Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2025

Front Burner Transcript for June 23, 2025

Host: Jayme Poisson

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: President Trump and I often say: 'Peace from strength.' First comes strength, then comes peace.

[Music: Theme]

JAYME POISSON: Hi everybody, I'm Jayme Poisson. When we last spoke about Iran, some seven days ago, U.S. involvement in Israel's campaign was not exactly clear. In the days since, that has changed drastically. As of late Saturday evening, the United States conducted a round of strikes on three key Iranian nuclear facilities, marking a new and escalated phase of this war. Donald Trump has referred to these strikes as a spectacular military success. Though there is still much that remains unknown about how successful it really was. Negar Mortazavi is a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and the host of the Iran Podcast. She joins me now to talk about America's entry into conflict in Iran and what it could mean for the future of the country and the region.

JP: Negar, thank you so much for coming onto the show. We really appreciate it.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Thanks for having me.

JP: So Saturday night, just before 8 p.m., Donald Trump announced that the U.S. bombed these three nuclear sites in Iran, joining Israel's war in the country. And just what do we know about the attack so far? If you could just take me through it.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Sure. So it sounds like U.S. forces went in through the air and dropped multiple bombs on three main nuclear sites in Iran.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan. Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Iran's nuclear program or sites have been sort of scattered around the country in various different sites, um, possibly anticipating a day like this, so it wasn't concentrated in one location. And the big sites or the important sites were actually outside population areas, so Natanz and Fordo especially were a little far from population areas. And it sounds like these bombs went in. The U.S. calls it a total destruction of the Iranian nuclear program. That is still to be seen. Nuclear experts have time and again said that this is not a possibility to just destroy the nuclear program with aerial bombing, and certainly it's not possible to destroy the knowledge and the know-how that the Iranians have acquired. And finally, it's impossible to destroy the determination, you know. So Iranians had been warning that if their nuclear program does get attacked -- which still remains a civilian program per U.S. intelligence reporting as late as this week -- that if they get attacked, they would potentially reduce this inspection and international monitoring, and could even change the nature of the program from civilian to something that may be weaponized.

JP: Do we have a sense right now, like any independent analysis of what damage was actually done? And I take your point on how difficult it would be to eradicate the program, but just maybe like how damaged or how far set back it might have been.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Just say the U.S. side seems, or at least U.S. administration, seems to be overplaying the ultimate result, short- and long-term result, of what they did through aerial bombing. And Iranians seem to be downplaying. So they're saying they have already-- they had already removed material, the enriched material from these sites. They're saying that the damage is not completely irreparable, and it sounds like they don't want to sort of provide that total victory in messaging to the U.S. But as far as independent assessment, so far the statements that I've seen from some credible expert organizations is how they've called this a reckless decision that would draw the U.S. not just into a war, but could also have consequences, you know, for the environment, health consequences, potentially toxic material or radiation. [JP: Right.] and whatnot. But I think it's still early to sort of judge, because I don't want to just rely on the Iranian messaging or the U.S. messaging, which seem to be not really matching.

[music]

JP: I want to come back to Iran's options with you in a minute, but first, just two days ago Trump said in a statement via his press secretary that:

SOUNDCLIP

PRESS SECRETARY LEAVITT: Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.

JP: He later told reporters that he was giving the Iranians:

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Just time to see whether or not people come to their senses.

JP: Were you surprised by the decision to bomb on Saturday night? Like, what was going through your head at 8 p.m.?

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: I was surprised, yes, very much. I was actually being called by the media saying there is an important meeting happening at the White House, and do I think there will be a message of war coming out of that. And I was leaning more towards diplomacy, because also on that same day, Secretary Rubio had said that the U.S. prefers to resolve this diplomatically. But at the same time, looking back at the past precedent, um, sort of the U.S. now were understanding either green lighting or at least yellow lighting Israel for the attack two nights before they had nuclear talks scheduled with Iran.

SOUNDCLIP

FOREIGN MINISTER ABBAS ARAGHCHI: When at the middle of negotiations with us, they gave green light to Israelis, if not instructed them, to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. I think they have proved that they are not men of diplomacy, and they only understand the language of threat and force.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Going back to President Trump's first term when he assassinated the top Iranian general, Soleimani, really out of the blue.

SOUNDCLIP

NEWS PRESENTER: In the early hours of January 3, 2020, shortly after arriving at Baghdad International Airport, Major General Qasem Soleimani was killed in a U.S. drone strike.

DONALD TRUMP: Soleimani was plotting imminent and sinister attacks on American diplomats and military personnel, but we caught him in the act and terminated him.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: At this point, I would say nothing should surprise us as far as the decision-making. Is it strategic? I don't think so. Is it going to bring good outcomes? I don't really think so. But as far that surprise element, it seems like that's one thing that the president really likes and has been pursuing, um, despite, you know, pushback sometimes from his own senior advisors.

JP: After the attacks, the strikes, Trump said on social media, quote, now this is the time for peace. Just how are those words likely to land with Iran's leadership?

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: President Trump, he called himself the president of peace. He's been critical and mocking past presidents for starting forever wars in the Middle East.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Obviously the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right?

DONALD TRUMP: George Bush made a mistake. We can make mistakes. But that one was a beauty. We should have never been in Iraq. We have destabilized the Middle East.

DONALD TRUMP: They lied. [MEDIATOR: Okay.] They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none. And they knew there were none. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: He's even attacked past presidents for wanting to go to war with Iran, which nobody did until he did. And he promised to end the war between Russia and Ukraine immediately. He promised to bring peace to the Middle East. Well, Russian-Ukrainian war didn't end. Peace didn't come to the Middle East. The war in Gaza continues. And now he just let a third war start under his watch a week before, with the Israelis initially attacking and now the U.S. joining. And it's only June. You know, he came in January. Let's remember that. So I think that messaging of bringing peace -- and he's even said many times that he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Well, they should give me the Nobel Prize for Rwanda. And if you look, the Congo, or... You could say Serbia, Kosovo. You could say a lot of them. You could say... I mean, the big one is India and Pakistan. You could-- I should have gotten it four or five times. I should get it for the...

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: You don't get a Nobel Peace Prize by starting wars, and this is exactly what he's done. And to call that, you know, the motto that comes from the administration, 'peace through strength.'

SOUNDCLIP

MARCO RUBIO: The president wants to resolve this diplomatically and peacefully. He gave them a chance to do that. They delayed; they had all these kind of delayed tactics. They wouldn't even meet with us directly.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: I would just call it peace through war. How are you going to make peace through war? I think the understanding of what diplomacy actually means, which is you go in, you negotiate. You take something, you also give something. You're supposed to make concessions. I think this administration is not ready for the concession part, for the giving part. They just want to take. That's their understanding of diplomacy. And they didn't take what they wanted from the Iranians, which was an elimination of even the civilian program. And then President Trump let-- green-lighted or yellow-lighted the Israelis to start attacking. And then throughout the week he also posted on social media asking for unconditional surrender. And looks like this is what he means by peace through strength, or bombing the nuclear sites with really heavy bombs and then calling for peace and diplomacy. So maybe the Iranians would be the pragmatic party at this point. I'm hoping they would, as they did in 2020 when they retaliated against the killing of Soleimani. They did it in a way that helped both sides take an off-ramp and de-escalate instead of escalating it further. If anyone forgets, they attacked a U.S. base in Iraq with a few hundred missiles from their soil, but it wasn't a fatal attack. So it was a combination of advanced notice, also luck or the precision, whatever you want to call it, or a combination all of that. But that episode ended in taking an off-ramp because the two countries were on the brink of war. It could have escalated into much, much worse. Even if they respond, if it's not in a way of a major escalation, I think there's still a chance for an off-ramp. But certainly, what President Trump did was an escalatory step, which is definitely not towards peace or diplomacy.

[music]

JP: At a press conference, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said that:

SOUNDCLIP

PETE HEGSETH: This mission was not and has not been about regime change. The president authorized a precision operation to neutralize the threats to our national interests posed by the Iranian nuclear program and the collective self-defence of our troops and our ally Israel.

JP: How is that message being heard inside Iran?

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: I don't think the Iranian regime believes that, especially because Israeli messaging very much contradicts that. The Israelis have said even before their attacks and during the past week, they have conveyed sort of this messaging of regime change. They even put out messages to the people saying you should rise up against your regime and this is your moment, sort of that kind of messaging towards a revolution or a revolt. Which is not really resonating with the population because at the same time, people are trying to flee homes and cities from bombing to save their families and their lives. But this has been the messaging coming from the Israelis throughout these attacks and also beforehand.

SOUNDCLIP

REPORTER: Defence Minister Israel Katz taunting Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with the ghost of Saddam Hussein.

[Israel Katz speaking non-English language]

REPORTER: Remember what happened to the dictator in Iraq, he's saying.

SOUNDCLIP

ISRAELI AMBASSADOR DANNY DANON: We pray for a regime change. You know, we know that the Iranians are suffering under the regime.

SOUNDCLIP

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Israel's fight is not with you. It's not with you, the brave people of Iran, whom we respect and admire. Our fight is with our common enemy, a murderous regime that both oppresses you and impoverishes you. This is your opportunity to stand up and let your voices be heard.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: At the same time, I think the Iranians are viewing this very carefully. And here in the U.S., every poll has shown that there's no interest in the American public for another big regime change war in the Middle East. And you've seen that echoing in the president's own messaging, vice president, throughout the campaign and since he became president. Uh, essentially mocking everyone else for not being able to making deals and calling himself the best dealmaker and, and saying that he would resolve the issue through dealmaking. So I don't think regime change is the path that the U.S. intends to go, but that -- Intention is one thing, and sort of getting sucked into a situation is another thing. We're talking about a fog of war situation. We're talking about escalations that can get out of control. And, you know, it's a volatile region, volatile environment. Conflict has been brewing for two years and only expanding. It's not just in Gaza, it also expanded to Lebanon, uh, partially Iraq, the Houthis, the Red Sea, all of that. So not everything is going to be in control of the multiple parties that are involved, and things can always escalate out of hand and get to a point that you didn't intend.

JP: Extremely unpredictable. A huge gamble. Um, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, he's 86 years old. He's been in power for 36 years now, right? He's not been known to submit to outside pressure and he presides over the IRGC, which has a standing force of nearly 200,000 people. His regional partners, as you just kind of alluded to, they've been sort of decimated or hamstrung, Hezbollah, Hamas. Um, the Houthis to some extent. And now his nuclear program appears to be in serious question as well. These are kind of his political projects of the last many decades, uh, that are now at risk. And just, what do you think his next move will stand to teach us about his attitude towards this moment?

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Well, there's a lot of criticism coming at him, both from within his own circles, the various political factions... Because Iran's political system is also not a monolith. They're ultra hardliners, conservatives. There's reformists, there are moderates. Some believe in more, you know, posturing towards the U.S., engaging further. Some believe in more dialogue, diplomacy. The current president is a reformist or a moderate within the system. He's been talking about resolving issues with the U.S. diplomatically, has restarted negotiations, which were going on with the Trump administration under his administration. But the Supreme Leader, as you said, is very old, and potentially would be, you know, replaced by whoever the successor is. And now we're hearing serious talks of a succession plan, of potential names being put out and a succession plan being discussed, which means he's taking it-- him and the people around him are taking this moment seriously. There have been threats of potentially assassinating him, Donald Trump himself even posted on social media that the U.S. knows exactly where he is. [JP: Yeah.] The Israelis have done that, so. And then also that he's old, you know, no one lives forever. But so that succession is being discussed. Now, this could be a transformation mo-- it will be a moment of transformation, a watershed moment for Iran. But I can't predict that it would necessarily be for the better, you know. It doesn't mean that the next generation of whoever the leadership is, is going to be more moderate or more democratic or more secular. This moment could very much lead the way to a more militaristic, you know, grip on power. But nevertheless, there will be a generational change. So whoever comes after him would potentially be the next generation of leadership.

[music]

JP: You mentioned the hope for this kind of off-ramp, right? Some sort of response that would, I guess, allow them to save face, but also not put them, uh, drag them further into war with the United States. What could they do, though? Like, what options does Iran have at their disposal?

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Well, they don't have a lot of good options, let's start with that. Because, again, not responding is not a good option because they think it will show weakness and potentially invite more strikes by Israel and maybe even the United States. But responding also has to be-- they understand it has to be calibrated in a way that is a response but is a one-time tit for tat and it doesn't escalate. They were able to communicate that back in 2020. So they attacked that U.S. base in Iraq, and then immediately, through diplomatic channels, they said, this is it and we're done tit for tat. I think that something similar potentially can be what they're looking at this time. And in some way, I also see that echoing in messaging that's coming from the White House and the president, uh, sort of framing this as a one and done attack.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not, future attacks will be far greater and a lot easier.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: So I'm hoping that the U.S. also is not looking at further escalating this and can sort of anticipate a tit-for-tat situation from Iran that would then provide that off-ramp for de-escalation. So I would say a red line, a major red line that they should be able to not cross and be careful -- and I think they are and understand that -- is U.S. fatalities. So any attack that would, uh, result the death of U.S. personnel and service members could potentially change the public opinion in the U.S., which right now is against war. If they can-- So their bases across the region, they're-- Actually, the U.S. getting involved has provided Iran with a lot of options as far as targets, because they were just going for Israel this past week and now they can go for many, many U.S. bases and interests that are across the region. But how to do that? How precise the attack can be? Are there any empty or, you know, sort of strategic locations that they can hit and claim victory without really escalating? And they have said in their messaging that they will respond in an appropriate time, which signals it may not be immediate. And I think the understanding from the U.S. side is also that the U.S. will just wait sort of for the ball as it is in Iran's court, and they're not just going to continue with more attacks.

JP: I wonder if you could give me a sense, a little bit more of a sense of what's happening on the ground in Iran. People have been fleeing major cities. I know that it's been difficult to reach family for many outside the country. Like how is Iranian society reacting to all this from what you are hearing and able to observe?

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: So from day one, from the first day of the Israeli attack, it was absolute shock and horror. It came in the middle of the night. People woke up hearing explosions, the ground shaking, jets flying overhead. And bringing back memories of the 1980s, that brutal eight-year war with Iraq. Since then, nothing like this has happened in Iran, especially in major cities and particularly in the capital, Tehran. So it was unclear, it was confusing. And the messaging coming from the Israeli side was that this is an attack on Iran's nuclear program, on military targets, on political targets. But that wasn't the result. So civilian toll has been going up in Iran right now. Reporting is somewhere between maybe 400 to 600, according to official sources, some diaspora human rights groups that are taking the tally. And we've seen homes being destroyed, apartment buildings. Sometimes there's a unit that was targeted of, let's say, a nuclear scientist who was sleeping at night, first of all, with their own families. So families, children of the targets, and then their neighboring units and apartments, sometimes the entire building, sometimes just the neighbours, cars that are parked on the street. So the civilian toll has been high on the Iranian side and it's growing. Car bombs are going off on the street and people try to get to safety. There isn't really an infrastructure of shelters as there is in Israel. So Israeli citizens have sort of this, um, they're lucky essentially to be provided with that system of sirens, of shelters, the availability and the readiness. Iran doesn't have that, so the state was also shocked. Local government scrambling to provide shelters, telling people to take shelter in mosque or go to metro stations or the basement of their own homes. And then whoever could, especially after the social media post came from President Trump, he posted on Truth Social for everyone to immediately leave Tehran. [JP: Mm-hmm.] And this is, we're talking about a metropolis of almost 10 million people. It's-- More people live in Tehran than the entire country of Israel. And how can you evacuate overnight a city of 10 million people with women, children, disabled, sick people, elderly? So whoever, I would say the lucky few who have houses outside, or family or places they could go stay outside Tehran and neighbouring cities and towns, have tried to leave. And then we're also seeing sort of a string of people trying to flee the country because the airspace has been closed. They're trying to flee the country through land borders now. So, Iran, neighbouring a few of these countries -- Turkey, Armenia, et cetera. And people are trying to drive out with cars or buses or whatever. But fuel is also a problem. So I know of a family who was trying to leave Tehran for a city that's just three hours outside. They had to wait in a gas station line five or six hours just to fill up the tank. And then they had an overnight drive of 12 hours to just get to a city that's normally three hours away from Tehran. So getting out of Tehran and establishing sort of a shelter for yourself elsewhere is not something everyone can do. The majority actually can't do that. And it's just confusion and uncertainty of how long this is going to drag and what people can do to keep their families safe.

[music]

JP: I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on kind of the raison d'être for these bombings from the Americans, which was to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. As we talked about on the show, like earlier this year, Trump's Director of National Security, Tulsi Gabbard, told Congress:

SOUNDCLIP

TULSI GABBARD: The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003.

JP: Trump recently said that she was wrong.

SOUNDCLIP

DONALD TRUMP: Who in the intelligence community said that?

REPORTER 2: Your director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

DONALD TRUMP: She's wrong.

JP: I see now that Gabbard is now saying that Iran could have produced a nuclear weapon within weeks. How are you thinking about this question of Iran's nuclear capabilities? You know, how credible do you view the threat of Iran and nukes as a justification for direct U.S. involvement here?

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Well, I think whatever the threat was is just increased. So, I tend to lean more towards the expert analysis and the intelligence. And I feel like now we're having political decisions being mixed in, sort of an after-fact of an attack that now needs that justification. But before that, the U.S. intelligence reporting had been saying that Iranian-- the Iranian program remains a civilian one, and they haven't made that decision, and they haven't really made the leap to weaponize it. They were close to it. They were producing enough material that could potentially one day be used if they decide to make a bomb. But I think that's the important distinction to make. You can have a civilian program and acquire materials, sort of enrich the material. But you still have to make that decision to weaponize your program and use that fuel to build a bomb and to deliver that bomb. You need to be able to mount it on something. And so it's not an instant overnight decision and a process. And I tend to sort of lean more towards the professional intelligence and expert, you know, nuclear expert view and also the UN monitoring, the UN watchdog, nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, all of which had this consensus that it still remains a civilian program. But the political decision in Tehran could be impacted now because the Iranians had been warning that if their nuclear program, which is a declared program safeguarded with international monitoring and inspection. Some challenges and some back and forth, but still there is international monitoring and inspection, um, oversight essentially over the program. Iranians have threatened that they would leave the NPT, sort of that international agreement, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and they would reduce that visibility, that international UN visibility over the nuclear program. And then that can potentially even make it easier to go for a clandestine nuclear weapons program in the long term. I don't know if that is going to happen. I hope it doesn't. But if that does happen in a medium or long term, we can thank Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Trump for it.

JP: Right, because, sorry, not to state the obvious here, but the argument that you're making is that there will be people in the Iranian leadership that will come to the conclusion that the only deterrent worth anything is a nuclear weapon. And that if Iran was nuclear capable, both Israel and the U.S. would have been far less likely to oversee these attacks. I mean, I've seen this argument made not just about Iran, but actually about other countries and what they might be thinking the world over right now.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Absolutely. Libya, potentially even Ukraine. And before this attack, the Israeli attack and also the U.S., this was a hypothesis that some were arguing and pushing in Tehran. But it was only a hypothesis. And now they have evidence. They say, look what happened and what could have been prevented if the situation was different. So I hope they don't go down that route, but no, it's not an impossible.

JP: Netanyahu has referred to this moment as a, quote:

SOUNDCLIP

BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: Pivot of history that can help lead the Middle East and beyond to a future of prosperity and peace.

JP: What do you think he means?

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Well, it certainly is a pivot of history, but in which direction and what outcome is going to come after this, I think that's not clear. I mean, his messaging throughout the past week has been that this is an attack on our nuclear program to sort of turn it back or destroy it. There's also been regime change messaging in the Israeli position, senior officials, and also the messaging that was aired from state TV, et cetera. Um, and also the fact that maybe the Iranian people would want a moment like this to take sort of the matters into their hand and bring an end to the regime. Um, I think it's not clear which it is, or none, or a combination of all of these is, but I just, I need to understand how this regime change, for example, is going to come about. Because I don't think regime change is going to happen through sporadic aerial bombing or, you know, targeted assassination of some officials. But we've also seen that the top brass who was assassinated was immediately replaced by others. And what would come after that? I think this is sort of the uncertainty and the confusion that is now echoed in the civil society. And we see that even the most anti-regime segments of the society, who also see their own government, their own state, their own regime responsible for bringing about this moment onto itself, onto the country. But they also are echoing an anti-war message and saying, this is not the way. You know, we may not like this regime, in fact, we hate it and we would like it to change. Um, but this is not the way to do it. And uh, war is not the answer. And that's, I think, an interesting sort of unity that came out of these attacks, out of this war that started. That, uh, an anti-war message is what we're hearing echo in the population and also in the civil society and activists.

JP: Negar, that seems like a good place for us to end this. Thank you. Thank you so much for this.

NEGAR MORTAZAVI: Thanks for having me.

[Music: Theme]

JP: All right, that is all for today. I'm Jayme Poisson, thanks so much for listening. Talk to you tomorrow.

For more Front Burner transcripts, please click here.

Trump joins Israel's war in Iran - Transcript

Social Sharing