- The people who won this war for Israel, the Air Force pilots, the scientists, the Mossad agents, the cyber warriors, the Special Forces, were, for the most part, the very same people who were in the streets of Israel for nine months against Netanyahu and his judicial coup.

(light upbeat music) - Hello and welcome to "GZERO World".

I'm Ian Bremmer, and less than a month after Israel launched a war against Iran, and just weeks after President Trump green lit the US bombing of key nuclear sites, all parties were eager to declare, well, if not victory, then at least mission accomplished.

That includes Iran, the clear loser of the 12-day war.

Even before rockets flew, Iran was already the least capable and most vulnerable of the three belligerents.

And since Israel decimated Hamas and Hezbollah, and with Syria toppled and Russia distracted, survival, not victory, has been the Ayatollah's goal.

Still, he can claim the Islamic Republic endured direct conflict with two juggernauts, inflicted some pain inside Israel, and retained some of its nuclear capabilities, though the extent still remains unclear.

For his part, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu wasn't looking for a ceasefire, unlike Iran or the United States, but he still came out ahead.

He crippled Iran's military and nuclear capabilities, he got the United States to hit a site that Israel couldn't quite reach, and shored up his own domestic political standing in just weeks.

He went from political free fall to triumphant.

(whip cracking) For Trump, it's the biggest foreign policy win of his second term to-date, though you wouldn't know it from domestic coverage, which can't help but see everything through a partisan lens.

The truth is, Trump helped dismantle Iran's nuclear military programs, kept the US out of war, and faced no backlash from Tehran.

Iran was already weakened, but Trump called the Ayatollah's bluff.

And so far, that has paid off.

How big a win this will be in the longer term is still very much an open question.

Joining me now to talk through these historic few weeks and to look at what happens after the morning after, one of the smartest voices around on the Middle East, "New York Times" columnist Tom Friedman.

Don't worry, I've also got your "Puppet Regime".

- Uh, hello?

- Vladimir, it's me, Ayatollah.

- But first, a word from the folks who help us keep the lights on.

- [Announcer 1] Funding for "GZERO World" is provided by our lead sponsor, Prologis.

- [Announcer 2] Every day all over the world, Prologis helps businesses of all sizes lower their carbon footprint and scale their supply chains, with a portfolio of logistics and real estate and an end-to-end solutions platform, addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today.

Learn more at prologis.com - [Announcer 1] And by: Cox Enterprises is proud to support "GZERO".

Cox is working to create an impact in areas like sustainable agriculture, clean tech, healthcare, and more.

Cox, a family of businesses.

Additional funding provided by Carnegie Corporation of New York, Koo and Patricia Yuen, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

And... (light upbeat music) - Tom Friedman, thanks so much for coming back on "GZERO".

- Ian, great to be with you.

- Start with Iran.

Big news, of course, in so many different directions.

Rate what you think the success of the United States and Israel has been in Iran and our actions over the past weeks.

- Let's start at 30,000 feet, if I could, Ian.

You know, going back to last year, when Israel began to take down Hezbollah and then Iran's air defenses, and now, Iran's, more directly, it's nuclear program, what we're seeing is a huge event.

It's equivalent of the 1967 defeat of Egypt, Jordan, and Syria, which remade the Middle East.

And I believe this defeat of the Iran threat network will have vast implications in the region as well.

Anything that reduces Iran's influence, that's a really good thing, 'cause its influence has been entirely maligned, both at home, and regionally, and internationally, when you think of the drones they're giving Russia to kill Ukrainians.

But exactly what form it will take, how it gets locked in.

Does it require more combat?

Does it lead to a diplomatic solution?

All of that is TBD in my mind.

But this first step was necessary.

It's not sufficient, but it was an important step in my view.

- So take a step back.

When, before the fighting started, before the Israelis started the fighting, and Trump wants to be a peacemaker of course, and he also wants to remake the Middle East.

Do you think that Trump should have leaned more into the military side or should have leaned more into the diplomatic side given what we've seen?

- You know, honestly, Ian, I don't know.

All I know is now I hope he leans into the diplomatic side because I think what you're gonna see triggered is a, a real internal debate in Iran.

It was not gonna happen while the guns were firing.

It's not gonna happen the morning after.

The morning after the Supreme leader says, "We won, we showed them," et cetera.

But all real politics in the Middle East happens the morning after the morning after.

And you can already see the contours, I think, of a debate shaping up between the President and elements of the Revolutionary Guards.

And one side is basically saying, "We need a rush to a bomb."

And the other is saying, "Well, that rush to a bomb has been a complete and utter failure.

It's isolated us from the world.

We've wasted a generation, we've wasted billions of dollars, now it's time to do a deal and cash in that bomb for something that will actually propel us forward as a country."

So, how Trump manages that dialogue inside Iran, how he tilts it to one way or another, I think is important, not only for the region, but also for regime change in Iran.

We cannot do that, only Iranians can do that.

But we can play on the different forces there and create incentives for the, for the better forces over the darker ones.

- Now, Trump has been saying that there are incentives for the Iranians to do that, that, you know, "Make Iran great again, give up the nukes.

You need some money, you need infrastructure.

We should help rebuild you."

The Israeli Prime Minister, of course, is not saying that.

Not at all.

How does that play out?

- I think it's a very interesting question you're raising, Ian, and I'm asking myself the same.

'Cause Trump ultimately is a deal-maker, and unfortunately, the way he approaches these things is he deals with Russia and Iran the same way.

"It's just two children squabbling.

Ukraine and Iran, you know, Russia, they're just children squabbling.

Iran and Israel, they're just children squabbling.

And we must find a way to make peace between them."

But of course, Putin wasn't looking for peace.

He was looking for a piece of Ukraine.

That's the only piece he was looking for.

And Iran is not looking for a peace with Israel.

It's looking for a piece of Israel.

And now, by the way, a piece of Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq as well.

And so, there's a danger sometimes with Trump that he just sees everything as a transaction between two casino owners, and there's no sort of moral difference between the two.

That said, I think there is a value in, in Trump's approach of saying that, let's see if we can begin a process of really what President Obama wanted to do, what President Bush wanted to do, of ultimately, you know, drawing Iran into the world, and the forces there that wanna be part of the world, as opposed to those who wanna rule through and by isolation from the world.

And I think that's a very important process, that will clash with Netanyahu.

Netanyahu wants regime change, period, paragraph.

He wants this regime to collapse, and God knows what will come after.

But on this, I think Trump's instinct is right.

If this regime is gonna change, it's gonna fracture first at the top, and only then, you know, transition to something.

And there'll be tension between Trump and Israel on this, as there will be on Gaza.

Because now that Trump is finished with, in his mind Iran, he'll want to finish with the Gaza problem as well.

- You know, Trump did flirt with regime change for a brief tweet.

Of course, he also said, "We know where the supreme leader is and we can kill him if you guys don't behave."

What do you think happens if the supreme leader is gone?

- You know, Ian, none of us know, because this regime has been in power since 1979.

It's also been something of a black box.

You know, you talk to Iranian experts, they never quite know what are the different alliances inside and outside, and who's with who, and who is up and who is down.

It's a very, it's not, it's a very dark black box.

So I think it's very hard to predict what would happen.

It could be a good outcome, it could be chaos.

You know, remember this is a country with some significant minorities, Azeris in particular.

And one just doesn't know when you start to pull the thread on a country like this.

- And so, your knee-jerk reaction on that is there, the devil we know is in a weak position, they've just been attacked.

We should do everything we can to incent reasons not to redevelop a nuclear weapon and to come to the table.

What are the next two, let's look ahead, not to just the day after, but over the next few months.

What are the things that the United States, with allies, if you wish, should be doing to help facilitate that outcome?

- Well, again, good question.

I think it's get together with our allies.

Let's appoint a committee of the original participants in the JCPOA, the first, the Obama Nuclear Iran deal.

And basically say to the Iranians, "Hey, if you are ready to forego any enrichment," or you could imagine a deal, Ian, where we say to them, "Yes, you have the right to enrich up to, you know, three and a half or whatever," but Iran chooses not to do it.

Okay?

You could imagine some face-saving arrangement like that, "If you will do that under IAEA supervision, we're ready to lift sanctions.

We're ready to reintegrate you with the world."

We have to step back again for one sec, Ian.

You know, Ian, the US Iran Cold War since 1979 is been one of the factors that has most destabilized and perverted the Middle East, and prevented it from coming together in any coherent way.

If we could get beyond that, that would be a very important thing.

I prefer to see it, obviously with a different Iranian regime, but if as a transition it's with this regime, that's a good thing.

And I would, I would favor that, under the condition that Iran is completely deprived of its ability to enrich nuclear material and create a nuclear bomb.

Now, one of the things, I've been to Iran twice.

Have you been to Iran by chance?

- Nope, sadly, I have not.

- Yeah, so I've been there twice in the late '90s when you could still go.

And Ian, both times I was there, you know what I was struck by?

There were debates in the Parliament of people raising their hands saying, "Why are we giving money to Hezbollah?

Why are we giving money to Palestinians?

Why are we wasting our tax dollars?"

You know, there's no love lost between Iranians and Arabs over this.

The Palestine issue is not organic to Iran at all.

And so, I think you're gonna see a, I predict you're gonna see a lot of that now when things calm down there.

And there will be a debate, as they say.

One side will say, "Told ya, we need a bomb.

Wouldn't have happened if we didn't have one."

And the other side will say, "Told ya, pursuing a bomb this way has destroyed our country and lost a generation and a half."

- [Ian] And they're both right by the way, Tom.

- [Tom] Yeah, and that's a good way to put it.

- [Ian] That's why there's a challenge here.

- Right, yeah.

There's evidence on both sides.

- Now, on the Palestinian issue, we should move to that.

I mean, you know, clearly, as we saw when the Iranians were under the gun and they were negotiating in the last minute with the Americans, it wasn't like part of the negotiations from Iran was, "And we have to end the war in Gaza."

Right?

I mean, like this would, the revealed preference is they don't care about these people.

So, the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is now in a much stronger position, geopolitically and domestically, right?

I mean this, this Iran war was super popular for him at home.

You know, this is a guy that almost lost a vote of no confidence just a couple weeks ago.

And now, if he called an election, he'd almost certainly win.

Does it make it easier and does it make it more likely that he comes to an agreement with the United States and, you know, more importantly on the ground in ending the war in Gaza?

- Well, I wanna challenge a little bit of part of your question because the latest polls in Israel, after the Iran ceasefire, showed no great political movement in the different, you know, parties in Israel over who could make a majority.

So, that may change in election.

No doubt Netanyahu's been strengthened by this.

But, as I wrote, you know, the other day, Ian, the people who won this war for Israel, the Air Force pilots, the scientists, the Mossad agents, the cyber warriors, the Special Forces, were, for the most part, not entirely, but for the most part, the very same people who were in the streets of Israel for nine months-- - Against him.

- Against Netanyahu.

- Yep.

- And his judicial coup.

So you have a very interesting, you know, dynamic here.

And their attitude is, "We will be damned if we won this war."

- For him.

- "Claim victory to create a Jewish theocracy that our own kids will not wanna live in."

So the chemistry, the political chemistry in Israel is going to get really interesting, as it, as I say, as it will in Iran.

Now, you know, Netanyahu is still stuck in Gaza and he still has the same three choices Israel had before the war.

Partner with an international Arab force that has also partnered with the Palestinian Authority and get outta Gaza and turn it over to them in a phased way, or just let your favorite gangs run the place, or Israel occupy it permanently.

So those three awful choices that Netanyahu has been avoiding are still there.

Obviously, if you were to choose door number one, let's do an international Arab peacekeeping force and partner with the PA and agree to open discussions with them on a long-term process based on, on real achievement metrics on a Palestinian state, oh then Bibi wins the next five elections because that will pave the way for normalization with Saudi Arabia, with Lebanon, with Syria, and with Iraq.

- And if you're advising Trump right now, is the right move lean in hard on ending the war in Gaza after everything you've just done for Israel?

- Absolutely, absolutely.

If you just look at what's been happening in Gaza, you know, the other day, seven Israeli soldiers killed in an APC, the day before or a couple days before, five killed by an IED.

What does that remind you of?

The insurgency in Iraq.

- Absolutely.

- What they're basically sitting on.

And so, Trump would be doing Israel an enormous favor.

Now there's a long history, Ian, of Israeli prime ministers using American presidents to be able to force things through the cabinet that they can't.

So I could imagine Netanyahu coming to the cabinet and saying, "I would never do this.

I would never do this.

Trump, he broke my arm, he broke my, I can't, he broke it."

And so, I could imagine that play kind of happening too.

That's happened before in the past between US and Israeli prime ministers.

I hope so.

At the same time, Palestinians need to get their act together and make sure they have a leadership in place that can build the institutions that will make any kind of Palestinian state even remotely possible and credible down the road.

- Well, now that's, that last one is kind of an incredibly tall order.

I mean, you know-- - Yeah.

We're not gonna go from here to land for peace.

I think we're gonna go from here, the only way, given what happened in Gaza on October 7th and after, we have to have a pre-process to the peace process.

The pre-process will be Palestinian institution building for Israeli restraint.

No more Israeli settlements and Palestinians reform the Palestinian Authority.

You do that for a period of time, then you basically get a chance to build some confidence for a broader negotiation.

But given what happened on October 7th, there's nobody going from here to any kind of territorial compromise tomorrow.

- Now, a tougher question is, let's imagine that you're able to engineer a ceasefire, an end to the war, a durable ceasefire in Gaza.

You know, Israel has, in many ways, isolated itself from so many around the world, including a lot of voters here in the United States because of the war crimes that they have perpetrated in Gaza.

Can they come back into the community of advanced industrial nations, given everything that's happened in Gaza?

What needs to happen there?

- So, this war was always going to involve a lot of casualties, whether Israel had been the most surgical country in the world.

And it was not, 'cause there was a lot of anger and revenge involved in this, in this attack, because they were humiliated on October 7th.

So what I argued was basically, if you're gonna fight this war in Gaza, you're gonna need three things.

You're gonna need time, you're gonna need resources, and you're gonna need legitimacy because it's gonna involve a lot of casualties.

The only way to have all three is to have a Palestinian partner, to make clear you are going into this war, to forge, finally, a different relationship with Palestinians to destroy Hamas as an organization precisely because it's been an enemy of peace from the very beginning, and to help Palestinians birth a different leadership.

Now you can say, "God Friedman, that's like crazy, naive.

Are you nuts?"

You know what I mean?

But tell me what the alternative is.

Tell me how this alternative is better.

And had Israel done that, had this war been fought to secure Israel, but also to nurture a different relationship with Palestinians, I'm not saying it wipes away all those casualties.

- Yeah, yeah.

- A lot of people died.

A lot of children died.

But it would've given Israel a much higher moral ground to stand on.

- Well, there is an alternative.

The alternative is you don't, you don't have a higher moral ground, but you don't think you need one because you're the dominant player, militarily, technologically, economically.

I mean, that certainly has been Trump's view, right?

I mean, the United States, how much moral legitimacy does the United States have in the world today?

And the answer is, I mean, it was never as high as Americans would've liked it to have been, but it's a hell of a lot less today.

Right?

For lots and lots of reasons that you and I have both talked about for decades now.

And yet, Trump's position is, "Doesn't matter because we're a lot more powerful than you are."

Right?

So, I mean, there is an alternative for Israel, and I mean, a lot of Gulf states are willing to do business.

It's not like the UAE was saying, you know, "Over the course of the war in Gaza, we're gonna cut off our diplomatic relations, we're gonna stop acting as tourists."

I mean, you go to Dubai, right?

Look at how many Israelis are there.

They didn't cut that off, right, at any point.

So I'm wondering if the, you know, the Israeli government thinks the law of the jungle's just fine for them.

- I would argue though, that Dubai and the Gulf States are one thing, and western Europe and American college campuses are another.

My concern is when this war is over and every photographer in the world and journalist crawls over Gaza, and you really see the Dresden-esque impact there, that I think it's gonna be a bad day for Israel and a bad day for world jury, if there's no peace process going on the other side, if there's no hope of a better future.

And my concern is, I've written, is that my grandchildren grow up in a world where they will learn what it is to be Jewish in a world where the Jewish state is a pariah state.

And that is a very bad thing.

And that's what I've been arguing with Israel to seek to avoid.

There are many Israelis who understand that.

There's a big debate going on in Israel about this.

But right now, it's not the the governing view.

My hope is once the Israeli hostages are returned, God willing, and the fighting stops, the killing of Palestinians, God willing, you will see a debate in Israel.

The hostages and their continued detention by Hamas has made Israelis crazy, 'cause everybody knows somebody who knows somebody.

And I think because of that, they haven't fully absorbed what has been done there in their name and by their military.

There's gonna be no excusing it.

And by the way, one must never lose sight of the fact that Hamas, in my view, did this deliberately.

This was a act of human sacrifice.

To sacrifice tens of thousands of Palestinians in a war that had no defined goal whatsoever, other than the destruction of Israeli Jews, in order to produce material on TikTok that would influence the next global generation.

And it worked.

- Tom Friedman, I appreciate you.

- Thanks, Ian.

(soft digital chiming music) - And now, to "Puppet Regime".

We're hiding Ayatollah.

It's a long time listener.

First time caller.

Roll that tape.

- Okay, welcome back to "This Authoritarian Life".

Me and Xi's podcast focusing on total self-discovery.

Pretty big news these past few days, huh, Xi?

- Yeah, the movie "Jaws" turned 50 years old.

- Wow, 50 years, huh?

Time is really fly.

Shark, I think got kind of bad rap there.

(phone buzzing) Ugh, crap.

This guy again.

- Again?

He's been blowing me up for days too.

- Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

Hello.

- Vladimir.

It's me, Ayatollah.

- Oh, hi.

How's it going, man?

- Missiles were falling.

Drones were exploding.

- Ah, so you are vacationing in Ukraine?

You know-- - What?

No.

Here in Iran.

Aren't you going to help me against great Satan and little Satan?

- Look, what they did to you was very bad.

And I am holding space for you.

Okay?

But, today is not great day for me to actually help you.

- Well, why not?

- I have to uh, take my cat to the vet.

(speaks in foreign language) - Cats are important.

What about day after?

- You know, my Outlook calendar is acting up.

Always at worst time, da?

The look, let's talk later.

I'm in middle of recording podcast with Xi-- - You're with Xi?

Am I on a speaker?

- Say something.

- Yes.

Hello.

- Look, all of the oil is flowing, no problem.

But I am needing more of your help.

- Sorry, the connection is really bad.

You're saying you are eating more and more kelp?

That's great news.

The health benefits are-- - What?

Guys, I thought we was like, like bros. Like even an axis even.

Guys?

Guys?

- Did you realize that the shark in "Jaws" was named for Steven Spielberg's lawyer?

♪ Puppet Regime ♪ - That's our show this week.

Come back next week and if you like what you've seen, or even if you don't, or you're looking to offload your own stockpile of enriched uranium, why don't you check us out at gzeromedia.com?

(bell dings) (light upbeat music) (light upbeat music continues) (light upbeat music fading) (soft digital music) - [Announcer 1] Funding for "GZERO World" is provided by our lead sponsor, Prologis.

- [Announcer 2] Every day, all over the world, Prologis helps businesses of all sizes lower their carbon footprint and scale their supply chains, with a portfolio of logistics and real estate and an end-to-end solutions platform addressing the critical initiatives of global logistics today.

Learn more at prologis.com.

- [Announcer 1] And by: Cox Enterprises is proud to support "GZERO".

Cox is working to create an impact in areas like sustainable agriculture, clean tech, healthcare, and more.

Cox, a family of businesses.

Additional funding provided by Carnegie Corporation of New York, Koo and Patricia Yuen, committed to bridging cultural differences in our communities.

And... (light upbeat music) (moves into dramatic theatrical music)