The Greenfield Report with Henry R. Greenfield
Welcome to "The Greenfield Reportwith Henry R. Greenfield," where 50+ years of world travels across 10 countries shape insightful takes on current geopolitical events. Join Robert for eye-opening global reports with practical local solutions, and enjoy guest appearances offering fresh perspectives. Embark on a journey of understanding and lively discussion.
The Greenfield Report with Henry R. Greenfield
Episode 23- Nuclear Dominoes: Inside the Iran-Israel Showdown. With Marc Finaud
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Nuclear weapons expert Mark Finaud returns to the Greenfield Report for a timely examination of the expanding conflict between Israel, Iran, and now the United States. What began with the October 7th Hamas attacks has evolved into a dangerous new phase of warfare, featuring devastating Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities and unprecedented American military involvement.
Finaud brilliantly demystifies the technical aspects of nuclear weapons development that underpin this crisis. From explaining the difference between uranium and plutonium pathways to breaking down the critical distinction between various enrichment levels, he provides listeners with essential knowledge often missing from mainstream coverage. Perhaps most surprising is his revelation that the United States initially established Iran's nuclear program in the 1950s during the Shah's pro-Western regime – a historical irony that frames the dramatic reversal in relations following the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The conversation explores Iran's strategic miscalculations that led to its current vulnerability. Despite warnings from international experts, Tehran remained trapped in a rigid tit-for-tat mentality following Trump's 2018 withdrawal from the JCPOA nuclear agreement. This failure to adapt has culminated in Israel's devastating air campaign – demonstrating complete air superiority as not a single Israeli aircraft has been lost while Iran's nuclear infrastructure suffers massive damage from American-supplied bunker-busting bombs.
Finaud offers a provocative analysis of Netanyahu's motivations, suggesting the Israeli leader has consistently amplified the Iranian nuclear threat primarily to prevent Palestinian statehood, which would threaten his political coalition. As this conflict continues to escalate, potentially toward regime change in Tehran, listeners gain invaluable context for understanding not just how we arrived at this dangerous moment, but what might come next in this rapidly evolving crisis.
Join us for our next episode as we continue tracking these developments and their implications for global security.
Introduction to the Greenfield Report
Speaker 1Welcome to the Greenfield Report with Henry R Greenfield , your gateway to understanding today's geopolitical landscape . With 50 years of experience across 10 countries , henry shares expert insights on world affairs , offering practical solutions and engaging guest perspectives . Dive into the Greenfield Report for lively discussions on the issues that matter .
Speaker 2This is Henry R Greenfield , with a special report today , as we bring back Mark Fino , whose expertise in nuclear proliferation and controls specific to the JCPOA , as well as his decades in diplomacy , makes him the ideal person to help us unravel the latest on what is clearly now a war between at least
Background on Israel-Iran War
Speaker 2three parties . First , however , let us look at some background to catch us all up . It was the Israelis who attacked Iran after years of being tormented by Iran's various proxies in the region , most notably Hamas and the horrific attack on October 7 , 2023 . Then , of course , there was Hezbollah and the infamous exploding pagers , followed by the United States attacking or let's say counterattacking the Houthis out in the Persian Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz leading to the Suez Canal , the lifeline for Europe and everything from oil from the Middle East to goods from Asia , especially China , by the way , let's talk about just for a moment before we get going . The wild card is China's dependence on the Straits of Hormuz , as they receive up to 40% of their daily oil use via that very narrow passage , with 5.4 million barrels a day heading to China , along with another 15 million barrels to Europe and the rest of the world .
Speaker 2But back to our story . Should we not forget to mention the various militias ? And then Syria . And what is the common thread in all of these over the last few months ? Well , israel has , one by one , with the assistance of the United States , wiped them out or seriously degraded their potential to hurt Israel in any meaningful way .
Speaker 2Thus , when Israel said it was time to hit Iran with the long-awaited attack on various senior military and nuclear officials , with drones smuggled in as well as an aerial and missile bombardment , it was a moment that President Donald J Trump , the self-proclaimed man of peace , who one day was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize by Pakistan , who instantly took it back the next day after well , let's call it like it is he couldn't pass up the wide open skies over Iran for the most ambitious use of B-2 bombers and their bunker busters in history . These one-of-a-kind 30,000 pound bombs appeared to have all but taken out all three Iranian nuclear installations , including the infamous mountain known as Fordow . So welcome back , mark . I hope you can help figure us out . Help us figure out what is going to happen next as the world holds its press at the pace and scope of this conflict .
Speaker 3Hello Bob , and thank you again for the kind invitation . You outlined , of course , this complex issue
The Science of Nuclear Weapons
Speaker 3perhaps to make it easier for your listeners to understand the current situation , and of course I don't have the ambition of predicting the future because we are in this phase of complete uncertainty . But it's important to understand the current situation by looking back at history . And perhaps even before doing so , and perhaps even before doing so , people probably need some sort of technical background . And I found this when I am regularly interviewed or I hear other so-called experts speak on this issue there's a lack of basic understanding of the technical aspects . So let me just recall how we make a nuclear bomb , a nuclear explosive device needs you know , there are two paths and historically they have been followed . One is the uranium path . That means that you need to produce a sufficient quantity of so-called fissile material , which means that these atoms can be separated by being bombarded with neutrons . So that's the sort of basic type of nuclear , of actually atomic bomb that was manufactured by the United States , tested in 1945 and used against Hiroshima , sort of fairly simple system that uses fission , so separation of atoms , producing of course huge explosions , heat blasts and of course radioactivity . Now the other path is plutonium . Now plutonium , contrary to uranium , is not something that you find in nature , it's not a mineral , it's the result of a chemical process which can be obtained by reprocessing uranium and extracting this substance called plutonium , and then you can use it to make a plutonium bomb of the type that was used by the US against Nagasaki . So you have the uranium bomb and then the plutonium bomb . Now , of course , they caused a lot of damage , but let's remember that Hiroshima bomb was something like 21 kilotons , thousands of tons of equivalent TNT explosive , and Nagasaki was 21 . So , hiroshima , 15 kilotonsoshima , 15 kilotons , nagasaki , 21 kilotons . Now , of course , then there was a second generation . Beyond atomic weapons , we entered the era of hydrogen bombs or nuclear bombs that actually were based on the combination of fission used in uranium bombs , and the separation , the fusion , that means concentration , that can be done by a plutonium ball . So by combining both , you had a sort of two-stage reaction first fission and then fusion , and the result is a much powerful , much more powerful explosion , explosion . And that's why we now we talk about this generation of nuclear weapons of hundreds of kilotons , if not megatons , millions of tons of explosives .
Speaker 3Now to come back to the Iranian file the Iranian issue
Iran's Nuclear Program History
Speaker 3case . Interestingly enough and most people probably in the United States don't know this is that the first country that assisted Iran to create , to establish its nuclear program was the United States . Back in the 50s , when Iran , under the Shah was , was , of course , an ally of the United States as part of the containment of the Soviet Union and , by the way , he was also an ally of Israel and Turkey . You had the three non-Arab countries in the Middle East joining forces against the Arab countries . So 1957 , the United States provides a research reactor to Iran , which requires high enriched uranium .
Speaker 3So what's the difference between low enriched and high enriched ? We consider , the experts , consider that below 5% of enrichment you are in the category of low enriched uranium . If you move towards 20% , you're in a category of high enriched uranium , and then you can go up to 90% , which is called weapons grade level . Now enrichment what does this mean ? You know , most people you know hear this term 100 times per day , but they don't have the slightest idea what it means physically . So because natural uranium contains only a very small quantity , less than 1% of the isotope needed for a nuclear explosion , which is called uranium-235 .
Speaker 3If you want to concentrate this type of isotope . You need to . There are several techniques , but the most widely used is centrifuges . So first you convert the uranium ore into a gas form and then this gas is introduced in these cylinders that spin very quickly and , by the laws of physics and by the laws of physics , managed to concentrate the content of uranium-235 . And so , by then , adding the result of this operation from all these centrifuges and , by the way , at one stage Iran had 12,000 of these so you can imagine the result , the production , the stockpile that you get , which , the more you have , of course , can help you to move the amount of high enriched URM from 5 to 20 to 60 to 90% . So that's why it's important to concentrate to control both the level of enrichment and this is what the 2015 agreement , jcpoa did and also the stockpile , the result , because the more stockpile you have , the more you can process towards high , the most weapons grade level .
Speaker 2Okay . So , mark , if we take it there to 2015 , okay , which I think that's what you're moving towards here . So you believe that in 2015 , the JCPOA actually would have accomplished what you're saying , which is to limit the enrichment levels to make sure that it was only used for civilian purposes , or did it not , because there's a lot of controversy around that ? Did Trump make a mistake by pulling out in 2018 , or should he have just left this go , because the enrichment levels would have never gotten there ? What is your view on that ?
Speaker 3Yes , again , to understand this agreement , you have to go back a little bit in history , because it started at a very important , interesting juncture in 2003, . After the invasion of Iraq by the United States . And , by the way , you remember that one of the reasons or pretext for invasion was that Iran had weapons of mass destruction . And this turned out to be false because this program had been already dismantled by the United Nations . But , in any case , this is important to understand the Iranian approach to this . There has been evidence that they started being interested in nuclear weapons in terms of research technology , but because Saddam Hussein , who was their arch enemy and the main reason why they were afraid of nuclear weapons . They were not so afraid of Israeli nuclear weapons , but they were mostly concerned with their neighbors .
Speaker 2And we need to note why because they fought a war , saddam Hussein and they share a common border .
Speaker 3Unlike Israel there's no common border , so they had this war for eight years and they were attacked with chemical weapons by Saddam Hussein . So they had a very bad memory of this relationship and therefore they thought that perhaps if they did what Saddam Hussein was preparing to do , to build up a nuclear weapons program , then perhaps they would feel safer . Now , after the defeat of Saddam Hussein , of course , they didn't see any reason anymore . So this has been confirmed again by the intelligence community and then by the IEA , the International Atomic Energy Agency , that their interest in nuclear weapons stopped in 2003 . But at that time , of course , it was still uncertain and the Europeans , the three European countries , france , uk and Germany , were really afraid . And you remember that the EU was split about the Iraq invasion . France , germany were opposed , the UK followed Bush and so at the same time all EU countries were concerned about what was aired in Washington . You know the neoconservatives who were using this theory of preemptive war , spread of democracy , domino theory .
Speaker 3After Iraq it will be the turn of Iran and for the Europeans , you know , that was a major source of concern because , of course , the geographic proximity , the economic interest , and therefore they were actually rushed to Tehran to negotiate the first deal , to negotiate a first deal which was confirmed then in Paris , called the Paris Agreement , where Iran agreed because it was of course under international pressure agreed to suspend any activity dealing with enrichment of uranium , just to reassure , give sign of good faith . But they said you know , this technology is a sort of inherent right . You know , we've signed and ratified the Treaty of Non-Proliferation . Our supreme leader pulled out a fatwa against nuclear weapons , as you know , contrary to Islam . So we don't have any intentions and we're ready to accept all sorts of restrictions , but we still want to be able to use this technology of uranium enrichment at a low level , just for peaceful , civilian purposes .
Speaker 3Now this agreement was followed by an enlargement of this group of negotiation because the EU felt , you know , a little bit isolated . So they convinced the US , russia and China to join , and that was called the P5 plus one , because Germany was still part of this coup . Now they started to negotiate with a very radical position , which now you can hear some reminiscence about , which is called zero enrichment . There was so much distrust about Iran's intention that the position of the whole international community , the P5 plus one , was to say , ok , now
JCPOA and International Negotiations
Speaker 3we cannot tolerate any activity related to enrichment , and of course that also included reprocessing of spent fuel to be able to isolate plutonium , so that there is no risk of developing a nuclear weapon . Now for Iran . That was always a red line , even made tougher with the election of the .
Speaker 2A clarifying question , though , because you know we're talking about Iran and , let's face it , there's other countries . North Korea has the bomb , obviously . Israel , Pakistan has the bomb , so other countries have not necessarily been stopped from having a nuclear weapon . And so my question is to you why has there been so much focus on Iran , especially after Saddam Hussein was taken out ? Everybody came to know that that was a complete wrong assumption and that that led to a horrific war for the US and for the Iraqi people . We all know Saddam Hussein was a bad guy , but he did not have a nuclear weapons program . What made it so particular to Iran to focus on Iran and to say never let them get the bomb ? Is it just that the death to America and being Ayatollahs and being Shiites and whatever else you want to throw in there , just made Iran really the pariah state ? I'm just asking you for your opinion on this , because it seems to me that Iran , of all the countries , has been singled out to say no , never for a nuclear weapon .
Speaker 3Yeah , again , it's important to go back a little bit in time . Under the Shah , as we remember , the United States supported and cooperated with Iran and even helped Iran get a nuclear program to start with , program to start with . In 1974 , india exploded its first nuclear device , which you know called peaceful , but that was confirmed that this was a nuclear weapon . And Iran , the Shah at the time , said well , maybe it will be a sort of a sign of being a big power in terms of status to have a nuclear weapon , even if we don't have immediate enemies more in terms of status to be reckoned with , to be respected , it to be respected . But of course the United States was not very happy with this option and they convinced the Shah of giving it up . So the Shah made at that time a very interesting proposal . He said okay , we're ready to give up the nuclear option , but of course we want to modernize our country , so we want to develop nuclear energy . But we don't want , if we give up nuclear weapons , we don't want anyone else in the region to have nuclear weapons . And of course they had Israel in mind and this is why they proposed officially to the United Nations to have the Middle East declared a nuclear weapon-free zone , as it already existed , you know , in Latin America and then later in South Pacific , in Southeast Asia , in Africa and now Central Asia . You know there is a whole , actually most of the southern hemisphere is considered nuclear weapons free because all the countries in those regions agreed , you know , they signed a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons . So Iran , you know , made this proposal which was supported immediately by Egypt because Egypt also was frustrated of having given up its own nuclear weapons program under the US pressure and , you know , with the promise that the US would put pressure on Israel to follow suit , which of course never happened . Of course Israel was under defensive because of its policy of capacity , of not recognizing that it has nuclear weapons . So it's sort of opposed the principle , the idea , egyptians actually taking into account Israeli objections that you know they are surrounded by hostile countries which have other weapons of mass destruction chemical , biological .
Speaker 3Then Egypt proposed to include all these weapons of mass destruction in addition to nuclear weapons in the treaty . Now what's interesting ? Of course , then Israel kept opposing that to a certain extent . Then there was a period when at the UN , the resolution in favor of this treaty was accepted by Israel . There was no vote but there was no objection . It's called consensus and until you know , maybe the early 2000s , there was this idea of building up consensus on this project . But of course for Israel , you know , it was always awkward because they didn't recognize having nuclear weapons . And there were attempts within the Treaty of Non-Proliferation , to which Israel is not a member , to have a conference to start discussions , and that was boycotted or was actually vetoed by the United States at the Israeli initiative . And so then the Egyptians more recently decided to transfer this project to the United Nations General Assembly , where they have a majority and where there is no veto . So that was adopted and that was a very clever diplomatic move . And now you have a negotiation going on every month of November for two weeks at the UN in New York Arab countries plus Iran , plus members of the Security Council , except the United States , and of course without Israel . They negotiate a treaty and this is supposed to happen until there is an agreement on a treaty . So let's end .
Speaker 3This parenthesis towards Iran was in a sense matched by the distrust by Iran towards Western countries , because what happened in 1979 , the revolution , all the contracts , including a contract of enrichment of uranium in a European consortium , to which Iran had bought a share of 10% , and the contract with Germany to build the first power plant , and the supply of high-enriched uranium by the United States for the research reactor . All this was stopped and the US put a lot of pressure on the other partners , china and of course the IEA , even Argentina that agreed to substitute the US to supply the high-rich uranium for the reactor . But Argentina resisted this pressure . So , in any case , whenever it was sort of caught red-handed with a non-declared program that raised suspicions , iran said but it's a response to your sanctions , your isolation . We don't get the fuel we need for our research reactor , for our power plant , so we have to start indigenous production . So that was one of the first arguments .
Speaker 2So , Mark , if we look at that , I think actually you're encapsulating the entire issue here , which is this there's a long history between the various parties which has evolved over time . Between the various parties which has evolved over time . You know , Iran was an ally with the Shah of Israel and the United States . Obviously , thereafter , not at all . You mentioned the issue about , you know , not being allowed to carry on with their nuclear , peaceful nuclear program . Obviously , the way the Americans look at it is 1979 , there's the Iran hostage crisis , so there's a lot of historical trauma and anger on all sides . Okay , so , if you fast forward this to what we're really talking about here today , to what we're really talking about here today , it seems to me that Iran has missed the pivotal moment , which is really what I want to focus on , if we can , which is this , and I want to ask you why In other words , if these guys have been so good at maneuvering various people back and forth United Nations with this program that you talk about in Egypt and working together with various parties , how is it that , since October 7th 2023 , when Hamas attacked Israel , how is it that Iran has completely , every single time , missed the signals ?
Speaker 2They missed the signals on the pagers with Hezbollah . They missed the signals on what Israel and Netanyahu would do , and obviously we know that Netanyahu wants to keep his job and Netanyahu is going to keep on going . In my view , Netanyahu is going to keep on going as long as he can and there's no one to stop them . So why is it that the Iranian you know the Revolutionary Guard and the Ayatollah and all of his mullahs how could they have missed all of this , step after step after step , and now be completely ? Everything that you have said has now been completely blown away and no one's paying attention at all anymore . Now they're talking about regime change . How is it that iran missed it so badly ?
Speaker 3now . First we have to go back to uh again , the uh . The starting point . Why was where the europeans and , and to some extent us , russia , china concern and try to some extent US and Russia , china concerned and tried to avoid having a nuclear weapon in the hands of the Islamist regime ? Well , seen from Western eyes , of course , this is a non-rational , non-reliable regime with , of course , a record of exporting the revolution through the West and Iran . Iran had a very reliable air force which then became obsolete and to substitute this , iran invested in the missiles .
Speaker 3So the second concern , apart from letting such a regime have a very dangerous weapon , was also the risk of regional proliferation of the domino theory , because it was no secret that Saudi Arabia said if Iran gets the bond , we get the bond . We don't know how , because they never invested in a nuclear program , they're only starting now . Maybe because
Why Iran Was Singled Out
Speaker 3they funded the Pakistani bomb , maybe they expected to get something in return , but also , you know , Egypt , turkey , et cetera , turkey , etc . So the risk was massive proliferation with , of course , always reacted because of this rivalry , this antagonism , with both the United States since 1979 and Israel . You know , in the Islamist propaganda they called the US Great Satan and Israel the Small Satan . So in a sense , they were more afraid of the US than of Israel . But and this is why they , you know , they kept this propaganda about ending the Zionist regime , ending the Zionist regime , which , of course , is very ambiguous , but it was mostly for internal consumption and was never actually translated in an actual strategy of attacking Israel or , you know , destroying Israel .
Speaker 3But , in any case , the doctrine , the principle , the strategy of Iran when it built its nuclear program was that if it got attacked , mostly by Israel and this happened several times in the region , like in Syria , where Hezbollah was supporting the Assad regime , you had direct confrontation between Hezbollah , supported by Iran , and Israel . And then it happened in Iraq , also with the Shiite militias , shiite militias . And then , of course , it happened also in Iran , when sabotage of facilities , targeted killings of scientists were , of , say , secret war , low-key war , but then it started to escalate and actually , whenever such events happened , there was , you know , a sort of traditional reflex of revenge . This is part , this is cultural , I would say , in the region . And you know , they invented the law of one eye for one eye and , in terms of image , domestically , internationally , whenever they are attacked , they feel they have to respond .
Speaker 2So let me interrupt you to say this . That's exactly my point , which is this that system was working , well , obviously , from October 7th 2023 , that was not working . So my question to you is why was there no backup plan for Iran ? Did they think that they really could negotiate their way out of this with Trump ? I mean , you've worked with the , the Iranians . What ? What was it for them ? That they were not recognizing reality ? That's what my question to you is , because now they are prostrate . They are not just on the back foot , they are talking about losing . You know everything . Why did they miss this ? Was it that they are so , you know , into ? I don't know what's your answer . What is ?
Speaker 3your feeling ? Well , again you have to go back to Trump's withdrawal from the JCPOA . That was a big shock , not only for Iran but for the whole international community , the countries that had spent 12 years actually negotiating that agreement , which was based on reciprocity , and again , throughout the process of negotiation . I said initially the starting point was zero enrichment , which was not realistic . And this is when ElBaradei , the director general of the IEA from Egypt at that time , proposed a deal , a compromise , saying let's allow Iran to enrich uranium at a low level , let's guarantee supply of the fuel they need , and all this will be under the control of the IAEA . But the US rejected that . Obama tried another option , which was called a fuel swap deal , with Brazil and Turkey , and again that didn't work out . But in any case , the final agreement was based on reciprocity , meaning tit for tat , iran accepts to restrict its nuclear program under very strict conditions and verification unprecedented . No other country had accepted such an intrusive verification system and in exchange , sanctions are lifted . So that worked for four years . Actually , you know there are 15 quarterly reports by the IAEA , with inspectors on the ground , 24-hour CCTVs , et cetera , which said Iran did exactly what was required of it . You know , reducing the number of centrifuges , reducing the level of enrichment down , blending or exporting the excessive stockpile , etc . And I worked for four years .
Speaker 3Then Trump came and , in spite of the quarterly certification by the IAEA that Iran was complying , trump said I don't care , it's not in our national interest , and this is the worst agreement , meaning it was signed by Obama and therefore now we reimpose sanctions . But he didn't say you know , what do we prefer ? You know , mike Pompeo put 12 conditions , which , of course , none of which was realistic . Again , it was even worse than zero enrichment . And of course it was a big shock in Iran Institute of Foreign Affairs to actually with a group of Europeans and experts from an Arab country , because the Iranians were just at a loss , they were puzzled and they didn't know what to do , so they asked for advice . So most of us said don't be on the defensive . You have a good record , you have been complying with the agreement , so let's throw the ball back into the camp of the US and Israel so you can maybe give more signs of goodwill , like there is this additional protocol . There was the result again of Saddam Hussein cheating with the IEA , you know , having a clandestine program . So therefore now you have this additional protocol where the agency is allowed to inspect even undeclared facilities or activities . So this is a sign of goodwill .
Speaker 3And Iran signed that protocol . But the parliament , which is usually more conservative , didn't ratify it . So I said ratify the additional protocol . And , by the way , they had this promise made in the JCPOA .
Speaker 3Then there is the treaty , the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty , where countries want to prevent nuclear testing , and the problem with that treaty it was adopted in 1996 . Iran signed it , israel signed it , egypt signed it , but none of them ratified it , like the United States that signed it but didn't ratify it . Some of the other nuclear powers , like India , pakistan , north Korea , didn't sign and therefore the treaty cannot enter into force , although it already has a verification agency . So I said , as a sign of goodwill , again you show that you don't want nuclear weapons , you don't want to test nuclear weapons . And the cherry on the cake would be even to sign the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons to show that you don't want nuclear weapons .
Speaker 3It's interesting to show their mentality . Now they responded by saying that actually the next day the foreign minister , jawad Zarif , said OK , we're ready to ratify the additional protocol if the US leaves all the sanctions , which is , of course , not balanced in diplomatic terms . So they always react in terms of tit for tat . We've had a targeted killing , we respond by increasing the level of enrichment to 60% , and you know that's how they function and that's how they were caught in this sort of vicious circle , in this escalation that led to the current situation , and therefore they were trapped . They didn't realize that they were going over the board , that they were , you know , even excuse the expression they were pissing the Europeans as well and , of course , in the meantime , trump , of course convinced and even manipulated by Netanyahu , decided this new phase .
Speaker 2It's interesting also in terms of your own personal participation there . So bottom line is you're saying you provided them with a plan B which was OK , trump may walk out of the JCPOA , but you gave them the plan B . They were following the plan B CPOA but you gave them the plan B . They were following the plan B and while they were continuing to support all their proxies in the region , in effect , they were not really convinced . I guess you're saying that Israel would attack them A and that B , that Trump would go with the ultimate , which is obviously these 30,000 pound bunker busters . So they were not really . I guess you're saying they were not prepared for that . Is that right ?
Speaker 3Yes , because in a sense they remained in their logic , in their bubble , saying you know , we respond to Trump's withdrawal by increasing the level of enrichment , etc . In the hope that either the Europeans will help us mediate and you know , europeans tried their best but of course they never convinced Trump . Under Biden the Europeans almost reached a deal between the US and Iran , but that was stopped by the war in Ukraine . So the Iranians , in a sense , were caught in their own trap .
Iran's Strategic Miscalculations
Speaker 3Signs of a risk of escalation . When Israel attacked the Iranian consulate in Damascus before the takeover of the revolution I mean , they were still under Assad that was felt almost like a blow on Iranian soil , which of course , legally speaking is not the case , but anyway . So they decided to respond and started to attack Israeli territory . The second scale , if you like , step in the escalation was the assassination by Israel of the head of Hamas in Tehran , targeted killing but without collateral damage , which showed the Israeli capacity , but again a blow to the image of Iran being a strong nation with air defense systems etc . So again the Iranians responded by attacking Israeli territory and that started , you know . Of course they also , after the US had killed Soleimani in Iraq , they also attacked military bases , us military bases in Iraq , but every time this was calibrated not to cause massive casualties or damage . And the same with Israel , attacks on Israel .
Speaker 3But of course , that couldn't stop the escalation because Israel had been preparing , had been planning this attack and was waiting for the right time , right opportunity , after perhaps a couple of events triggered the attack First , the announcement that Trump was ready to negotiate with Iran , which probably was a surprise for Netanyahu , to negotiate with Iran , which probably was a surprise for Netanyahu .
Speaker 3And second , the plan for French-Saudi conference on the Palestinian state , which , of course , would have been very embarrassing for Israel . And yes , and then , finally , the report from the IAEA . That was expected , because the IAEA reports regularly on the status and in this case the report was clear , you know , for anyone who read this report , the conclusion was that Iran is not near any stage of manufacturing a nuclear weapon , but it has violated its obligations , its commitments in terms of notification of even past experiments . That could have been suspicious , but that was really part of the phase which was concluded in 2003 . So , in any case , netanyahu took this opportunity to launch this attack , you know , with the pretext of you know , israel is really now very close to a ball .
Speaker 2So let me give you my view on that . Okay , so , thank you for all of that explanation , which , I'm sorry to say , I think now what you're talking more about is kind of historical things that people are going to write books about . But I think we're in a different world now , mark , and that's why I want to hear your view on this , which is this I believe that we're in a view now , a world now , mark , and that's why I want to hear your view on this which is this I believe that we're in a view now , a world now , where people like Netanyahu has decided his way forward to remain in power is essentially to keep going , and no one is going to stop him , and he has by far the most effective secret service spies in the world in Mossad I think they're probably better than the United States , better than anybody , and they are diligent , they're well organized and they've shown consistently that's my point , consistently over the last three or four years what they can do . So now we are at the point here where we've used the bunker busters we have , you know , today , israel followed up with more bombs . Now they're starting to bomb prisons , they're starting to do selected targets .
Speaker 2So here's the real question how long can Iran hold out while there is no air defense ? This is not even World War II , where you know the Allies could go over Germany , but they still lost a lot of planes , right to the very end . Right , there's not a single . You know , not a shot was fired , they said , towards the B-2s . Israel has not lost a plane . This is worse than the Six-day war of the 1967 war . This is the worst wipeout that has happened by the Israelis towards anyone since the 67-year war , and then also now they've got Donald Trump , and so my question to you is how long can they last before they have to give in ? How long before they're going to have
Future Implications and Closing Thoughts
Speaker 2regime change ? They're not ready to have sustained bombing of people in the streets and the Israelis clearly are not going to stop . So what is the end game here ?
Speaker 3Okay , maybe two points , maybe one more general and one specific to Israel . More general and one specific to Israel . The general point is , as you said , we are in a different world , but it hasn't started now or even October 7th . We've had many cases in the last decades of use of force , including against civilians massive casualties Afghanistan , syria , libya , of course , iraq , etc . By the United States or Western countries and Russia , of course , invading Ukraine with massive destruction , massive casualties of civilians . So the whole system , the international system put into place after the Second World War , the rule of law , international humanitarian law to protect civilian victims of conflict , this is , of course , being blown apart by these countries , big powers that want to feel that they are above the law . That's a general point . And of course , israel is part of this , as we have seen in Gaza massive destructions , killing of children , women , destruction of hospitals . So that is a general point . So we have this sort of confrontation between the rule of law and the rule of force . That's a general point . Israel also is a case in point because , you know , I was posted as a French diplomat for four years in Israel . It's a fascinating country and of course they still have this trauma of the Holocaust , and so they live in this heritage . But , at the same time , I would say there are a number of people who realize that peace cannot be achieved by force , that you need , at one stage , to talk to your neighbors and make your enemies become your friends , otherwise they will continue to attack you . So the problem , and again , I had a chance to go back to Israel precisely after the JCPOA was concluded and it was interesting to speak with my former contacts from the security establishments Army , mossad , etc . And they said very clearly and this was , of course , a private meeting and they said very clearly this agreement eliminates an existential threat against Israel . So that's why it's the best agreement that Israel could hope for , because , you know , thanks to this agreement , iran will never get a nuclear weapon . Iran will never get a nuclear weapon . Now , of course , netanyahu was very critical of the JCPOA and convinced Trump eventually to withdraw from that agreement , but not because the agreement was considered as weak or insufficient . With , you know , sunset closets . They didn't , you know , use this argument .
Speaker 3The main motive for Netanyahu was that , throughout his whole career , he excluded any peace agreements with the Palestinians that would lead to a Palestinian state , because he knew that this would be the end of his career , any coalition with the right-wing parties . So , therefore , to achieve this goal , this sort of negative goal , to prevent a Palestinian state , he needed the perfect enemy . The best enemy he could find was Iran perfect enemy . The best enemy he could find was Iran and keeping you know , hyping the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon , which would mean a dent in the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the region . So that's why he's sort of you know , and now you can hear , you can see all these videos , a compilation of many videos , where Netanyahu announced to the UN you know , iran is on the verge of having nuclear weapons . That was 15 years ago . Okay , so that was a constant obsession for him and he wanted to express this .
Speaker 2Well , today we have been speaking with Mark Fino , as you can see , a long-term expert on the Iran-Israel crisis , which has erupted into a massive war that has now brought in the United States of America . We've also seen that the United States , with its power , can reach anywhere into the world . This has upset and changed the equation in that part of the world where they do not . While they do not share common borders Israel and Iran , these two enemies , will continue to fight it out . We will come back to Mark in the near future and follow up on this and see , in fact , if there is regime change , and then , of course , answer the ultimate issue , which is will and when will Iran bring back their nuclear program and will it result in some type of dirty bomb or some other type of situation that will imperil the people of the Middle East ? This is Henry R Greenfield thanking Mark Fino and signing off .
Speaker 1Thank you for joining us on the Greenfield Report with Henry R Greenfield . We hope today's insights into the ever-shifting geopolitical landscape have sparked your curiosity and broadened your perspective . Stay connected with us for more in-depth discussions and expert solutions . Until next time , keep exploring the world beyond the headlines .