Could the Iran war lead to WWIII?

A new podcast hosted by me pianist Maniacs. Each episode will speak with a special guest, listen to musical gems, play music inspired games, and answer questions from our listeners. The first episode drops March 4th.

Listen on the NPR app. This is Fresh Air, I'm Terry Gross. Iran's new supreme leader, Morstal Bachamani, is the son of the former supreme leader, Ayatollah Amani, who was killed in an Israeli attack at the start of the war.

“How does Morstal Bacham pair with his father, and what kind of leader might he be?”

Before the war, the Ayatollah's regime massacred thousands of protesters. President Trump sent the protesters this message, "When we're finished, take over your government, it will be yours to take." But has this war helped the protesters, and are we on the verge of World War 3? Those are some of the questions my guest, Kareem Sajipur will address.

He's one of America's leading experts on Iran. He's a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, where he focuses on Iran and U.S. foreign policy toward the Middle East. He's also an adjunct professor at Georgetown University and a contributing writer at the Atlantic.

“His parents are Iranian, but he was born and raised in the U.S.”

We recorded our interview yesterday. This morning, we learned that an Israeli attack killed Ali Larajani, the head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council. He was close with Ayatollah Amani, and was expected to be a close advisor to Moistoba. This morning, we asked Kareem Sajipur about the significance of Larajani's death.

He says, quote, Larajani was one of Iran's most powerful men, a ruthless pragmatist.

After the Ayatollah's death, Larajani was one of the men running the country. At a time when the regime's survival is at stake, Larajani's decades of domestic and foreign policy experience make his loss a significant blow for a revolutionary regime whose political ideology is premised on martyrdom, the central question is whether these assassinations will ultimately

extinguish the ideology or help revive it, unquote. Here's our interview. Kareem Sajipur, welcome back to Fresh Air. So, the official successor to the Ayatollah is his son, Marshtaba. He hasn't been seen by the public. We don't know what his injuries are. Do we know if he's just one who's even running the country, even though he was voted

“by the council who does the official voting to be the successor?”

Well, it's great to be with you, Terry. And the honest answer is that the inner functionings of the Iranian regime are right now for us a black box. It's inaccessible to us.

On paper, Moistoba Kharmini is the most powerful man in the country, but I think in practice,

really, it's the revolutionary guards and the military who are the power behind his throne. He's inherited an incredibly difficult position in that he's been injured. The missile strike that killed his father and his mother and his wife injured him. He was reportedly in an adjacent room. What I've heard from sources inside Tehran is those injuries are not life threatening, but he has been injured. He's obviously got to be an emotional distress given that he's lost

many members of his family. And Israelis are actively trying to kill him. So he's probably in hiding underground somewhere. And he's not someone who has really any experience in senior leadership roles, even though he operated in the shadows. He was his father's right hand for many years.

He's never formally held a senior position. The Iranian public doesn't know him. His image,

his voice, or not familiar to people. And so he's inherited this incredibly difficult position in that he's now meant to rule a country, which I would argue overwhelmingly dislikes him in the regime. And he's fighting a war against the greatest superpower on the world the United States, and against the greatest military power in the Middle East Israel. So you said that the revolutionary guard in the military right now are running the country. Are they on the same page? So the revolutionary

guards are approximately 150,000 men. And so they're not a monolith and you have internal use amongst them. But the senior commanders of the revolutionary guards were all handpicked by Ayatollah Hamani, who ruled Iran for 37 years. And so they, by and large, are individuals who are loyal to what I call vision 1979, the principles of the 1979 revolution, chief among them being

before it was attacked was essentially to decentralize their military structure. Instead of having

“one general in Tehran who's commanding orders to everyone, they have essentially 31 different units”

that are as far as we can see operating somewhat independently from one another. It's like 31 legs of an octopus. And for that reason you've seen an Iranian retaliatory strategy that has really been all over the place. Because there's no central commander. But do they agree on the basic principles of upholding what the father, the Ayatollah Hamani stood for? Absolutely. On that point, they all have seemingly closed ranks around obviously number one, Paramount for any dictatorship

is regime survival. And and two is this belief that we're not going to abandon our principles, we're going to uphold our principles of defiance against America and Israel. And up until now,

“Tehran, I think they believe that their strategy has been effective in that they've been able to”

spike the price of oil and they've been able to negatively impact popular opinion in the United States. We see from polling that perhaps three out of four Americans oppose this war. And they're hoping that President Trump is going to be restrained by popular opinion in the United States and be forced to abruptly end the war. So if Israel succeeds in assassinating Moistoba, the son of the Ayatollah,

who's next in line do you know? So I'd first start off by saying that I don't think this is a

one assassination regime, even if they managed to kill Moistoba Hamani, which Israel has really penetrated the inner workings of the Iranian regime. And so it is well possible that they do succeed in killing him. I suspect if they were able to do that, there will be another senior cleric with a very similar worldview to Moistoba Hamani. There's different individuals who have been mentioned. There's one guy called AJ, there's another guy called Adolfi. They, I would say

all kind of will broadly support the principles of 1979, vision 1979. And whoever would potentially succeed, Moistoba Hamani would likewise, in my view, be really controlled by the military, at least early on. Yeah, in 1979 was, of course, the year of the Iranian Revolution. That's right. So Trump has said

“that Moistoba might already be dead. Is that speculation or did he have some kind of grounding on that?”

Well, obviously, the, the presidency's intelligence that I'm not privy to, what, what I've been told from people inside the country, who some of them know Moistoba Hamani, is that he's alive, the injuries that he suffered were not life threatening. But, you know, that could also be incorrect information. We don't know. And part of the reason why we don't know is that the Iranians haven't given any concrete evidence that he's alive. Moistoba Hamani gave his first message as first speech

a supreme leader. But it was read on official state television. He didn't deliver that speech.

What someone told me is that he's not someone who's capable of public speaking. He's never really

spoken publicly, whereas his father kind of rose to power because of the power of his, his auditory. The sun was in many ways kind of a coddled dictator's son. And that was given to me as the explanation for why he didn't speak publicly because his first public speech would not only be watched by 90 million Iranians, but the entire world is waiting for him to speak. I suspect that they also don't want to give any information about where he's currently located for fear that,

you know, he's, he's a strong target of assassination. Let's continue the comparison between father and son. The way you describe it, this son is not nearly as smart, as good as speaker, as well read. He doesn't speak English like his father. His father studied Western and Islamic text. He was a great speaker. He was smart. He was more charismatic. So I'm reminded of

about how empires are built and destroyed over three generations. And the first generation are

“men who have fire in the belly. They're the builders. When it reaches the second generation,”

they're the consolidators. They consolidate power. And when it reaches the third generation, by no fault of their own, the third generation are born as Prince Lings, and they're not born with the grit and the fire and the belly of their grandparents. And the Islamic Republic of Iran is entered. It's third generation leadership. Most of a harmony is the third generation. The father of the Islamic Revolution in 1979 was Ayyatul Khumani. He was the guy who, you know, had the

steel determination and fire in the belly to create this theocracy. He was succeeded by Ayyatul Khumani,

who ruled for 37 years, and consolidated the power of the Islamic Republic. And now when we arrive at much of a harmony, he's someone who, as I said, is operated in the shadows all of his life. Whereas

“his father spent many years in prison as a revolutionary political prisoner. He suffered torture.”

You know, he did a lot of ghastardly things to rise the ranks of power and he oversaw a state which during his watch probably killed tens of thousands of its own citizens. As recently as last January, when there were popular protests in a massacre which took place. And most of a

harmony has not served in any of those roles. He wasn't a revolutionary leader. He wasn't a revolutionary.

He's inherited power. And so, by virtue of that fact, I'm skeptical to tell you that much of a harmony is going to be Iran's new powerful leader that who's going to be with us potentially for decades to come like a Muhammad bin Salman in Saudi Arabia. You think that one of the reasons why much about might not last long, or even the person maybe who would replace him if he,

“if much to what is assassinated, is that Iran for its own survival needs to switch from its”

basic organizing principle being like the U.S. and Israel of the Great Satan's to nationalism, to something more positive like building the economy modernizing, like a lot of the Gulf nations have, including Saudi Arabia, which have moved away from dependence on oil and gas, to modernize, to create an economy based more on tourism and other things that they can export. Can you elaborate on that? So, that's a very good question, Terry, because if you look at the countries in the

Persian Gulf, what are you have kind of this rival risk relationship with Iran? The three ones that get the most attention are the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, and the UAE and Saudi Arabia in particular have very different national visions for the country than the Islamic Republic of Iran. As I mentioned, the Islamic Republic of Iran's organizing principle, since '79, has been death to America, death to Israel, the mandatory

vailing of women, which I took a home anyones called the flag of the Islamic Revolution, and those Persian Gulf countries, their visions are forward-looking visions. Saudi Arabia calls its vision vision 2030. The United Arab Emirates has a version of that vision 2030-1, and they're very different outlooks for the region. The Gulf countries, their security is, is promised on partnership with America and Israel. Those countries are really trying to socially reform the UAE

for anyone who's been there, is socially a pretty free place. Saudi Arabia, Muhammad bin Salman, is trying to lead a social revolution, whereas the Islamic Republic of Iran is anchored in social repression. In the regional context, they also are very different visions. Iran is a country which had been dominating five Arab lands, Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Gaza. What are all those five places have in common? There were all essentially five failing states. And Iran's ideology,

the Islamic Republic's ideology thrives when there are power vacuums and state failures, and it can fill those vacuums with its militias like Lebanese Hezbollah, whereas the Gulf countries they need stability. They are trying to become international hubs for tourism, for transportation, for technology, and you can't have that if there are constant wars or insecurity, or your

and the Iranian public has no interest in vision 1979 anymore. It's a population. The vast majority

“of whom were born after the 1979 revolution. My line about them is they want to be South Korea,”

not North Korea. And most of a harmonious vision is for a Shiite North Korea, and I just don't think there's many, many takers for what he's selling. And everything you mentioned about the strains of the Gulf countries who are modernizing, those are the things that Iran is attacking, the hotels, tourism, modernity itself, and the airports. So Iran's strategy seems pretty smart, like horrible, destructive, but for Iran itself or its survival, it seems like a

smart strategy, including not allowing ships into the state of Hormuz, and threatening to shut down

the Red Sea. You know, Terry, I did a full bright scholarship in Beirut to decades ago, and one of my biggest takeaways from that year in Beirut country, which in Lebanon has suffered

“from terrible civil war. Beirut, which once used to be the Dubai of the Middle East, is that it takes”

decades to build places, and it takes weeks to destroy places. And those countries have spent decades and trillions of dollars trying to become, as I said, hubs for artificial intelligence, transportation, media, entertainment, and they recognize that the Islamic Republic of Iran can come by with its missiles and pretty cheap drones and destroy what they've sought to build. And you see that that economic asymmetry in their attacks on the global economy as well,

so in the straight of Hormuz, which on any given day 20 percent of the world's oil passes through

that corridor in the Persian Gulf, a lot of the world's natural gas, a lot of the world's fertilizer passes through that, and these are $100 million tankers filled with hundreds of millions of dollars in cargo, and Iran has been shutting down the straight and harassing these ships with $20,000 drones. And so it's a poor man's strategy, which up until now has worked for Iran and frustrating

“the ambitions of President Trump. And I think Iran's strategy, like closing off the straight of”

Hormuz, and you could try to get through with a ship that accompanies you, but the people who had been America's allies are reluctant to really get involved in this war, Trump has alienated NATO, is alienated China, who is asked for help. So it's making Iran's strategy is making Trump look weak. You know, Terry, General David Petraeus, who used to command U.S. troops in the Middle East, also former CIA director, said something that was quite perceptive. He said that America's

seemingly swift victory over the Taliban in 2001 kind of distorted our understanding of how difficult the Iraq war would be two years later. And that's relevant here because Iran is a country, in which as I said, we haven't had an embassy there for 47 years, so we have very limited understandings of the inner workings of the regime, limited diplomatic context with the regime. And I don't think there was a great amount of planning. The hope was that we were simply

going to subject Iran to enormous political and economic pressure, and the hopes that either it would capitulate, or if it didn't capitulate, we would quickly attack it, kill its leader, and then do a deal with the successor leadership. I don't think President Trump and his own words, frankly, understood what he was getting into. For example, Iran telegraphs from the very beginning that they plan to regionalize the war. And President Trump said that that took him by surprise when

Iran started to attack the Persian Gulf countries or closed down the state of Hormuz, and I think, Terry, we're now in a situation in which this began, in my view, it was a war of choice, it was not a war of necessity. There was no imminent threat that Iran was about to acquire nuclear weapons or launch missile strikes on the United States or our partners. But what began as a war of choice, in my view, has actually morphed into a war of necessity,

meaning that I don't think that President Trump is going to simply be able to end the war and claim victory. So long as you have a pariah government, the Islamic Republic of Iran,

not only energy corridor, but agricultural corridor, given that the state of Hormuz is also

a major thoroughfare for fertilizer. Well, we need to take another break here. If you're just joining us, my guest is Karim Sajrapore, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, formerly an analyst with the International Crisis Group, and at that time he was based in Turan and Washington. So we'll talk more about the war with Iran after another break. I'm Terry Gross and this is fresh air. This message comes from sports in America with David Green.

The world of sports is filled with stories that go beyond the highlights of the game.

Join former morning edition host David Green for sports in America from WHY and PRX,

a weekly show featuring in-depth conversations with star athletes, coaches, parents, and the millions of fans whose lives are touched by the game. Here about the personal and transformative moments that make fans want to stand up and cheer each week on sports in America with David Green. Listen wherever you get your podcasts. Let me share with you two of my biggest concerns about how this will affect the U.S. and the world. And the biggest one is World War

“3. And we're in a partial world war now with, I think, like, 13 countries involved in some way,”

but I'm talking about a real full-blown World War 3. With the threat of nuclear weapons,

depending on who will rise with Iran, if more World War breaks out because Russia, North Korea, China, who all have nuclear weapons, have some kind of alliance with Iran. So, what are your thoughts about a larger World War and the likelihood of one breaking out? Well, fortunately, Terry, I don't think that is a high likelihood and I'll tell you why. Thank you, yes. Are you sure? You know, the countries that Iran has been attacking most over the last few weeks are, as I said, these Persian

Gulf countries, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, in particular, I think, as I mentioned, they've been the target of over 2000 Iranian missile and drone attacks. And when you look at those countries, they actually have probably more robust relations with China and Russia than Iran does. And so, it's not the case that, you know, Iran is this country with very strong allies who have its back and those Gulf countries are only allied with America and Israel. In fact,

there's a lot of other Republic of Iran. It's probably the top one or two most strategically lonely countries in the world. It really has very few reliable allies in the world. And so,

“I think that the Chinese are not going to come and fight on Iran's behalf against Gulf countries”

with whom they have even closer any relations. And Vladimir Putin actually has strong relations with the leadership in Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, with the leadership in the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed. So, I'm not concerned that this will deteriorate into a world war three, but you are correct that this has just set a very dangerous precedent. And I don't think that the world, or, you know, especially the Middle East, is going to feel like a stable place

for this foreseeable future. I spoke to a senior leader in the United Arab Emirates recently and said, "We're a country which has been changed forever." And they realize, as I said, how fragile what they've built is. And I don't think any of those countries are going to sleep well at night, so long as this current Iranian regime is in power. One of the goals, I think the primary goal that Trump initially stated for attacking Iran was to get Iran to give up all of its nuclear material.

They said in negotiations that we're willing to compromise and give up, you know, any aspiration

“for a nuclear weapon. And the only thing they really wanted to hold on to was uranium enriched”

enough for medical purposes, which isn't usable for nuclear weapon. That doesn't mean they were being truthful about it, but it's what they said. And Trump wanted to completely know you can't even have that. You have to give up everything. And now, now that we're really at war with Iran,

attack it, we've already attacked the main places where it's buried. We'd have to let go in and

take out the nuclear material, which is like really dangerous and really complicated.

“So, are we in warship now than we were before? We're in a predicament, and I think that there”

really are four main priorities when it comes to our potential negotiations with Iran. One is obviously nuclear, and that highly enriched uranium, which is ostensibly under rubble now, after the bombings of last June, that needs to be accounted for, because if Iran gets its hands on that uranium, highly enriched uranium, and tries to, you know, convert that into fuel for nuclear weapon. Now, my sense is that given how penetrated their system is, it would be very difficult for them

to make a mad dash for nuclear weapon, but it's something which needs to be addressed. It can't

be neglected. You know, second point now are their missiles and drones. And again, speaking to

officials in the Persian Gulf, they say, you know, before all of this, we would have been happy with just the nuclear deal, but now no longer. We need a deal which also addresses their use of missiles and drones. A third issue are their proxies. The support for groups like Hezbollah and Lebanon, the Houthis and Yemen, the Iraqi Shi'ed militias. Now, these proxies have been degraded, but they still do pose a real threat to regional stability. And then the fourth issue is the reason why we're

even in this situation, which is Iran's brutality toward its own population. If you remember Terry last January, Trump on nine occasions warned the Iranian government that if they killed protesters, the United States would intervene. And that was his red line. He issued, as I said,

“on nine occasions, and Iran tore up that red line. And that's what actually motivated for him”

to start this military build-up in the Persian Gulf. But what we've seen is that the president has kind of been all over the place. When he's asked what his goal is, some days he says it's just to get a nuclear deal, some days he says he wants to win as well a deal, some days he wants to implode the regime. And that lack of clarity in my view has been deeply detrimental because, you know, if you don't know what it is that you're trying to achieve, then you're putting

both the US military and our partners in very difficult positions. My guest is Karim Sajra Por, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, before that he spent four years as an analyst with the International Crisis Group, and he was based in Turin, as well as Washington during those years. We'll hear more of the interview after a short break. This is fresh air.

This message comes from Sports in America with David Green, the world of sports is filled with stories that go beyond the highlights of the game. Join former morning edition host David Green for Sports in America from WHOY and PRX, a weekly show featuring in-depth conversations with star athletes, coaches, parents, and the millions of fans whose lives are touched by the game. Here about the personal and transformative moments that make fans want to stand up and share

each week on Sports in America with David Green. Listen, wherever you get your podcasts. So when President Trump expressed support for the Iranian protesters, many of whom were massacred and then decided to attack Iran, he said, "When we are finished, take over your government, it will be yours to take. It would be impossible now probably to protest. People would be just totally massacred. I mean do you agree with that?"

When I listen to President Trump's language, Terry, it reflects someone who probably hasn't spent any significant amount of time under brutal dictatorship. Because when you're living under brutal dictatorship, it is very scary when you go out in the streets and the people of Iran are

unarmed and unorganized and you see many thousands of Bastege militia or revolutionary guards who

are carrying automatic weapons and have their fingers on the trigger. That's an incredibly

“intimidating atmosphere. And I think one thing that people don't really understand about dictatorships”

when people ask, "Well how much support does this regime have?" And it doesn't matter so much what

support. So in my view, this is a regime which probably has at best 20, maybe 15 percent

popular support, but their supporters, at least for now, are a ruthlessly devoted minority that believes that if they lose power, they're going to be killed. It's killer be killed for them. And that has been proven to them even more the last three weeks that not only does their own population want to unseat them, but obviously American Israel do as well. And for that reason, they've shown themselves willing to kill potentially tens of thousands of people to stay in

power. And I don't think that that calculation for them has changed. It's probably only been

“amplified, given the events of the last few weeks. And so I think that simply the president”

telling people go take your institutions without having any whole of government strategy about

OK, how did the United States during the Reagan administration help to bring down the Soviet Union? What were the institutions, the policies, the language, the strategic communications used during that period. And this isn't eight minute abs. You can't simply order something in two, three weeks later. It happens as nice as that would be for people in Iran to take over their institutions. This is a ruthless regime. And one of the things very different about this particular Iranian

regime compared to the monarchy, which collapsed in 1979, is that the political and military elite of Iran's monarchy. Many of them had studied in America and Europe. In some cases, they probably had foreign passports and they spoke foreign languages. And so when things got difficult, they could remake their lives in Los Angeles or London. But the political and military elite of this long-re Republic have oftentimes provincial backgrounds. They weren't educated abroad.

They don't speak foreign languages. They don't have foreign passports. And they've nowhere else to go. And again, for that reason, for many of them, it's killer be killed. In the meantime, a lot of Iranians are fleeing bombs. They're inhaling smoke. And being the victims of black rain, because of all the oil that has been bombed. And the consequences of toxic smoke and black rain, that can last a lifetime. That can lead to

cancer and kill you. Absolutely. And again, this is what war is held. It's not just a cliché.

“I think people are experiencing that inside Iran. And for many people, they're probably thinking”

about the lesser evils. I've heard some people say, listen, we fear this war. You know, we're fearing for our lives under bombardment. But we fear for our children's lives if this regime manages to stay in power and further retrench itself. So, I think there are

a wide mix of emotions among 90 million Iranians inside the country and within the diaspora.

And unfortunately, there are no quick fixes or quick solutions to this terrible predicament. Do you know, if there were any leaders in the protest movement that could have emerged, and, you know, if the regime truly was toppled, that could have been a leading contender as the leader of a new Iran? The one thing that the Islamic Republic of Iran does effectively is repression. It's a government built to stay in power and they've been practising

the art and science of repression for five decades. And so, they are skilled in crushing protests and also identifying individuals who are capable of potentially playing leadership positions.

“I remember a European ambassador and Tehran years ago said to me, the Iranian bustle of Havel”

is either dead or in Los Angeles. You know, they either kill people or exile people. And for that reason, a lot of the opponents of the regime have turned outside of Iran and looking at the person of Reza Pahlevi, the son of the former Crown Prince of Iran, Muhammad Reza Shah, who Reza Pahlevi is lived in exile the last 47 years and for many Iranians, certainly not all, but for many who oppose the regime, he's kind of become an inspirational

leader for the opposition. There's a wonderful book by a guy called Jack Goldstone on revolutions and he said, "Every revolution needs two kinds of leadership, organizational leadership and inspirational

the inspirational leader. It's really hard for me to understand because the Shah

“westernized Iran and there was a lot of education and western values and modernization.”

However, his secret police, the Savak, they were severe, they tortured people, they rounded up and disappeared people. You know, Terry, this is a population inside Iran now around three quarters of whom were born after the 1979 revolution and so when they think of the era of the Shah, what they think about are social freedoms, which, you know, they see the photos of that era, economic dignity, a time when Iran as a nation had a, had a positive place in the world.

The Iranian passport could get you places and they compare that to the life they've experienced under the Islamic Republic that has not only been far more brutal than the Shah's government,

“but it's been socially and economically authoritarian as well. So I think there's been a lot”

of revisionism and the last decade or so among, especially the younger generation of Iranians who who see documentary films and movies and read about what was like on life was like under the Shah and it's kind of the ultimate middle finger to the Islamic Republic to say, you know, long-lived power, heavy we want to return to power, heavy because this is a regime the Islamic Republic which has spent, you know, from the time children are small and Iran propagandizing against

the Shah's government and in my view it's kind of like a forward-looking nostalgia that people have. They want Iran to once again be a nation with a prosperous economy and social freedoms and an upstanding place in the world and the idea, the example which is perhaps most palpable from many people is how things once were. All right. So we need to take another break here. If you're just joining us, my guest is Karim Sajrapur of Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International

Peace and Formally and Analyst with the International Crisis Group during those four years who was based in Turan as well as Washington. We'll continue the conversation after a break. This is fresh air. This message comes from Sports in America with David Green. The world of sports is filled with stories that go beyond the highlights of the game. Join former morning edition host David Green for Sports in America from WHY and PRX, a weekly show featuring in-depth conversations with star

athletes, coaches, parents, and the millions of fans whose lives are touched by the game. Here about the personal and transformative moments that make fans want to stand up and share each week on Sports in America with David Green. Listen wherever you get your podcasts.

What do you would be the best case scenario for ending the war? I always try to distinguish between

best viable case scenario and best case scenario. Best case scenario obviously would be we have different government that comes to power and Iran in which it's either, you know, Iran transitions to democracy or a government whose organizing principle is the national interests of Iran long-leave Iran rather than death to America. I don't think that that is a short-term prospect.

“So, in the near term, I think best case outcome is that we liberate the state of”

Hormuz from Iranian interference and you re-establish the safe passage of trade and ships through the straight-of-hormuz and obviously Iran is ceased all of its attacks on its neighbors and on Israel that would require the United States and Israel to also cease those attacks. But even then we're going to be leaving there's going to be some outstanding things which we can't afford to ignore which is what happens with that highly enriched uranium inside Iran.

How is that going to be accounted for? What about Iran's ballistic missile and drones? That's been proven to be a real menace to regional security. How are we going to address that? What if Iran starts to rebuild and refinance its regional proxies? That's a challenge we have to

address and then finally as I emphasized before the whole reason that this conflict is begun which

this regime is so deeply unpopular that the only way that they'll continue to manage to stay in

“power is by even being even more brutal than before. Do we have a strategy for addressing that?”

And this is not this, I think the President was hoping for something quick and easy, something seemingly quick and easy like Venezuela appear to be for him but this is anything but but even securing the safety of the straight-of-arms, how hard would that be? I don't want to pretend like I'm a military expert when I speak to experience folks who've served in the Navy. I think most people would say that it's doable but it's not going to be easy

and it's not going to be quick. How are you and how are the people who you know in Iran? Your family is from Iran. You grew up in the U.S. but you've spent a lot of time in Iran. So how are your loved ones, how are your friends, how are your sources? Well I appreciate you asking that to you. For me personally I've been doing this long enough that I can kind of separate as best as I can emotions and personal feelings and analysis but

for my family members and loved ones both inside and outside Iran. It's obviously a very harrowing time. People were really directly or indirectly traumatized by the massacres of last

“January. I think obviously everyone knew how brutal this regime was but they didn't fully”

appreciate the scale of it and I think many people were hoping that this conflict could be a quick way to help the people in Iran get rid of this regime and I still hear from people inside Iran that you know perhaps they are still holding out hope for that such as their level of

desperation whereas I said earlier I think others have now buyers remorse or real second thoughts

about this intervention but I think there's a bottom line which you know I feel I know most people and the U.S. and European governments feel and tens of millions of Iranians feel which that this is a country which isn't where it should be. This is one of the world's oldest civilizations. It has enormous human capital. It has enormous natural resources. This rich history should be a G-twenty nation you know there was a time in 1978 where Iran and South Korea had the same GDP levels

and you look at those countries now and where Iran is and so modern day Iran is really a tragedy and it's a tragedy above all for Iranians both inside Iran and in the diaspora but it's also been a tragedy for the United States because in my view America and Iran actually should be natural partners and instead Iran is one of our worst adversaries and unfortunately I don't see that dynamic

“changing in the near future. What do you see the U.S. and Iran is natural partners?”

You know I was quote Henry Kissinger here he said there are few nations in the world with whom the United States has more common interests and less reason to quarrel than Iran but Iran has to decide whether it's a nation or a cause. For Iran the national interests of the country should be that which advances the prosperity and security of its people and before 1979 Iran in America enjoyed a fantastic partnership and America actually was an ally for Iran against Soviet and

Russian entroachment vis-à-vis Iran and so I think this modern period is an historic anomaly whereby Iran is allied with Russia against the United States it really should be the opposite and I think most people inside Iran understand that so long as the organizing principle of

its government is death to America and death to Israel the country will never fulfill its enormous

potential as as a nation the organizing principle needs to be the national interests of of Iranians and and that requires a fundamentally different relationship with the United States. Karim Sajrapur thank you so much for your time and for sharing some of your knowledge with us I really appreciate it. It was my honor Terry thank you so much for having me. Karim Sajrapur is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

and a contributing writer at the Atlantic. Tomorrow on fresh air how to get ahead in business

navigating romance and fighting time traveling fascists. That's the premise of the new novel

“nun such our guests will be the author Francis Buffert his earlier novel Kahokia Jazz made our”

book critic Marine Carragans best books of 2024 list. Hope you'll join us to keep up with what's

on the show and get highlights of our interviews follow us on Instagram at NPR Fresh Air.

“Fresh air is executive producer Sam Brigger our technical director and engineer”

is Archie Bentham our interviews and reviews are produced and edited by Phyllis Myers and Reboot Anado Lauren Crenzel to recent Madden Monique Nazareth, Thia Challener, Sisen Yikundi and Abamun

“and Niko Gonzalez Whistler our digital media producer is Molly CV Nesper.”

Roberta Chorock directs the show our co-host is Tanya Mosley I'm Terry Gross. From WQXR and Carnegie Hall comes classical music happy-out a new podcast hosted by me pianist Maniacs. Each episode will speak with a special guest listen to musical gems play music

inspired games and answer questions from our listeners the first episode drops March 4th.

Listen on the NPR app.