Has US ever gained less in conflict than Iran war?

[0:00] here's my take. Well into the second month of the U.S.-Israeli war, it is worth taking stock of [0:06] where things stand. Here's what things looked like in Iran and its neighborhood before the war began [0:12] in late February. In June 2025, Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities had been, in President [0:18] Trump's words, completely and totally obliterated by a 12-day bombing campaign by U.S. and Israeli [0:25] forces using American stealth bombers and 30,000-pound bunker-busting bombs. The head of [0:32] Israel's defense forces agreed with Trump, saying, we have set Iran's nuclear project back by years [0:38] and the same goes for its missile program. That conclusion was reiterated by Israel's [0:44] Atomic Energy Commission, which added that the achievement can continue indefinitely as long [0:51] as Iran did not get access to nuclear materials and that access was actively being [0:55] denied. Iran's military capabilities had been substantially weakened by separate Israeli air [1:02] campaigns in 2024, which killed key Revolutionary Guard leaders, destroyed air defenses, and struck [1:09] ballistic missile facilities. Israel also heavily bombed Iran's most deadly militia ally, Hezbollah, [1:17] killing several layers of its top leadership and, by many analyses, crippling the military [1:22] strength of the organization. It had already taken apart Hamas, [1:26] in Gaza. Finally, Israel's campaign against the Iran-backed militias that supported the [1:31] Syrian government played a part in the collapse of that regime in December 2024. In other words, [1:38] Iran was in very bad shape militarily. In addition, its economy was a mess, [1:45] destroyed by the tightening of sanctions and its own corrupt regime. Hardly anyone could argue that [1:51] Iran posed a threat to its neighbors, let alone to the United States, which sits roughly 6,000 [1:57] miles away from the United States. The United States is the only country in the world that has [1:57] a threat. Donald Trump effectively admitted this on Wednesday. It's worth noting that none of [2:07] America's European or Asian allies were consulted, and many have spoken out against the war. In fact, [2:13] reports suggest that Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu sold Trump on this war not because Iran was an [2:20] imminent threat, but because its unprecedented weakness provided an opportunity to strike hard [2:27] to effect regime change. Why else would Trump have closed his brief announcement at the start of the [2:33] war by urging the Iranian people to rise up and overthrow the regime? A call echoed by Netanyahu [2:40] in his own message. So far, aside from devastating Iran and crippling its already weak military, [2:48] which was predictable in such a one-sided contest, few of the desired results have been achieved. [2:55] The regime has not fallen. Key leaders have changed for the worse. [2:59] The 86-year-old Ayatollah Khamenei, who famously banned the development of nuclear weapons, [3:06] was killed and replaced by his son, who is said to be more hardline than his father. [3:11] In general, the Revolutionary Guards, who have always been more militant, seem to be ascendant, [3:17] which makes sense in times of war. The Strait of Hormuz, which was free and open despite many [3:23] threats through 47 years of U.S.-Iran tensions, is now blocked by the new leadership, whom Trump [3:30] says is much more reasonable. President Trump says that after a few more bombing runs, the Strait will [3:36] open naturally because Iran will want to export its own oil. This misreads the situation. The [3:43] Strait is not closed. It is open to Iranian oil, which is flowing freely, especially to China. [3:49] The net result of the war is that Iran now makes about twice as much on its daily oil sales [3:56] compared to before the conflict. In addition, if it continues to charge a reported [4:01] $2 million per passing ship, Tehran will make hundreds of millions of dollars in additional [4:07] revenue every month, enough to rebuild its military and more. America's Gulf allies now [4:13] face a far more unstable and tense environment than they did before the war. Their business [4:19] models require peace, stability, and economic integration. Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince, [4:24] Mohammed bin Salman, had mended ties with Iran in 2023 because he wanted to calm geopolitical [4:31] waters. [4:32] Today, all that progress is in jeopardy as oil exports are crippled and the region has [4:41] gone from having a path to be an oasis of stability rather than a cauldron of conflict. [4:48] The obvious winner is Russia, which will make billions of extra dollars every month as the [4:53] price of oil rises and America waives sanctions against it. Ukraine loses as weapons it needs [4:59] are diverted to the Middle East. [5:01] Europe loses as it faces crushing energy costs, and Trump demands that NATO fight his [5:07] war and threatens to pull out of the organization if it doesn't. It's worth noting that NATO [5:12] is a defensive alliance and did not fight in the wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. China [5:19] gains as America gets mired in another Middle Eastern conflict and loses its focus on Asia. [5:26] Meanwhile Beijing's massive investments in green technology shield it from many of the [5:31] costs of this war. [5:32] war, and it appears to the world as a more responsible, less disruptive superpower. [5:38] Of course, things could change. Wars are unpredictable. But so far, has any American [5:45] military action ever racked up so many costs for so few gains? I'm joined by Richard Haass, [5:52] the President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, and Zannie Minton-Beddoes, [5:56] the Editor-in-Chief of The Economist. Richard, the American forces were able to do something [6:03] extraordinary, really quite spectacular. But what the President is now asking them to do next [6:09] appears to be to bomb the basic energy infrastructure, power plants that provide [6:16] civilians with energy. That has traditionally been considered a war crime, and it's certainly [6:22] on plain reading is a violation of the Geneva Convention. [6:26] What do you think the President is going to do next? [6:27] What do you think of this idea? And is it possible U.S. military personnel who are told [6:34] not to follow illegal orders might have some qualms about actually executing an order like this? [6:42] Several things there, Fareed. First of all, you're right. The rescue mission was operationally [6:46] extraordinary, and it's consistent with this war, where the operational capabilities of the U.S. [6:52] military have been phenomenal. But all that said, it doesn't necessarily mean the United [6:58] States is going to be able to do anything. It's going to be a war. It's going to be a war. [6:58] The U.S. is going to be able to do anything. It's going to be a war. It's going to be a war. [6:59] The U.S. is going to be able to do anything. It's going to be a war. The United States is winning the [7:00] war strategically. There's a strong argument we are not. What you raise is the idea of going [7:05] after infrastructure. I think it does raise fundamental legal questions. It also raises [7:10] real policy questions, because what Iran has shown is its willingness and ability to respond [7:15] in kind against the water plants, the energy infrastructure of all of its neighbors. Whether [7:22] individual soldiers would balk, I think that's unlikely, simply because there are those making the [7:28] argument that the U.S. is going to be able to do anything. It's going to be a war. It's going to be a war. [7:28] argument that because energy, for example, somehow contributes to military activities [7:34] or leadership activities, my guess is it's in something of a gray area. But this is the [7:40] responsibility of the commander in chief and the kind of post that the president put out on Truth [7:46] Social, which really raises fundamental questions about his judgment and then urging these kinds of [7:52] attacks. Again, I would think this does the opposite of reassuring our partners and allies [7:58] and I don't think it intimidates Iran. Let me just read for those who have missed it. [8:07] This is a Trump tweet that Richard is referencing and it says, and I'm not quoting and there is [8:13] explicit language, but I am quoting the president of the United States. Tuesday will be power plant [8:18] day and bridge day all wrapped up in one in Iran. There will be nothing like it. Open the [8:25] fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell. [8:30] Just. [8:30] Watch. Praise be to Allah. Zannie, when you when you listen to this, the question I have in a way [8:39] is the problem Trump seems to have found himself in is anything he does to punish Iran is almost [8:47] certainly going to raise the price of oil because Iran will respond to energy infrastructure in the [8:52] Gulf because they will keep the Strait of Hormuz closed. That is close to non-Iranian oil. So it [8:59] feels as though Iran is going to raise the price of oil because Iran is going to raise the price of [9:00] oil. So it feels as though Iran is going to raise the price of oil because Iran is going to raise the [9:00] price of oil because Iran is going to raise the price of oil because Iran is going to raise the price of oil. [9:01] So it feels as though Trump has sort of backed himself into a corner, assuming the Iranians will [9:05] absorb pain, which they seem willing to do. [9:10] Absolutely. I mean, the first thing to say is I was shocked hearing you read that post as I was [9:16] reading it myself. And it is when I use this word advisedly, it sounds unhinged that that is the [9:21] president of the United States is just profoundly shocking. And I think we've all become somewhat [9:26] inured to statements by the president of the United States. But even by his standards, that was very [9:31] shocking. And I wasn't surprised. [9:32] When I looked on my phone just a few minutes ago to find several people asking whether this was [9:36] actually real. So I think, you know, let's just take a breath about the kind of language being [9:41] used by the president. But yes, you're absolutely right. I think this is a mark of his frustration [9:46] and his frustration with a situation where Iran clearly has the upper hand in strategic terms [9:53] because he has no good options, President Trump. If he tries to escalate, it is likely that Iran, [10:00] which has already shown that it will escalate. [10:02] It will escalate itself, will damage more oil installations. The price of oil will go higher if he somehow declares [10:08] victory and moves away, then the straits are likely to stay closed. And so right now, this is a very, very [10:13] difficult situation and one where I think the president of United States is showing us just how frustrated [10:19] he is. But if those threats were to be carried out, I don't for a second think that it would do anything [10:24] other than increase Iran's resolve to maintain the straits being closed.