War on Iran: resounding success or costly disaster? Mehdi Hasan and David Des Roches | Head to Head

Operation Epic Fury, Donald Trump's so -called little excursion in Iran dragged from days to weeks to months and unleashed death, destruction, and an economic meltdown.After more than 100 days of strikes, retaliation, and escalating tensions, the United States and Iran have agreed to cease hostilities.We just made a great settlement of the war with Iran.So is this really the victory Donald Trump claims, or is it a costly failure?And when it comes to US policy in the Middle East, who's calling the shots?Trump or Benjamin Netanyahu?

My guest tonight is a retired US colonel who has spent decades helping shape America's foreign policy in various roles at the Department of Defense.He said that Operation Epic Fury, while imperfect, should be considered a success.I'm Mehdi Hassan, and tonight I'll go head -to -head with David DeRoche, the former head of the Pentagon's Directorate for the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula.In our interview recorded shortly before the announcement of a deal between the United States and Iran, I challenged him on the consequences of the war, Iran's nuclear ambitions, and the U .S.'s role in the region.I was also joined by three experts, Mohammad Ali Shabani, a Middle East scholar and editor of the London -based news outlet Amwaj .

media, focused on Iran, Iraq, and the Arabian Peninsula, Barak Sina, an associate research fellow at the national security think tank, the Henry Jackson Society, and Sanam Naraghi -Andalini, the British -Iranian founder and CEO of the International Civil Society Action Network.David DeRoche, thank you for joining me on Head to Head tonight.A lot to talk about.The U .S.war on Iran, it was launched over three months ago.

It's failed to achieve most of its main goals.Most people think it is a disaster.And yet, in an op -ed for Fox News a few weeks ago, you called it imperfect, but still a success.

How so?Yeah, good question.So, we have to recognize that we have a problem.perfect information or semi -perfect information on what's coming from one side.and we only get curated information from the other side.We're starting to see more information now that the Internet look at is coming up.

But the objectives...

You think the Iranian side is giving curated imperfect information?Absolutely.And the Trump administration is giving perfect information?

No, not the Trump administration.The Trump administration is trying to shape the information, but they're in an environment of an open press where there's people asking difficult questions.

So how do you measure it as a success?

So there are four objectives going in.I measure it on its own terms.So first off, regime change was not not the aim of this campaign.So there were four objectives.The first is to destroy the air defense network.That has pretty much been done.

And when it was trying to be reconstituted, we saw the Israeli strikes were aimed at that.The second was to set back the nuclear program, preferably destroy it.to a point where it cannot be easily reconstituted.The third was to degrade or destroy Iran's drone and missile capability.We have not seen militarily significant missile launches.And then the fourth was to deplete the regime, particularly the internal security aspects of the regime, so that if there is an uprising, it wouldn't go through.

So at the time I wrote that, which admittedly was in the fifth week of a two -week war, most of those objectives, I think, had been achieved.

on record claiming this war has significantly weakenedIran.

Yeah.

But according to U .S.intelligence, Iran still has 70 percent of its pre -war missile inventory, 90 percent of its underground missile storage, and, of course, almost 1 ,000 pounds of highly enriched uranium.The U .S.killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and replaced him with, drumroll, Ayatollah Khamenei.

We think.Well, they did replace him.You can say where he is.We can discuss that.The Iranians, much to Donald Trump's shock and surprise, weaponized the Strait of Hormuz, attacked U .S.'s Gulf allies, threw the global economy into disarray.

In what fantasy world is this war close to a success?

So again, the four terms, the four conditions, let's start with the ballistic missiles.The measure of the effectiveness of ballistic missiles is not how many you have, how many you possess, it's how many you can fire against an enemy in a militarily significant manner.

They just bombed US bases in Bahrain, in Kuwait, in Jordan.

Yes.And that had almost no effect, really, on the United States' ability to project power in the region.And again, going back to my initial predicate, Donald Trump, at least, he sees defeat regime change not coming from military action.

So let's talk about that.Sure.Here's what I don't get.You seem to believe, you've made statements to suggest, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that you actually believe that Trump had humanitarian motives for this illegal and disastrous war.You have claimed that Trump's promise in January to help Iranian protesters who were being killed was the real reason for this war.And you said his aim in this war is, quote, punishing the people who carried out the massacres and ultimately avenging them, you said.

To be clear, David DeRoche, you think Donald Trump gives a damn about the people of Iran?

Really?OK, so...First off, I'm very impressed that you pay attention to me as a married man. I don't get that very often.But the predicate that you led withfalse.What I said is true, that he said he was doing that.

Not, but I don't think, and Trump supporters and Trump detractors, I don't think his motivation is necessarily a humanitarian urge.I haven't seen any evidence that that exists in it.It is his ego.He made a public statement that he was going to help the supporters, and having made that, he had to take some sort of action, not necessarily out of humanitarian urge, but rather because he did not want to be compared with Barack Obama's red lines in Syria.So the action is the same.

But you would agree that you cannot, quote, avenge Iranians by killing more Iranians.1 ,700 civilians killed in this US -Israeli war, according to the most credible study.They've hit a dozen hospitals, 60 universities, 300 health care facilities, 760 schools.They blew up a civilian bridge.On the first day of this war, as you know, the United States carried out what is probably a war crime by massacring more than 120 kids in an elementary school.

So first off, again, we will not know for sure what is it.I lived through the period in the Clinton administration where we had strikes on Iraq, which was also under sanctions.Those were reported as baby milk factories.And after the fact, we saw that that wasn't quite the same there.I think when we're dealing with an authoritarian regime that has control over the media and a policy of holding neutral journalists as hostages, like Jason Reslin, the reporter for The Washington Post.

But there's no debate about the school.

Well, the school we can talk about.In fact, so let's talk about the school.

In the days following the attack on the school, you were on Twitter casting doubt that a U .S.strike was responsible for blowing up a school full of children in Minab.A preliminary U .S.internal military investigation confirms it was a U .

S.missile.Do you now acknowledge that you were wrong, that the U .S.was responsible for this horrific massacre?

SoSo first off, massacre implies intent.So what you're asking me to agree to is a statement that the people who dropped a round in the context of 800 airstrikes intended to strike a school knowing it was a school.I can't agree with that.But secondly, at the time, people were taking just the word of the regime.We didn't know what we knew then about missiles and sorts.

You accept you were wrong then?I accept that I may be wrong.We do not know for sure.You still think it might not be a U .S.missile?

I think that it might, well, hold on.This is going to sound Jesuitical to you, but the word you used is massacre, which implies an element of intent.I think the worst case The worst case scenario...

You do realize that even without intent, something can still be a war crime if it's reckless?

Well, but there is a key definition in there, which is the level of care and the level of carelessness.In a country that is determined to commit war crimes, you would have, in the context of 800 airstrikes, you would have more than one school hit in the first...Hold on.Unfortunately, I've got more.On February the 28th...Hold on.

No, no, you made a point.

On February the 28th, the Pentagon used missiles untested in combat, according to New York Times.that bombed a sports hall used by a female volleyball team that killed 21 people, including multiple children.That was also on the first day of the war.We just didn't know about it until weeks later because the United States government covered it up.It required the New York Times to use satellite imagery to find this out.

I am unfamiliar with that instance, but I will tell you that if your crack research team gets on it, you will see that there were instances where the besieged moved from their headquarters into sports halls as sheltering positions.

This sounds like a very Israeli argument here, that they brought it on themselves with human shields.

No, that's not what I'm saying.

In fact, here's what you did say, David.You said on Twitter.Yes.Wikipedia says the Minarb school is located 600 meters from the headquarters of the IRGC Navy Asif Brigade and used to be part of abase, which sounds like you're justifying the massacre of kids by saying, well, the military base was nearby, so it's their fault.I would point out to you that U .

S.Marine Corps base in Quantico, Virginia, is very close to the Crossroads Elementary School.If the Iranians or one of their proxies, God forbid, bombed Crossroads Elementary School, and said, well, it was the U .S.Marine Corps' fault for building a base near the school.We would all condemn that.

So would you, wouldn't you?Well, first off, let's take a step back and assume that the United States deliberately wanted to kill children in a school.I never said that.No, but let's just assume this.Let's just assume this, okay?Why would you assault a regional headquarters that has no influence on policy when you could kill the children of the regime leaders in Tehran?

So clearly, It does not make sense if you assume the worst intent.But going forward, the size of the Quantico base or any other standard US versus the size of the MENAB base are fundamentally different.

But all the evidence shows that it was very clear to anyone who bothered to check.that this was a school, that it was separate from the base, and that's where the recklessness comes in.

Au contraire.Take a look at the aerial photographs of the base.The difference between...Sky News went to the base.The difference...The New York Times looked at the base.

Yes.So look at the photograph, and what you'll see is that there is a smaller base with a perimeter around it.The school was originally part of that base and was used for military purpose.

And since 2016, it was very clear on satellite imagery it was not part of the base.Let's stay on this subject, because it's an important subject, and let's bring in our panel.And I want to bring in Barack Sina, who's an Associate Research Fellow at the National Security Think Tank, the Henry Jackson Society.Barak, you also seem to have justified this massacre at the school by US airstrikes.I watched a speech you recently gave in London at an Iranian diaspora pro -war rally.You said, quote, the location of the Revolutionary Guards base

was the real war crime.Yeah.Just to be clear, I just did some checking before I came here, like I did with David.There is a Church of England primary school just minutes away from the Bramcote military barracks in Nuneaton.Is that a war crime by the British Ministry of Defence to put their base near a primary school?

In the context of a conflict, If somebody does their due diligence, they attempt to prevent civilian casualties, and their target is an IRGC base, then it is a legitimate target.The collateral damage may be tragic, but the actual strike is completely legitimate.

Did you really come to a public gathering to refer to 120 dead kids as collateral damage?

Look, that might be the...It might be...I said the word tragic as well, but that is what it is.

Collateral damage, 120 Iranian kids killed.

Of course that is collateral damage.Collateral damage means the unintended consequences of a strike.

But you do realise, as I explained to David, it could still be a war crime.

I said in the very beginning that if you don't take your due diligence to attempt to take every measure to prevent civilian casualties, then it would be a war crime.I would assume that every attempt would have been taken to prevent that from happening.

So how did they end up killing 120 kids?

I don't know why you would want to assume that that was the intent.

I never said a word about intent.I've been very clear.

It's not about intent.It's about recklessness.

If you use the word massacre, you do assume an intent.If you use the word massacre, you do assume an intent.That's not true at all.Recklessness is intent.

I want to bring in Sanam Nooraghi -Andalini, who's a British -Iranian founder and CEO of the International Civil Society Action Network.A lot of this warwas sold as a way of freeing the people of Iran, as saving them after many of them were killed in January.And then we had this incident on day one.What did you make of it?What do you make of what you've heard so far?

First of all, I think what we know is that it was also a double -tap incident.Let's say that they didn't know that it was a school.Let's assume that it was AI that told them that, with all data, that this was 10 years ago, it was an AI RGC base.Let's just give you that.But it was a double tap, meaning that they hit one missile, people came to save the kids, and then the second missile went in.So it is a massacre.

It is a war crime.Whether it was intentional or not, let's hope it wasn't, although your missiles are very targeted, from what we understand, and it was reckless.Now, the other thing that we don't talk about, and I think it's important in terms of whether civilians were deliberately targeted or not, is that two -thirds of the targets in Tehran, which is a city of nine million, were civilian targets.

Let me bring in Mohammed Ali Shabani, who is a Middle East scholar, editor of the London -based news outlet Umwaj .media, which focuses on Iran, Iraq, the Arabian Peninsula.What do you make of David's Key argument, I think, at the start of this show, that the war is a success because Iran has been degraded, has been weakened.You are someone who's studied Iran and Iran's government for a long time.Do you share that view?

I think all the data that's out there shows that there's a level of resilience in Iran, not just reference to the military, also the political leadership.You have a new supreme leader, another Khamenei.You have intact government.You have continuity of governance.You see continued retaliatory attacks against the US military after three months of war.Iran's military's budget is 130 times less than the United States.

It's not even up here.It's not anything close to up here.We see that this war really is about a war of attrition.It's about different methods of war.OK.

The reality is that there was no nuclear threat from Iran last year when we bombed them, or this year when we bombed them.When the Trump administration says we went to war to avert a quote, I'm quoting, imminent nuclear threat, that is a lie from the United States government, is it not?

No.I think what you're probably referring to is the earlier intelligence estimate that said Iran is not seeking to build a nuclear weapon at this time.

Yes, and the IAEA.

And the issue, the key part there, everybody focuses on the first part and ignores the second part.Iran does have the capability, or did have the capability, to reconstitute its nuclear program at a moment's notice.We know that they had one prior to 2003, they suspended it.

If your moment is a year, then yes.You were, with respect, a moment ago lecturing me on the meaning of the word massacre.Yes.I would say to you the meaning of the word imminent to most people is not years from now.You give me massacre, I'll take imminent.That was a lie.

That was a lie from the Trump administration.And as you say, U .S.intelligence confirmed that Iran was not building a nuclear weapon, not just not building a nuclear weapon, and I'm quoting here, Supreme Leader Khamenei has not authorized a nuclear weapons program.He hadn't changed his mind.

but the capability, the capacity, the ability to do that.Capability is a threat.You can't call capability an imminent threat.Imminent, we can argue over, but capability is a threat.

So let me ask you about where the president's going.Donald Trump wants to sign a deal.He wants to sign a deal that prevents Iran from getting highly enriched uranium, a deal, he says, in which they pledge never to build nuclear weapons.Yes.The US already had this deal.It was called the JCPOA, which I know you didn't like.

The UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, said the deal was working.Iran was in compliance.They were enriching at 3 .67%.And yet Trump tore it up.Here we are at war, trying to get a deal that will be nowhere near as good as that deal.

Well, it may have been a good deal on one specific issue.that go back across administrations.One was the use of proxies.Recall the Syrian Civil War was going on at the time.Iranian forces and Iranian officer militias, Hezbollah, were there.Another was the ballistic missile, which is actually of more concern to our Gulf allies than the nuclear program.

And then, of course, there's the ongoing nature of the government and human rights, things of that nature.

But your argument is the JCPOA didn't cover these issues, so it was a bad deal.

Let me tell you how bad it was.So we focused on the nuclear issue.We gave them license everywhere else.But do you agree that the nuclear bit worked?

Before we go to the other bit.

I honestly didn't pay enough attention to it because I was focused on the other issues.You didn't pay attention to it.We're at war because of it.

Let me tell you.No, we're not.

We're not at war because you've admitted we're not at war.You just admit we're not at war because of the nuclear issue.I just laid out four issues there.And at the start of the program, I laid out four issues.This is one of four.But I also just said that, for example, our partners in the region are more concerned about ballistic missiles than nuclear.

So the problem was JCPOA gave them sanctioned relief.One example, they got Boeing aircraft parts.They used those to fly militias into Syria.They ethnically cleansed the western suburbs of Damascus of Sunni Muslims and replaced them with Shia militiamen drawn from other countries.That was all enabled under the JCPOA.If the JCPOA had been kept in power, Bashar al -Assad would still be president.

ruling Damascus.He'd still be barrel bombing his political opponents.

You can't possibly know that, and many would argue if the JCPOA was still there we wouldn't be in this war killing school kids and calling it collateral damage.

The JCPOA would have expired last year.

That's not true.You know the sunset clauses on nuclear enrichment were until 2030.Check the date, David.It's 2026.Let's bring in our panel.Muhammad Ali Shabani, JCPOA, it gave away the house.

It gave away our leverage.It caused the ethnic cleansing in Syria.

It enabled.Enabled.Dave, I think, look, you're a political scientist.You've been in the military.I think you are well aware that threat is about capability plus intent.It's not just capability.

Israel has tried to make it about capability, which means that every single nation and region is basically a potential threat down the line, now including Turkey.You can bomb an enrichment plant.The threat, if you think of it as capability, is not about the physical structure.It's about the scientists.It's about the universities.Iran has thousands of nuclear scientists.

As long as you're going to approach the nuclear issue as an issue to do with capability, you will never resolve it.There is no possible solution for it.The United States will lose from the outset of any such kind of endeavor, because fundamentally, structurally, you cannot go after knowledge.You cannot bomb knowledge, right?We cannot change the definition of threat.Because once you start doing that, you kind of just open a box, and all kinds of things come out of it.

Let me bring in Barack.

I've seen it.The truth is, Barack, this was never about the Iranian nuclear threat, a lot of people would say.This is Israel's war.This is a war that Benjamin Netanyahu has wanted for 40 years.He did a video bragging that I've wanted this war for 40 years, and my friend Donald Trump did it for me.John Kerry came out and said, every president said no.

We said no.Bush said no.Biden said no.Isn't it the case?that this was always Netanyahu's war and Trump is just the first U .S.

president dumb enough to give it to him.

I wouldn't assume that.Just because Israel consistently wanted it doesn't mean that it was the tail wagging the dog, that somehow Netanyahu imposed his will on President Trump.There's no evidence for that.

Not imposed, but lobbied, persuaded, cajoled, manipulated.

I think there's a lot of kind of conspiratorial thinking here.

Is it conspiracy when the State Department issued a statement on its website saying the US is, quote,engaged in this conflict at the request of Israel? IsIs it a conspiracy theory when the U .S.

government says it out loud?I'm the one that calls the shots.I don't subscribe to this Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly view of the world in which Israel is the one that's pulling all the strings.

Salim, do you want to respond to what is Israel's role in this?Because the Israelis say, look, we're not just doing this to protect ourselves, we're doing this for the Iranian people.I've seen people at Iranian diaspora pro -war rallies waving Israeli flags.

We have a country of about 90 million people.So to suggest, first of all, that the diaspora waving Israeli flags is representative of a majority is questionable, to say the least.That's one thing.Second is that if we look at the role of Israel in the region and the policy of regime change that the US over different administrations has had, essentially, Iraq, Syria, Libya, all of these countries were places where if there had been the will foster democracy, if you want, or freedom, they would have actually challenged Israel's role vis -a -vis Palestine.They would have been a legitimate democratic force to do that.So it's to Israel's benefit to have all of these countries, not only without a strongman dictator, but actually on their knees.

And I think that this is exactly what they wanted to do with Iran.They want Iran to be on its knees.And again, we see it in the prosecution of the war, which is going after universities and hospitals and power plants and civilian homes and so forth.It is about destroying the infrastructure.They said they wanted to do that.So that's Israel's issue.

We've had a lot of discussion in part one.Thank you to our panel.In part two, here in the studio.Conway Hall in London We're gonna hear from our studio audience very patiently waiting here in the hall And we're gonna talk to David about some of the historic issues the grievances between the two countries Don't go away.Stay tuned for the second half of head -to -head.Welcome back to head -to -head on Al Jazeera My guest today is David de Roche who spent years in the Department of Defense, in the D .

C.foreign policy community, shaping U .S.Middle East policy.We're talking about Iran and America tonight.David, in part one, we talked a lot about the war that's going on right now in the Middle East.

But let's talk a little history and context.You've acknowledged that there was animosity between the two countries for many decades.And in 1979, let's just be very clear, Iran did take Americans as hostages for decades as supported militant groups like Hezbollah, which has killed Americans.But a lot of Americans seem to ignore the fact that over the years, the U .S.has posed a much bigger threat to Iran than vice versa.

The U .S.backed Saddam Hussein's illegal invasion of Iran in the 1980s.The U .S.backed Saddam when he was gassing Iranians with chemical weapons.

The U .S.even shot down an Iranian passenger airliner in 1988, killing 290 civilians, including more than 60 children.And George H .W.Bush said at the time he would never apologize for that.

Surely you have to accept, David, that Iran has legitimate grievances against the United States as well.The dislike of the two countries is visceral, and it's very hard to understand.Is it hard to understand?I just listed a bunch of things.Well, hold on, but let me give you another one.So we fought a war for years in Vietnam.

We lost 58 ,000 soldiers.They lost probably 2 million.And yet today, when I deployed to Afghanistan, my backpack, my pistol holster were made in Vietnam.For some reason, that has been reconciled, but there's an issue with Iran.

But do you accept that the government that you served, the military you were part of, has done some pretty bad things against Iran?

Well, yes.I mean, helping Saddam Hussein gas Iranians, shooting down a civilian airliner with 290 people.I don't accept the United States had knowledge and enabled Saddam Hussein in advance to gas...We gave them satellite information.

We gave them targeting help.

That's what the people at the time had said.

Ronald Reagan said, Iraq cannot afford to lose.We must back Iraq.

But to move to the use of chemical weapons in that is a step that I do not accept.But let me go a little further back.Let me go a little further back.

Rick Francona.who was a US colonel at the time.He was a defense liaison in Iraq at the time.He said the US had firm evidence of Iraqi chemical attacks beginning in 1983.He says, we didn't need to tell them they were doing it.We already knew.

And yet we still helped them target Iranian troops with those chemical weapons.

No.We helped them target Iranian troops.The use of chemical weapons, I think, is something that remains to be seen.And I know Rick Francona.But I think you're drawing a little bit too much.But let me go back further.

OK.In 1945 to 1947, the United States had a nuclear monopoly.We did not use it to force the Soviet Union to withdraw the islands in Japan that are occupied.We did not use it to force the Soviet Union to abandon the colony it established in Kaliningrad.We didn't use it to insist they leave Poland.We did use it for one thing, we threatened the Soviet Union to get them to leave the the parts of Iran that they occupied.

Iran at the time, it owes its existence as a unitary nation to American action.I'm pretty sure Iranians would disagree with that description.

But since we're going back in time further than the 1980s, let's go back to 1953.You know that Iranians often start the clock in 1953 compared toAmericans in 79.Ben Affleck did a great job with that.When the CIA and MI6 here from the UK overthrew Iran's elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953, the U .S.

then supported 26 years of a brutal dictatorship under the Shah, who had a secret police that tortured people, as you know, disappeared opponents.How can the U .S.claim, as you suggested in part one, to want democracy and a better government in Iran when we helped get rid of the only democratic government they had?

Well, first off, not a democratic government.Why not?There wasn't a popular referendum on Mossadegh.

Mohamed Mossadegh was an elected prime minister.

Mohamed Mossadegh was an appointed prime minister.Sorry?An appointed prime minister served at the pleasure of the Shah, according to the Iranian constitution.

Do you know what country you're in right now?

Yes, I do.

Do you know how Keir Starmer became prime minister of the UK?Yes, I do.

He was appointed by the king.Does that mean we don't have a democratic government?Parliamentary systems, that's how it works.Are you claiming that the electoral system in Iran in 1953 is the same as in the UK today?

No, I'm suggesting that you as an American are not understanding that parliamentary systems don't require a direct election to be democratic.He was elected to parliament in 1923.He served in the Majlis, the Iranian parliament.When he became prime minister, he was an elected member of parliament.It was a democratic government by the definition of that time.Was it a liberal democratic government?

We can argue about it.But it was clearly elected by the people, and we overthrew it in a coup that the CIA long ago admitted to.

Are you going to deny that as well?Well, let me ask you, do you accept that the king can dismiss the prime minister?Do I accept that the?The king of England can dismiss the prime minister.He could, but it would be very awkward because it's a constitutional king, not an absolute king.1953 was very awkward.

Hold on, let's keep going down this analogy.

Your use of words, I'm sorry.We know this show requires many dictionaries and thesauruses.You have an educated audience.If the King of England dismissed KeirStarmer because the CIA helped him do it, yes, it would be a real problem, I assume, for the people in this room.

Okay.The King's mother dismissed the Prime Minister of Australia.It has happened, and it is extraordinary.But first off, when you say democratically elected, that implies that there was a nationwide popular vote.No, it doesn't.

It doesn't imply that.It implies that there was a parliamentary democracy with a government that was elected to parliament, and we came along And when I say we, I'm British and American, the British and the Americans came along and toppled that prime minister in a coup, which the CIA has admitted to, which then led to the Shah taking absolute power, torturing people, killing people, which then led to the Iranian revolution, which we then complain about.We helped set that all in motion.It's called blowback for a reason.

Well, I do accept, look, in the context of the Cold War, there were many unsavory regimes.There was a reflexive response to the fear of communism.I think that the action that the United States took in support of Britain.That was done primarily not because we were afraid of Mossadegh taking over.It was mostly because he would have been supplanted by communists.And we had a lot of reflexive anti -communism.

I want to go to the panel, but I've got to ask one quick last question on this.The Iranians have suffered heavily from sanctions.I believe Iran is the second most sanctioned country in the world after Russia.You have had basically Donald Trump doing a maximum pressure campaign, which you seem to have endorsed, to help bring down the Iranian government or pressure them to the table.We've had harrowing stories of cancer patients, kids not being able to get medicines because of these sanctions.That is collective punishment of the Iranian people for 40 years.

You can't blame people for being pissed at America if you've got 40 years of horrific sanctions.

Well, look, the United States is a superpower.Most countries in the world, everything that's wrong with the United States, you can either draw a line to something we did do or something we didn't do.But that being said, you've highlighted a problem with sanctions on authoritarian regimes.And if you look back at the historical record of sanctions when Saddam Hussein ran Iraq, you saw the same thing, which is Saddam Hussein still has a gold -plated toilet seat.There is an issue here, and I think that we've gotten somewhat better at looking at sanctions, but indeed, one of the problems with applying sanctions to an authoritarian regime is the people in charge get a larger piece of a shrinking pie.

That's a great high -level analysis, but my question is, if you're an Iranian person living under that sanctions regime, wouldn't you be angry at the United States?

You might, and you might also be angry at the people who are generating the behavior that leads to sanctions.We don't sanction countries at random.

Okay.Let me bring in...We might.Sorry.Let me bring in Mohammad Ali Shabani, who runs Amwaj .media.

These protests that happened in January that led to all the violence, we don't know how many people died.Thousands of people, tens of...Lots of numbers being bandied about.David mentioned that may have been one of the reasons that Donald Trump spoke out and boxed himself in.How much of that economic discontent do you attribute to sanctions?How much to Iranian government mismanagement and corruption and repression?

I think it's definitely a combination of the two.I think what we need to know is that the US government since at least 2012 has explicitly basically been saying that we want regime change.We're going to try to immiserate Iranians as much as possible, put as much pressure on them in their daily lives as possible for them to change the regime.That's much cheaper for us.It's much easier than for us to send in our military like in Iraq in 2003.We're just going to make sure that they have no option but to basically revolt against their own rulers to try to have a change in policy because Iran, again, is not a democratic system.

But without this sanctions regime, I find it very difficult that Iranians would rise up and be killed in the thousands because they're feeling that desperate that they have no option but to go out into the streets.I think that would be unlikely.

Let me bring in Barack Sina, who's an Associate Research Fellow at the National Security Think Tank, the Henry Jackson Society.We were talking about Mossadegh and the Shah of Iran.Not only did the U .S.government back the Shah of Iran right up until his fall, but there are now hawks in the West, and I think you're included here, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, who support his son coming back to power, Reza Pahlavi, the son of a former brutal dictator, who is so politically toxic, so lacking in credibility, he can't even get Donald Trump's support.

I will correct you because I didn't advocate for any particular individual to take over.I published a report, Regime Collapse in Iran, a necessity for regional stability with a question mark at the end.And I noted in that report that the opposition in Iran is flat, it's decentralized.You've got some that are Republicans, some that are monarchists.It's very difficult to gauge who actually has the greatest amount of support in Iran amongst those that want to see the regime.

You spoke at a rally that was organised by parliament.

I did, but I didn't advocate ever for the son of the Shah because, you know, it's like the people front of Judea versus the Judean people's front.

Well, on that we may agree.Sanam Naraghi -Andalini is here, British -Iranian civil society activist.When you look at the Iranian future, Barack just said he didn't endorse because there's so many different groups.What does a democratic future of Iran look like to you?

So, first of all, I think we have to recognize that the change that we're seeing in Iran is from the ground up, and the biggest success came during the Women, Life, Freedom movement.It was when women led the freight and they were non -violent, they were on the streets, and they actually got the demands that they want.The fact that you can walk down the streets of Tehran right now, right?anywhere and see women walking around without their hijab, it's not a social issue.It's actually a political issue because the hijab was a ideological symbol of this regime.So people on the ground are doing the change from below.

And economically, the problem with the sanctions is that they started with Clinton in 94.What we've done is we have squeezed the private sector, independent private sector, and we have enabled some pretty egregious elements of the regime to balloon.I just wanted to come back to one point.We keep going back to 1953 and 1979.When the Americans were trying to get rid of the Taliban after 2001 and 9 -11, The Iranian government helped the US government in Afghanistan to get rid of them.We also know that in 2015, 2016, they were working with the US vis -a -vis ISIS in Iraq.

So the idea that there is animosity for generations and that everybody hates each other, this is actually not true.

On that note, we're going to bring in our very patient audience here in London's Conway Hall.Let me first go to this lady here in the black.

So one of the aims of this war was to destroy Iran's nuclear capability, which I'm not sure it's achieved.But now even if Iran gives up its entire nuclear program as part of the deal with the US, do you agree that a lesson Iran has learned from this war is that they don't even need a nuclear program or a nuclear bomb anymore?They can attack the US and its allies economically through the stage of Hormuz.

Yeah, that's exactly right.I think I've mentioned that our Gulf partners are not really concerned about the nuclear program the same way we are because their assumption is if there is a nuclear issue, the United States will take care of it.The thing that they're really concerned about are ballistic missiles.And given the genius of Iranian engineering, they've had increases in accuracy that can achieve a strategic effect against military targets without the need for a nuclear warhead, I would argue.

Let's go back to the audience.Gentleman here in the second row.Yes, you with the blue shirt.

Thank you.Given Iran's crackdown on its own population, including killing, its invasion of of Syria, participation in the gassing of Syrian people and its unprovoked attacks on several Gulf states and targeting Salman Rushdie.Can we agree that the Iranian regime is its threat to its own people, the whole Middle East and beyond?

Yeah.Absolutely.Yes.Let's bring in our panel for a little bit of debate here.Mohammed, what's your response to that question?You're someone who knows the Iranian government.

Does it have the intent, expansionist intent, that a lot of its opponents ascribe to it?

I think you can shape the intent.I disagree with this premise that it's malign, that it's evil at heart and it's unchangeable.That's why I think it's so important to try to work towards changing the intent, towards shifting.

Let's go back to the audience and take some questions.But first, Lady in the Red Jacket.

Yeah, so the lives of Iranian women are often used as an excuse to invade the country.I was wondering, from your perspective, how can we stand in solidarity with Iranian women and pro -democracy activists without falling prey to these problematic propaganda narratives?

That's probably a better question for Sinan, honestly.

So what I would say, and I think we hear, is that if you listen to the women's rights activists, including the ones who are in jail and the women's movement in Iran, they have been anti -war and anti -sanctions from the get -go.And they have spoken very loudly about these issues.And the American government, every once in a while, likes to pick up women's rights as their charge to go forward, as we saw with Afghanistan.And as we saw with Afghanistan, they leave them behind the minute they win.have their military wins or losses, for that matter.So I think that the worst thing that can happen is to mix women's rights with war, because there's never that interest, similarly to human rights.

Do you accept that?Yes.Let me take a step back.You accept that the US uses women's rights to justify wars?No, no.Let me.

No, I don't.But yes.What I'm saying is that What I'm saying is that there's a hierarchy of U .S.interests, and usually human rights, which includes women's rights.The United States sometimes takes those into account, but when it's cited, the applause here shows that most people around the world who study that just don't believe the United States on that point.

So that's something we have to work on, the question is.But sometimes it does, and I can tell you that It does have some influence, but as with other issues of state, they wax and wane, so there's no absolute answer.

Do you want to stand up and wait for the mic?

Yes, you.Speaking about countries having nukes, what can the U .S.do and what can its allies and friends do to limit countries like Iran in their ability to procure the components they need?

make them a threat?Yeah.It's a tough issue.You know, in 1960, there was a US National Intelligence estimate that said in five years, there'd be 60 nuclear countries.So the role of nonproliferation is better than expected, but it's still of concern.So I think You identify people, you identify institutions, you use the levers of statecraft to try to deter it, but you also have to prepare for failure and dealing with the consequences of failure in a state becoming nuclear.

David, as someone who's worked in the Department of Defense, do you think the United States can ever lead a non -proliferation initiative in the Middle East while ignoring the fact that its top ally in the Middle EastEast has secret nuclear weapons?

Yeah, that's always an issue.This is always an issue that's always brought up, but I would just point out that the Other states of the Middle East, you know, Israel's nuclear program became credible in the early 1970s, and we haven't seen nuclear development in most of the other states.Certainly, the states aligned with the United States.So, there is a mixed record, but there are states that are trying to get our attention, Syria under Assad, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and now Iran that are doing it.So, it does complicate issues.There's no doubt about that.

OK, let's go back to the audience.Let's go to...I want to go to the back.Gentleman right at the back.

Yes, you, sir.Right, so one thing we've neglected or we've sidestepped is the issue of Lebanon and Israeli aggression, specifically on civilian targets in Lebanon.Now, if the United States is truly calling the shots, shouldn't it be working towards deterring Israel from pursuing illegal civilian targets within Lebanon during a, quote -unquote, ceasefire, which you say includes skirmishes?Yeah.

Well, the United States deals with this whenever our partners are at war.So the exact same question I was argued by people about Saudi and Emirati actions in Yemen, for example.And there's a general sense that there's a switch somewhere in Washington, we flick it, and the airplanes fall from the sky.The conduct of Israeli war, the Israelis, it's very frustrating because they actually keep to the broad frameworks of the law, but then when you apply subjective issues like military proportionality, they have a broader range of proportionality than, for example, I would allow a U .S.Army soldier to do with it.

II think that questions...

David, just...I mean, the question was about southern Lebanon.I noticed a moment ago you were very passionate about how the JCPOA enabled Iran to do ethnic cleansing in Syria.Those were your words.Yes.We all heard you say them.

Right.Israel is ethnically cleansing Shias in southern Lebanon.Right now, a million people displaced from their homes.I don't see the passion or condemnation from you on that.

Why?Israel is not moving in other people to take those places.

They want to.They said so.They have.

Many Israeli government ministers have said this.In Lebanon.They're importing people from other countries to settle in southern Lebanon.First of all, many Israelis have called for that.

But that's your definition of ethnic cleansing?That's not the definition.

They've driven millions of people out of their homes and said you can't come back.That is ethnic cleansing, especially based on their religious identity.What happened in the western suburbs of Syria where people were moved out and then other people who fought for the Iranians were moved in and took over their houses.

I'm just wondering where is your passionate denunciation for ethnic cleansing in southern Lebanon when our ally doesn't?

Because I don't see ethnic cleansing.What I see is evacuation.

When they call on Christian villages and say you cannot have any Shias in your villages, as the New York Times and Dropsite both reported, that is not ethnic cleansing to say you cannot have any Shias in this part of the country.How is that not ethical?

The issue is permanence.

Yes, they said you cannot come back ever.

That is what the Israeli foreign minister said.I do not accept that that will be the policy.If it is the policy, let's wait for a time and see what happens.I do not think that will happen.I'm going on record now in front of this.

It's happened right now.

I'm going on record right now.When combat operations are over, the Shia will return to southern Lebanon and Israel will not have objections to that.

OK, last question of the night.No pressure.It's going to be amazing.

I want your opinion on the fact that the next, presumably, the Prime Minister of Israel, Naftali Bennett, I'm from Turkey, I'm a lawyer, and he clearly stated that Turkey is the new Iran.If Israel does a preemptive strike against a NATO ally like Turkey, what would be the, obviously we know what would be the U .S.'s stance, but in that situation, What is your military background and what do you think about this whole notion of the fact that preemptive strike and basically who calls the shots at this moment?

I do not think Israel would do a military attack against Turkey and I think that the United States would disapprove of it.Since Erdogan took over in Turkey, the tone has shifted.So there is a less positive view towards Turkey.It's generally not seen as a noble ally to be supported, rather as a problem to be solved.But that will not affect, I think that it is just inconceivable.

It's interesting, you mentioned a moment ago that Israel's had nukes for a while, it hasn't made other people want to get nukes.Lots of countries in the Middle East are now talking about nukes and beyond the nuke because of Israel.If you're in the Turkish government, wouldn't you want to get nukes now when Naftali Bennett is openly threatening you?

Turkey has a nuclear capability.It's joint with the United States.They've had it since the 1960s.You think the U .

S.is going to rescue Turkey from Israel?

I mean, this is beyond insane, but if there was the contemplation of some sort of action of that sort, that the United States would point out that there exists a joint nuclear capability in Turkey.

Last question from me before we wrap.There's a poll done of 40 ,000 people regularly across 15 Arab states.And they asked them last year who is the biggest threat to the region.Forty four percent said Israel in number one place.Twenty one percent said the United States in second place.These are Arab countries.

Yeah.And it's six percent in third place way behindwas Iran.That is a damning indictment of U .S.and Israeli foreign policy.

Damning, damning indictment.from the people on the ground.

Well, you know, one of the burdens of the superpower is we're assumed that we run the global order like a Swiss watch.And if something bad happens, we either did it or we failed to prevent it.So we get blamed for a lot of things.We abandoned US information services in the 90s, and that was a footshot of unimaginable magnitude.We basically have seeded the global information space.So honestly, I'm surprised that we got 21%.

I think that's a better output than I was expecting.

Well, on that very positive note about the reputation of the United States, we'll have to leave it there.Thank you to our audience here in London's Conway Hall.Thank you to our panel of experts who came here tonight.And thank you to you, David DeRoche, for coming on Head to Head tonight and taking my questions.Appreciate it.Thank you so much.

Head to Head will be back on Al Jazeera very soon.Thank you very much and good night.