Six Months Into Biden’s Iran Strategy

How do you solve a problem like Iran? Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the ...

By
22

How do you solve a problem like Iran? Richard Goldberg, a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, is here to talk with Sarah and Steve about the Biden administration’s approach to Iran after six months in office. Was moving away from the Trump administration’s maximum pressure campaign the right move?

Show Notes:

–Goldberg’s piece in The Dispatch

By
Comments (22)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Ben Connelly

    Enjoyed this interview. The Biden admin is delusional on Iran. Wanted to comment to give my support to Goldberg since I think some of the commenters have been unfair to him - mainly on his article last week - saying it’s propaganda. I’m entirely in the camp of people like him and Tom Joscelyn and Dani Pletka. But they sure get grief sometimes from the commenters.

    Collapse
  2. Karl

    I was not a fan of this guest. I felt he made a lot of unsubstantiated claims or provided weak evidence, from the cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union to the efficacy of “maximum pressure”. His 10-minute monologue/intro caused me to fast forward a few times. I don’t think he even made a compelling case for why we should care about Iran besides Israel, which I think, has shown to be quite capable of defending itself.

    I was supportive of going to war in Iraq (both times!) but the last 20 years’ of the U.S. experience in the Middle East - from Libya to Afghanistan - has worn out my appetite for further saber rattling or military activities. I definitely approached this podcast with a skeptical bent but I believed I was willing to be convinced of a different viewpoint. Richard Goldberg did not do that for me.

    Collapse
  3. Bruce Moyer

    So the primary cause of the fall of the USSR was Regan? RF’s credibility was forfeit after that statement. Finally Sarah you were right those maximum pressure deals never work.

    Collapse
    1. Dusty W.

      Not to mention, maximum pressure on the USSR got us... something better with Putin? If Russia and the other post-Soviet states had become thriving democracies I think it would have been a stronger point. I was actually eager to hear his response to that question and it fell flat for me. Still an interesting listen overall to get that viewpoint.

      Collapse
  4. James D

    I never would have pegged Steve for a beach volleyball guy! Very cool!

    Collapse
  5. M M (Lee)

    Sarah, I've noticed that you frequently laugh at what you consider the failure of the Iraq war. However, I always wonder if you have considered what would have happened if we had left Saddam to get atomic bombs. If he had given them out like candy to terrorists around the world, we would be having a very different conservation today. If terrorists get atomic bombs, they will be able to blackmail the U.S. For starters they could demand that American women put on the burqua. I'm amazed how unconcerned American women are about that frightening possibility.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photocircle-angle-nib
      Sarah Isgur vertical-nib Author

      I have never laughed at the war, it’s cost, or why we went. But maybe more to the point, I don’t remember ever referencing the Iraq war in this podcast.

      Collapse
      1. M M (Lee)

        Thank you for the reply. I was referring to minute 25:32 where you said "we have tried invading countries to change their governments. That tends to not work out as well as we would like it to (laugh), topic for another podcast". I inferred (perhaps wrongly) that you were referencing Iraq. I have heard other comments in past podcasts about nation building, which I also assumed (also perhaps wrongly) were in reference to Iraq.

        I got much of my best information during the Iraq war from Steve's writing, in particular about Saddam's direct contacts with disparate terrorist groups just prior to the U.S. invasion (discovered in Saddam's papers after the invasion).

        I've never heard anyone in the mainstream media connect the dots between Saddam's quest for nukes and his direct contacts with terrorist groups, and certainly not about the possibility of nukes getting into the hands of terrorists and how they might use them against the U.S.

        I do want to say, in case it didn't come across in my comment, that I listen to your podcasts almost every day while I walk, so thank you!

        Collapse
  6. DJ

    Does Goldberg have a suggestion as to how "maximum" the pressure can be if China and Russia don't participate? Obama got them to do it in 2010. Then Trump thumbed his nose at the JCPOA and now they don't feel the need to participate.

    Collapse
    1. DJ

      That said, I've come to think the JCPOA is now a dead letter and that Iran will definitely get nukes in the next 3-5 years. We're headed for a North Korea kind of situation.

      Collapse
      1. James D

        Yes, I think unfortunately remaining in the JCPOA was the only chance to stop Iran from obtaining nukes for the immediate future, and for better or worse Trump and Bibi have taken that off the table. North Korea is proof positive that if a deeply ideological authoritarian regime feels that it needs nukes for its security, they will absorb any amount of pain in order to reach that goal, given that they view it as an existential interest.

        Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    David Chen

    Biden's foreign policy reminds me a lot of criticism of 'the right's' response mass shootings: all you people can do is offer thoughts and prayers. Well thoughts and prayers to Israel and Afghanistan cause we don't want to get involved.

    Collapse
    1. James D

      Israel continues to be backed to the hilt by one US administration after another even as they sell our tech to China & we've spent 20 years in Afghanistan propping up a deeply corrupt and ineffectual Afghanistan regime.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Bryan Myrick

    Fantastic report.

    Collapse
  9. That's Hedley!

    I would recommend that when you bring the think tank folks whose job is often to backfill arguments supporting conclusions that are consistent with the think tank's stated goals that you follow it up with an interview from another (preferably credible) think tank (may be CFR?) either as a counter or perhaps just a different take. I don't think the take that we just needed to give the maximum pressure program more time to force Iran to the table is very persuasive, given that Iran has effectively resisted external pressure successfully for 40 years - regardless of the country's cash reserves. But I'm not an expert, although I do like the podcast format and hope that Dispatch can give these difficult foreign affairs issues the serious analysis they deserve beyond the reductive political frame that many of these think tankers and partisan-oriented pundits use (see, e.g., Pletka).

    Collapse
    1. Zach H

      Agreed - I’d be very interested in a follow-up interview with someone like Jeffrey Lewis, who is a strong proponent of the JCPOA on the grounds that it would be effective at presenting nuclear development. I think that interviewing across the aisle to get contrasting perspective on foreign policy issues would be in the finest (short though they are) traditions of the Dispatch.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Ellison

      I'm afraid that their foreign policy content is disappointedly one sided. They seem to be making no attempt to bring in different view points.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Evan Donovan

        It doesn't surprise me. TD is one of the few remaining outlets defending the totality of 80-00s Republican fusionism - you can see that in the combo of French's social commentary, Linicome on economics, and basically everyone on foreign policy. They also seem to view their role as providing an editorial outlet for the conservative think tanks that are currently out of step with the Republican Party.

        I initially subscribed because they had better criticism of Trump that you could get from liberals, who did often seem deranged by him. However, I've kept up my subscription for French's editorials, especially those on on faith, race, criminal justice, and the culture, an occasional listen to Advisory Opinions, the format and level-headedness of the Morning Dispatch news summaries, and for the reasoned civility of the comments section.

        But I skip most of the podcasts and editorials on foreign policy because I can predict their conclusion before they start

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Sad Trombone

        Seems to me The Dispatch is one lonely voice against the stampeding lemmings of the MSM, and this discordant note infuriates those that want another spoonful of the party line.

        Collapse
      3. James D

        Personally, although I am of a different school of thought on foreign policy these days, I don't mind that TD typically presents more of the "old-school" 2000s conservative outlook on it. Given that that perspective is very much so out of fashion these days in the mainstream of both parties, I appreciate still being exposed to it, even though I tend to disagree with the conclusions.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Deb4711

      Your description of "the think tank folks whose job is often to backfill arguments supporting conclusions that are consistent with the think tank's stated goals" perfectly captures my objection to much of TD's foreign policy reporting. It's definitely applicable to Pletka, and also Jocelyn. Jocelyn also has the irritating habit of equating the Taliban with al Qa'ida. I think he does it to scare his readers into taking the Taliban seriously -- which is not necessary with this audience.

      Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Rajeev

      Yeah this has been a mantra for more than a decade. They insist more sanctions leads to greater desire from Iran to engage in denuclearization talks. However, the opposite has been true ... every time more sanctions are implemented the nuclear program grows. Without a military intervention or an agreement like the one we pulled out of, the nuclear program will grow. They had a chance to have a Libya style deal back in the George W. Bush years but by the time Obama took office the nuclear infrastructure was so massive that no deal was going to completely get rid of the nuclear infrastructure Iran has built up.

      Collapse