Highest inflation since 2023 as U.S.-Iran trade new strikes

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: where do things stand right now? Well, Anna, I think things stand at a pretty hostile and a pretty precarious situation right now, because once again, tensions flared right across this region last night. And ultimately, it feels like we're sliding back down the ladder to square one. And that would be a complete catastrophe for the president, not least given those inflation figures that have come out where you are today. Why does it feel like that? Well, as you mentioned, the last 48 hours, we've seen further fighting. We've seen the rhetoric heated up between the two sides, U.S. and Iran. And we're seeing no peace when it comes to the region, no progress in peace whatsoever. Once again, last night, the U.S. carried out these self-defense strikes in retaliation to Iran downing that military helicopter. President Trump called them very strong and powerful attacks that lasted four hours. The U.S. hit air defense systems in Iran, ground control stations, radar sites near to the Strait of Hormuz. And then the Iranian retaliation was missiles targeted to the U.S. base in Jordan. They targeted Kuwait once again, drones and missiles inside of Bahrain, specifically the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, and the Pentagon reporting that there were apparently no casualties, no damage, and that all the missiles and drones were intercepted. But finally, Anna, the IRGC, the Iranian military, have vowed that if the U.S. attacks continue, the acts of malice, as the IRGC have put them, then heavier responses from Iran are on the way. [00:01:43] Speaker 2: And now, the president is also threatening Iran today, saying it will pay the price. Jackie, what does he mean by that? [00:01:52] Speaker 3: Yeah, Anna, well, we are all trying to figure that out still, because in the span of 24 hours, the president is both threatening to ramp up the ongoing war, while also claiming and promising peace, and that negotiations are coming to an end, and that there could be some sort of deal within days. Trump has obviously long been frustrated with the pace of negotiation. That is a frustration we see almost daily, whether it's through truth social posts, his comments to reporters in the Oval Office, or interviews, sit-down interviews with reporters. And that frustration has come despite all of the briefings, analysis, and input that Trump has received, that the timeline that he initially laid out for this goal to get Iran to give up their nuclear program was unrealistic and unlikely. Yesterday, though, was the first time in several weeks that we saw the president actually follow through on this threat to retaliate against Iran. Previously, we had experienced sort of a number of these threats via truth social, only for the president to be convinced by diplomats, by allies, by his own advisers to rein it in, not follow through with that threat, and continue to commit to negotiations. So the big question today is, obviously, we're seeing Iran retaliate back now to the U.S. tensions and sort of the military operations and kinetic actions escalating, obviously. But how is Iran going to respond from a negotiating perspective? There are Qatari negotiators that were set to arrive in Tehran today. Are we going to be pushed closer to a deal if the president decides to continue these strikes? Or is Iran going to just withdraw, as we've seen during past iterations of this kind of [00:03:41] Speaker 2: scenario and halt negotiations? General Hurtling, Trump now vowing Iran will pay the price. Do you see military escalation further on the horizon? I mean, he's threatened to build or blow up power plants and bridges before, but that's civilian infrastructure. It is. And as we've said so many times before, [00:04:05] Speaker 4: Ana, that is a war crime. It's a strike against civilian infrastructure. To answer your question, I'll just elaborate exactly on what Jackie said, because she hit it right on the head. Trump's public message has been, first, Iran shot down an American helicopter. We don't know that's the fact yet. There seems to be differences between what CENTCOM is saying it's under investigation versus the president saying it was shot down. Then he says America must respond. But at the same time, he continues to repeatedly say that a diplomatic agreement with Iran is only a few days away. These two positions create some tension. If you're truly on the verge of a peace agreement, which he claims he is, you generally avoid taking action that makes diplomacy impossible. If you're determined to restore deterrence, you conduct a visible military response. What the president has chosen to do is the limited retaliation. And we were talking about this last night. The Pentagon already has certain target packages already developed, strikes against radar sites, air defense systems, missile launchers, guard, revolutionary guard facilities, maritime surveillance nodes near Hormuz. All of these things are in strike package. They're quick to execute, and the president did it exactly last night as he claimed. There's another thing he could do, and that's to allow Israel greater freedom of action in Lebanon. He's basically shut down their attacks against Hezbollah, even though Israel has struck has struck the Christian sector near tire in southern Lebanon. But I think we have to watch what Israel does next, because that could be another course of action. But each one of those don't seem to fit in with seeking a peace deal and trying to get back to the negotiation table. [00:05:51] Speaker 2: And I will note that there have been more Israeli strikes inside Lebanon as well this morning. Hagar, considering just how many times President Trump has ping-ponged between big threats and then big promises about a peace deal, how much weight do you give these new Trump threats? How much weight does Iran give them? [00:06:08] Speaker 5: I don't think a lot, to be honest with you. The Iranian regime's behavior indicates that it's not fearful of U.S. consequences at the moment, which is a problem. That's a significant problem. I think President Trump is showing his cards, and he shows that he is desperate for a deal and very interested in a deal, which I can understand, given domestic gas prices and inflation, as you noted, and the pending midterm elections. So I understand the desire for a deal always. But the fact is that the Iranian regime, they can see that. They're banking on that. And they're playing their bargaining chips quite well, which is frustrating as an American, playing their cards in the Strait of Hormuz, trying to use Lebanon as a bargaining chip, obviously these aggressive attacks in the Gulf, and also, by the way, low-level terrorist attacks in Europe, which the State Department talks about today in their statements. So the Iranian regime, their goal is to survive and to play and to survive Trump out until another president whom they hope would be more lenient. And that's their main goal, whatever it is. And they're banking on proportionate responses. And so if, in fact, it's confirmed that the regime took this helicopter down, or by the way, one of their proxies, that is the same. I want to be very clear about that. And the U.S. responds proportionately. That's exactly what the regime is banking on. It just highlights that their intent is to push U.S. presence out of the region, whether it's in state of war or a state of peace. And Trump's talk and the fact that we've been in this ceasefire stays longer than in Operation Epic Fury. It's not working because the regime doesn't feel enough of that pressure. Their back isn't up and up against the corner, up against the wall enough. And that's going to undermine our strength of position in [00:07:49] Speaker 2: negotiations. General, you talked a bit about the U.S. military options and capabilities. President Trump is also arguing, even just this morning, that Iran's military is basically a non-factor, even though they just took out this helicopter. They're able to fire missiles and drones across the region, clearly. What's the realistic assessment of their capability right now? [00:08:10] Speaker 4: We're seeing it on a daily basis, Ana. They are not defeated. And it's the same thing we've seen in past wars. Every time we think that we have either destroyed or defeated an organization and claim that there's nothing left that they can give, they come back with more firepower. The question isn't whether America can respond with more military force. It can. And it can be very effective. The real question is whether the response helps achieve the political end state that we've been talking about, or is it simply another step in an escalatory cycle? America has the military capability. And something I've said multiple times before, Iran has the time. They can sustain these kind of activities where we're seeing connections to economic damage that the Strait of Hormuz being closed is causing. And I think the president wants a deal very quickly. Unfortunately, Iran has the time on their side, so they don't need it as much as the president does. And they are facing an existential threat. So they're going to continue to fight. And I would suggest they've probably got a whole lot more arrows in their quiver hidden in the mountains in and around Toronto. [00:09:20] Speaker 2: I think the layman would look at what's happening and say, the ceasefire is clearly not in effect anymore, Hagar. And yet the Pentagon called the U.S. strikes against Iran overnight, this proportional response to unjustified Iranian aggression. You talked about Iran kind of doing a proportionate response back. President Trump said the U.S. strikes were a necessity, that it was a necessity for the U.S. to respond to Iran. Do you agree that this was a necessity? What did this latest flare-up achieve? [00:09:50] Speaker 5: I, for the record, I absolutely believe it was a necessity. I always believe it's a necessity when the Iranian regime attacks U.S. troops or equipment in any way possible. Yes, the two pilots survived, but they might not have. It doesn't mean that we should convey a message to the Iranian regime that they're allowed to pursue this kind of behavior, because if they see that, they'll only take more, right? If you give them an inch, it'll take a mile. The regime is buying—they will never stop their efforts to pursue aggressive attacks toward U.S.—toward the United States and American interests in the region. And I actually think—the general, by the way, has hit some really important points on the types of targets that the United States can hit. Missile defense systems and these missile launchers, the fact that they still have these, these are ripe for targets. And they make sense as targets, given the situation you have in the Middle East. Now, I will tell you, yes, it's not a true ceasefire. That's common in these situations. They tend to look more like a less fire. The issue is, as we've been talking about, and the general, too, is what gets us to the desired outcome? My opinion is that escalating further would get us to that desired outcome with partners as well. We need more international partners on that. That's an opinion. It doesn't necessarily mean it's a guaranteed outcome. But I just—I see the Iranian regime behaving too brazenly and too bold and not understanding the consequences on the other end. And the fact is that we're in this now. And so, again, in my opinion, Vice President Vance said this to the president, if you're going to start this, you have to finish the job. And no, an air campaign alone won't do it. But this is—now we are in this middle situation that will remain unstable if the president doesn't take decisive action one way or the other. [00:11:50] Speaker ?: Thank you.