Libertarianism

We want to avoid wars, we have to have serious deterrence because our enemies need to understand, we will use selective, focused, overwhelming military power when we are facing threats like an Iranian nuclear weapon. I'm not seeing the peace through strength. I'm seeing permanent militarism and permanent war through strength.

The following is a debate between Scott Horton and Mark Dubowitz on the topic of Iran and Israel. Scott Horton is author and editorial director of Ntwar.com, host of the Scott Horton Show and for the past three decades, a staunch critic of US foreign policy and military interventionism. Mark Dubowitz is a chief executive of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, host of the Iran Breakdown Podcast, and he has been a leading expert on Iran and its nuclear program for over 20 years. This is the Lex Fridman podcast. To support it, please check out our sponsors in the description and consider subscribing to this channel. If you do, I promise to work extremely hard to always bring you nuanced, long-form conversations with a very wide range of interesting people from all walks of life, and now, dear friends, here's Scott Horton and Mark Dubowitz.

Gentlemen. All right, it's great to have you here. Let's try to have a nuanced discussion/debate and maybe even steal man-opposing perspectives as much as possible. All right, as a stands now, there's a barely stable ceasefire between Iran and Israel. Let's maybe rewind a little bit. Can we first lay out the context for this Iran-Israel war and try to describe the key events that happened over the past two weeks, maybe even a bit of the deep roots of the conflict? Sure. First of all, thanks so much for having me on. Great to be on with Scott. I know he and I don't agree on a lot, but I certainly admire the passion and the dedication to stopping wars. So that's something we want to talk about. So let's talk about how we got to this war. So President Trump comes into office and immediately lays out that his Iran strategy is maximum pressure on the regime and he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, and he makes that clear. Consistently, I think made it very clear during his first term, made a clear throughout his career and thus begins this process with the Iranians, which has kind of multiple tracks, but the one that Trump sees most interested in at the time is the diplomatic track, and he makes it very clear from the beginning and a sort of Oval Office remark.

Maybe a good question to ask here is what is the goal for the United States in Iran in relation to Iran's nuclear program? What is the red line here? Does Iran have this need for latent nuclear deterrent and what is the thing that's acceptable to the United States and to the rest of the world? What should be acceptable? Yeah, so there was a lot to unpack there. So let's sort of just back up a little bit. Let's talk about first of all, the regime itself. Islamic Republic of Iran came into power in 1979. It has been declared a leading state sponsor of terrorism by multiple administrations dating back to the Clinton administration, by Obama, by Biden, by Trump and it is a regime that has killed and maimed thousands of Americans, not to mention obviously hundreds of thousands of Middle Easterners. It is a regime that has lied about its nuclear program and never actually disclosed its nuclear sites. All these sites were discovered by Iranian opposition groups, by western intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, which is the UN agency responsible for preventing proliferation has come out again and again over many years in very detailed reports describing Iran's nuclear weapons program.

There's a lot there. Just couple of things, I think, that are worth your viewers knowing. Because Scott's right. I mean, the nuclear physics is complicated, and it's also important. The Iranians have assembled about ... They say about 15 to 17 bombs worth of 60% enriched uranium. And I think it's always important for your listeners to understand, what does this all mean? Enriched to 3.67%, to 20%, to 60%, and then to 90% weapons-grade uranium. What does this actual process mean? First of all, obviously enriched uranium is a key capability to develop a nuclear weapon. It can also be used for either purposes, civilian purposes and research purposes. You can use it to power nuclear submarines. Let's just, if you don't mind, if I could just break it down-

But I want to get to the JCPOA because I actually think that's an interesting discussion for Scott and I to have because I think there's things that we agree on there and things that we disagree on. This is the 2015 nuclear deal that Obama reaches. It's negotiated painstakingly over two years between 2013 and 2015, and it follows the interim agreement that the United States negotiated with Iran. And it's in that interim agreement in 2013 where the United States for the first time actually gives Iran the right to enrich uranium. There were five UN Security Council resolutions passed with the support of Russia and China that said Iran should have no enrichment capability and no plutonium reprocessing capability because of the fears that Iran would turn that into a nuclear weapons program. But in 2013, they give that up. 2015, we reached the JCPOA. And under the JCPOA, Iran is allowed to retain enrichment capability and reprocessing capability but over time. Scott mentioned the sunsets, and just want your listeners to understand what these sunsets are. Essentially, the restrictions that are placed on Iran's nuclear program. And there's some really serious restrictions placed on it, especially in the short term. Scott's right. The enriched material. It has to be shipped out not to the French but to the Russians.

David Albright is a prominent physicist nuclear proliferation expert known for his detailed research and publication on nuclear weapons. Yeah.

It's a huge [inaudible 01:43:06]. Can we please-

Yeah. Can you comment on the so-called Operation Midnight Hammer? Now that we can look back at it, what parts were successful, what parts were a mistake? Was the whole operation a mistake that accelerates the Iran nuclear program or the incentives for it? Or is there some components that actually is a disincentive for Iran to develop the program? And then maybe you can comment on the same. It'd be nice just to get comments on each. Well, I think we really don't know, right? There's some initial battle assessments and arguments and all that about just how much was destroyed, and we don't know exactly what their reaction is going to be. There were reports of them saying, "Hey, we're already starting up a new facility somewhere else." There were reports where they said, "Hey, a lot of our centrifuges survived and we're going to start spinning them up right now," and this kind of thing. The potential is there. I don't know what the Ayatollah is going to do. And I think this goes to the larger argument about the apocalyptic threat of the Ayatollah, which Mark has not made, but which Israel hawks often do that these guys just can't wait to get into a war and all this. In fact, if you look at Iran-

Anyway, we're going into history. We're learning a lot. The perspectives differ strongly. Can we look into the, maybe a ridiculous question, but a nuclear proliferation? You already started to speak to, both of you. If you look like 10, 20 years out now, does the US attacking Iran, does that send a message, even to MBS to other Middle Eastern nations, that they need to start thinking about a nuclear weapon program? Specifically, do you think just in a numbers way, does the number of nukes in the world go up in 10, 20, 30 years?

Mark, you're the CEO of FDD, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, it's a DC-based organization that focuses on national security and foreign policy. What has been your approach to solving some of these problems of the world? So look, I love the vision that Scott painted, and I agree with some of the libertarian instincts that he has, but my view is that America is the indispensable power. Scott mentioned earlier in the conversation about the rules-based order that is so important and the NPT and all these rules-based agreements that are important to maintain. Well, the rules-based order has been maintained by the United States since World War II. There is no American prosperity to the degree that we have. There's no recovery of Europe, there's no recovery of Asia after the devastation of World War II without American power and the rules-based order that America has led and back stopped.

So you made a case for, if it's okay, you made a case for strength here. Just practically speaking, why do you think Trump has talked about peace a lot, why do you think he hasn't been able to get to a ceasefire with Ukraine and Russia, for example? If we just move away from Iran without getting into the history of the whole thing, why he's been talking peace, peace, peace, peace, peace. He's been pushing it and pushing it. What can we learn about that so far failure, that's also instructed for Iran? Look, I'm not a Russia expert. I'm not a Ukraine expert. I'm sitting in front of two people who know a lot more about that conflict than I do.

At the risk of doing the thing I shouldn't do. But just to test the ideas of libertarianism and the things we've been talking about. Can we, for a brief time unrelated to everything we've been talking about, talk about World War II, what was the right thing to do in 1938, 1939? What would you do? Okay. To be clear, World War II has nothing to do with current events. In fact, many of the horrible policies of the United States, in my opinion, have to do with projecting World War II onto every single conflict in the world. Okay. Agree.

On that topic, question for both of you, Scott. If human civilization destroys itself in the next 75 years, it probably most likely will be a World War III type of scenario, maybe a nuclear war. How do we avoid that? We've been talking about Iran, but there'll be new conflicts. There's Ukraine, China... Kashmir.