Sean Hannity and guests Dr. Michael Makovsky, Ambassador Nathan Sales, and Mark Rutte dissect a potential US-Iran nuclear deal, highlighting skepticism over Tehran's trustworthiness despite claims of zero enrichment. Experts demand immediate removal of 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium by special forces and robust inspections to prevent radiation risks and bomb reconstitution, criticizing past JCPOA flaws. The segment also addresses European weakness regarding immigration and urges support for the SAVE Act to fund ICE agents currently unpaid for 37 days, framing the situation as a critical test of American resolve against deception. [Automatically generated summary]
Hour two, Sean Hannity Show 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, massive developments as it relates to the issue of Iran with the president this morning and now confirmed that, in fact, the Iranians, they want a deal.
By the way, it's a joke that the Iranian state media, there is no state media.
Upon the instantaneous announcement that there is a possibility now that the Iranians may give in here, I think that, you know, even the president's saying the war could be settled in a five-day period if things go well.
Let me play the president from earlier today that Iran has agreed to no enrichment even for medical purposes, which is a long way from what they were telling Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner when they were negotiating up until Operation Epic Fury began.
Are we talking to Iran directly?
Do you have no enrichment whatsoever, even for medical purposes, civilian purposes?
They have.
Thank you.
All right.
So, and the president said we've had strong talks with Iran.
If they want to make a deal, we'll make a deal.
We have had very, very strong talks.
We'll see where they lead.
We have major points of agreement.
I would say almost all points of agreement.
Perhaps that hasn't been conveyed.
Communication, as you know, has been blown to pieces.
They're unable to talk to each other.
But we've had very strong talks.
Mr. Witkoff and Mr. Kushner had them.
They went, I would say, perfectly.
I would say that if they carry through with that, it'll end that problem, that conflict.
And I think it'll end it very, very substantially.
We have very much in mind our partners in the Middle East.
We've had great relationships with a lot of them, as you know.
A lot of them were surprisingly hit.
And I was surprised to see it, and so was everyone else.
But we have they're very much in mind in the discussions.
So the discussions took place yesterday.
They went into yesterday evening.
They want very much to make a deal.
We'd like to make a deal, too.
All right.
Then the president said Iran, and this is critical here.
This is what they wouldn't agree to, which became the imminent threat, coupled with the 60% enriched uranium.
He said they've agreed to not having a nuclear weapon.
If in fact this turns out to be true, this is game-changing.
Listen.
So you said there's many points of agreement with Iran right now.
Many.
What can you give us a thumbs up?
Many, like 15 points.
15 points.
Iran has said yes.
Well, they're not going to have a nuclear weapon.
That's number one.
That's number one, two, and three.
They will never have a nuclear weapon.
They've agreed to that.
That is huge news.
And anyway, joining us to analyze what's going on here, we have Dr. Michael Makofsky is with us, president-CEO of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, and our friend Ambassador Nathan Sales, who served in the first Trump administration as ambassador-at-large for counterterrorism and acting under Secretary of State.
Ambassador, I like the idea of hope.
It sounds like they've just been defeated.
You know, it's almost like saying unconditional surrender without unconditional surrender.
But I do think there's got to be a component here.
If they have all this 60% enriched uranium, that's got to be a part of it.
And I would imagine the president would insist on it.
I think so, too.
The Iranian regime has proven itself over the years to be completely untrustworthy.
No matter what they promise, no matter what they put in writing, the key question is always going to be, is it actually going to be implemented?
And, you know, for years they said we don't have a nuclear weapons program.
And then Israel snuck into the country and stole their archive and brought it out for the world to see, oh, it looks like they do have a nuclear weapons program.
years they told us our ballistic missiles could only go 2,000 kilometers.
Well they just took a shot at Diego Garcia about 4,000 kilometers away.
So clearly anything they commit to, anything they say has to be taken with an entire shaker of salt.
So right now I'm not surprised that the regime would be desperate for some sort of deal to preserve whatever is left of their ballistic missile capabilities or their nuclear capabilities.
If we're not going to end the war militarily, but diplomatically right now, we have to make sure that the end game accomplishes all of our military objectives.
No nuclear program whatsoever.
And as we've seen, their ballistic missile program is even more dangerous than we thought it was.
That's got to go too.
Agreed.
Dr. Makovsky, what do you think?
Yeah, I count me very skeptical.
Look, if we could get a great deal, that would be terrific.
But I think a great deal means to completely cleanse this country of Iran of any of its nuclear material.
Not just all the nuclear facilities, but any of that highly enriched uranium all has to be accounted for.
And because what worries me, if the regime survives, if you have a deal, by definition, the regime will survive.
Well, tell me who the regime is at this point.
Do we even know who the regime is?
I mean, I'm sure the president and Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner are convinced that they know they're talking to the right people.
However, we'll know very quickly.
We'll know in short order because I would imagine one of the first things they want to do is they're going to go in and extract any 60% enriched uranium and it will be in our possession.
So we'll know right away if they mean it or not, right?
Well, yeah, except, I mean, by the way, your point is well taken.
Who is the regime?
I assume one of the people they're speaking to, and it's, I think, been reported is the Speaker of the Parliament.
But you do have a kind of weekend at Bernie's kind of situation with the so-called supreme leader there.
We don't know if he's alive or dead.
However, I think it's got to be all the enriched uranium, not just the 60%.
My concern about a deal would be that the Iranians then will try to drag this out because we all know that that's what they do.
So if there was such a deal, there'd have to be immediate disclosure and access to all enriched uranium, the stuff that's buried everything, and destruction then of all those facilities.
And that would have to be immediate.
If they start playing around, I think then we would have to resume our military operations.
Well, I think it's going to be a little bit more complicated than just blowing it up, Ambassador Sales, because if you blow it up, then you run the risk of a radiation leak, the likes of which we've never seen.
And, you know, since Hiroshima Nagasaki probably on steroids and human growth hormone, am I wrong about that?
Yeah, it could be very dicey, Sean.
And so, you know, I agree.
One of the key outcomes of this war, whether accomplished via military means or through diplomacy, has to be a complete accounting of all Iranian enriched uranium and its removal from the country.
And it's not going to be, we trust the Iranians to go look for it and give it to us.
We're going to have to go in and get it ourselves.
Now, ideally, we would do that after the bullets stop flying.
We don't want to put our force at unnecessary risk.
But we actually have highly capable, highly trained special forces that have trained precisely for this mission, to go into hostile territory, to identify enriched uranium and to exfiltrate it, one, or two, to dilute it on site so that it can never be a threat to the United States again.
So, you know, the best case scenario would be after we accomplish our military objectives in this war and the fighting stops, one of the terms, one of the conditions of the ceasefire is we're going to go in and get it.
We're going to do it in a controlled way so that those risks you just identified of damaging the canisters and nuclear fallout, we never have to worry about that because we control the environment on the way in and on the way out.
Maybe you can explain to me.
I've had others try, and I'm not well versed in this.
My understanding is they can be preserved in those canisters, but they would be in gas form, not necessarily liquid form.
That's how little knowledge I have about enriched uranium.
Do you know any more than I do?
John, I'm not a nuclear engineer, so I know about as much as you do.
Maybe a little more, maybe a little less.
I think the key point here is there's no civilian use, no plausible civilian use for those canisters.
The only reason they could have uranium enriched to this level is to preserve a pathway to a bomb.
And if you leave them with access to those canisters in any way, you leave them with a path to a bomb.
And they're not going to give up on it.
They're only going to give up if we take the material and have a very strict enforcement regime after the bullets stop flying.
It would seem to me that the time to do that would be immediately.
Mike Makovsky.
In other words, while our military is still positioned, that would have to be done while they're still there.
That would be the trust and verified moment on that very important issue.
As it relates to the Iranians having to pay back America for this military conflict, I just know Trump well enough.
I've not discussed it with him, but I would imagine he's going to want them to pay us for what we had to do here.
Yeah.
By the way, I completely agree.
We would have to maintain our forces.
And I agree, as the ambassador said, we can't rely on the Iranians to just disclose.
We have to make sure that we've gone ourselves and accessed every point that we think that nuclear facilities are or where there could be any enriched uranium and there'd have to be an orderly removal.
I will say, though, if there is no deal, then we'd have to do that, I think, in the context of this conflict, which would obviously pose a lot more risk to our forces.
But I think for President Trump, who I think has done an outstanding job here, to really fully declare victory, there has to be a complete resolution, whether through negotiations or through the war of the nuclear material and the nuclear facilities.
Well, I think one of the goals also has to be, Ambassador, no going back.
We're done.
This is it.
This is our last excursion back to Iran.
So this has to be one and done and complete and move on, which would be fully in keeping with the Trump doctrine, right?
I think that's exactly right, Sean.
And that's why I also think it's important to ensure that our military objectives are fully accomplished before we call things off.
We don't want to end things prematurely with 25% of the targets on the list still existing, only to find out that the Iranians are now, six months from now, reconstituting their ballistic missile program, building drones, building centrifuges that they can use to enrich uranium again.
America has made a huge investment in this war in blood and in treasure.
We want to make sure that we're doing it right so we don't have to come back and do it again.
So that might mean we need a little bit of patience.
We might need to let this thing cook for a little while, let the military work its way through its war plan to make sure that it's accomplishing all of its objectives before calling things off prematurely and letting the Iranians up from the mat, which they can then use to restart all of the programs that we're concerned about.
All right, quick break more with Dr. Mike Makofsky and Ambassador Nathan Sales with the latest developments out of Iran on the other side.
Then your call is coming up, 800-941-Sean, this Monday as we continue.
Elections, Paul's Campaigns.
The latest news on your candidate.
We've got you covered this election year.
Lock it in right here on The Sean Hannity Show.
We continue now.
Dr. Mike Makofsky is with us, and Ambassador Nathan Sales is back with us.
All these latest breaking developments, some hope now in this ongoing conflict of epic fury with President Trump's announcement this morning that, in fact, the U.S. and Iran have been discussing over the last two days good, productive conversations regarding a complete, total resolution to the hostilities there.
Markets responding accordingly the minute that this Truth Social post went out this morning.
Anyway, we continue our discussion.
NATO Allies Align00:14:05
As much as people want to declare that Donald Trump has full control over Israel's actions, I would imagine their objectives are very different than the United States.
I would imagine they want regime change.
That's never been a stated goal of Donald Trump, although he did say at one point the regime needs to go, and the regime kind of is gone already, isn't it?
I don't think the Israelis believe that you have to end the war with the regime collapse.
They'd obviously prefer that, as I'm sure President Trump would.
But I don't think that the key is, and I think both countries share this, that the conditions have to be set for a collapse of the regime.
And by the way, it's impossible to predict when that could be.
It could happen as soon as the fighting stops, or it could be, you know, months later.
I mean, the big demonstrations we saw beginning in the end of December, early January, those took place six months after the 12-day war.
So you have no idea when this is going to start.
I don't think the Israelis are going to push President Trump to go until the regime collapse.
I think the key is setting the conditions, which is weakening the conventional and destroying the nuclear.
I would imagine maybe there's a final thought here.
We'll give it to you, Ambassador, that anywhere, any place, anytime, inspections have to be part of any deal.
Yeah, and that's one of the things that the JCPOA, the Obama-era nuclear deal, never had.
And that's one of the reasons why it was fatally flawed.
It ultimately depended on us taking the Iranian regime's word for it.
And that, as we know, is not worth paper that it's written on.
So we need really robust inspections to make sure that they don't reconstitute a nuclear program, a ballistic missile capability, and so on.
Are the Iranians prepared to say yes?
I think we have to watch this with a very jaded eye.
They'll say anything right now to make us stop because we've got them down on the mat and they're desperate to survive.
It's easy to say something.
We would know within 48 hours if they meant it, because probably within 48 hours, we would have a team of people in there to extract any 60% enriched uranium they have.
I think we'll have our answer that quickly, in my view.
So once again, the decision will be in the Iranians' hands.
And this time, I don't think with all of our military in place, I don't think they really have any option.
It's either that or the next layer of, quote, leadership will be gone.
I mean, the Kuds forces headquarters, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard forces headquarters, were all taken out today in the last 24 hours.
So there's not much there in terms of their ability to fight back anymore.
Over 8,000 targets, all their ships in the Strait of Hormuz.
Ballistic missile capabilities have been diminished by 90%.
But, you know, they have proven once and again that common sense does not dictate what they do.
Anyway, we appreciate you, Ambassador Nathan Sales, Dr. Mike Makofsky.
Thank you.
This is what's right with America.
You're listening to the Sean Hannity Show.
This was on Fox News Sunday.
The Secretary General of NATO, who's been very supportive of President Trump, and you know, we have been on this program very critical of our NATO allies and European nations.
Now, they have finally gotten on board.
Yes, they get more of their energy because of the Strait of Hormuz, way more than we get.
And they have been weak and feckless.
And, oh, we don't want to get involved.
We don't like conflict.
And unfortunately, I think that you are watching a decaying continent.
I'm not even sure that Europe has a path to recover.
I think the NATO alliance has been weakened significantly.
NATO countries have not kept up with their responsibility in terms of national security and national defense.
They have allowed, especially in Western Europe, unfettered immigration without any assimilation, resulting in Sharia courts in countries like Great Britain, no-go zones in countries like France, where not even police and medical personnel are allowed into certain neighborhoods.
Why people want to emigrate to a country and not adopt to that country's values and mores and assimilate, I don't know.
Why they're allowed to do it, I really don't know.
Couple that with their radical socialism that they have bought into now for decades and climate alarmism, it's very hard to understand.
And one person that has been pretty steadfast in supporting the president is the Secretary General of NATO, and his name is Mark Rutt.
And he understood that it was critical the U.S. take out Iran's nuclear capabilities.
Why Great Britain, France, Spain, other countries have been so weak, I can't explain.
Here, listen to Mark Rutt.
Well, let me first of all say that I know there is a lot of debate in the U.S. and in Europe whether this campaign of the president against Iran was necessary.
And let me tell you, it is.
It is crucial that the president at the U.S. is doing this, to take out the nuclear capability and the ballistic missile capability, because this is posing a threat.
It is an existential threat to Israel.
It is a threat to the region.
It is a threat to Europe, to the whole world.
So it is really crucial that the U.S. is doing this.
And I hope that people understand that argument, even if they're doubting whether it was necessary or not.
It is necessary.
And I commend the president's leadership on this.
And Mark Rutt even responded to Trump calling NATO allies cowards.
And frankly, they were.
Listen.
He called them cowards.
So, how does that square with what you're saying now about their willingness to show up?
Yes, well, again, the good news is that these 22 countries are following the president's lead on making sure that we free up this trade of Hormuz.
Obviously, the military campaign is still ongoing.
So that's why we are working now, these countries together and also with the U.S. to make sure that we assess what, when, and how we can do this.
But let me also say this.
The United States has been planning for this for weeks.
For obvious reasons, because of security, it was impossible to share that knowledge with allies because that would then have prevented the effect of the first attack because there was a risk always of leaking.
I totally understand why the U.S. was not able to share this with allies.
But at the same time, it means that European allies and partners all over the world have used the last couple of weeks to make sure that we come together, that they started planning to see what we can do collectively as allies, as partners of the United States at the moment as possible for the straight reforms to open up and therefore answering the president's call on this.
And that's what I told him.
I said, hey, they are following your lead, and I think that's very important.
Anyway, that's Mark Rutt, the Secretary General of NATO.
And I don't know if NATO can survive as an alliance.
We pay more than every other country combined.
The president forced them to more than double their contribution to our defense strategy agreement.
And it's still not enough on their end.
And NATO is nothing without the United States.
They need us.
And as the president said, what good is an alliance if when we need a little help from you?
And we didn't even really need it, but it was in their best interest to help us.
They didn't even want to show up in the beginning.
It was pathetic.
All right, let's get to our phones.
Alabama Robert on the Sean Hannity show.
Hi.
Hey, Sean, how are you?
I'm good, sir.
What's going on?
Just a couple of quick questions.
And I was listening to that conversation you were having with those two gentlemen earlier, and it was an interesting conversation about the uranium.
Do we know where the uranium is at?
I have every belief, according to my sources, we know exactly where it is.
Yes.
Good.
Because these people, I mean, once, you know, you're going to push this.
This is a religious ideology.
So you push these people just a little bit too far.
And, you know, they believe dying for the cause is a win-win.
So it seems pretty imperative that we get our hands on that.
You know, how many more layers deep in terms of leadership levels in Iran do we have to get to before somebody's like, this is a horrible way of life, and we're not going to have a country at the end of it if this continues that they just give up their nuclear ambition because they've lost.
Let's be honest here.
They've lost this conflict.
They've lost this entire war, but they just don't realize it yet.
I know.
And they're quick to tell you, hey, we've been around for 7,000 years.
You've only been around for 250.
And they use that like, we know a whole lot more than you do.
You know, that's what they seem to think, and they thumb their noses.
So, no, we don't want no deal.
In fact, we got 460 kilograms of 60% enriched uranium.
I mean, that, ooh, no wonder he had to act right then and there.
He really had no choice.
Steve Witkoff has said it.
The CIA director Ratcliffe has said it.
Dan Bongino was on, he was so passionate when he was on my show last week.
But Witkoff really laid it out as to why it was an imminent threat.
And for people that have other agendas, I noticed there's a lot of people that have an anti-Israel agenda.
I don't care what they have to say.
I think they're just fundamentally wrong.
They don't understand the Trump doctrine.
They don't want to understand it.
There's almost like a part of people that wants Donald Trump to fail rather than making the world a safer, more secure place for future generations.
I don't understand their thinking, and I don't really care to understand their thinking.
It's meaningless to me.
No, because if you try going in going down that rabbit hole, you'll go crazy.
I don't want to.
I'll tell you this.
If you take the converse side of it, if this was the imminent threat that Steve Witkoff, who I've known a long time and I believe, you're asking me if I believe him, you're not, but I'm saying hypothetically.
My answer is, yes, I do.
And he was there.
And if that's what they're bragging about and that's their commitment, even after Operation Midnight Hammer, then we really at that point don't have any other choice.
President had no choice here.
And so I think he made the right call.
And I'm hopeful.
I mean, I'd rather this thing come to an end.
I'd rather extract this enriched uranium safely.
I'd rather eliminate the threat for the region, for the world.
I'd rather we never go back there ever again.
I want it to end as quickly as possible.
I want the free flow of oil at market prices to be reestablished.
I think we could be well on our way to that.
You know, the president seemed hopeful today when he talked about 15 of the major points that we were insisting on they're agreeing to.
Have they now had enough?
Is this what it takes to get them to, you know, get on their knees and say, cry, uncle?
I don't know.
We'll see.
Time will tell.
Appreciate the call, my friend.
800, 941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program.
All right, quick break right back to our busy phones.
Toll-free, it's 800, 941, Sean, if you want to be a part of the program rolling along this Monday.
All right, back to our busy phones.
Toll-free, 800-941, Sean, if you want to join us.
Let's say hi to Sandra is in my free state of Florida.
Sandra, how are you?
Glad you called.
Oh, hey, how are you, Sean?
My husband and I are big fans, and we love the free state of Florida.
And we're so happy here.
I have two things.
One, I'd like to give President Trump some just big kudos and thanks and a shout out as he navigates us through this historic, historic, tough time.
You know, he had intel.
The time was now to act on Iran, and he took it.
And if that means that we have to go through some short-term discomfort for some long-term gain, we are totally on board because as sure as I sit here and speak to you, I believe 1,000% that President Donald Trump has our best interests at heart.
I absolutely know that with every fiber of my being, that that man wants nothing more than for our country to be strong, to be great.
And I am just so thankful.
I'm so thankful that he is our president.
I cannot imagine what things would be like if he was not.
He's really once in 150-year historical figure.
I mean, think of all the presidents going way, way back.
You know, that talked about Iran not having, it goes back as far as Clinton for crying out loud that they can't have a nuclear weapon.
You know, look at the idiotic deal of Obama, the idiotic, you know, allowance of Joe Biden, what, $16, $17 billion in money, you know, cargo planes of cash and other currency.
Please, please, you know, if we buy you off, will you please be nice to us?
It was just foolishness, appeasement, and it came to a head under President Trump.
And thank God he got there when he did, because these are really dark, evil people.
And we've seen this and witnessed this.
TSA Act Criticism00:03:21
They have a history of murder and death.
And, you know, their adherence to this sick ideology, this death cult, would have been an existential threat to the U.S. and the entire world.
Scary times.
Agreed.
Agreed.
My second thing I would like to pose to you is this.
I have a specific query for you about the SAVE Act because I feel like that we are being held hostage by these self-righteous pontificating Dems.
We've got these TSA workers, air traffic controllers, FBI, CIA, our amazing active duty military Coast Guard, Border Patrol, not being paid makes us less safe all the way around.
So sitting here in our wonderful state where we've got great, great leaders in our state, right?
What can we do, those of us listening to you who are in our great state and feel powerless?
What can we do to put pressure on these senators from where we sit?
Because this is just, it's just disgusting to this pontificating and chest beating to continue.
What can we do?
Can you give us some direction and tell us what can we do?
Well, the most important thing you do, and you have good senators, and we have good senators here in the free state of Florida.
We just do, number one.
Number two is we, for a variety of reasons, we're dealing with two different issues here.
One is funding the Department of Homeland Security.
Democrats thought they came up with a clever deal, and yet they would still not fund ICE.
And then once the president said that he would send ICE agents to help the TSA out because people have been waiting six, seven hours just to get through TSA to get on an airplane.
I have friends that work for the TSA.
These people have not been paid in 37 days now.
37 days.
And the Democrats don't care.
But, you know, the idea that they want this unilateral right to dox ICE agents, you know, they believe it's their inherent right to do so.
I mean, people take pictures all the time when they go through TSA is disgusting to me.
I think they ought to be able to protect their identity and their families.
These guys are there to help out and help people get through these lines so that they can get on airplanes and not disrupt travel in the country.
Tom Holman's great at his job.
I think they would do, I know they're doing a great job.
And they've been working under the most difficult circumstances, being slandered and smeared every day of the week.
So that's issue one on the SAVE Act.
Call your senator and tell you, Senator, you want them to fight as hard as they can fight to get that passed.
We've now debated this ad nauseum almost every day on this program.
We've given you every side of that argument.
Why this is an issue for some people?
I don't know.
It's an 85-15 issue.
It should be a no-brainer for everybody.
And Democrats that don't support it only have nefarious intentions.
So my advice to you to answer your question directly is call your senators or call senators that are on the fence.
I hope that helps.
Anyway, 800-941-Sean, if you want to be a part of Program.