--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): President Trump campaigned to get the United States out of foreign wars. He's now considering whether to join Israel's campaign against Iran. What are the risks abroad and the political costs at home? I'm A. Martinez, and this is Up First from NPR News.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): Israel asserts that Iran is making a big new push to make a nuclear bomb and that they're on the verge of success. The U.S. intelligence community has said otherwise. They assert that Iran suspended its weapons program more than 20 years ago, so who's right?
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): And the White House is sending mixed messages about how it'll enforce immigration orders for agricultural workers. President Trump promised to find solutions for farmers, but ICE officers are still targeting workplaces such as meatpacking plants and dairy farms. Stay with us. We've got all the news you need to start your day.
--:-- Host (Rachel Martin): Hey, it's Rachel Martin. I'm the host of Wildcard from NPR. For a lot of my years as a radio host, silence sort of made me nervous. That pause before an answer, because you don't know what's going on on the other side of the mic. But these days, I love it. Ah, gosh. Give me a minute. Yeah, yeah. Listen to the Wild Card Podcast only from NPR.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): President Trump once distanced himself from Israel's military action. Now he's taken some ownership. The president is talking in terms of "we" when he discusses Israel's war against Iran. He's even saying the United States could take out, his words, the supreme leader of Iran, calling Ayatollah the Khamenei an easy target who is only safe for now.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): The president has faced some pushback from his own political allies who oppose American involvement. NPR White House correspondent Franco Ordonez has been covering this. So Franco, President Trump spent the afternoon yesterday with his national security team in the Situation Room. What are the chances of deeper United States involvement here?
--:-- Franco Ordonez: Yeah, that's the big question. And that was being debated in the Situation Room, you know, the future of U.S. action in this conflict. I mean, Trump has repeatedly said all options are on the table. He's drawn a red line if soldiers are targeted. But he's also signaling the U.S. is already more involved than the White House previously let on.
--:-- Franco Ordonez: Just as Steve was pointing out, he's boasting that, quote, "we now have total, complete control of the skies over Iran." He's saying we know where the supreme leader is. I mean, he's repeatedly using that word "we," blurring the line between Israel's objective and U.S. objectives. You know, and taking that kind of ownership has really raised more concerns of the U.S. getting more involved into another foreign conflict.
--:-- Franco Ordonez: Yeah, so that's interesting because some of the people who are most concerned about foreign involvement are allies of President Trump. So tell us more about this friction.
--:-- Franco Ordonez: Yeah, for someone who has such dedicated supporters, it's really notable that some of Trump's longtime backers are questioning his judgment here. Trump of course has long been known for his America First message. And some key conservative allies, such as former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Trump's former White House aide Steve Bannon, see Trump straying from America First and are pressing him to stay out of this fight.
--:-- Franco Ordonez: Here's Carlson explaining his position on Bannon's podcast War Room. My interest is really simple. I don't want the United States enmeshed in another Middle Eastern war that doesn't serve our interests.
--:-- Franco Ordonez: Now, Trump campaigned on ending long wars, peace through strength, he would say. I also spoke with Brett Bruin, who served as the White House Director of Global Engagement in the Obama administration. He said Trump supporters thought they were getting a president who was going to disentangle the U.S. from overseas commitments. What they're seeing, however, is a president who is getting pulled back in to a foreign crisis that another country started and that the U.S. interests remain somewhat questionable.
--:-- Franco Ordonez: OK, so how is President Trump responding to these criticisms? Well, he's pushing back, especially against Carlson. Trump posted on social media, quote, "somebody please explain to kooky Tucker Carlson that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon."
--:-- Franco Ordonez: Vice President J.D. Vance has also weighed in on social media saying Trump has shown restraint, but that Trump has the right to decide whether to take further action to end Iranian enrichment. No, you know, you mentioned enrichment. I remember like a few weeks ago, Trump had actually been talking about a deal right before the most recent strike. So does this latest stance mean that that diplomacy is now completely over?
--:-- Franco Ordonez: Yeah, I mean, right now, Trump doesn't appear to be interested in diplomacy. He told reporters he's not in the mood to negotiate. What we don't know is whether at the same time this tough talk is part of his strategy to further pressure Iran, because he's also said he may send Vance and Special Envoy Steve Whitcoff to negotiate, though perhaps not right now.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): All right, that's Franco Ordonez. Thanks a lot.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): All right, now we're going to take a closer look at Iran's nuclear program. Which matters a lot here because Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says he ordered the attack on Iran because he believed Iran was marching very quickly toward a nuclear weapon. The U.S. intelligence community has been saying something else. It says Iran suspended its nuclear weapons program more than two decades ago and has never reversed that assessment. So who's right?
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): To sort this out, we've called on NPR national security correspondent Greg Myrie. So Greg, there are clips, video clips of Benjamin Netanyahu saying that Iran is close to producing nuclear bombs. Those clips go back 30 years to 1995. Can you lay out the conflicting arguments here?
--:-- Greg Myrie: Yeah, so Netanyahu has been saying time and again that Iran is on the verge of a bomb. And he's saying he ordered the attack now because Israel believes Iran was making a big new push to get there rapidly. He didn't provide details, but he claimed the intelligence was clear and was shared with the U.S. Now, the U.S. intelligence community has had a very different position. It says Iran suspended its weapons program back in 2003.
--:-- Greg Myrie: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard stated this in congressional testimony in March, said Iran was still enriching uranium, but nothing really new. This was very familiar ground. Now Trump has contradicted Gabbard saying, quote, "I don't care what she said. I think they, meaning the Iranians, were very close to having it."
--:-- Greg Myrie: But here's the other thing, too, because international inspectors have been monitoring Iran's program for a long time, for years. So what do they have to say?
--:-- Greg Myrie: Yeah, the UN's nuclear watchdog agency, the International Atomic Energy Agency, says Iran has enriched quite a bit of uranium to 60 purity. You need to get to 90 purity before it's considered weapons-grade. But that change that upgrade can be done very quickly. If Iran did this, it would have enough uranium to make around 10 nuclear weapons. Iran would still need to take several additional steps to make an actual bomb. Most experts think we're talking about a matter of months, though.
--:-- Greg Myrie: And now, of course, everything is changing by the day. Israel has already hit a number of nuclear sites, and it's hard to make a full assessment at this point. Then if the U.S. decides to actually attack Iran, what action would it take? Israel wants the U.S. to do one big thing, and that's use its massive bunker-busting bombs to hit the Fordow nuclear facility, which has this enriched uranium.
--:-- Greg Myrie: Now, this is a major challenge because Fordow is built into a mountainside, which is a little over 100 miles south of Tehran. If the U.S. strikes, the thinking is it would use this bomb that weighs 30,000 pounds, 15 tons. It's formally known as the GBU-57 or the Massive Ordnance Penetrator. It's so massive that only one U.S. plane can carry it, the B-2 bomber.
--:-- Greg Myrie: And, you know, Israel relies almost entirely on U.S. planes and U.S. bombs, but it doesn't have this bomb or this plane. And Israel has repeatedly requested this weapon from the U.S., but the U.S. has always declined. So do we know if this bomb would, in fact, destroy a nuclear facility protected by a mountain?
--:-- Greg Myrie: Yeah, that's an open question. We just don't know for sure, and there's lots of variables. The nuclear facility is believed to be about 300 feet under the mountain, and this is a mountain that consists of very hard rock, meaning it could be difficult to penetrate. Israel says it's taking control over the skies of Tehran, so U.S. planes could likely approach this nuclear facility facing little or no threat.
--:-- Greg Myrie: But it's just not clear whether the site could be completely destroyed. It could take multiple bombing runs, and there are no guarantees this would be the outcome.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): All right, that's Greg Myrie. Thanks, Greg.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): Some other news now, a kind of clarification. The Department of Homeland Security says it is still targeting industries that employ lots of people without legal status. Employers in agriculture, construction, hospitality have worried about losing their workforces to immigration raids. And several raids last week heightened their concern. And even President Trump said he worried about losing, quote, "very good longtime workers."
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): Now DHS has clarified what they intend to do. NPR immigration policy reporter Jimena Bastillo is in our studios. Good to see you. Good morning.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: Good morning.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): Is the administration acting on the president's concern by calling off some enforcement?
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: You know, there really has been a lot of inconsistent messaging, and that really stems from there's two schools of thoughts, primarily within the Republican Party, on how to handle workers without legal status.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: The first faction is really understanding that their communities and industries are heavily reliant on workers without legal status, and that if those workers were just to go away, entire local economies and supply chains would fall apart. And these are in areas that are very red, Republican, and industries that generally back the president.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: But then there's this other group, and it's the part of the base that wants to increase deportations no matter what, no matter who. And these are the folks that hold very high-level positions within the administration, thinking like White House boarders are Tom Homan, Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: They're pushing immigration officials to arrest up to 3,000 people a day in order to achieve the president's goal of mass deportations.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: OK, so that's the conflict. What has actually been happening on the ground? So until recently, the agriculture sector had generally been left alone.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: But then last week we saw several instances of immigration officers arresting and targeting the ag sector, particularly 70 people were arrested at a meatpacking plant in Nebraska. Several farms got targeted in California and a dairy farm in New Mexico as well.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: And that really sent employers and workers into high alert. The next day, President Trump once again promised to find a solution for farmers specifically, posting on Truth Social that these workers needed to be protected.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: But then again this week, we're seeing the Department of Homeland Security double down again, kind of a bit of a whiplash for this industry. Assistant Secretary of Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin has said that there's no safe spaces for industries who, quote, "harbor violent criminals," and that worksite enforcement remains a cornerstone of their efforts.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: Meaning that these raids can go ahead. Anybody can be targeted at any time.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): Correct. So how are employers and employees preparing for that?
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: So advocates representing employers have told me that they continue to be concerned. You know, they underscore that they want to follow the law, and many times they believe that they are.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: But they say that even if they think all their employees have work authorization, they know that doesn't mean their families or their friends or people in their communities have legal status. And that is what leads us into what the administration is calling collateral arrests, which means if one person is targeted, anyone that happens to be around them at the time that they're arrested also gets arrested if they have lack legal status or something needs to be questioned.
--:-- Jimena Bastillo: You know, we still don't know what the White House's solutions are for the farming industry, despite months of promises that there will be something. But that also means there will be continued pressure on, you know, coming from some of these key industries in the United States that could be a hurdle for what the president wants to do.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): NPR's Jimena Bastillo, thanks for the update.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): And that's Up First for Wednesday, June 18th. I'm E. Martinez. And I'm Steve Inskeep. Your next listen is Consider This from NPR News. Up First gives you three big stories of the day. Consider This drills down on one. Listen now on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.
--:-- Host (A. Martinez): Today's episode of Up First was edited by Dana Farrington, Andrew Sussman, Anna Yukhananov, Janaya Williams, and Alice Woelfle. It was produced by Ziad Buchh, Claire Murashima, and Christopher Thomas. We get engineering support from Stacey Abbott. Our technical director is Carleigh Strange. Join us again tomorrow.
--:-- [Theme music fades in]
--:-- Host (Mariel Segarra): Here at LifeKit, we take advice seriously. We bring you evidence-based recommendations. And to do that, we talk with researchers and experts on all sorts of topics because we have the same questions you do, like what's really in my shampoo or should I let my kid quit soccer or what should I do with my savings in uncertain economic times?
--:-- Host (Mariel Segarra): You can listen to NPR's Life Kit in the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts. How are you choosing to live on autopilot or with intention, the way you think you should or the way you want to?
--:-- Host (Rachel Martin): If you're tired of small talk, check out the Wild Card Podcast. I invite your favorite celebrities to open up about the big topics we all think about but rarely talk about. Tune in this fall to hear Matthew McConaughey, Shonda Rhimes, and Padma Lakshmi talk about everything from grief and God to ambition and forgiveness. Watch or listen on the NPR app, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.
