Ali Vaez, Director of the International Crisis Group’s Iran Project, argues the 2015 nuclear deal contained Iran’s program for 15 years without military action, despite U.S. withdrawal and $150B in unfrozen Iranian assets. With the Supreme Leader dead, power lies with Ali Larijani (governance) and Mohammad Bawair Khali Buff (war effort), avoiding a successor until conflict stabilizes. Vaez warns airstrikes can’t dismantle the IRGC’s 200,000-strong force—plus a million militias—citing January’s protests where thousands were killed, and dismisses democratic transition prospects due to the IRGC’s entrenched control over Iran’s coercive institutions and regional proxies like Hezbollah. [Automatically generated summary]
Senator, I hope you're not in the American people do not want a war with Iran.
Senator, I hope you can look into your penalty and see that the American people are sick of these endless wars you get out into a totally tonight kicks off C-SPAN's campaign 2026 primary coverage.
Live across the C-SPAN networks.
First up, North Carolina and Arkansas.
But all eyes are on Texas.
The Lone Star State could decide the balance of power in Washington, shaping control of the U.S. Senate and influencing redistricting battles that could redraw America's political map for years to come.
We'll also bring you high-stakes House and Governor's races across all three states.
Our live coverage begins at 7 p.m. Eastern.
Watch as voters in Arkansas, North Carolina, and Texas head to the polls.
Primary night on the C-SPAN networks.
Every moment, every result, every speech.
C-SPAN, bringing you democracy unfiltered.
Welcome back.
Joining us to talk about U.S. and Israel combat operations against Iran is Ali Vaez.
He is the International Crisis Group Iran Project Director.
Ali, welcome to the program.
Great to be with you.
So can you just start by telling us about your role at the International Crisis Group and your background when it comes to Iran?
Well, the International Crisis Group is a conflict prevention organization working based on the concept that prevention is always better than cure.
Conflicts produce all sorts of instability, refugees, reconstruction, radicalization.
And it's always better to try to find solutions before war starts.
So that's the raison d'être of this organization.
And my involvement in the 2015 nuclear deal was precisely to advance that goal, that a diplomatic solution had more staying power and sustainability than trying to pursue a military option.
And I think we have actually seen this play out now.
You know, in 2015, the U.S. and its allies agreed to a deal with Iran that put Iran's nuclear program in a box for 15 years without firing a shot and at no cost to U.S. taxpayers.
Last year, President Trump bombed Iran nuclear facilities and told us that the program had been obliterated.
Eight months later, he's bombing Iran again out of fear that Iran could have a nuclear weapon.
And this has already cost U.S. taxpayers at least a billion dollars.
All right, so Ali, let's go back, if you don't mind, to the 2015 agreement during the Obama administration.
Since you were involved in that, I want to ask a little bit more about that.
Was Iran fully transparent when it came to their nuclear program during that agreement, during the time that that agreement was in place?
Did they abide by all the parameters of that agreement?
It's a very good question because there is an international UN agency, a technical organization called the International Atomic Energy Organization, which was verifying Iran's compliance with its commitments.
So we didn't need to trust the Iranians.
This was mistrust and verify.
And the IAA was doing the verification on the ground.
And Iranians did comply with all of their commitments for even a year after the U.S. withdrew from the agreement and re-imposed sanctions on them.
The criticism of that agreement also was that the U.S. essentially gave Iran $150 billion.
Now, this wasn't American money.
This was unfreezing their own money.
However, they could still use that money for all kinds of nefarious purposes around the Middle East, including funding proxy groups.
What do you say to that?
Look, I think anyone who's in the deal-making business of any kind understands that only deals can work in which both sides would benefit.
It's hard to imagine that we could get Iran to subject its nuclear program to the most transparent and rigorous inspection mechanism implemented anywhere in the world and accept limits that no other country has accepted on its nuclear activities for a long period of time in return for nothing.
Of course, the U.S. did allow Iran to access its own money, but the reality is that that was always the core of a bargain.
Nuclear restrictions and transparency measures in return for sanctions relief and economic incentives for the Iranians.
So let's come to today, Ali.
What is the current situation, the current domestic situation in Iran?
Who is running the country right now?
Look, after the Supreme Leader was killed in the opening act of this conflict, there is now a three-member council which has assumed the responsibilities of his office.
That council is comprised of the president, the head of the judiciary, and a member of the Guardian Council.
But that's not really where the power lies.
The power lies with two individuals, Supreme National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani, who is a former Speaker of the Parliament, and the current Speaker of the Parliament, Mohammad Bawair Khali Buff.
Both of these individuals are former commanders of the Revolutionary Guards and have long experience in statecraft.
It appears that Larijani is running the day-to-day management of the country and its strategic direction, and Khalil Buff is running the war effort.
And as far as we know, that those two gentlemen are still alive and are still active and are calling the shots right now in Iran?
That seems to be the case.
Of course, at some point, the system would have to choose, if it survives, of course, it has to choose a successor for the Supreme Leader.
But my sense is that that is unlikely to happen until the dust on this conflict settles, because otherwise they would be painting a target on that individual's back.
Well, let's talk about the possibility of regime change.
This is what you said in an article you wrote for foreign policy titled Trump's Iran Gamble.
You said this about regime change, quote, bombs can degrade infrastructure, they can weaken capabilities and eliminate leaders, but they do not manufacture, sorry, they do not manufacture organized political alternatives.
The Iranian public is unarmed, fragmented, and facing one of the most securitized states in the region.
Even a weakened regime retains coercive institutions, the revolutionary guards, intelligence services, internal security forces that are built precisely from moments like this.
Explain that.
Yeah, look, the Revolutionary Guards, which is primarily responsible for repressing the Iranian people, is about 200,000 strong.
It has about a million strong militia, in addition to additional security forces.
So we're talking about 1 to 2 million men with arms.
These are ideological hard men who have no hesitation to kill.
We saw in the crackdown against the protests in January that this regime killed about a few thousand people of its own people.
So Ali, just to clarify, the IRGC is separate from the Iranian military?
It is.
It is a parallel army.
Its task is really the preservation of the regime in contrast to the army, whose task is to maintain the country's territorial integrity.
And the IRGC is under the direct control of the supreme leader, whoever that might eventually be?
Technically speaking, the supreme leader was the commander-in-chief of the IRGC.
That's true, but IRGC has become so powerful now that it is basically in charge of its own destiny.
And the point I was trying to make in that article is that, you know, the massacre that the IRGC committed against the Iranian people in January was done with small arms.
It wasn't done with tanks and fighter jets like in Syria in 2011 to 2024.
It was done with small arms.
And if you are to completely neutralize a force of this size, only from the air without forces on the ground, without boots on the ground, it requires destroying huge parts of a country of 92 million.
And even then, the Iranian population are unarmed, leaderless, and would not be able to face the remnants of this regime who are still able and willing to kill to remain in power.
Ali Vaez is with us, joining us during this segment, and we'll take your call so you can start calling in now if you've got a question for him.
Democrats are on 202-748-8000, Republicans 202-748-8001, and Independents 202748-8002.
We'll get to your calls very soon.
Ali, you mentioned when talking about the IRGC, what kind of role have they played historically since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, attacking either Americans or American interests overseas?
Well, the IRGC basically morphed from a ragtag militia which started learning the art of war during the Iran-Iraq war to a massive bureaucracy that has an economic conglomerate, it has TV, it has social media networks, it is involved in all aspects of life in Iran.
And of course, it has an expeditionary force that operates outside of Iran's borders.
And it created this network of proxies and militias in Iraq, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Yemen, to try to project power and deter an attack on Iranian soil.
Of course, in the process, they did arm groups that targeted Americans, whether that was Hezbollah in 1983 killing 241 U.S. Marines in Beirut, or hundreds of Americans who fell victim to IEDs that the Revolutionary Guards provided to Iraqi militias.
And even the Houthis in Yemen today, if they fire rockets towards Israel or towards U.S. naval athletes in the region, they are empowered by Iran and by the Revolutionary Guards.
Ali, you mentioned that the opposition is leaderless.
It is unarmed.
What are the chances that there could be a democratic transition in Iran, or are we going to just end up with a status quo once all the bombs become silent again?
So, look, as much as I hope that what President Trump said could materialize, which is that after this war ends, Iranian people could come to the streets and take over the institutions of governance.
Again, I think it's a mirage.
It's very unrealistic.
Everywhere else that we've done regime change, there have either been American boots on the ground or indigenous boots on the ground.