US-Iran War: Is Trump Underestimating the Conflict? | NPR

Three weeks into the U.S. And Israel’s war with Iran, the conflict’s trajectory is shifting, according to experts. What began as a calculated military action is increasingly viewed as a situation where the initial risks were underestimated and the potential for escalation has grown. A recent analysis suggests the war has evolved from a “war of choice” – one not necessitated by an immediate threat – into a “war of necessity,” driven by Iran’s response and the disruption of critical global infrastructure.

A Shift in Calculus: From Choice to Necessity

Karim Sadjadpour, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, notes that President Trump appeared to have underestimated Iran’s willingness to regionalize the conflict. Iran, Sadjadpour explains, signaled from the outset its intention to broaden the scope of the war, a move that seemingly took the U.S. Administration by surprise. This has manifested most significantly in actions impacting global energy supplies, including effectively closing the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for oil and natural gas transport.

The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which approximately 20% of the world’s crude oil and natural gas passes, has dramatically altered the strategic landscape. This disruption, coupled with recent events, suggests the conflict is no longer a matter of simply addressing perceived Iranian aggression, but of managing a crisis with significant global economic and security implications.

The Evolving Role of Iran’s Leadership

Adding to the complexity is the recent death of Ali Larijani, head of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, in an Israeli strike. Larijani was expected to be a key advisor to Iran’s newly appointed supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. Sadjadpour emphasizes the uncertainty surrounding Khamenei’s authority and the potential impact of Larijani’s loss on the regime’s decision-making process. The removal of a seasoned figure like Larijani at a critical juncture raises questions about the stability and direction of Iran’s response.

The internal dynamics within Iran are further obscured by the regime’s inherent opacity. As Sadjadpour points out, understanding the inner workings of the Iranian government is challenging, making it difficult to predict its future actions with certainty. This lack of transparency contributes to the sense of escalating risk and the difficulty in formulating an effective exit strategy.

Global Implications and the Risk of Wider Conflict

While the immediate focus remains on the conflict in the Middle East, concerns are growing about the potential for wider escalation. Sadjadpour believes the risk of the war expanding to involve nuclear weapons or additional major powers is currently low. He cites the complex web of international relationships, noting that countries like China and Russia have stronger ties with Iran’s regional adversaries, such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, than with Iran itself. This suggests that these powers may be hesitant to intervene directly on Iran’s behalf.

However, Sadjadpour cautions that the current situation has established a “dangerous precedent,” creating a climate of instability in the region. The ongoing conflict and the potential for miscalculation raise the specter of further escalation, even if a full-scale global war remains unlikely. The disruption to global energy supplies and the broader geopolitical ramifications underscore the urgency of finding a resolution.

The Search for a Best-Case Scenario

Looking ahead, Sadjadpour outlines a best-case scenario that involves several key outcomes. First, the liberation of the Strait of Hormuz from Iranian interference is crucial to restoring stability to global energy markets. Second, a cessation of attacks by Iran on its neighbors and on Israel is essential. However, even achieving these immediate goals would not resolve the underlying issues driving the conflict.

Addressing the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program, ballistic missiles, and support for regional proxies remains paramount. The issue of the Iranian regime’s brutality towards its own population, which initially prompted the conflict, cannot be ignored. Sadjadpour suggests that a long-term solution requires a fundamental shift in the Iranian government’s ideology and priorities, moving away from a revolutionary stance towards a focus on national interests.

The Challenge of Regime Change

Sadjadpour acknowledges that achieving such a transformation is unlikely in the short term. He describes modern-day Iran as a “tragedy,” a nation with immense potential hampered by its current political system. He believes that the United States and Iran should be natural partners, but that this relationship remains elusive due to the current regime’s policies and actions.

The path forward remains uncertain, but Sadjadpour’s analysis highlights the need for a comprehensive and nuanced approach. Addressing the immediate security concerns while simultaneously pursuing a long-term strategy for political and economic reform will be critical to resolving the conflict and ensuring regional stability. The situation demands careful diplomacy, a clear understanding of the complex dynamics at play, and a willingness to address the underlying causes of the crisis.

Monique Nazareth and Thea Chaloner produced and edited this interview for broadcast. Bridget Bentz, Molly Seavy-Nesper and tk adapted it for the web.