the Iranians have made clear.

that if their infrastructure is hit and systematically targeted, they will do the same to infrastructure across the Persian Gulf. And I think what they're trying to do with this is to help generate Arab pressure on Washington to try to compel Washington's Arab allies to use the influence they have in Washington to persuade the Trump administration to D.S. rather than to escalate further, which is, of course, something the Israelis are very interested in. Obviously, that could go the other way. It could enrage the members of the Gulf Cooperation Council and lead to calls for the U.S. to finish the job with Iran. What are the indications on the effect it's actually having on those politics? Well, you raise a valid point, which is, of course, you know, the more Iran attacks these countries, whether it's, even if it's only U.S. facilities in those countries, they experience this as direct violations of their sovereignty and threats to their national security. And, of course, the economic costs of these attacks are mounting. But having said that, I think the Iranian calculations are that... these countries are not going to get fully involved, directly involved in this war, because the costs for them would be prohibitive. And, you know, particularly because we've seen how fickle the Trump administration is, you know, one day it's threatening the end of Iranian civilization, the next it's touting the greatest deal ever with Tehran. And so they're, you know, they're counting on the growing perception of... U.S. unreliability in the region to prevent this kind of scenario from emerging. Just on a pure like material basis, who suffers more and faster from the closure of the Strait of Hormuz?

The ones who are being most directly affected are, of course, the Iranians. I mean, the U.S. is bombing Iran. Iran is not bombing the United States. So in terms of the material physical damage, it is disproportionately on Iran, particularly now that the U.S. has also reimposed its blockade of Iran. But having said that, Iran is imposing significant costs. on the global economy and it is also imposing significant costs on the economic and revenue streams of all these other states in the Persian Gulf region and I think the Iranian calculation is that the economic damage and the economic costs to the US and its allies will kick in significantly earlier then the damage to the Iranian economy as a result of the resumption of the of the blockade and bear in mind also that you know Iran has been under a sanctions regime essentially since the late 1970s so it is much better prepared for this kind of situation than neighboring states which have had you know absolutely no economic restrictions on them prior to this war and the global economy which is not you know given the supply chains and and and all the rest of it it's not structured to deal with this kind of disruption All right. Mouin Rabani, we will leave it there. Thank you so much. Thank you. Mouin Rabani is a non-resident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs, also author of the forthcoming book, Gaza Apocalypse. We're going to turn now to developments in Iran. We're joined by Nagar Mortezavi, a journalist, political commentator, and host of the Iran podcast. Thanks for coming back on the program. Thank you. Could you describe to the best of your ability, the impact that the resumed hostilities have had on daily life in Iran? Sure. So life for civilians has been very difficult, of course, imagine daily bombardment and a lot of the targets have been civilian, you know, lots of infrastructure has been destroyed across the country and from the viewpoint of a civilian. Thousands have been killed, many of them civilians. And from the viewpoint of a civilian, you don't know if you're going to be the next target or near the next target or the collateral. So it's pretty horrific when bombing resumes. And it's beyond just the southern areas now. It's getting a little more into the country. So there's definitely that fear. The war has had economic impacts on people's daily life, inflation, growing. You know, it's just very disruptive. And of course, the fear of either being hit or your home or a place of work, et cetera, the destruction is just very, very horrific. So it's definitely not something that civilians have welcomed. And what impact do those developments in daily life have on political support for Iran's government? Well.

Ironically, the war hasn't really created any more opposition. I mean, we know there's always been opposition and dissent for various different reasons, political, economic, social, even environmental policies of the government. But all of that is somewhat unhold because of this foreign, this sort of external threat. So, you know, if you look at it objectively at the end of the day. Iran has been attacked. These two superpowers, nuclear powers, have attacked Iran in a war that defies international law. It's even unpopular here in the U.S. It's difficult to crack as far as the reason why it keeps happening. And I think it's what it's done is, first of all, it's created a rally around the flag among the base of the government, so that base has grown. which is not the majority of the population, but it's definitely grown stronger, more defiant. They have rallies on the street in support of the government. We see them pouring out in millions for the funeral, etc. It's also created more nationalism among the larger population, not necessarily support for the government. But for the country, because the understanding is, OK, this is not a war just on the Islamic Republic, on the government and officials. This is a war on Iran and Iranians. When the US president says, I'm going to wipe out the civilization, or when the Israelis target and destroy. cultural sites that have been there for centuries have nothing to do with any government. Hospitals, universities, children's schools. You know, the war started, opened by an attack on a school, elementary school, full of children. So I think that understanding is that this is very much a war. on the entirety of the country and people and not just the government. And all of that has created sort of this effect that opposition remains, but it's kind of put on hold. And there's also no space for dissent because the political space has closed. It's very securitized naturally because they're dealing with this big external threat. But once the war ends, if and when, we're definitely going to see opposition grow more and more, even within the ranks of the government. That certainly doesn't give the government a lot of incentives to reach a settlement of the war. You said there is nationalism that is not tied to support of the government. How is that manifest? How is that visible, if not as support for the government? Let me just address the point you said. I think they have incentive to end the war, but the bigger incentive is to end it in a way that it doesn't come back. If you listen to the Iranian officials and a strategy they're pursuing, for them, this is seen as an existential threat that if they don't deal with it in a once and forever way and establish enough deterrence from their viewpoint, this war will keep coming back to them. So that's the irony. Essentially, they want to fight it to a point where they make sure.

sure it ends and it doesn't come back. So basically that's how this is the long-term strategy in the planning. But as far as, you know, right now moving on, you know, towards the peace process, I think there's a lack of trust in Tehran for Washington because the feeling is, okay, we go and we discuss and we agree and we sign something on paper and then the U.S. goes around and does something else. This is the thinking in Tehran. And that makes diplomacy very difficult when there's no trust because part of diplomacy is essentially making concessions for promise. that you're going to do in the future and if there's no trust for today it's going to be a lot more difficult to deal with more complex issues that come into the future so again the question of how nationalism that is not supportive of the government is visible Yes. So the nationalism and the rally around the flag are tied together, but I just wanted to distinguish and sort of separate the different pockets of the population. Because when we say rally around the flag, and we've heard that from many analysts, that suggests that this is support for the government. And there has definitely been some of that increasing in the demographics that are supportive of the government. But nationalism, when I refer to that, that's more, you know, for the country, for your homeland, for your home. I mean, when you, when you see attacks not just targeting government officials and government buildings and military outposts, but rather people's homes, potentially your own kids' school and hospitals and universities, that has created sort of a sense of nationalism for the country, like this sense that, okay, At the end of the day, this is the place where we all live and we have to protect it, no matter who runs it as far as the government. And then the disagreement or the dissent opposition will remain and we'll deal with that later. And also a sense of, you know, the... despise towards this foreign enemy because this war started by president trump saying help is on the way for the iranian people we know this came following internal protests inside the country and somehow there was this thinking or illusion that the u.s and israel potential are going to help iranian protesters and what happened was the opposite it just made things worse destroying iranian you know civilian infrastructure killing a whole bunch of civilians and absolutely no help for the protesters and so That is what I refer to as far as nationalism, this idea that, okay, this is our homeland, we have to protect it, and then we'll deal with the internal opposition after the foreign threat is gone.

So I wanted to get your take on two developments that the New York Times this morning is citing as evidence that the Iranian government is interested in renewed talks with the United States. The first is the release of a dual Iranian-American citizen, Dina Karari, who Iran had kept in prison for the past two years under accusations of being a spy. The second is a speech by Brigadier General Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who's been Iran's lead negotiator in talks with the U.S. The translated version of the quote that is in the news stories is, we must also use the tools of diplomacy and negotiations to achieve and realize our national interests. When you put that on state TV, I take it. That's a bit of a signal. What do you make of those? Absolutely, yeah. So just to follow on on my point. Iran didn't want this war. I mean, they didn't ask for the war. And remember, the war didn't start this year. Actually, the war started last year in June 2025, the so-called 12-day war, where Israel first attacked with Green Line from the U.S. and then the U.S. joined in Operation Midnight Hammer. And then there was a ceasefire. And then from Iran's viewpoint, that ceasefire was violated when the U.S. and Israel attacked again in a war that they essentially coined as a regime-change war, so an existential war for the Iranians. So they didn't ask for this war. They didn't want this war. In fact, they were negotiating with the U.S. and Iran and U.S. were negotiating, and both times the wars happened during negotiation. So if anything, they wanted to resolve issues diplomatically and in war came. But going back to the point, the thinking in Iran, the understanding is that, okay, if we don't fight. and show enough deterrence. Essentially, if we project weakness, these wars are going to keep coming back to us, the way Israel treats Lebanon or even potentially Gaza, and the more the grass mentality that we go attack, then we replenish, and then we go back periodically. And the Iranians want to stop that, essentially, project. vegetarians escalate if they must and push the U.S. and Israel back to a point where they don't do this again. And I think they have established a little bit of that at the beginning of this war. by escalating, by launching an asymmetric response, and really surprising the U.S. side with her time and again from President Trump that he didn't think they would close the Strait of Hormoz, or he didn't think they would attack countries in the Persian Gulf, and nevertheless they did. And so I think they're going to do it again. I don't know what President Trump...

why he thinks this time it's going to be different than three months ago, four months ago. But I think the Iranian thinking is, if we get attacked, we respond, re-escalate, and we make sure the war doesn't keep coming back to us. All right. Negamortezavi, thank you so much for speaking to us. Thank you. Negar Mortezavi is host of the Iran podcast. That does it for Upfront this morning. We are weekdays at 7 a.m. We post information about our topics and guests at KPFA.org, where you can also dig through archives of our past shows. If you'd like to give us feedback on something you heard or suggest something for us to cover or someone to interview, email upfront at kpfa.org. If you'd like to send in a question for Monday's Corona Call segment with Dr. John Sportsberg, send that email to Corona Call. at KPFA.org. A big thanks to the people who make the show happen. Our producer is Kimia Akbri. Our engineer is Kirsten Thomas. My name is Brian Edwards Teakert. Thanks as well to Max Pringle for the news headlines. Remember, if you're incarcerated and postal mail is the easiest way for you to reach out. You can send a letter to Upfront, KPFA, 1929, Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Berkeley, California, 94704. Stay up. Stay tuned. Law and Disorder is coming your way. in just over one minute at 8.

Stay in the know and stay in the vibe. KPFAs on social media, serving up hand-picked episodes you need to hear, special announcements, and just enough sass to get you through the week. Find us by searching KPFA Radio and feed your algorithm with something real. Again, that's at KPFA Radio. You'll know once you find us. Trust me, you can't miss it. The following is brought to you by no one trying to sell you anything. This is 94.1, KPFA, 89.3, KPFB in Berkeley, 88.1 KFCF in Fresno, and online everywhere. Tell a friend at kpFA.org.org.