The U.S. and Israel’s war against Iran has lasted for more than five weeks. Once the war started, President Trump expressed shock that Iran retaliated against its neighbors. The U.S. also appeared surprised that Iran had taken control of the crucial waterway, the Strait of Hormuz. Trump’s early expectations of a collapsing regime haven’t worked out the way he planned. Now, as the conflict continues, a question arises: Is it possible that Iran has gained something from this war, despite all the damage the U.S. has done?
Israel and the U.S.’s killings of many of Iran’s regime leaders at the beginning of the war have set the stage for how Iran is now responding. Vali Nasr, a scholar of Iranian politics at Johns Hopkins University, spoke with Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep about whether war has made the Iranian regime stronger. Nasr says that the new leadership in Iran is “much more extreme” with regards to how they’ve handled the people in their country and “the way in which they believe that Iran should wage war against the United States and its enemies in a much more unrestrained way.”
Iran’s new leadership has shown that it “won’t back down in the face of overwhelming threats,” Nasr said. He adds that it has also crossed lines that the previous supreme leader wouldn’t, including attacking infrastructure and civilian sites in neighboring countries. “So Iran is already waging war in a way that it hadn’t done before under the previous leadership,” he said.
Nasr says that the fact that Trump has seemingly accepted that Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz and that Iran’s 10-point proposal is the basis for ongoing negotiations is seen in Iran as a great victory for the country. He points out that Iran has managed to survive against the U.S and Israel’s military forces for more than five weeks, and also escalated the war throughout the Gulf in a manner that surprised the U.S. and created leverage for Iran.
While speaking with Inskeep, Nasr explained why he believes Trump is interested in attending high-level talks between the U.S. and Iran this weekend and the changes he has seen on both sides since the beginning of the war.
Listen to the full interview by clicking on the blue play button above.
The web copy was written by Brittney Melton and edited by Suzanne Nuyen.
Transcript:
STEVE INSKEEP, HOST:
The war in Iran demonstrates a reality of all wars – you may have plans, but the enemy gets a vote. U.S. military officers know that saying. They repeat it often, but it’s easy to forget. The United States and Israel launched a war, and once it started, President Trump said, quote, “we were shocked” that Iran retaliated against its neighbors. The U.S. also appeared surprised that Iran took control of shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, and Trump’s early expectations of a collapsing regime have yet to work out. So now we have a question. Is it possible that, for all the damage the U.S. really has done to Iran, that Iran gained something from this war? Vali Nasr joins us again. He’s a scholar of Iranian politics at Johns Hopkins University. Vali, good morning.
VALI NASR: Good morning.
INSKEEP: First, I just want to remember – President Trump began the war by telling Iranians, just wait. Hunker down. Once we finish bombing, you can just step out into the streets and take over your government. Well, the U.S. has stopped bombing, it appears. Any sign of an uprising?
NASR: No. There is no sign of an uprising right now, and I don’t think we would see one until you have a period of peace in Iran and the shadow of war passes over Iran. I think the people are still very concerned with the war. They’re extremely angry at the bombing of their infrastructure, and they were offended and are angry at President Trump threatening the country’s civilization and sending them back to the Stone Age. So they’re not right now organized in their minds and in their actions against their own government, but surviving this war and thwarting destruction of their country.
INSKEEP: Did President Trump, through his rhetoric, make it impossible for Iranians to unite against their government?
NASR: Well, it’s difficult to see people uniting around a political cause in the middle of a war. But also, they had thought that the United States was an ally, was going to liberate them, that its war was on the Islamic Republic, not on Iran as a civilization and as a country. And therefore, the rhetoric, I think, made them think twice about what this war was about and what would happen if even they went against their government in the middle of a war.
INSKEEP: Israel and the United States did succeed in killing many of the regime’s leaders, including the supreme leader. There are new people in charge, and President Trump himself, in one of his recent social media posts, described them as being somehow more practical. How has the balance of power changed in Iran between the more extreme elements and maybe the more pragmatic ones?
NASR: Well, I think we’re seeing both at the same time. You know, the people who are on top in Iran are much more extreme, both given their history of how they’ve handled the people inside Iran and also the way in which they believe that Iran should wage war against the United States and its enemies in a much more unrestrained way. But at the same time, they have been negotiating with the U.S. and were willing to at least entertain this two-week ceasefire. So the pragmatism that President Trump is referring to, I think, is to that element. But I think what he’s seeing on the battlefield is a completely new face of Iran.
INSKEEP: What do you mean, a completely new face of Iran on the battlefield?
NASR: Well, this – we can see that the new leadership in Iran is not restrained in the way that it’s attacking its neighbors, that it’s willing to escalate the war with the United States, that it won’t back down in the face of overwhelming threats. And it has crossed lines that, let’s say, the previous supreme leader wouldn’t cross – for instance, in attacking infrastructure and civilian sites in neighboring countries. So Iran is already waging war in a way that it hadn’t done before under the previous leadership.
INSKEEP: How significant is it, Vali, that President Trump seems to have accepted the idea that Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz – that hasn’t ended – and Iran’s 10-point proposal is a good basis for negotiation?
NASR: I think it’s – it will be seen in Iran as a great victory. I mean, after all, Iran is going against a superpower and another military, which is among – one of the best in the world. And it has survived for six weeks, and it has thwarted their attempt to overthrow it within days. And it was able to escalate the war into the Gulf in a manner that surprised the United States and has created leverage for Iran.
And that was the only reason President Trump is even thinking about going to Islamabad, is because of the strategic gain that Iran gained in the Gulf – not because of anything else that has happened in this war, not because of Iran’s nuclear program or anything else. It’s because of the Strait of Hormuz. But in reality, the United States cannot deny Iran control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran sits on the Strait of Hormuz, and it can – it doesn’t need a navy to close down the strait. It can just threaten shipping with drones and missiles. And that’s not something that the United States can demand that be undone unless it comes to some terms where Iran would agree not to threaten shipping.
INSKEEP: I want to ask about one of President Trump’s many, many statements about the Strait of Hormuz. He spoke to our friend Jonathan Karl of ABC News earlier this week, and I’m just going to quote a post in which John describes what he heard. Quote, “this morning, I asked President Trump if he’s OK with the Iranians charging a toll for all ships that go through the Strait of Hormuz. He told me there may be a joint U.S.-Iran venture to charge tolls.” Quote – this is quoting the president now – “we’re thinking of doing it as a joint venture. It’s a way of securing it – also securing it from lots of other people.” Quote, “it’s a beautiful thing.” What do you make of President Trump now saying maybe he’d like to join Iran in a joint venture to extract money from passing ships?
NASR: Well, this was already stepping down from what he had said earlier, which was that the United States would charge tolls if anybody was going to charge tolls, which went along with the way that he talks about – that every conflict would mean that the United States gains financially. But I think he was in the mood to say everything positive in order to get to Islamabad, including that the United States would accept at some level Iran charging tolls, even if it’s in collaboration with the U.S., that Lebanon – that a ceasefire in Lebanon was included in the agreement for a ceasefire between U.S. and Iran.
And so it all shows the sign that he was really leaning into these negotiations in Islamabad. It’s not Iran that was really eager for the ceasefire and – to work. It’s the United States. And that betrays the fact that he now finds himself in a very difficult position. And six weeks in, Iranians can claim that the glass is half full for them, and it’s clearly half empty for the United States.
INSKEEP: You just mentioned Islamabad. You’re referring to the talks we’re expecting this weekend in Pakistan to make a final peace, if possible. Do you see any basis – in the 20 or 30 seconds we have – any basis for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, which the U.S. keeps periodically forgetting to include in its list of demands?
NASR: I think that’s actually where the most of the conversation is going to be focused on because that’s the only thing that the two can agree on, something that the – that President Trump can claim as a victory and Iranians can get some sanctions relief over.
INSKEEP: Ah, so there is a possible trade there. Vali, thanks so much. Really appreciate it.
NASR: Thank you.
INSKEEP: Vali Nasr studies Iranian politics at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC)
