AMNA NAWAZ: For perspective on today's talks## and President Trump's handling# of Iran, we get now two views.

Alan Eyre a four-decade career in U.S.

government,# including in the Foreign Service focusing on Iran.## He was part of the Obama administration's team# that negotiated the Joint Comprehensive Plan of## Action, or JCPOA, agreement with Iran.# He's now at the Middle East Institute.

And retired Colonel Joel Rayburn had# a 26-year career in the Army.

During## the first Trump administration, he was# on the National Security Council staff,## focusing on Iran in the Middle East.

He's# now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.

Welcome to you both, gentlemen.# Thanks for being here.

(CROSSTALK) COL.

JOEL RAYBUR.. AMNA NAWAZ: Alan, I will begin wi.. Just give us your assessment of how th.. President Trump has been handling this approach# dealing with Iran, demanding it gives up a nuclear## program, assembling a massive military force,# and threatening strikes if there's no deal.

ALAN EYRE, Middle East Institute: I think# that, again, based on what we heard today,## there has been progress.

And I think if# there were enough time given to the problem,## to the process, there could, in fact, be a nuclear# agreement between Iran and the United States.

They made progress, but there's still key red# lines.

The problem is you have all that military## hardware in the Persian Gulf and nearby, and# you can't keep that there indefinitely.

So,## I mean, the most salient fact of# all of this is that the red lines## for either side have not really shifted,# not just since last year's 12-year war,## but since the beginning of the negotiations# between the Trump administration and the Iranians.

So we can reach an agreement, but# it depends on whether we're willing## to allow indigenous enrichment in Iran.

In# terms of how President Trump is handling it,## it's all a question of whether he# wants to give enough time to the## two sides to negotiate to reach# a deal.

And that's his decision.

AMNA NAWAZ: Colonel, how do you see it?

COL.

JOEL RAYBURN (RET.

), Former Trump National#.. different this time around is that the# administra.. issue really.

If you listen to the president,# if you listen to Secretary Rubio in particular,## it's the other aspects of the Iranian regime's# destabilizing and aggressive behavior.

It's the ballistic missile and drone production# and proliferation, including, for example, into## the Ukraine war through the Russians.

It's the# support for the terrorist proxies like Hezbollah,## Hamas, and so on, and the Houthis, which# exploded on October 7 and October 8.

So I think what the administration is after# right now, it does seem the Iranian negotiators## will always try to sequester it down to the# narrow issue of nuclear enrichment, leaving## the rest of the aspects of the Iranian# regime's aggressive policies unaddressed.

And, frankly, that was one of the fatal# flaws of the 2015 JCPOA that the Obama## administration negotiated.

It became just# an agreement about the nuclear enrichment## file and left Qasem Soleimani# and Quds Force and Hezbollah's## behavior across the region unaddressed,# the missile and drone aspect unaddressed.

And that's what began to blow# up in 2017, 2018, and so on.

AMNA NAWAZ: Alan, to the point, this is what# we have heard from the Trump administration,## have they made a convincing case about# why there is an imminent threat from## Iran that would warrant a military# strike?

Have you heard that yet?

ALAN EYRE: I have not heard it.

I obviously# listened to the State of the Union speech.

Joel is right.

Iran is -- presents a# type of threat to the United States,## in that it is antagonistic to what# we're trying to do in the region,## to what we're trying to do in the world.# But in terms of it being an imminent threat,## other in the sense of its nuclear program,# its missile programs or its decimated,## if not destroyed networks of proxies,# no, no threat, no imminent threat.

And what's most interesting is that now Iran# has lost almost all of its deterrence that it## had before the October 7 attacks.

So, finding# an agreement with Iran on the nuclear issue## is theoretically possible.

If you put missiles# on the table, if you put proxies on the table,## the odds of reaching an agreement with Iran is# null, null set.

It's just not going to happen.

AMNA NAWAZ: So, Colonel, if the goal is a deal,## then why the military buildup?

Why the expedited# talks with the threat of a strike on the back end?

COL.

JOEL RAYBURN (RET.

): I think we're in a# different world in a post-October 7 and October 8.

Remember, October 7 was the Hamas attacking# against Israel.

October 8 was the Iranian## regime and Hezbollah decision to enter that# war, which they didn't have to do.

That## was a war of choice on the Iranian regime's# part, the supreme leader's decision-making.

So I think we're in a different world post-October# 7 and 8.

Their use of militant proxies,## the ballistic missiles and drones which they# provided that have done so much damage in Ukraine,## the Houthis shutting down the Red Sea,# for example, against commercial shipping,## that's not tolerated anymore.

That kind of hybrid# threat from the Iranians is not tolerated anymore.

AMNA NAWAZ: And many of those proxies# have been degraded now, right?

COL.

JOEL RAYBURN (RET.

): They have been degraded.# They have been degraded and the Iranian regime's## own capabilities have been degraded, but# the intention still seems to be there.

And I think what the president and the# administration are responding to is,## after the 12-day war last June, I think there# was an expectation that the supreme leader's## regime would abandon that aggressive policy,# they would they would abandon their ambitions## to get back to nuclear enrichment, to continue# to produce and proliferate drones and missiles,## and then they would they would be willing to# sever ties or wind down the militant proxies.

And that just hasn't happened.

The# evidence has been in the other -- in## the other direction.

I think that's# what's been compelling this action.

AMNA NAWAZ: Are you concerned this will# end with the U.S.

military strike?

And,## if so, what do you think that strike# looks like?

What form could it take?

ALAN EYRE: I'm not concerned it will# end with a U.S.

military strike.

I'm concerned it will start with the U.S.# military strike, in the sense that Iran has## made it known that, unlike previous# responses, were it to be attacked,## either what we would characterize as a limited# attack or decapitation, any type of attack,## Iran has said, largely because it feels its# deterrence has been eradicated and it needs## to restore it, that it will respond# aggressively and disproportionately.

So I'm concerned that despite the huge# imbalance in military power between the## U.S.

and Israel were to join and Iran, that Iran# will strike out and try to destabilize the region,## strike at our allies, strike# at our forces in the region,## strike at Israel.

And that would lead to# events in the region that can't be helpful.

AMNA NAWAZ: Colonel, 30 seconds left.# I will give you the last word here.

COL.

JOEL RAYBURN (RET.

): I just# think, in a military confrontation,## if it comes to that, between# the United States and Iran,## it's not really a fight.

It's not even just a# fair fight.

There really won't be a contest there.

The Iranian regime has adopted a security# doctrine in which they essentially don't have## conventional defenses.

They don't really# have an air force, a navy, an army.

They## barely have missile and air defense.

So this# would be a short contest.

It could be sharp,## I think, in the first couple of days, as it was in# their confrontation with the Israelis last year.

But the military disparity there is just# vast, I think more than people understand.

AMNA NAWAZ: We will see what happens.

We'd# love to have you back as things develop.

Colonel Joel Rayburn and Alan Eyre,# thank you so much for your time.

ALAN EYRE: Thank you, Amna.