"U.S. and Iran agree to talks on returning to the 2015 nuclear deal" PBS NewsHour 4/2/2021
Excerpt
SUMMARY: The United States announced Friday that it will join indirect talks with Iran beginning next week in Vienna, Austria. The ultimate goal is to have nations return to a 2015 deal in which Iran curbed nuclear activities in exchange for sanctions relief. Robert Malley, the U.S. Special Envoy to Iran, joins Judy Woodruff to discuss.
Security forces appear to fire on protesters with live ammunition
Popular anger swelled Monday in Iran over the accidental shoot down of a Ukrainian jetliner and the government’s attempt to conceal its role in the tragedy, as online videos appeared to show security forces firing live ammunition and tear gas to disperse protests in the streets.
Iranians, already suffering under crippling U.S. sanctions, expressed shock and outrage over the plane crash that killed scores of young people. They also decried the misleading statements from top officials, who only admitted responsibility three days later in the face of mounting evidence.
The country began last week engulfed in mourning after a U.S. drone strike killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, who led Iran’s regional military interventions. Then on Jan. 8, it responded with a ballistic missile attack on two bases housing U.S. troops in Iraq, although there were no casualties.
U.S. commanders at the base said Monday they believe the attack was intended to kill American personnel, an act that could have pushed the two powers to outright war.
Hours after that barrage, as it braced for a U.S. counterattack that never came, Iranian forces accidentally shot down the Ukraine International Airlines jetliner, killing all 176 people aboard shortly after it took off from Tehran for Kyiv.
For a growing number of critics — from ordinary citizens to notable athletes and artists — the events have revealed a government that is incapable of following through on its incendiary rhetoric and willing to mislead its own people about a national tragedy in order to avoid embarrassment.
Those sentiments first boiled over late Saturday, shortly after the Revolutionary Guard admitted shooting the plane down by mistake. A candlelight vigil at a university rapidly turned into an anti-government demonstration.
“They are lying that our enemy is America! Our enemy is right here!” students shouted.
On Sunday night, protesters massed in Tehran’s Azadi, or Freedom, Square.
Videos sent to the New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran and later verified by The Associated Press show a crowd of demonstrators near Azadi Square fleeing as a tear gas canister lands among them. People cough and sputter while trying to escape the fumes, with one woman calling out in Farsi: “They fired tear gas at people! Azadi Square! Death to the dictator!”
Another video shows a woman being carried away in the aftermath of the violence, a trail of blood visible on the ground. Those around her cry out that she has been shot in the leg.
“Oh my God, she’s bleeding nonstop!” one person shouts. Another shouts: “Bandage it!”
Photos and video after the incident show pools of blood on the sidewalk.
Tehran’s police chief, Gen. Hossein Rahimi, later denied that his officers opened fire.
“Police treated people who had gathered with patience and tolerance,” Iranian media quoted Rahimi as saying. “Police did not shoot in the gatherings since broad-mindedness and restraint has been the agenda of the police forces of the capital.”
President Donald Trump has openly encouraged the demonstrators, even tweeting messages of support in Farsi and warning the government not to fire on them.
Trump, meanwhile, added to the controversy over his justification for killing Soleimani, saying Monday that “it doesn’t really matter” whether it was in response to an imminent threat to the United States.
In a tweet, Trump criticized Democrats for trying to determine whether Iranian attacks the administration has said were planned by Soleimani against U.S. targets were imminent.
“It doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past,” Trump wrote. The administration has held Soleimani, as head of Iran’s Quds Force, responsible for orchestrating Iran’s use of proxy forces in terrorist attacks throughout the Middle East, and the deaths of hundreds of U.S. soldiers over the years, long before the threat it has said justified the Jan. 3 U.S. drone strike that killed him.
In a separate tweet, Trump emphasized Soleimani’s past actions rather than the threat of future attacks. “The Democrats and Fake News are trying to make terrorist Soleimani into a wonderful guy, only because I did what should have been done for 20 years,” he wrote.
Trump promoted a manipulated image of Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) wearing a turban and a headscarf in front of an Iranian flag, claiming it showed “the corrupted Dems trying their best to come to the Ayatollah’s rescue #NancyPelosiFakeNews.”
Many Democratic lawmakers and some Republicans have questioned the administration’s claims about the immediacy of the threat — and the targets — and charged that it has failed to provide full and accurate information about an action that brought the U.S. and Iran to the brink of war.
Gambrell writes for The Associated Press, The Washington Post and
The New York Times contributed to this report.
SUMMARY: Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s political news, including the U.S. military’s killing of elite Iranian general Qassam Soleimani and its potential repercussions and how fundraising and polling numbers are stacking up for 2020 Democrats a month before the Iowa caucuses.
Judy Woodruff (NewsHour): Between the escalating conflict with Iran and the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination, 2020 has already been a busy year for American politics.
Here to help us make sense of it all, Shields and Brooks. That's syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks.
Hello to both of you, and happy new year.
Mark Shields, syndicated columnist: Happy new year.
Judy Woodruff: Although, as we have been reporting, the new year has gotten off to a sobering start.
Mark, what do you make of the Trump administration decision to target and kill this senior Iranian general?
Mark Shields: I don't know.
Every act like this has risk and reward, and I don't know anybody who can predict what will happen, Judy. I mean, it violates all of the rules that we have about going into armed conflict with disproportionate force and with fully understood objectives and with an exit strategy and with backing of our allies and so forth.
None of those was met. And the President doesn't have the benefit of the doubt. He treats truth like a second home. He only lives there occasionally, and, therefore, he doesn't have the natural credibility that American Presidents — and it has been hurt.
The Afghan papers, most recently The Washington Post, revealed 18 years of deception and deceit and self-delusion about the United States in Afghanistan, the lying that we have had and the evasion.
So, you know, I don't see it — I see it more impulsive than strategic, just like the entire Trump administration. It doesn't appear to be thought out.
Judy Woodruff: How do you respond to that?
David Brooks, New York Times: Yes.
Well, first, like the other 7.5 billion inhabitants of this Earth, I don't know either. But I do see it sort of on three levels, first, in the near term, the immediate term, which is, I think it's a reasonably good thing that somebody who was responsible for the deaths of 600 Americans and hundreds of thousands of people in the Middle East meet some justice.
I do think that's a good thing. The fact that there were rallies around the Middle East celebrating his death is a sign of the destruction he has wrought.
Then there is the middle term, and that's somewhere between anxiety-inducing and terrifying, because we just — I don't think either Iraq or Iran or the U.S. want to have a war, but they have got to show they do something, and then we do something. And it could escalate into something.
I think it's extremely unlikely. But they play this game. I have been covering the Middle East for 30 years. And they play this game. And, sometimes, it goes fine and somebody just finally quiet — walks away, but, sometimes, it doesn't.
And so, in the middle term, I think we're overall right to be worried about that.
And then, in the long term, I think talent doesn't grow on trees, and this guy was their best guy. And so getting rid of your enemy's best guy probably in the long term yields some benefit.
And, second, his strategic — his basic signature move was to create militias around the Middle East, extragovernmental militias, in a sometimes hostile country. And to the extent that we can weaken that there should be militias all around the Middle East, then we have stabilized the Middle East long-term.
The middle term is what you have to worry about.
Judy Woodruff: And, Mark, do you get the idea the administration is prepared for what may come from this, as a result of this?
Mark Shields: No. No.
And I guess where take some — depart from David is, we have been down this road before. We had a major Republican leader address the Veterans of Foreign Wars Convention and assure us that the foreign leader has weapons of mass destruction, there's no doubt he's amassing them to use against us, against our allies, I'm confident that he's on the verge of having nuclear weapons.
That was Dick Cheney. That was 18 years ago. And that was hundreds of thousand of deaths ago. As a consequence of this act, the Iraqi Parliament may very well do what it hasn't done. And that is act in concert and ask us to leave.
If they ask us to leave, now, what does that mean for our troops in Syria? What does that mean for any of our influence in the area?
Now, I just — I do not see any coherent, thoughtful policy emanating from this. It's almost like the administration has been scrambling to come up with a rationalization. They did it, and now, well, we're going to brief you on Tuesday. We're going to brief you 120 hours after the event as to what happened.
We're going to do it from a resort in Florida, I mean, suggesting the gravity of the moment — all of that. I mean, for a man who's sensitive to theatrics and optics, like Donald Trump is, none of this makes any sense.
David Brooks: Yes, I guess the only — the first thing I would say was, what Mark raised, all those are real possibilities.
And, frankly, it's above my pay grade to know all the different details of this. But a lot of people I admire, like Mike Mullen, who we just had on the show, or General Stan McChrystal, who was head of special ops, before running the Afghan war, they say, on balance, they see the risks and it's worth the risks.
And so these are really professional operators, and so you have to have some respect for that.
As for the Trump administration, I sort of agree. I often ask the administration officials from past administration, what did you learn inside that you didn't learn outside? And how is it going to affect your career as a pundit afterwards?
And they always say, you never know the actual information that is going on inside. In most administrations, there's all these backroom signals they're all sending even to their adversaries.
And so you have some confidence, well, these people know what they're doing.
I don't have that confidence right now. And so I do agree with Mark that I don't think there is a policy process in anything realm of the Trump administration. And so, therefore, the thought they have sketched out scenarios B, C, D, and Q, that's probably not happened. And so that's where the anxiety comes from.
Judy Woodruff: Are you discouraged?
Mark Shields: Judy, on the eve of going to war in Iraq, Jim Webb had been secretary of the Navy and later be secretary — senator from Virginia, asked a very straightforward question, which the administration, Bush administration, refused to confront. Are we as a nation prepared to be an occupying country and force in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years?
And he was — oh, what do you mean? What do you mean?
I mean, war begins with unintended consequences. Admiral Mullen referred to that. I mean, on the eve of World War I, the German general staff was absolutely convinced 42 days to conquer France and France's army.
I mean, and here we have 75 years after Victory in Europe Day, and we have troops in Europe, and we have American troops in Japan, and 67 years after the armistice in Korea, we're on the front lines in Korea.
I mean, so…
David Brooks: I don't think anyone wants to do boots on the ground.
I certainly would find that appalling. But the Middle East fights their wars differently. They — it's like a little shot here and then a little shot there. And it's choreographed. You go up here. You go there. And so they have been doing this. And they're professionals at it, which is — and we're not. So that should be faced.
SUMMARY: For two weeks, thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets in what began as protests denouncing a hike in fuel prices. But the uprising quickly turned political, with demands that top officials step down, and the government blacking out internet in response. Meanwhile, Iranian leaders accuse the U.S. of fomenting the unrest. Special correspondent Reza Sayah joins Amna Nawaz to discuss.
SUMMARY: Airstrikes on Saudi oil facilities over the weekend disrupted markets and increased tensions between the U.S. and Iran. The U.S. blames Tehran for the attacks and has reportedly shared intelligence with Saudi Arabia to back up the assertion. Lisa Desjardins reports, and Judy Woodruff talks to Frederic Wehrey of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace about the risk of escalation.
SUMMARY: In Riyadh on Wednesday, Saudi Arabia showcased evidence it says proves Iran’s involvement in weekend airstrikes on two major Saudi oil facilities. Iran denies the claim, and given the strained relations between the two countries, how should the U.S. respond? Yamiche Alcindor talks to Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute and Rob Malley of the International Crisis Group.
SUMMARY: In response to the seizure of an Iranian-flagged ship by the United Kingdom earlier this month, Iran on Friday took a British oil tanker and its 23 members. As tensions between the two countries rise, Britain is looking to de-escalate the Gulf crisis diplomatically. Jackie Northam, NPR’s international affairs correspondent, joins Hari Sreenivasan to discuss.
