But what is most frustrating for the American people is trying to figure out who exactly we're negotiating with. The various diplomats from Iran have made statements saying one thing, but the IRGC has continued to target ships in the Strait of Hormuz, continued to launch missiles at our U.S. bases in places like Jordan, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia. The latest comment coming from the Deputy Foreign Minister of Iran, Qasem Garababadi, had this to say, cut for. Almost all the topics are under discussion.
Yeah. We shall see Michael Makovsky, president and CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, leading DC policy group that follows these things closely. Mike, thank you for joining us. And I hope you appreciate that setup, right? I'm giving the American people kind of the latest.
What President Trump, the vice president, is saying, we heard from Garab Abadi, the deputy Iranian foreign minister, but it's not clear that this time will be different. How do you read this? Yeah, good morning. Thanks for having me. Yeah, I think President Trump's statement was half true and half not in this case.
I think I give him tremendous credit that he's the first president to really seriously try to address a problem that has been building up since 1979.
So he deserves a lot of credit for that.
However, I'm not sure that they fully respect us. They respect our military power, but I'm not sure they respect our will. And I think we look feckless, this on and off thing. And based on reports, I don't know for sure. We haven't seen any agreement yet, but based on various media reports, it seems like the Iranians would have a lot of say on at least on which ships go into the Strait of Hermuz.
And I think if that's the case, and I assume implicitly, I haven't seen much discussion of this, that it would mean a reduction, a removal of our blockade. If that's the case, I think it would be a mistake and it would just be kicking the can down the road. Yeah. While strengthening the regime, you're right about the sort of rinse, wash, and repeat that it feels like, as we all watch this, and certainly someone with your ability to look deeper. But also, I feel like President Trump deserves more credit than he's getting for exhibiting tremendous patience when you consider the fact, as you alluded to, leaders rarely do the hard things because the hard things are just that.
They're hard. And he's taking on Iran. And yet he's demonstrating, I think, a tremendous amount of patience. in in trying to get to some deal, while we see Iran continuing to say one thing, seem to buy time trying to get into more negotiations while doing just the opposite in the same thing they've been doing and attacking. Yeah.
By the way, and I would give President Trump credit on something that he didn't say. Which is that he's also the first president since the Iranian Revolution in 1979 that actually supported the Iranian people. And he did that vociferously, very strongly in early January. No other president showed that. There have been many uprisings of demonstrations in Iran, and basically America's pretty much ignored it.
So I think President Trump deserves a lot of credit for that. He's very serious about preventing nuclear Iran. He's willing to do what's necessary.
So for all that, I give him credit. On the patients' issue, I think it comes with a cost. Uh, and I personally would rather rip the band-aid off and just get over what we want to do. I think there's basically three options we've had: there's a diplomatic option of trying to cut a deal. We've been working on that for four months.
I don't see how it's gotten us really too far, except I think it's kind of weakened our credibility. And I wouldn't trust any agreement with the Iranians because when we do have a deal with them, like we had on the ceasefire in April and the MOU in June, they violated immediately.
So, that's option one. Option two would be something that would require a lot of patience: just keep the pressure on, do the blockade, don't resume military options, hit them back if they hit us, and just keep basically putting more and more pressure on the regime. I think that's a very legitimate option. And if we, if President Trump has the patience for that, I think that's a legitimate thing to do. And then, option three, I think, is resuming major military options.
And I think kind of addressing, I think, their nuclear facilities, making opening up, making sure the Strait of Hermuz is. Is going to be open, and that would require patience to keep that going. And also, I think turning off the lights on the regime by hitting their internal energy facilities. That I think would be if we resume military options. That's how I see the three options.
I don't see the diplomatic approach having really paid off so far.
Well, I think it's made us look, I think, kind of feckless, not just to the Iranians, but to the Chinese and the Russians and to our Gulf Arab allies who are less likely, I think, to trust us going forward.
So, I think there are costs. To what's uh to a pursuit of this diplomatic object. Do you think, Mike, by the way, to the point of the Gulf allies, I mean, whether they're hitting Muafak air base, killing our Americans in Jordan, or they almost continuously have been targeting things like Kuwait and Ali Salim and the Fifth Fleet in Bahrain, and even striking Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia, do you feel like that is backfiring on Iran and creating a coalescing of the Gulf allies to the President's plight? You know, when they f the Iranians first started doing that at the beginning of the war, I thought it was a mistake, I'll admit. But I think that their persistent hitting of this by the way, they even hit the Qataris and our base in Qatar Uh Ellu Dade.
Uh, uh, and they have good relations with the Qataris, but I think they've proven that it's been a very effective lever because it raises oil prices. And President Trump understandably puts pressure on him, especially before midterm's coming up in November.
So I think it's been effective, by the way, if I may add. The only the most secure uh uh our the most secure congregation of uh uh of US or concentration, excuse me, of US forces in the region has been in it uh has been in Israel. There's an air base in Israel, Uda. We've had over 6,000 U.S. personnel there.
They've never been hit. And I think it's kind of an interesting, important contrast, and it's something for us to think about going forward when all this is finished, is our force posture in the region because our bases in the Arab countries have been very vulnerable, but in Israel, they've actually been safe.
So let's talk about, and by the way, on your point about the midterms, it's pretty clear that Iran seems to be thinking that they are holding cards, even though the president says he's not going to let the midterms determine what he's going to do about denuclearizing Iran and opening up the strait. But yet it's pretty clear they think that they are playing against a clock, that they have the upper hand. Do you agree? They do. And I think, you know, reports in the press.
Uh You know, kind of confirmed the Iranian concerns that President Trump does care about that, and they feel that's a soft underbelly for us. I think. I don't like obviously what the Iranians are doing, and these attacks are, you know, against our soldiers are. are awful. Uh but I think they've had a For the Iran from an Iranian perspective, it's been effective.
Let's talk Israel because you mentioned that. And, you know, we just saw Prime Minister Netanyahu in the U.S. meeting with President Trump, who's here for Lindsey Graham's funeral. It's unclear sort of what came of their meeting with regards to the way forward. Do you feel like Israel and the U.S., Netanyahu and Trump, are on the same page?
Or is there daylight there on their goals and the options that they choose going forward? You know, I talked to somebody who was involved in those talks, and you know, he said they were very positive meetings. I think what it helped do, as far as I could gather, obviously I wasn't in the room, but I think it helped give the Israelis a better understanding of where Trump is, and I think it helped give President Trump a better understanding of where the Israelis is.
So I think that's very helpful. Do I think their interest? I don't think, though, the interests are exactly aligned. For America, of course, the Sweder Hammuz. Keeping that open is critical.
It's not the only critical thing. The nuclear, as I would say, is also very important. I think for the Israelis, The Straitor Who Moves has generally been in the American domain, and they're much more focused on the nuclear threat and the threat that the regime poses. And I think you see a difference, I think, in the Israeli and the American population is that I think for the Israelis, who are also frustrated about the war, I think they feel like you got to finish it. And, you know, I think in America, there's more wariness about it, especially given the impact of.
Of oil prices. You know, Mike, we've heard the president talk specifically when we consider the target list of what if we resume full throttle strikes. We've talked about Pickaxe Mountain. The President's mentioned that. Pickaxe Mountain is, of course, where allegedly Iran is trying to reconstitute their nuclear program bearing centrifuges hundreds of feet below the Pickaxe Mountain, some 300 to 400 feet deep, which actually is farther deep than even our GBU-57s, our massive ordnance penetrators that we dropped back last summer during Operation Midnight Hammered, that we might need additional ways of getting to the nuclear material.
And there's a consideration, would special forces have to be involved? Or, you know, exactly how you do it, we don't know. But my question to you is, because you're pretty familiar with the Israeli. Side of things, do you believe that the U.S. could take Pickaxe Mountain without Israeli support?
I think so, although I think the plan would be my understanding of the plan of dealing with PickEx and any nuclear facilities they have to deal with would be a joint operation. And I agree that my understanding is it would be some combination of special forces In the Air Force. And that would mean, you know, troops on the ground. And obviously, there are a lot of risk involved with this. But I've heard from both sides that it seems that.
They feel from the military side, as both the military of both sides, I should say, that they feel that it's a They can manage it. It's obviously the President's responsibility and the Prime Minister of Israel's responsibility to weigh those risks with the objectives. But I tend to trust with the military, I say, and I think they feel they have a good plan, and they've had one all along.
So, but you're right. The challenge of pickaxe is that it's more deeply buried in Ford. And therefore, you probably have to have forces on the ground, probably. We'll see where it goes. Very limited period of time.
We'll see where it goes. We've got to leave it there. Mike Makofsky, thank you for your insight. As always, sir, have a good one. Thank you.
Great talking. Have a good day.
