Video summary
The video features Andrew Fox, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society, who offers a skeptical analysis of the United States' position in its conflict with Iran following a month-long lull in fighting. Fox argues that traditional concepts of victory and defeat are ill-suited for modern warfare, noting that unlike historical battles where an enemy army is driven off the field, there is no clear decisive condition for success in this asymmetric conflict. He suggests that the American objective remains unclear beyond reopening the Strait of Hormuz, a goal that was achievable before the war began, implying that the current military campaign lacks a coherent strategic end state. While proponents point to tactical gains such as reducing Iran's ballistic missile stockpile and delaying its nuclear program, Fox contends that these do not translate into a strategic win because they fail to achieve the ultimate political aim of regime change or forcing Iran to surrender.
A central theme of the discussion is the difficulty of achieving regime change through economic pressure alone, especially given that Iran has been under sanctions since 1979. Fox warns that even if the current regime were toppled internally by economic strangulation, it would likely result in a civil war where only the hardline factions, such as the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), possess significant firepower. This scenario could lead to further internal conflict rather than stability. Furthermore, he highlights severe logistical and readiness issues within the American military, citing reports of depleted missile defense supplies, reduced ammunition stocks, and shortages of aircraft carriers. He describes the U.S. military effort as "undercooked" for this specific type of prolonged conflict, leaving America in a precarious position where it struggles to sustain operations without risking escalation or running out of critical resources.
The transcript also addresses the economic plight of Iran under President Masoud Pezeshkian's warnings that the country can no longer export oil or import goods, a situation Fox attributes partly to China's ability to shield its allies from sanctions. He points out that ordinary Iranians are suffering immensely while the regime's elite remain insulated, creating internal tension at the top of the government. Despite these pressures, Fox notes that the IRGC remains the dominant power within Iran, suggesting a strategic failure in the U.S. plan to decapitate leadership early in the conflict. Consequently, the war appears to be dragging on without a clear horizon for resolution, with both sides engaging in carefully calibrated exchanges of strikes that risk further escalation if missile interceptors run low, a danger illustrated by the experiences in Ukraine.
In conclusion, Fox expresses deep concern that the conflict may continue indefinitely until at least the upcoming midterms, as neither side shows signs of backing down. He emphasizes the real threat of an escalatory ladder where more missiles are fired at Gulf states, potentially exhausting their interceptor stocks and leaving them vulnerable to attacks. While there is a deliberate effort on both sides to prevent uncontrolled escalation, the underlying strategic failures and the lack of a viable end state suggest that the situation remains highly dangerous. The video ends with the observation that while tactical adjustments are being made, the fundamental issues regarding the war's purpose and sustainability remain unresolved, leaving the future trajectory of the conflict uncertain and fraught with potential for further tragedy.
Read the full video transcript
My next guest has been consistently
skeptical about any American gains in
the war with Iran. Andrew Fox is a
research fellow at the Henry Jackson
Society and he's with us now. Delighted
to have you with us, Andrew,
as always. So, let me just throw out
some of the things that Trump has been
saying this afternoon along with all the
AI-generated videos. No army, no navy,
inflation at 300%.
The Iranians can't pay their security
forces. I mean, the regime has certainly
survived, but we can hardly say it's
winning right now, can we?
>> Well, I don't think winning and losing
is useful in these kinds of conflicts
and I've I've said this probably since
7th of October and in terms of some of
the fights that Israel's had, it's very
hard to
picture victory in terms of another
enemy army army being driven off the
field. If we think of Waterloo or, you
know, those battles
uh in times gone by. When it comes to
modern conflicts, it's very hard to
point out, you know, a decisive winning
condition.
Um and I think that's the lens we have
to look at this through. What's the end
state here?
Like, what are we trying to get to when
we use military force?
The conventional concept is that you use
military armed force to achieve a
political end. Now, just today, only a
couple of hours ago, Scott Bessent said
that he didn't need the regime to
collapse, he just needed them to come to
their senses is the quote. Um and what
that really says to me is that the the
Americans still don't understand the
enemy they're fighting. Iran's been
under sanctions since 1979 in one form
or another.
Um
and if you manage to topple the regime
even internally through economic
pressure, which has never been done
before in in military history, like then
what happens? You've still got only one
side of people with guns within Iran and
it's the bad guys. So, you're going to
have some sort of civil war, you're
going to have some kind of internal
conflict. Like, none of this is good in
terms of outcome, none of it looks like
a win. So, what is America actually
trying to do here other than reopen
Hormuz, which was open before the war?
So, that can't possibly be the war goal.
Um so, it's a where's America going?
Nobody's really clear on the answer.
Right. well, proponents of the war would
say that the conflict has substantially
reduced Iran's ballistic missile
stockpile, which was an existential
threat to Israel. It's also set back the
nuclear program by a number of years. I
mean, there are some gains. You're
correct to point out that the Strait of
Hormuz has become key to this, and it
wasn't an issue before the war, but
there have been some material gains,
haven't they?
>> Of course, they have at the tactical
level. I mean, America and and to
to an extent at the start of the war,
Israel have had free shots, and and
that's no small part thanks to Israel's
efforts during the 12-day war.
Um you can have all the free shots you
want, but you have to connect those
tactical wins to a strategic outcome, uh
which should link to your political
goals. And that's what hasn't happened
here. So, you can bomb and bomb and
bomb,
um but you're not going to get every
missile. You're not going to remove
Iran's ability to rebuild in due course.
Um there's there's pretty good evidence
to suggest that Pickaxe Mountain is far
too deep for American um massive
ordnance penetrating missiles as they
were at 4:00 day. Um
and if Iran retains these capabilities,
then they'll be counting the clock till
the end of Trump's term. The The next
president is either going to be an
isolationist Republican, or it's going
to be a Democrat who really doesn't
agree with this kind of conflict and
will will see it as Trump's war and
won't want to continue it. So, the
clock, I think, is in Iran's favor if
they can just hold themselves together.
And as I said, they're the only ones in
Iran who have any firepower. So, even if
the people rise up again, the odds are
that 40,000 more are going to be
slaughtered on the streets rather than
they're going to storm presidential
palaces and and seize control.
>> Do you think the Americans should simply
pack up and go home at this point?
>> They're in real trouble. They're in real
trouble. And I just uh yesterday in the
Washington Post, there were huge
revelations about American readiness and
their ability to sustain these
operations. They've lost um half the
missile the world's missile defense um
um
supply ammo supply. They've fired off,
you know, half of of of some of their
major offensive um offensive missiles.
They they don't have the ability now to
keep a a tanker sorry, take a carrier in
both oceans. We're seeing a shortage of
aircraft carriers. You know, the
American military has has gone into a
war undercooked for this conflict, quite
frankly,
and they are struggling to sustain it.
Um it's a mess and I've said that for
weeks and I'm not seeing anything right
now that changes my mind on that.
>> All right, well what about comments by
President Posechkian earlier this week?
He's been very open about the economic
his country is suffering right now. He
says I mean they literally can't export
any oil and they can't import any goods.
I mean no country can survive like that
indefinitely, can they?
>> Well, I mean the problem here is that
China hasn't had the sanctions placed on
it that were threatened. You know, there
will be ways and means China can keep
the Iranian economy afloat to a certain
extent because that that is by far and
away the best outcome for for China is
if their allies remain in charge.
Um
and like I said, no regime change has
ever been achieved before in history by
simply economically throttling the
regime that you are trying to get rid
of. I mean this would be an a first in
military history.
Um
The
the real problem here is again, the end
state. What's next? Yes,
normal Iranians are really really
suffering because of Trump's blockade.
You know, the the the
the millionaires and billionaires who
are in the regime are not going to be
the ones suffering. It'll be the
ordinary Iranian people bearing the
brunt of this.
Um and I think Posechkian's comments are
a very clear indicator that there is of
course tension at the top of the regime.
But at the moment it's the IRGC who are
calling the shots,
which speaks to another strategic
failure in terms of killing all of the
commanders on day one and instead of
Khamenei keeping this cartel of lords,
effectively bandits, together. Um the
bandits are now in charge. And so, you
know, we've just seen mistake after
mistake after mistake since February.
And what America is doing is flailing
around to try to find an end state that
works. And there isn't one on the
horizon right now.
>> And just finally, I mean in terms of
stubbornness and the refusal to back
down, I mean the IRGC and President
Trump are pretty equally matched, aren't
they? Are you worried that this might
just go on endlessly?
>> Well, there's a danger of escalation. I
think we've seen that in the last 24
hours, but it's being very carefully
calibrated at the moment. I think we're
seeing
a very measured and deliberate response
on both sides to make sure this doesn't
escalate.
Um there is a real you know, a real
threat of the escalatory ladder where
more missiles get fired at the Gulf
states and they run out of interceptors.
That is a a possibility. Fortunately,
we've seen Ukraine weighing in to help
some of these states and prepare their
defenses against drones.
But it doesn't change the Patriot
missile stock that is that is running
low. And we're seeing in Ukraine what
happens when you run out missile
interceptors. Your enemy gets a free
shot.
Uh and the tragedy of Ukrainian
civilians dying through lack of missile
interceptors is testimony to that. So,
there are dangers here.
Um but at the moment, it seems to be
very carefully calibrated. Um and it's
going to rumble on. Um
I think at least until the midterms and
then we'll we'll see what happens.