00:00:00
Speaker 1: It's Night's Eyes with Dan Ray Umbelling Easy Boston's news radio.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: Well, this is an interesting night. It appeared, it appeared around this time last night that Iran was going to be under attack by the United States for four hours. President Trump said that for four hours, we would hit bridges and we would hit infrastructure. However, at about yes six point thirty tonight, a little bit after six thirty, word came that the US military has decided to pause the strikes in Iran. After President Trump announced he'd agreed to a two weeks ceasefire with Tehran. Under that agreement, which was negotiated apparently by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, he proposed the ceasefire to allow for diplomatic negotiations between US and Iran to continue for a couple of weeks. There's a lot to unpack here, there's no doubt about that. And we are delighted to be joined tonight by Professor academic dean and Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School at Tofts University, Professor Daniel Dresner. Professor Dresner, Welcome to Night's Side. Thank you so much for joining us, Thanks.
00:01:18
Speaker 3: For having me. I'm glad the topic of conversation. Isn't what we were fearing it was going to be.
00:01:23
Speaker 2: Sure, Well, first of all, I'm curious to know how surprised at you that this went this way tonight. I mean, it was it was brinksmanship up until the up until about six thirty when the word actually was announced during the six thirty national newscasts.
00:01:44
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm not terribly surprised. I'm a little surprised, but you know, in the sense that the Iranians were actually willing to consider a short term ceasefire. My understanding had been that they had communicated with the Trump ministration that unless there was a permanent cessation of hostilities, they were uninterested in any talks. But the fact that they were willing to go for two weeks, I suppose there's a promising sign. Although I'd have a whole bunch of questions about the details of this cease fire, the most obvious of which is, you know, in the statements that I've seen, the obvious question is how do ships get out of the straight of horror moves? And do they need to pay the Iranians anything to get out?
00:02:27
Speaker 2: The Iranians have been talking about a million dollars a ship or something like that. Well, here, let me just ask you this question, what leverage did the Iranians have here? I know that there's been a lot of misinformation back and forth in the last five weeks, but it seemed to me that they don't have much to deal with at this point other than the straight of Horn moves.
00:02:52
Speaker 3: I would say the Iranians had two sources of leverage, the first being the straight of horror moves. And indeed, the fact that you can argue that, you know, the Iranian navy has been pretty much obliterated and there's been severe damage to the Iranian military. The fact that the Iranians were still able to essentially control that waterway, you know, suggested that it was we would have taken an overwhelming amount of US force to change that. So that was one source of leverage. The other source of leverage is all of Iran's remaining missiles. Intelligence reports that suggested that Iranians were able to rebuild some of their missile industrial complex. They also, you know, at least claimed the negotiations to have an order of twenty five thousand missiles remaining. That is likely a lot of bomb bast but one of the trends over the you know, in the war, had been that while the Defense Department had bragged about the reduced number of missiles that Iran had launched, what they failed to mention was that Iran's missile launchers were getting more and more accurate. So what was happening was that it was that Iran was still able to exact damage, but in a much more efficient way. And so Iran had no compunction whatsoever about attacking civilian areas both in the Persian Gulf and in Israel. And this obviously raised the cost of the war for the US and its allies.
00:04:13
Speaker 2: So so let me ask you a tough question, and this is probably it's it's a fair question. We have we have two countries, the United States, with all our flaws, and it seems like that in many parts of the world, including the the US capital of the on the democratic side, we had depict it as the bad guy. Here. We don't mow down thousands of people in the streets. We have not tried to develop nuclear weapons with the world looking at us and saying that we don't. We don't want you to develop nuclear weapons. We don't throw gay people off buildings in America, there are crimes committed against gay people, but not by the government, by individuals for certain. How is it that we are in the minds of some people around the world, not just our enemies Russia and China, but other parts of the other places in the world. It's almost as if we're the bad guy in the and the Iranian this theocratic dictatorship which imposes, encourages, you know, women, all the things that they do. How do we end up the bad guy in this situation?
00:05:34
Speaker 3: Do you know what the price of gas is in New Zealand right now?
00:05:37
Speaker 2: Dan? The price of what gas? Death? I would say, probably saying something that's critical of the government. That's what that nineteen year old wrestler found out, right.
00:05:51
Speaker 3: Sorry, my point is the price of gasoline?
00:05:53
Speaker 2: Oh a gasoline. I'm sorry, I thought I misheard you. I apologize. I thought you said the price of death.
00:06:00
Speaker 3: No, no, note, okay, price of gasoline in New Zealand is approximately, when you add the exchange rate, thirteen dollars.
00:06:06
Speaker 4: A gallon right now?
00:06:07
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:06:08
Speaker 3: One of the things that has been gone unnoticed is that while gas prices have risen in the United States, they have risen dramatically more across most of the Asia Pacific, not to mention Europe. Okay, And so you're wondering, why is the US, you know, seen as an instigator of this. There's a couple of things going on. The first or seen as a bad guy. First of all, you know, again, it is the US that launched this round of attacks in concert with Israel on February twenty eighth, despite the fact that negotiations were ongoing. Second, as a result of all these attacks, everyone else's energy prices have shot through the roof. You're seeing gas rationing, you know, across the Asia Pacific. And this is something that they don't have any control over. And while yet it is a rom that is absolutely shut, the you know, has the stranglehold.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: Over the straight up form moves exactly.
00:06:59
Speaker 3: The obvious perceptions. They have done that in response to you know, US attacks. And while you point out that that it is true that the US does not mow down tens of thousands of people, the Trump administration has taken great delight in the devastation that it is wrought in Iran has refused to apologize for the you know, school that had bombed accidentally that killed over one hundred and twenty people, and you have tweets from you know, the President of the United States promising the death of a civilization, which is, just to be very clear about this, a war crime if it was actually carried out. So, while I in no way wanted to defend the Iranian regime, you have a US administration that seems not just to be interested in the destruction of Iran, but also is sort of exulting in disregarding the laws of armed conflict.
00:07:54
Speaker 2: Well, there's a number of number of points and that I'd like to address. First of all, that school was located next to an I r G headquarters uh. And I suspect that a lot of the locations, as we found out in Gaza were located. You know that that hamas had located there, uh, their underground tunnels under hospitals and schools. And I have I don't think for a moment that we would have hit a school with any intentionality, And I'm sure you don't.
00:08:32
Speaker 3: No, No, You're absolutely right. I don't think we hit with any intentionality. Nonetheless, we hit it, yes, and you had a president that claimed no, we think Iran did it and has not acknowledged in some sense culpability, even though Defense Department finally determined that it was the United States that in fact did it. But again you also have the rhetoric from the administration making it clear, and this has been you know, true for the last couple of days now that as far as the trum administration was concerned, attacks on civilian infrastructure were perfectly valid, which again is undeniably a violation of the laws of war, not just violations of international law, violations of US law.
00:09:13
Speaker 2: If if the institute installations that are under attack have a duality of purpose, I suspect that an argument can be made that they are hitting those locations, and I think you'd have to look at each one of them. I don't see why bridges could not be hit. Is that a violation of international law?
00:09:39
Speaker 3: Yeah, if it's a bridge that you know is primarily used for civilian traffic as opposed to military traffic, well then I guess hold on agreement it this way. Do you think that Russia is violating the laws of war when they are bombing Ukrainian you know, the Ukrainian energy infrastructure?
00:09:56
Speaker 2: Absolutely?
00:09:58
Speaker 3: Okay, then how is what the US would be proposing to do in Iran any different.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: Well, because I think I think we have a tradition and we have a track record. Putin will basically do whatever he has to do. He will hit you know, civic centers, he will hit intentionally, hospitals, He'll he'll hit schools intentionally. I mean, that is what Putin does, and that is what the Russians. Russians have done, and part of that is in the culture of Russian they have always wanted to defend Mother Russia at all costs. I'm sure you you understand that mindset that they that they have. But I don't think there's any comparison between what the US would and wouldn't do with Iran. The goal in Iran is to is to take them off the nuclear stage as a as as someone who has nuclear weapons. I see that as a wonderful goal.
00:10:49
Speaker 3: Sure, that is a wonderful goal. But the laws of war are not just about what the goals are. The laws of war also dictate how you fight the war. Yeah, and if you're fighting the war by essentially weak mass carnage on civilians with a minimal or negligible effect on the military, then yeah, you're committing a war crime.
00:11:09
Speaker 2: I think that the numbers that I have seen in terms of civilians that have been killed in Iran is somewhere in the low one low hundreds, like two hundred and fifty people they're claiming have been killed. I'm sure you have seen those similar figures.
00:11:25
Speaker 3: Right, And to be clear, by the way, what I'm referring to is the threats that the administration was making about what was going to happen tonight if there.
00:11:32
Speaker 2: No I understand, No, I do totally. I totally get that. I think that he was trying to and again I'm not just for the record, I am not a fan of Donald Trump per se, but I think he was using that as an effort to force them to come to come to reality, and that is that that their their navy is gone, their air force has gone. I guess they do have some rpges as they utilized over the weekend on that one f fifteen, but that does not a defense department make. Yeah. I have the numbers here somewhere, and I think that there are some Israeli casualties in the below one hundred. And I think that Iran, at least what I'm seeing at what I would consider to be reputable news sources. The numbers are somewhere in like the two hundred and fifties, and that would include the number of girls that were sadly killed at that strike on the school. Can we take a quick break and we'll come right back at just going to take a commercial, And I'd like to ask you where we go from here? How optimistic are you that this two week ceasefire might actually result in what all of us would hope for, and that is the ultimate cessation of hostilities and the denuclearization of the government of Iran. Is that okay with you? Will be right back perfect. My guest is Professor Daniel He's an academic dean and Professor Daniel Dresner, professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. Back on Nightside right after this.
00:13:11
Speaker 1: It's Nightside with Boston's News Radio.
00:13:17
Speaker 2: My guest is Professor Daniel Dresner. He is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School at Toughs University. I just wanted to update, so I'm correct, Professor, if it's okay with you. According to al Jazira, who's using statistics from the Iran Health Ministry as of I think earlier this week the number of those killed in Iran is two thousand and seventy six killed, and I would argue that in view of the amount of ordinance that we have dropped, we have been very careful. I would suspect that the vast majority of those individuals are either Iranian leadership or Iranian military. For the amount of ordinance would drop, that's an incredibly I think small amount. There have been fourteen hundred and ninety seven people killed in Lebanon, and that's mostly big ben the Israeli military. So I just think that we've been fairly, very careful, and we have hit military targets and obviously a lot of those naval ships, I've had Iranian military personnel who were killed. I just think that we've been very careful in terms of what we have done here in terms of the numbers who have died, and I'm happy about that, and I'm sure you are as well. Where do we go from here? Where do you think this takes us two weeks? Do we come back two weeks from now with another situation like this? Or are you hopeful that maybe somehow, some way an agreement can be reached Where Iran would agree that they will not pursue a nuclear bomb.
00:15:00
Speaker 3: I'm not even sure the ceasefire is going to last two weeks, to be honest. I mean, my understanding is we've just received a report from the Associated Press which was that the Trump I think a Trump's spokesman. You know, obviously, if the US and Iran announced the ceasefire but Israel continued to attack Iran, that doesn't really count as a ceasefire. The Trump administration, I believe, said that Israel had agreed to do this, but I've just seen an AP report suggesting that Israel is continuing to attack Irn. So and indeed, as this announcement of the ceasefire was going on, there have been reports of you know, missile attacks or attacks in the Gulf as well, So I.
00:15:37
Speaker 2: Believe I think, by the way, if what you're saying is I think Ron after the ceasefire was announced, fired one in on Israel because Israel, I guess, is not a participant at least as of now, to this ceasefire, and Iran wanted to make that point, right.
00:15:54
Speaker 3: So the point is that if Israel continues to attack Iran, and then Iran continues to attack Israel. I'm not sure how much of his ceasefire this really is, except with respect to the Strait of Horn moves. And then, as I said, with respect to that, there's also a question, I mean, and in a statement that I think even Trump retweeted from the Iranian foreign minister, the question is just how much cooperation with the Iranian armed forces is going to have to be necessary to get ships out. So, first of all, it'll be interesting to see whether this even last two weeks. I mean, bear in mind the number of times ceasefires were announced between Israel and Hamas and the war in Gaza, and how many times you nonetheless saw hostilities break out again. But let's be optimistic and say that roughly speaking, it holds, or that Israel comes on. The question then, is is there a longer term agreement that would allow everyone to walk away thinking that they won. And this is where I'm not entirely sure that's the case, in part because for the Trump administration to declare victory, they would have to, you know, meet their initial goals, which were, you know, ensuring that Iran never builds a nuclear weapon, you know, uh, destroying or claiming that their missile capacity has been destroyed, and also making sure, by the way, that the Straight of Horn Moves, you know, remains an open waterway, because that wasn't something they certainly wanted to start of this war. It's not obvious to me that Iran is willing to is going to be willing to agree to those terms. They might be able to say, you know, the missiles are are they can even claim that they'll they'll freeze that. They've been very consistent in saying we are not going to give up the nuclear program because they argue that it's a point of national pride. Maybe they could agree to a moratorium on it for something like, you know, for a couple of years, and that might be one way that it would finesse it. And I don't know what they're going to do about the Straight of Horn Moves. For the Iranian regime, their ultimate goal here is not necessarily victory. Their goal is survival. And by the way, that's another reason why you have to wonder whether the ceasefire will hold. Part of the reason the Iranians have persisted as they have is that after the June bombings of last year, the Iranians have basically sort of you know, prepared to decentralize their chain of command in case you had a decapitation strike like the one that happened at the very start of the war. So it's possible that even if the Iranian leadership thinks as a ceasefire, that has to trickle down to the people that actually are able to fire the missiles. So I mean, in a weird way, the decapitation strike, did you know, probably has made more difficult for the Iranian regime to prosecute the war, but it will also make it more difficult for the Iranian regime to agree to a ceasefire.
00:18:47
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:18:48
Speaker 2: I have no idea who the US is able to deal with, or who Pakistan is able to deal with, and whether or not whoever they're dealing with actually can speak on behalf of the the Revolutionary Guard and or anyone in Iran, which is which is very difficult. There's a there's a big piece in the New York Times this afternoon. Yeah, I cleared about about six o'clock that when it cleared, and it was interesting that they said that the one person in the administration who was opposed to the action was the vice president and he may he may join the negotiations in Islamabad on Friday, according to some reports.
00:19:31
Speaker 3: Right, I mean I would when you read a long story like that, it's not that I want to say it's good accurate, but bear in mind which sources were talking to the reporters. In other words, I no doubt that JD. Vance was a source for that story, because he came out of it looking reasonably good, uh, saying with Marco Rubio. On the other hand, I'm also quite certain Pete Hegseth didn't talk to The Times at all.
00:19:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say that, but the Times generally. Yeah, again, if the Times it's not right what they're.
00:20:01
Speaker 3: Told, yes, absolutely, I'm not. I don't mean to imply that the report is inaccurate. It's more sort of the slant, you know, the the shading on the margins in terms of this, And yeah, I mean, you know, it suggests that, among other things, that it was you know, Net and Yahoo that persuaded Trump that that a war in Iran would would be quick and easy. Frankly, because it was clear that Trump was told that one of the possible Iranian responses was be to close the straight up Horn News. And I believe the report suggested that Trump thought that the war wouldn't last that long and so it wouldn't be a problem.
00:20:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, he's still within his four to six weeks here, but I think it I think if it does resume, it's gonna it's going to go longer than that. Hopefully this can be resolved. I still think, and I don't know if you would join me in this, that it is really important to the world that this theocratic dictatorship UH not ever have the opportunity to secure and use nuclear weapons. And that is why I think it is such an important moment in history. And I hope you joined me in that. We might disagree with the margins, but I hope you would agree with me that that that goal is one that that is laudable.
00:21:18
Speaker 3: I certainly think it's a laudable goal. I am questioned the price that is being paid to even potentially achieve that goal. And by the way, it's not clear to me now that that goal has been is any closer to completion than it was at the start of this war.
00:21:36
Speaker 2: Well, I think that I'll disagree with you that's that one.
00:21:42
Speaker 3: I mean, unless there is a secret strike that I'm aware of, in which the US recovered all of Iran's facile material, or you have evidence that Iran's you know, nuclear machinery has been further destroyed. The fact is Iran still has uranium that is highly enriched and they bragged about it. Yeah, and presumably still as the technical know how that if they want to convert those into weapons, it is possible, and they obviously have the missile technology to be able to deliver it where they'd want to. So it's far from obvious to me that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been any way set back by the current war. To be sure, that June bombing certainly did that to some extent. But by doing that in the June bombing is you've locked into a strategy where you have to repeatedly bomb the Iranians in order to try to set back any further developments they have in this area. Just as I'm not sure that's the productive strategy.
00:22:38
Speaker 2: Yeah, just as I think the February twenty eighth March first bombing and taking out their leadership, although it sounded great at the time, maybe prevented us figuring out who to deal with. I think that what happened in June, that that physible material all, you know, one thousand pounds of it, four hundred and four kilograms buried deep inside on that mountain. And I don't know if that would be accessible for us, all of the IR audience, but we'll see, we'll see. Professor. I really enjoyed the conversation. It was fun and I'd love to get you to come back. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. You were at a great school at Tufts, and the Fletcher School has such a great reputation. I checked you out tonight and you're a Williams College guy as an undergraduate and a Stanford guy for you doctorate. So it's always great to have someone from Williams on the program. Thank you so much.
00:23:35
Speaker 3: Oh, thank you very much.
00:23:36
Speaker 2: Goeyes Absolutely all right, thanks again, Professor, Professor Daniel Dresner, Academic Dean and Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. Okay, you've heard what the professor had to say. You know that what many people feared would be going on at this very hour has been down, which I think is a good thing. Donald Trump is going to be Donald Trump. There's no question about that. There were people today who were calling for his impeachment. I don't know why. At least it doesn't appear to me that that call is a serious call. Others calling for the twenty fifth Amendment, I don't know if those people understand how the twenty fifth Amendment works, because you need the Cabinet of the president to basically go to the vice president say we got to pull the string on this guy again. I think it's I think the average American doesn't understand the twenty fifth Amendment, and a lot of the Democrats who are talking about the twenty fifth Amendment are counting on that. I want to open up the phone lines. I think that this ceasefire is probably a good thing because they now know, the Iranians now know that President Trump was close to doing what he said he would do. I have strong feelings on this. My strong feelings on this are based in large part on the fact that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon. At least this leadership of Iran, this theocratic, autocratic dictatorship, should never have a nuclear weapon because if they ever secured a nuclear weapon, they would pop one in on their neighbor and not think two seconds about it. Going to take a break, I'm going to open up the phone lines six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty, six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty. Are you surprised it's a ceasefire tonight? Are you happy it's a ceasefire tonight? Do you think it is a smart move for the United States to agree to a cease fire tonight? I'll answer all of those questions as a yes, yes, and yes. I'm surprised, I'm happy, and I think it was a good move. That doesn't mean that it can't can't be if Iron doesn't follow through on this, the hostilities can be resumed. Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty, six one seven, nine three thirty. I would love to hear from some new callers tonight. You just heard a fairly i think lively exchange with Professor Daniel Dresner. I think he made his position very clear, and I think I made my position clear. Now it's up to you to make your position clear. Coming back on Nightside, We're going to talk about this, probably all the way to midnight. I'd love to talk with you coming back on nightside.
00:26:37
Speaker 1: You're on Nightside with Dan Ray on w z Boston's news radio.
00:26:43
Speaker 2: One factor that I want you to be aware of is that the stock market, the futures market, which indicates where the market is likely to open in the morning, likes the ceasefire. The NOW futures is up over nine hundred points, that's nearly two percent. The S and P futures are up one hundred and forty four points that's over two percent, and the Nasdaq futures are up seven hundred and one points, that is close to three percent. If those numbers hold, and I suspect they will, the stock market likes the ceasefire. First up tonight, Steve and Cambridge. Steve, welcome, Thanks very much for checking in.
00:27:25
Speaker 5: Dan.
00:27:26
Speaker 4: That was a very interesting conversation you had.
00:27:28
Speaker 2: Yes it was. It was a little lively, but I liked it. I really did.
00:27:33
Speaker 5: Dan.
00:27:33
Speaker 4: There's a couple I have three points or questions. I guess the first one is I think when Iran moved a lot of civilians around power stations, and from what I understand, they moved them around bridges, I think that kind of ended Trump's option of bombing those locations.
00:28:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, by the way, mostly women and children. It looked like the men. There was a there were a few men who were watching and they were directing the women who were dressed in full garb from head to toe, right. Uh.
00:28:19
Speaker 4: And whether or not it's despicable or not. The question is I think that removed Trump's option from doing that, from bombing those locations.
00:28:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, that that's a move that they that that the Iranian government made, But they still apparently have agreed with you know, the Pakistani Prime minister that they will open up the Strait of Hormus. So I mean the seeing seeing is believing trust, but verify, right.
00:28:55
Speaker 4: You mean the fact that they're supposedly opening up the Strait of her Moos. Yes, Oh okay, I mean I think that's great. I think that's wonderful.
00:29:04
Speaker 2: Well, that's what that's what the stock market, I think is responding to. I mean, I hope that there's I hope that the people that the Trump administration is dealing with actually represent the people of Iran, and and and you know, and and have are somewhat rational. I why why would they Why would they want their infrastructure and their bridges to be taken out? They that would put them back one hundred years, As the President said last night.
00:29:34
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, I you know, I think if you move your civilian population. As despicable as that may be around these infrastructure, that kind of cancels Trump's option. He cannot kill that many civilians.
00:29:49
Speaker 2: Right, and nor do I think it's his intention. As I said, according to El Jazeera, and according they're using as their source, I'm not using an American source here. Al Jazeera is quoting the Iranian Health Agency is saying two thousand and seventy six Iranians have lost their lives. I think that's an incredibly small number for the amount of ordnance. That's glad to.
00:30:11
Speaker 4: Hear that it's as low as that. Yes, I am definitely glad.
00:30:14
Speaker 2: To hear it, and I think the vast majority of them would be Iranian military. Are you're talking about what it's I think the number they said it was one hundred and fifty ships naval vessels that have been sunk, so I would hope, and in military there have been military bases that have been hit. I would hope. It would be wonderful to think that there are no civilians. Obviously, that girls' school that was hit, which I believe was close to an IRG headquarters, is tragic, But you know, did we break the rules of war by bombing Dresden at the end of World War Two.
00:30:56
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know. Those are all questions that I think are interesting, but I don't know how. I don't really understand a lot about the so called rules of war and so called international law. But Dan, one other problem I think with this whole effort on the part of Trump, which I think is very good, I mean, I support Trump in many ways, I certainly don't support his I've never supported the way he expresses himself. He does his country and himself a real disservice by this hyperbolic and crude and what was the other you know, these way he expresses himself towards his opponents, towards everything. But that aside, Dan, One problem I have here, and this is a serious problem I think, and I like your opinion on this. How can we ever really be sure that Iran doesn't develop a nuclear weapon unless we occupy the country?
00:32:03
Speaker 2: I think the only way that we're not going to occupy the country, that's that's unrealistic. I know you realize that. I think that if there is a change in leadership, you can call it regime change and call it a change of leadership, And we say to them, look, you know, we want you to be honest with us. I mean, they were negotiations between Iran and other administrations, including the Obama administration. They thought that Iran had stopped doing what we didn't want them to do, and yet they didn't allow international inspectors in there. We have to make them guarantee that they will give it up. I hope that they will surrender the physical materials that they have. I think it's four hundred and forty kilograms. That's about one thousand pounds of enriched uranium, sixty percent enriched uranium, which could produce eleven bombs. I think we have to have you know, international monitors in there on a regular basis, and if they.
00:33:07
Speaker 4: Certainly hope it can be achieved. But I also know that I also believe that if we get that somehow, we've got to give something to Iran. You know, they have to be able to say. It seems to me that to have this be at all permanent, and I don't know what that would be.
00:33:30
Speaker 2: But we could we could talk to them. We could talk to them about having you know, US companies going in there and working with them, trying to rebuild some structure, almost like a Marshall plan, but maybe not as generous as we were to our European allies. We've done that before with other countries. That's one possibility if they're rational, I mean, if that would be you know, if they want to try to get back on their feet, that would be one thing that we could we could perhaps help them with. But you know, it comes down to can we trust them?
00:34:05
Speaker 5: You know?
00:34:06
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, Dan, in international in the international order, whom can you trust?
00:34:13
Speaker 2: I trust Israel?
00:34:16
Speaker 5: Uh?
00:34:17
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know a lot of people don't. I don't know how much I trust her and don't trust them. But I am in favor of this, and I'm also very very very thankful that this ceasefire, as fragile as it may be, according to the professor, at least we don't have any kind of armageddon here tonight.
00:34:37
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, And none of us want that. None of us want that.
00:34:41
Speaker 4: None of us want that, nobody in Iran and nobody here. Thank you, Dan, Thank you very much.
00:34:46
Speaker 2: I appreciate it. Will take a break, We'll be right back on Nightside.
00:34:50
Speaker 1: You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's news radio.
00:34:56
Speaker 2: Back to the cause, and we go to Larry in New York. Larry next on Nightside.
00:34:59
Speaker 5: Welcome, good evening, Dan, Good to hear your voice, and good to talk to you. That was an excellent conversation that you had with the professor and just a quick plug hearing. One of the great things about Nightside and the thing you've always brought to it is you have conversations, unlike a lot of other talk masters who pontificate.
00:35:17
Speaker 2: But well, I am appreciated that it and obviously he and I disagreed, agreed a little bit, and he was a gentleman, and I tried to treat him well and I'd love to have him back.
00:35:26
Speaker 5: No, you both did. This is probably one of the three times in his entire two administrations where I've agreed with Donald Trump in terms of getting rid of the regime. Uh, exactly, it was. It's been necessary. You know, you and I are old enough to remember when the when Colmini first took over and the craziness in Iran, and it should have been gotten rid of with all the other presidencies that haven't been said. The problem with this is that the idea was good, the battle was good. The war planning has been horrific because there is no plan for the future. And one of the reasons is I think there's a very important lack of understanding about what is really going on here, and that is this is not a political war. This is a holy war the regime. We keep hearing about change in regime. The problem is you have a religious regime, and religious regimes, as you know, go back through the Crusades and history and everything else, they don't change the way other regimes do. And the notion that well, if we kill all these iatolas off, well we'll get a change in regime. You may get something that's a little milder, but the bottom line is is that there has to be negotiations along with the power and strength. But you know, we're talking about bombing the railroad trestles and you know they're putting people out. Yeah, that's right, because that's what religious crusaders do.
00:36:57
Speaker 2: Well, we're not religious crusaders.
00:37:00
Speaker 5: No, No, I'm not talking about us, I'm talking about them. And we don't fully understand the fact that, yes, they will sacrifice down the road, they will sacrifice as many of their citizens as they have to.
00:37:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, they've already killed They killed tens of thousands of their citizens. We are absolutely right.
00:37:17
Speaker 5: That's right, and you know I'm saying you notice that they still have not been poppled over. That government is still running the country.
00:37:24
Speaker 2: It is, but that government is the government that has the military and has the weaponry. I look, there have been thousands of courageous rounding people who have taken to the streets, and there may come a time in the next few weeks or in the next few months where maybe maybe they will take over that government. There was a point in time, you know, the Ayatola flew there from Paris, and his arrival, the Shah left town. I mean it was a peaceful takeover.
00:37:56
Speaker 5: Well the shaw fled, he didn't leave town.
00:37:58
Speaker 2: No, but yes, yeah, no, I I've used that little tongue in cheek there. Okay, there wasn't a shot fired, to the best of my recollection. When when Homiani arrived there from Paris, he had been in exile. And that apparently is what the majority of the Iranian people want. But I don't think young Iranian people want the world in which they have grown up in these last forty seven years. And I think that there has to be hope that look at what has happened in the Middle East. Look at all of these countries that are unattacked. They are now aligned with Israel. The Abraham Accords, which were part of the first administration, that was a that was a wonderful development for the Middle East.
00:38:36
Speaker 5: Absolutely, but those governments were political, even though they were Muslim governments, they were political governments. They were not religious governments. Are I'm just saying, if you look at the core of the Iranian government, they don't. They just don't see it the way the rest of the world does. I'm just saying that is a cautionary.
00:38:58
Speaker 2: Want to I want to be cautious, but I also want to be hopeful, and I do really hope that somehow, some way, the Iranian people will rise up and take control of their their their country and take it away from these religious autocrats dictators.
00:39:14
Speaker 5: Absolutely, and the one way that that's going to happen is that all of the other Arab countries have to get full on in on making that change. And now we haven't seen yet.
00:39:24
Speaker 2: Really well, we haven't seen it yet, but I'm I still am hopeful about that. Larry, I'm up on my break. Thanks so much for listening. I wish you'd call more often because you're a great caller. Thank you so much.
00:39:34
Speaker 5: Absolutely, talk soon, Dan, take care, talk to you soon.
00:39:37
Speaker 2: We'll be back one line at six one seven, two, five four ten thirty one and six one seven nine three one ten thirty. Let's light them up. We're going to talk about this till midnight. It is a good night for the world.
Speaker 1: It's Night's Eyes with Dan Ray Umbelling Easy Boston's news radio.
00:00:07
Speaker 2: Well, this is an interesting night. It appeared, it appeared around this time last night that Iran was going to be under attack by the United States for four hours. President Trump said that for four hours, we would hit bridges and we would hit infrastructure. However, at about yes six point thirty tonight, a little bit after six thirty, word came that the US military has decided to pause the strikes in Iran. After President Trump announced he'd agreed to a two weeks ceasefire with Tehran. Under that agreement, which was negotiated apparently by the Prime Minister of Pakistan, he proposed the ceasefire to allow for diplomatic negotiations between US and Iran to continue for a couple of weeks. There's a lot to unpack here, there's no doubt about that. And we are delighted to be joined tonight by Professor academic dean and Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School at Tofts University, Professor Daniel Dresner. Professor Dresner, Welcome to Night's Side. Thank you so much for joining us, Thanks.
00:01:18
Speaker 3: For having me. I'm glad the topic of conversation. Isn't what we were fearing it was going to be.
00:01:23
Speaker 2: Sure, Well, first of all, I'm curious to know how surprised at you that this went this way tonight. I mean, it was it was brinksmanship up until the up until about six thirty when the word actually was announced during the six thirty national newscasts.
00:01:44
Speaker 3: I mean, I'm not terribly surprised. I'm a little surprised, but you know, in the sense that the Iranians were actually willing to consider a short term ceasefire. My understanding had been that they had communicated with the Trump ministration that unless there was a permanent cessation of hostilities, they were uninterested in any talks. But the fact that they were willing to go for two weeks, I suppose there's a promising sign. Although I'd have a whole bunch of questions about the details of this cease fire, the most obvious of which is, you know, in the statements that I've seen, the obvious question is how do ships get out of the straight of horror moves? And do they need to pay the Iranians anything to get out?
00:02:27
Speaker 2: The Iranians have been talking about a million dollars a ship or something like that. Well, here, let me just ask you this question, what leverage did the Iranians have here? I know that there's been a lot of misinformation back and forth in the last five weeks, but it seemed to me that they don't have much to deal with at this point other than the straight of Horn moves.
00:02:52
Speaker 3: I would say the Iranians had two sources of leverage, the first being the straight of horror moves. And indeed, the fact that you can argue that, you know, the Iranian navy has been pretty much obliterated and there's been severe damage to the Iranian military. The fact that the Iranians were still able to essentially control that waterway, you know, suggested that it was we would have taken an overwhelming amount of US force to change that. So that was one source of leverage. The other source of leverage is all of Iran's remaining missiles. Intelligence reports that suggested that Iranians were able to rebuild some of their missile industrial complex. They also, you know, at least claimed the negotiations to have an order of twenty five thousand missiles remaining. That is likely a lot of bomb bast but one of the trends over the you know, in the war, had been that while the Defense Department had bragged about the reduced number of missiles that Iran had launched, what they failed to mention was that Iran's missile launchers were getting more and more accurate. So what was happening was that it was that Iran was still able to exact damage, but in a much more efficient way. And so Iran had no compunction whatsoever about attacking civilian areas both in the Persian Gulf and in Israel. And this obviously raised the cost of the war for the US and its allies.
00:04:13
Speaker 2: So so let me ask you a tough question, and this is probably it's it's a fair question. We have we have two countries, the United States, with all our flaws, and it seems like that in many parts of the world, including the the US capital of the on the democratic side, we had depict it as the bad guy. Here. We don't mow down thousands of people in the streets. We have not tried to develop nuclear weapons with the world looking at us and saying that we don't. We don't want you to develop nuclear weapons. We don't throw gay people off buildings in America, there are crimes committed against gay people, but not by the government, by individuals for certain. How is it that we are in the minds of some people around the world, not just our enemies Russia and China, but other parts of the other places in the world. It's almost as if we're the bad guy in the and the Iranian this theocratic dictatorship which imposes, encourages, you know, women, all the things that they do. How do we end up the bad guy in this situation?
00:05:34
Speaker 3: Do you know what the price of gas is in New Zealand right now?
00:05:37
Speaker 2: Dan? The price of what gas? Death? I would say, probably saying something that's critical of the government. That's what that nineteen year old wrestler found out, right.
00:05:51
Speaker 3: Sorry, my point is the price of gasoline?
00:05:53
Speaker 2: Oh a gasoline. I'm sorry, I thought I misheard you. I apologize. I thought you said the price of death.
00:06:00
Speaker 3: No, no, note, okay, price of gasoline in New Zealand is approximately, when you add the exchange rate, thirteen dollars.
00:06:06
Speaker 4: A gallon right now?
00:06:07
Speaker 2: Okay.
00:06:08
Speaker 3: One of the things that has been gone unnoticed is that while gas prices have risen in the United States, they have risen dramatically more across most of the Asia Pacific, not to mention Europe. Okay, And so you're wondering, why is the US, you know, seen as an instigator of this. There's a couple of things going on. The first or seen as a bad guy. First of all, you know, again, it is the US that launched this round of attacks in concert with Israel on February twenty eighth, despite the fact that negotiations were ongoing. Second, as a result of all these attacks, everyone else's energy prices have shot through the roof. You're seeing gas rationing, you know, across the Asia Pacific. And this is something that they don't have any control over. And while yet it is a rom that is absolutely shut, the you know, has the stranglehold.
00:06:57
Speaker 2: Over the straight up form moves exactly.
00:06:59
Speaker 3: The obvious perceptions. They have done that in response to you know, US attacks. And while you point out that that it is true that the US does not mow down tens of thousands of people, the Trump administration has taken great delight in the devastation that it is wrought in Iran has refused to apologize for the you know, school that had bombed accidentally that killed over one hundred and twenty people, and you have tweets from you know, the President of the United States promising the death of a civilization, which is, just to be very clear about this, a war crime if it was actually carried out. So, while I in no way wanted to defend the Iranian regime, you have a US administration that seems not just to be interested in the destruction of Iran, but also is sort of exulting in disregarding the laws of armed conflict.
00:07:54
Speaker 2: Well, there's a number of number of points and that I'd like to address. First of all, that school was located next to an I r G headquarters uh. And I suspect that a lot of the locations, as we found out in Gaza were located. You know that that hamas had located there, uh, their underground tunnels under hospitals and schools. And I have I don't think for a moment that we would have hit a school with any intentionality, And I'm sure you don't.
00:08:32
Speaker 3: No, No, You're absolutely right. I don't think we hit with any intentionality. Nonetheless, we hit it, yes, and you had a president that claimed no, we think Iran did it and has not acknowledged in some sense culpability, even though Defense Department finally determined that it was the United States that in fact did it. But again you also have the rhetoric from the administration making it clear, and this has been you know, true for the last couple of days now that as far as the trum administration was concerned, attacks on civilian infrastructure were perfectly valid, which again is undeniably a violation of the laws of war, not just violations of international law, violations of US law.
00:09:13
Speaker 2: If if the institute installations that are under attack have a duality of purpose, I suspect that an argument can be made that they are hitting those locations, and I think you'd have to look at each one of them. I don't see why bridges could not be hit. Is that a violation of international law?
00:09:39
Speaker 3: Yeah, if it's a bridge that you know is primarily used for civilian traffic as opposed to military traffic, well then I guess hold on agreement it this way. Do you think that Russia is violating the laws of war when they are bombing Ukrainian you know, the Ukrainian energy infrastructure?
00:09:56
Speaker 2: Absolutely?
00:09:58
Speaker 3: Okay, then how is what the US would be proposing to do in Iran any different.
00:10:03
Speaker 2: Well, because I think I think we have a tradition and we have a track record. Putin will basically do whatever he has to do. He will hit you know, civic centers, he will hit intentionally, hospitals, He'll he'll hit schools intentionally. I mean, that is what Putin does, and that is what the Russians. Russians have done, and part of that is in the culture of Russian they have always wanted to defend Mother Russia at all costs. I'm sure you you understand that mindset that they that they have. But I don't think there's any comparison between what the US would and wouldn't do with Iran. The goal in Iran is to is to take them off the nuclear stage as a as as someone who has nuclear weapons. I see that as a wonderful goal.
00:10:49
Speaker 3: Sure, that is a wonderful goal. But the laws of war are not just about what the goals are. The laws of war also dictate how you fight the war. Yeah, and if you're fighting the war by essentially weak mass carnage on civilians with a minimal or negligible effect on the military, then yeah, you're committing a war crime.
00:11:09
Speaker 2: I think that the numbers that I have seen in terms of civilians that have been killed in Iran is somewhere in the low one low hundreds, like two hundred and fifty people they're claiming have been killed. I'm sure you have seen those similar figures.
00:11:25
Speaker 3: Right, And to be clear, by the way, what I'm referring to is the threats that the administration was making about what was going to happen tonight if there.
00:11:32
Speaker 2: No I understand, No, I do totally. I totally get that. I think that he was trying to and again I'm not just for the record, I am not a fan of Donald Trump per se, but I think he was using that as an effort to force them to come to come to reality, and that is that that their their navy is gone, their air force has gone. I guess they do have some rpges as they utilized over the weekend on that one f fifteen, but that does not a defense department make. Yeah. I have the numbers here somewhere, and I think that there are some Israeli casualties in the below one hundred. And I think that Iran, at least what I'm seeing at what I would consider to be reputable news sources. The numbers are somewhere in like the two hundred and fifties, and that would include the number of girls that were sadly killed at that strike on the school. Can we take a quick break and we'll come right back at just going to take a commercial, And I'd like to ask you where we go from here? How optimistic are you that this two week ceasefire might actually result in what all of us would hope for, and that is the ultimate cessation of hostilities and the denuclearization of the government of Iran. Is that okay with you? Will be right back perfect. My guest is Professor Daniel He's an academic dean and Professor Daniel Dresner, professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. Back on Nightside right after this.
00:13:11
Speaker 1: It's Nightside with Boston's News Radio.
00:13:17
Speaker 2: My guest is Professor Daniel Dresner. He is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School at Toughs University. I just wanted to update, so I'm correct, Professor, if it's okay with you. According to al Jazira, who's using statistics from the Iran Health Ministry as of I think earlier this week the number of those killed in Iran is two thousand and seventy six killed, and I would argue that in view of the amount of ordinance that we have dropped, we have been very careful. I would suspect that the vast majority of those individuals are either Iranian leadership or Iranian military. For the amount of ordinance would drop, that's an incredibly I think small amount. There have been fourteen hundred and ninety seven people killed in Lebanon, and that's mostly big ben the Israeli military. So I just think that we've been fairly, very careful, and we have hit military targets and obviously a lot of those naval ships, I've had Iranian military personnel who were killed. I just think that we've been very careful in terms of what we have done here in terms of the numbers who have died, and I'm happy about that, and I'm sure you are as well. Where do we go from here? Where do you think this takes us two weeks? Do we come back two weeks from now with another situation like this? Or are you hopeful that maybe somehow, some way an agreement can be reached Where Iran would agree that they will not pursue a nuclear bomb.
00:15:00
Speaker 3: I'm not even sure the ceasefire is going to last two weeks, to be honest. I mean, my understanding is we've just received a report from the Associated Press which was that the Trump I think a Trump's spokesman. You know, obviously, if the US and Iran announced the ceasefire but Israel continued to attack Iran, that doesn't really count as a ceasefire. The Trump administration, I believe, said that Israel had agreed to do this, but I've just seen an AP report suggesting that Israel is continuing to attack Irn. So and indeed, as this announcement of the ceasefire was going on, there have been reports of you know, missile attacks or attacks in the Gulf as well, So I.
00:15:37
Speaker 2: Believe I think, by the way, if what you're saying is I think Ron after the ceasefire was announced, fired one in on Israel because Israel, I guess, is not a participant at least as of now, to this ceasefire, and Iran wanted to make that point, right.
00:15:54
Speaker 3: So the point is that if Israel continues to attack Iran, and then Iran continues to attack Israel. I'm not sure how much of his ceasefire this really is, except with respect to the Strait of Horn moves. And then, as I said, with respect to that, there's also a question, I mean, and in a statement that I think even Trump retweeted from the Iranian foreign minister, the question is just how much cooperation with the Iranian armed forces is going to have to be necessary to get ships out. So, first of all, it'll be interesting to see whether this even last two weeks. I mean, bear in mind the number of times ceasefires were announced between Israel and Hamas and the war in Gaza, and how many times you nonetheless saw hostilities break out again. But let's be optimistic and say that roughly speaking, it holds, or that Israel comes on. The question then, is is there a longer term agreement that would allow everyone to walk away thinking that they won. And this is where I'm not entirely sure that's the case, in part because for the Trump administration to declare victory, they would have to, you know, meet their initial goals, which were, you know, ensuring that Iran never builds a nuclear weapon, you know, uh, destroying or claiming that their missile capacity has been destroyed, and also making sure, by the way, that the Straight of Horn Moves, you know, remains an open waterway, because that wasn't something they certainly wanted to start of this war. It's not obvious to me that Iran is willing to is going to be willing to agree to those terms. They might be able to say, you know, the missiles are are they can even claim that they'll they'll freeze that. They've been very consistent in saying we are not going to give up the nuclear program because they argue that it's a point of national pride. Maybe they could agree to a moratorium on it for something like, you know, for a couple of years, and that might be one way that it would finesse it. And I don't know what they're going to do about the Straight of Horn Moves. For the Iranian regime, their ultimate goal here is not necessarily victory. Their goal is survival. And by the way, that's another reason why you have to wonder whether the ceasefire will hold. Part of the reason the Iranians have persisted as they have is that after the June bombings of last year, the Iranians have basically sort of you know, prepared to decentralize their chain of command in case you had a decapitation strike like the one that happened at the very start of the war. So it's possible that even if the Iranian leadership thinks as a ceasefire, that has to trickle down to the people that actually are able to fire the missiles. So I mean, in a weird way, the decapitation strike, did you know, probably has made more difficult for the Iranian regime to prosecute the war, but it will also make it more difficult for the Iranian regime to agree to a ceasefire.
00:18:47
Speaker 5: Yeah.
00:18:48
Speaker 2: I have no idea who the US is able to deal with, or who Pakistan is able to deal with, and whether or not whoever they're dealing with actually can speak on behalf of the the Revolutionary Guard and or anyone in Iran, which is which is very difficult. There's a there's a big piece in the New York Times this afternoon. Yeah, I cleared about about six o'clock that when it cleared, and it was interesting that they said that the one person in the administration who was opposed to the action was the vice president and he may he may join the negotiations in Islamabad on Friday, according to some reports.
00:19:31
Speaker 3: Right, I mean I would when you read a long story like that, it's not that I want to say it's good accurate, but bear in mind which sources were talking to the reporters. In other words, I no doubt that JD. Vance was a source for that story, because he came out of it looking reasonably good, uh, saying with Marco Rubio. On the other hand, I'm also quite certain Pete Hegseth didn't talk to The Times at all.
00:19:54
Speaker 2: Yeah, I would say that, but the Times generally. Yeah, again, if the Times it's not right what they're.
00:20:01
Speaker 3: Told, yes, absolutely, I'm not. I don't mean to imply that the report is inaccurate. It's more sort of the slant, you know, the the shading on the margins in terms of this, And yeah, I mean, you know, it suggests that, among other things, that it was you know, Net and Yahoo that persuaded Trump that that a war in Iran would would be quick and easy. Frankly, because it was clear that Trump was told that one of the possible Iranian responses was be to close the straight up Horn News. And I believe the report suggested that Trump thought that the war wouldn't last that long and so it wouldn't be a problem.
00:20:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, he's still within his four to six weeks here, but I think it I think if it does resume, it's gonna it's going to go longer than that. Hopefully this can be resolved. I still think, and I don't know if you would join me in this, that it is really important to the world that this theocratic dictatorship UH not ever have the opportunity to secure and use nuclear weapons. And that is why I think it is such an important moment in history. And I hope you joined me in that. We might disagree with the margins, but I hope you would agree with me that that that goal is one that that is laudable.
00:21:18
Speaker 3: I certainly think it's a laudable goal. I am questioned the price that is being paid to even potentially achieve that goal. And by the way, it's not clear to me now that that goal has been is any closer to completion than it was at the start of this war.
00:21:36
Speaker 2: Well, I think that I'll disagree with you that's that one.
00:21:42
Speaker 3: I mean, unless there is a secret strike that I'm aware of, in which the US recovered all of Iran's facile material, or you have evidence that Iran's you know, nuclear machinery has been further destroyed. The fact is Iran still has uranium that is highly enriched and they bragged about it. Yeah, and presumably still as the technical know how that if they want to convert those into weapons, it is possible, and they obviously have the missile technology to be able to deliver it where they'd want to. So it's far from obvious to me that Iran's nuclear capabilities have been any way set back by the current war. To be sure, that June bombing certainly did that to some extent. But by doing that in the June bombing is you've locked into a strategy where you have to repeatedly bomb the Iranians in order to try to set back any further developments they have in this area. Just as I'm not sure that's the productive strategy.
00:22:38
Speaker 2: Yeah, just as I think the February twenty eighth March first bombing and taking out their leadership, although it sounded great at the time, maybe prevented us figuring out who to deal with. I think that what happened in June, that that physible material all, you know, one thousand pounds of it, four hundred and four kilograms buried deep inside on that mountain. And I don't know if that would be accessible for us, all of the IR audience, but we'll see, we'll see. Professor. I really enjoyed the conversation. It was fun and I'd love to get you to come back. Thank you very much for joining us tonight. You were at a great school at Tufts, and the Fletcher School has such a great reputation. I checked you out tonight and you're a Williams College guy as an undergraduate and a Stanford guy for you doctorate. So it's always great to have someone from Williams on the program. Thank you so much.
00:23:35
Speaker 3: Oh, thank you very much.
00:23:36
Speaker 2: Goeyes Absolutely all right, thanks again, Professor, Professor Daniel Dresner, Academic Dean and Professor of International Politics at the Fletcher School at Tufts University. Okay, you've heard what the professor had to say. You know that what many people feared would be going on at this very hour has been down, which I think is a good thing. Donald Trump is going to be Donald Trump. There's no question about that. There were people today who were calling for his impeachment. I don't know why. At least it doesn't appear to me that that call is a serious call. Others calling for the twenty fifth Amendment, I don't know if those people understand how the twenty fifth Amendment works, because you need the Cabinet of the president to basically go to the vice president say we got to pull the string on this guy again. I think it's I think the average American doesn't understand the twenty fifth Amendment, and a lot of the Democrats who are talking about the twenty fifth Amendment are counting on that. I want to open up the phone lines. I think that this ceasefire is probably a good thing because they now know, the Iranians now know that President Trump was close to doing what he said he would do. I have strong feelings on this. My strong feelings on this are based in large part on the fact that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon. At least this leadership of Iran, this theocratic, autocratic dictatorship, should never have a nuclear weapon because if they ever secured a nuclear weapon, they would pop one in on their neighbor and not think two seconds about it. Going to take a break, I'm going to open up the phone lines six one, seven, two, five, four ten thirty, six one seven, nine, three one ten thirty. Are you surprised it's a ceasefire tonight? Are you happy it's a ceasefire tonight? Do you think it is a smart move for the United States to agree to a cease fire tonight? I'll answer all of those questions as a yes, yes, and yes. I'm surprised, I'm happy, and I think it was a good move. That doesn't mean that it can't can't be if Iron doesn't follow through on this, the hostilities can be resumed. Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty, six one seven, nine three thirty. I would love to hear from some new callers tonight. You just heard a fairly i think lively exchange with Professor Daniel Dresner. I think he made his position very clear, and I think I made my position clear. Now it's up to you to make your position clear. Coming back on Nightside, We're going to talk about this, probably all the way to midnight. I'd love to talk with you coming back on nightside.
00:26:37
Speaker 1: You're on Nightside with Dan Ray on w z Boston's news radio.
00:26:43
Speaker 2: One factor that I want you to be aware of is that the stock market, the futures market, which indicates where the market is likely to open in the morning, likes the ceasefire. The NOW futures is up over nine hundred points, that's nearly two percent. The S and P futures are up one hundred and forty four points that's over two percent, and the Nasdaq futures are up seven hundred and one points, that is close to three percent. If those numbers hold, and I suspect they will, the stock market likes the ceasefire. First up tonight, Steve and Cambridge. Steve, welcome, Thanks very much for checking in.
00:27:25
Speaker 5: Dan.
00:27:26
Speaker 4: That was a very interesting conversation you had.
00:27:28
Speaker 2: Yes it was. It was a little lively, but I liked it. I really did.
00:27:33
Speaker 5: Dan.
00:27:33
Speaker 4: There's a couple I have three points or questions. I guess the first one is I think when Iran moved a lot of civilians around power stations, and from what I understand, they moved them around bridges, I think that kind of ended Trump's option of bombing those locations.
00:28:03
Speaker 2: Yeah, by the way, mostly women and children. It looked like the men. There was a there were a few men who were watching and they were directing the women who were dressed in full garb from head to toe, right. Uh.
00:28:19
Speaker 4: And whether or not it's despicable or not. The question is I think that removed Trump's option from doing that, from bombing those locations.
00:28:31
Speaker 2: Yeah, that that's a move that they that that the Iranian government made, But they still apparently have agreed with you know, the Pakistani Prime minister that they will open up the Strait of Hormus. So I mean the seeing seeing is believing trust, but verify, right.
00:28:55
Speaker 4: You mean the fact that they're supposedly opening up the Strait of her Moos. Yes, Oh okay, I mean I think that's great. I think that's wonderful.
00:29:04
Speaker 2: Well, that's what that's what the stock market, I think is responding to. I mean, I hope that there's I hope that the people that the Trump administration is dealing with actually represent the people of Iran, and and and you know, and and have are somewhat rational. I why why would they Why would they want their infrastructure and their bridges to be taken out? They that would put them back one hundred years, As the President said last night.
00:29:34
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, I you know, I think if you move your civilian population. As despicable as that may be around these infrastructure, that kind of cancels Trump's option. He cannot kill that many civilians.
00:29:49
Speaker 2: Right, and nor do I think it's his intention. As I said, according to El Jazeera, and according they're using as their source, I'm not using an American source here. Al Jazeera is quoting the Iranian Health Agency is saying two thousand and seventy six Iranians have lost their lives. I think that's an incredibly small number for the amount of ordnance. That's glad to.
00:30:11
Speaker 4: Hear that it's as low as that. Yes, I am definitely glad.
00:30:14
Speaker 2: To hear it, and I think the vast majority of them would be Iranian military. Are you're talking about what it's I think the number they said it was one hundred and fifty ships naval vessels that have been sunk, so I would hope, and in military there have been military bases that have been hit. I would hope. It would be wonderful to think that there are no civilians. Obviously, that girls' school that was hit, which I believe was close to an IRG headquarters, is tragic, But you know, did we break the rules of war by bombing Dresden at the end of World War Two.
00:30:56
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know. Those are all questions that I think are interesting, but I don't know how. I don't really understand a lot about the so called rules of war and so called international law. But Dan, one other problem I think with this whole effort on the part of Trump, which I think is very good, I mean, I support Trump in many ways, I certainly don't support his I've never supported the way he expresses himself. He does his country and himself a real disservice by this hyperbolic and crude and what was the other you know, these way he expresses himself towards his opponents, towards everything. But that aside, Dan, One problem I have here, and this is a serious problem I think, and I like your opinion on this. How can we ever really be sure that Iran doesn't develop a nuclear weapon unless we occupy the country?
00:32:03
Speaker 2: I think the only way that we're not going to occupy the country, that's that's unrealistic. I know you realize that. I think that if there is a change in leadership, you can call it regime change and call it a change of leadership, And we say to them, look, you know, we want you to be honest with us. I mean, they were negotiations between Iran and other administrations, including the Obama administration. They thought that Iran had stopped doing what we didn't want them to do, and yet they didn't allow international inspectors in there. We have to make them guarantee that they will give it up. I hope that they will surrender the physical materials that they have. I think it's four hundred and forty kilograms. That's about one thousand pounds of enriched uranium, sixty percent enriched uranium, which could produce eleven bombs. I think we have to have you know, international monitors in there on a regular basis, and if they.
00:33:07
Speaker 4: Certainly hope it can be achieved. But I also know that I also believe that if we get that somehow, we've got to give something to Iran. You know, they have to be able to say. It seems to me that to have this be at all permanent, and I don't know what that would be.
00:33:30
Speaker 2: But we could we could talk to them. We could talk to them about having you know, US companies going in there and working with them, trying to rebuild some structure, almost like a Marshall plan, but maybe not as generous as we were to our European allies. We've done that before with other countries. That's one possibility if they're rational, I mean, if that would be you know, if they want to try to get back on their feet, that would be one thing that we could we could perhaps help them with. But you know, it comes down to can we trust them?
00:34:05
Speaker 5: You know?
00:34:06
Speaker 4: Well, I mean, Dan, in international in the international order, whom can you trust?
00:34:13
Speaker 2: I trust Israel?
00:34:16
Speaker 5: Uh?
00:34:17
Speaker 4: Well, I don't know a lot of people don't. I don't know how much I trust her and don't trust them. But I am in favor of this, and I'm also very very very thankful that this ceasefire, as fragile as it may be, according to the professor, at least we don't have any kind of armageddon here tonight.
00:34:37
Speaker 2: Yeah. No, And none of us want that. None of us want that.
00:34:41
Speaker 4: None of us want that, nobody in Iran and nobody here. Thank you, Dan, Thank you very much.
00:34:46
Speaker 2: I appreciate it. Will take a break, We'll be right back on Nightside.
00:34:50
Speaker 1: You're on night Side with Dan Ray on wz Boston's news radio.
00:34:56
Speaker 2: Back to the cause, and we go to Larry in New York. Larry next on Nightside.
00:34:59
Speaker 5: Welcome, good evening, Dan, Good to hear your voice, and good to talk to you. That was an excellent conversation that you had with the professor and just a quick plug hearing. One of the great things about Nightside and the thing you've always brought to it is you have conversations, unlike a lot of other talk masters who pontificate.
00:35:17
Speaker 2: But well, I am appreciated that it and obviously he and I disagreed, agreed a little bit, and he was a gentleman, and I tried to treat him well and I'd love to have him back.
00:35:26
Speaker 5: No, you both did. This is probably one of the three times in his entire two administrations where I've agreed with Donald Trump in terms of getting rid of the regime. Uh, exactly, it was. It's been necessary. You know, you and I are old enough to remember when the when Colmini first took over and the craziness in Iran, and it should have been gotten rid of with all the other presidencies that haven't been said. The problem with this is that the idea was good, the battle was good. The war planning has been horrific because there is no plan for the future. And one of the reasons is I think there's a very important lack of understanding about what is really going on here, and that is this is not a political war. This is a holy war the regime. We keep hearing about change in regime. The problem is you have a religious regime, and religious regimes, as you know, go back through the Crusades and history and everything else, they don't change the way other regimes do. And the notion that well, if we kill all these iatolas off, well we'll get a change in regime. You may get something that's a little milder, but the bottom line is is that there has to be negotiations along with the power and strength. But you know, we're talking about bombing the railroad trestles and you know they're putting people out. Yeah, that's right, because that's what religious crusaders do.
00:36:57
Speaker 2: Well, we're not religious crusaders.
00:37:00
Speaker 5: No, No, I'm not talking about us, I'm talking about them. And we don't fully understand the fact that, yes, they will sacrifice down the road, they will sacrifice as many of their citizens as they have to.
00:37:11
Speaker 2: Yeah, they've already killed They killed tens of thousands of their citizens. We are absolutely right.
00:37:17
Speaker 5: That's right, and you know I'm saying you notice that they still have not been poppled over. That government is still running the country.
00:37:24
Speaker 2: It is, but that government is the government that has the military and has the weaponry. I look, there have been thousands of courageous rounding people who have taken to the streets, and there may come a time in the next few weeks or in the next few months where maybe maybe they will take over that government. There was a point in time, you know, the Ayatola flew there from Paris, and his arrival, the Shah left town. I mean it was a peaceful takeover.
00:37:56
Speaker 5: Well the shaw fled, he didn't leave town.
00:37:58
Speaker 2: No, but yes, yeah, no, I I've used that little tongue in cheek there. Okay, there wasn't a shot fired, to the best of my recollection. When when Homiani arrived there from Paris, he had been in exile. And that apparently is what the majority of the Iranian people want. But I don't think young Iranian people want the world in which they have grown up in these last forty seven years. And I think that there has to be hope that look at what has happened in the Middle East. Look at all of these countries that are unattacked. They are now aligned with Israel. The Abraham Accords, which were part of the first administration, that was a that was a wonderful development for the Middle East.
00:38:36
Speaker 5: Absolutely, but those governments were political, even though they were Muslim governments, they were political governments. They were not religious governments. Are I'm just saying, if you look at the core of the Iranian government, they don't. They just don't see it the way the rest of the world does. I'm just saying that is a cautionary.
00:38:58
Speaker 2: Want to I want to be cautious, but I also want to be hopeful, and I do really hope that somehow, some way, the Iranian people will rise up and take control of their their their country and take it away from these religious autocrats dictators.
00:39:14
Speaker 5: Absolutely, and the one way that that's going to happen is that all of the other Arab countries have to get full on in on making that change. And now we haven't seen yet.
00:39:24
Speaker 2: Really well, we haven't seen it yet, but I'm I still am hopeful about that. Larry, I'm up on my break. Thanks so much for listening. I wish you'd call more often because you're a great caller. Thank you so much.
00:39:34
Speaker 5: Absolutely, talk soon, Dan, take care, talk to you soon.
00:39:37
Speaker 2: We'll be back one line at six one seven, two, five four ten thirty one and six one seven nine three one ten thirty. Let's light them up. We're going to talk about this till midnight. It is a good night for the world.
