MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
So let's take the president at his word and consider what it might mean for the U.S. to leave Iran in several weeks with the Islamic republic still intact and still in control of the Strait of Hormuz. We've called Robert Malley for his take. He served as U.S. special envoy to Iran under President Biden. He was also a lead negotiator on the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the deal that President Trump withdrew from during his first term. Mr. Malley, welcome back to the show. Thanks for joining us.
ROBERT MALLEY: Thank you.
MARTIN: So we don't know what the president's going to say tonight, but I am interested in your reaction to the president now saying he only had one goal - stopping Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That's done. So now the U.S. will leave Iran in two to three weeks.
MALLEY: Yeah. Well, first, you asked us to take the president at his word. That's not a very easy thing to do because his words shift every day, as we just heard. So my first advice would be not to obsess about his every utterance because it doesn't reflect either what's happening on the ground or even his own thought process, assuming he has one. But yes, let's assume that he does decide for reasons that were just mentioned that he's going to walk away.
Now, he could legitimately claim at that point that he massively set back Iran's missile program, drone program, nuclear program, all of which is true. Now, on the other side of the ledger, he would leave behind the same regime in place, only more hard line, about 400 kilograms or more of highly enriched uranium still unaccounted for but would now be in the hands of leaders arguably more determined to try to get a bomb, Gulf countries that would now be coexisting with a more emboldened and embittered regime, and the Strait of Hormuz, which, as you just mentioned, had been spoken about quite a bit, which had been open to traffic before the war - would now be under de facto Iranian control. So a pretty negative other side of the ledger. Personally, I still would take that over him continuing to dig in the hole that he's landed in.
MARTIN: Based on what you've seen of the military operation and based on what you know about Iran's nuclear program, do you believe their capability has, in fact, been destroyed?
MALLEY: Not destroyed. I mean, it wasn't obliterated last time. It's not destroyed now. It's true that the U.S. bombed facilities, probably tried to reach more places where they were building centrifuges. I don't think they've been able to do anything about the quantities of highly enriched uranium, which has been one of the issues that the Trump administration has raised all this time. We're not sure exactly where it is. It could be dispersed. It could be deep underground. That's why there's been talk of maybe a commando operation to try to extract it, but that's very difficult. And if the war ends tomorrow with Iran in possession of that highly enriched uranium, people will wonder whether, at some point, they will try to use it to try to not reconstitute the entirety of their program but try to dash for a bomb. I personally don't think that that's an immediate eventuality. But again, he could not credibly claim that he's obliterated, destroyed or whatever word he wants to use about Iran's nuclear program.
MARTIN: I want to go back to something you just said, which is that even with all of the things you've just described, all of the facts on the ground, as you described them, you'd still prefer that the president not continue this course. Now, The Associated Press reports some Gulf states do want the war to continue because Iran hasn't been weakened enough, in their view. Tell us why you don't agree with that.
MALLEY: Well, I think I've seen what happens when the president first creates a mess and then tells the entire world to deal with it. So I shudder to think of what would happen if he decides he actually is going to try to clean it up because he's made such a mess of it already. But it's true that Gulf countries, and this is what I was mentioning earlier - they - on the one - they're torn internally, and they're torn among themselves because they don't like this outcome where Iran is left with a sense of having been vindicated, with a sense that some of their neighbors have participated, whether that's right or wrong. But they have this sense that their neighbors have participated - some of them have participated in the war.
And so I suspect that they're torn between thinking, we need this to end because it's destroying our economic project, because it's leading to instability. And some of them may think, you know what? This is a terrible outcome. It would be great if the Iranian regime could just be really obliterated or changed. Problem is, there's no realistic way to achieve that. So they may have that hope, but it's hard to see how it gets accomplished. And so, yes, I would say, even for their sake, better to end the war sooner than later.
MARTIN: And only 30 seconds left here. What are you going to be listening for tonight in the president's remarks?
MALLEY: Well, first, I'm going to contradict what I told you in my first answer. Despite the fact that I said, don't pay attention, I will be watching. I'll try not to be watching too closely or listening too closely because it may not be - mean all that much. But I just want to see whether he gives us an indication of whether the next step is escalation or trying to find a way out.
MARTIN: That's Robert Malley. He's a former U.S. special envoy for Iran. He's had senior roles in several U.S. administrations, dating back to the 1990s. Mr. Malley, thank you so much for talking with us once again.
MALLEY: Thank you. Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
