The Iran War Expert: The Most Dangerous Stage Begins Now
In a Nutshell
Professor Robert Pape argues that US bombing campaigns against Iran's nuclear sites and infrastructure fail to weaken it long-term, instead strengthening the regime politically, enabling control of the Strait of Hormuz (20% of world oil), and fragmenting US alliances in the Gulf, with NATO effectively dead as Europe refuses involvement. At a critical escalation fork, US ground troops risk a costly war, while withdrawal elevates Iran as a fourth global power center alongside China and Russia, potentially nuclear-armed within a year and devastating US/global economies via oil disruptions. Recommended path: militarily contain Israel via funding cuts and mutual IAEA inspections with Iran to avert Stage 3 ground war or Stage 4 power shift, though Israel's diplomatic sabotage and Trump's "civilization" threats make peace unlikely.
These notes were generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies.
Iran has figured out that the US can't beat them. The US is not weakening Iran but strengthening it and can't stop their drone attacks. Far more chaotic decision-making is happening in the White House than in Iran's government, evidence Trump is losing power.
Audience questions include what happens next for 90 million people in Iran who often don't have a voice, Israel's role, what happens with Europe, and NATO is for all practical purposes dead.
For 21 years, Professor Robert Pape modeled a hypothetical bombing campaign of Iran. Every prediction from the last conversation unfolded in the first several weeks of the war. Consistent findings: America can bomb and attack Iran, even threaten to murder all 92 million of them, but that's the real danger.
Host asks viewers to check if they've subscribed, approaching a significant subscriber landmark. Promises to fight harder for guests and conversations if they subscribe.
Professor Robert Pape, University of Chicago professor for 26-27 years. Previously taught conventional targeting for US Air Force. Origins in studying why US lost Vietnam War, leading to book Bombing to Win in 1985.
Four weeks since last discussion, events moved at light speed. Many predictions came true. Truth underneath statements from Iranians, Israelis, Trump, and America differs from reality.
Air campaign: military aircraft doing sustained bombing over days, weeks, months (in Vietnam, years), not single raids.
Question: Why strong powers applying force carefully in campaigns over time still lose.
Modeled hypothetical bombing campaign of Iran starting with nuclear enrichment sites: Fordow (industrial centrifuges), Natanz (centrifuges), Esfahan (gasification of ore). Multiple sites, whole target set. Laid out aircraft, tactical results.
Map shows Iran east of Persian Gulf, Tehran north middle. Nuclear sites in middle: Saghand (uranium ore source, plenty available), Esfahan (gasify ore for centrifuges at Natanz and Fordow to enrich uranium-235 for reactors or bombs).
Bombers always destroy industrial facilities, but can't destroy enriched uranium (the 'gold'). Bombing buries it under rubble; Iran can recover it later. They might anticipate and disperse in advance. Operation Midnight Hammer last year bombed sites with B-2s, MOAB—exactly as modeled three weeks prior.
US not weakening Iran long-term; strengthening it multiple ways. Specialty: interaction of military action and politics. Political reactions by population and regime often overwhelm tactical military effects, as in Vietnam.
US knocked out 80+% throughput of Ho Chi Minh Trail logistics for Vietcong ammo in 1960s, but remaining 15-20% sufficed, incentivized more, bolstered morale. They knew US couldn't fully stop them.
Iran figured out US can't beat them despite bombings, attacks, threats to murder 92 million (Trump's civilization threat). Can't get final 10-20%+ of drones/missiles. US knocks out above-ground launchers/sensors (11-12,000 targets per Hegseth/Kaine), Navy ships. Iran deeply buried industrial sites, drone/missile arsenals. Can't stop drone attacks on ships in Strait of Hormuz; Iran uses to advantage.
Hegseth: Iran should get carrier pigeon to remote troops; ceasefires take time to hold. Suggests decentralized leadership, but Pape says leaders pre-delegate orders (if X, do Y), holds for hours/days.
Supreme Leader (son of the one killed) definitely leads. No evidence he's gone. US questions his status to goat him into revealing location. Iran sends 10 points via Pakistan to White House; Trump agrees then retracts. More chaotic decision-making in White House than Iran; Iran rising, US declining.
Passed stages: 1) US bombs, regime strengthens; 2) Iran horizontal escalation, takes Strait of Hormuz; 3) US ground options to retake it (Marines likely soon). Now at fork: ground war or Iran emerges as fourth center of world power.
Controls selective blockade of Strait of Hormuz (80-90% shipping to Asia). Generates political power; states cowtow. India neutral/edging to Iran due to oil supply risk (worse than price). Japan leader browbeaten by Trump in Oval Office, refuses military support, distances from US.
Pre-war (Feb 27): Balance—Iran vs. Gulf states cooperating with Israel (Trump AI billionaires greasing). US bases in Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia as military anchor (guarantor like mafia boss). Now breaking down.
Carriers 1000 miles away. Bases above-ground, hit by Iran precision drones (immediate retaliation). Trump unwilling to defend bases/Saudi/UAE; tells them defend selves.
- Iraq: Complaining about US presence (installed 2003), distancing.
- Qatar/Oman: Oman pulled into Iran's camp (share tolls); Qatar head down.
- Saudi/UAE: Cooperating more with Pakistan for security over US.
Coalition fragmenting, weakening US.
Can't revert to Feb 27. Iran 20% world oil, $75-100B revenue next year. Buried drones/missiles for nuclear weapons within year. Closer Russia/China ties. Russia offered targeting info on US ships early (why carriers far). Potential: Iran (20%) + Russia (11%) = 30% oil off market; China soaks up.
Assumed Iran weak, collapsing, no retaliation capability; one push would topple it, people rise up. Pape only one at CFR debates warning against this. View from 21-year bombing modeling; none saw Iran's power elements.
None of these elements of Iran's power were ever knocked out. The audience had lots of different types of questions from the last conversation.
Israel has been playing the role of diplomatic spoiler. In the 12-day war last June, when the US bombed in the middle of it, Donald Trump said he was going to negotiate with a certain set of Iranians, and literally 36 hours later Israeli air power killed the negotiators we were set to negotiate with. This spoiled the idea of a diplomatic outcome because they were dead.
On February 28, Israel dropped the first bombs that killed the supreme leader and several dozen doves he was meeting with. Secretary Rubio explained a few days later that Israel backed us into a corner, saying they were going to kill the Supreme Leader whether we liked it or not, which might lead to attacks on US military bases, so the US better prepare an air campaign to come behind. Just before the February 28 bombing, the US was negotiating with Iran and killing the very people Trump said were the ones to negotiate with to move Iran closer to the American position.
Ali Larijani, former secretary of Iran's supreme national security council, was killed in an Israeli airstrike on March 17th, 2026. Trump claimed on Truth Social that Larijani was the primary contact for a 10-point peace proposal that Trump called workable and a basis for a real agreement. Trump suggested the strike was poorly timed, complaining that Israel's lone wolf actions were complicating his ability to wrap up the war on his own terms. He posted that he was inches away from the biggest deal in history before the assassination reset the clock. This is the third instance of Israel as diplomatic spoiler: Trump thought he was close to a working relationship with Larijani, and Israel killed him.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's public description over the last several years is that Iran is a paper tiger. Israel has been dominating Iran, knocking out its air defenses, launching other attacks in 2024. The rhetoric paints Iran as weak, down on its last legs, needing only a final coup de grâce.
Audience wants more specifics on stage three and if it's happening. Follow key indicators of deployment, not just rhetoric. To weaken Iran with ground power, options are limited: through Pakistan (Iran's ally that gave Iran 600 centrifuges in 2002 to start its enrichment program; Pakistan has 100 nuclear weapons); through Afghanistan (not working); or Azerbaijan.
On the first day of the war, a missile hit Azerbaijan. Public statement called it incoherent Iran leadership, but it showed Iran understood Azerbaijan as a staging area to go to Tehran. Azerbaijan said no, they're not getting involved. This leaves Marines to take territory on Iran's coasts, inside Iran around the Strait of Hormuz as a beachhead.
Terrain around the Strait of Hormuz is a moonscape, the most difficult for amphibious operations. Amphibious operations involve troops on ships and landing vessels going from water onto the beach, like Saving Private Ryan. Air power with Ospreys does the same: Osprey is a hybrid plane between helicopter and jet with rotatable propellers for fast flight to beach then vertical landing.
Iran's oil is all in the southwestern part. Kuwait's oil is nearby, Iraq has some, Saudi Arabia's is there. Land forces in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia to come around. Iran hit these bases on day one to weaken axes of attack. Three days before the war, Substack post discussed Marines moving in limited areas to take coastal regions as beachheads.
A beachhead is a foothold to funnel in more forces, at least 100 miles by 20 miles to get behind mountainous terrain—straight to the oil fields. This is what Trump means by taking Iran's oil fields: limited amphibious assault on a stretch of beaches then take the oil fields. Trump has talked this way for years. In a Monday, April 6th press conference: > "If it were up to me, I would take the oil. I would keep it all for ourselves and make a lot of money because to the victor belong the spoils. But people in the country sort of say just win and come home." He said it twice, indicating he really wants to take the oil.
Putting troops on the ground creates clearer targets for drone strikes, but political consequences of Marine deaths: most assume it makes America run away, but 36% of public supporting the war will double down—"they died for nothing" leads to finish the job. With Republican president supported by 36% Republicans, almost no Democrats, it leads to bigger "we can't withdraw now." Vietnam support stuck up early due to politics of troop deaths honoring them, not cut and run. Even small ground forces lead to six-month ground war minimum.
America is trying to avoid sending troops.
Trump's Truth Social post: > "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't know what will happen, but it probably will."
This is the president with thousands of nuclear weapons. US has 500 Minuteman 3 missiles with 100-300 kiloton warheads (multiple times Hiroshima/Nagasaki), retargetable in 45 minutes, hit Iran in 25 minutes. Most declared statement of genocidal intent from an American president—no prior president threatened to end a civilization (Truman on Hiroshima said destroying Japan's military power).
Trump persuades 92 million Iranians he is willing and able to kill them. Pulling back doesn't undo it. If Putin said it about America, it would mobilize anger. Before war, pro-democracy movement in Iran was real but predicted to fade as nationalism bonds society and regime. Trump accelerates this: pro-democracy Iranians go to their government for protection, not Trump threatening nuclear weapons. Hastens support for Iran developing nuclear weapons, even from pro-democracy movement.
90+ million Iranians caught in chaos. Messages from ordinary citizens in Iran:
- "I'm not great at math, but where will the money, the resources, and the experts come from to build a country that ordinary people spent decades trying to build?"
- "From the beginning of the war until today, we have been bombarded. Not only are we not one step closer to freedom, from what I can see, we are miles away from it."
- "A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again." This terrifies them.
Trump's threat moves needle: ordinary Iranians, even pro-democracy, tolerate Iran killing Americans because US is killing them and threatening worse at presidential whim. Post-9/11 fear drove Iraq war support; Iranians face 40 days of attacks.
For average Iranian opposing regime: life expectancy drops measurably. Taking out electric power grid (130 nodes, top 10 take down entire network). Target transformers (out 1-2 weeks, inconvenient, some deaths; human chains around them) or generating halls (giant turbines, no backup, out 6-18 months). Stops dialysis, heart/life-saving surgeries, food refrigeration nationwide. Food spoils countrywide, no quick recovery. Malnourished more susceptible to disease, lowering life expectancy.
Recent ceasefire talk: Trump tweeted horrific civilization threat then proposed 10-point plan and two-week ceasefire. This is collision of stages three and four: in for long haul, can't undo last 40 days. Two futures: ground war (terrible cost) or Iran as emerging fourth center of world power (damaging to US and Trump's legacy). No historical precedent of country surrendering power at regional/great power level—e.g., America post-WWII didn't forgo nukes for Russians.
The US rejected proposals to surrender its power advantage post-WWII to cooperate with the Soviets after defeating Nazi Germany. There's no historical precedent for the US surrendering power, even when it might have been wise. This pattern continues; the ceasefire is breaking down rapidly because President Trump declared Iran won't have this power, but Iran immediately asserted it would. Expecting Iran to surrender emerging world power out of goodwill is a fantasy. Trump wouldn't surrender power himself, so Iran won't either.
Iran's 10-point proposal, based on official Iranian state news agency releases and international reporting, includes:
- Permanent ceasefire.
- End attacks on allies: complete halt to Israel and US strikes across the region, specifically Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen.
- Reopen the Strait of Hormuz: Iran allows safe passage, collects tolls of reportedly $2 million per ship, with revenue sharing with Oman as custodians.
- Lift sanctions: complete removal of all US primary and secondary sanctions.
- Release assets: immediate return of all frozen Iranian funds held abroad.
- Right to enrich uranium: US acceptance of Iran's right to domestic uranium enrichment while Iran commits to not seeking nuclear weapons.
- War reparations: full compensation to Iran for reconstruction costs from bombing.
- Termination of all UN resolutions against the regime and a new binding UN Security Council resolution to enforce the deal.
This proposal favors Iran on every point, validating it as an emerging world power and positioning it at the top of the hierarchy in the Persian Gulf. The #1 strongest state dictates world system rules, as Britain, the US, or future China have done. Iran seeks to dictate rules in the Persian Gulf.
Current depiction shows US as the lone dominant flag with higher weight as the #1 power. Netanyahu's February 27 view included Israel, but actual balance is US, China, Russia as three centers. In 1990, it was US and Soviet Union; post-collapse (1989-1992), US unipolar moment. Russia remains weak at 2% world GDP. China has grown much more powerful, shifting balance, though still below US.
Adding Iran as a center changes dynamics: China, Russia, Iran together surpass US, especially in energy. Oil underpins economic growth, GDP, military size, nuclear weapons—productive capacity. Losing oil access causes cliff effects in 6-8 weeks due to insufficient storage for 20-30% world loss. Semiconductors/pharma hurt over time, but oil is immediate.
US doesn't source oil from Strait of Hormuz, but global fungible market means shortages drive up prices everywhere.
Oil prices climbing since February 27, impacting US pump prices (e.g., Chicago: $3.10 to $4.60/gallon). US has supply but higher prices fuel inflation, raise bond yields. Bond rates (e.g., 4% to 5-7% on 10-year bonds) massively increase borrowing costs for corporations, universities. US government's largest budget item is $40 trillion debt interest; higher rates force cuts to Social Security, Medicaid. Iran-Russia could devastate US economy.
US currently has 25-30% edge over China-Russia combo; China gaining slowly (third to 28-30% US advantage in 4-5 years). Adding Iran tips scales abruptly, especially coordinated on energy.
If Trump pulls out: Iran becomes Persian Gulf oil hegemon, likely nuclear-armed within a year (pro-democracy movement demands deterrence). Iran-Russia could cooperate to strangle/coerce US via oil withdrawal.
40 days ago, accepting Iran's February 27 deal (keep 3.5% enriched uranium) with lifted oil sanctions wasn't enough; Iran's power grew. Offer enforced military containment of Israel: Trump pushes Congress bill cutting all Israeli military/economic funds if Israel attacks Iran (or Lebanon). Enforceable via Republican Congress control.
Extend to Article II: Israel joins NPT for IAEA inspections of Dimona plutonium plant (material for weapons). Quid pro quo: Iran accepts on-site IAEA inspections of 3.5% sites. Balanced monitoring; Israel's vague nuclear count becomes detailed via IAEA, useful for estimates. Iran wouldn't monitor weapons directly, but material.
Politics hinder: Israel likely spoils deals.
Back-and-forth between Stage 3 (ground war prep) and Stage 4 (Iran as world power center) for months. Ground war off table only if US withdraws forces: carriers leave region, Marines to Camp Pendleton/Japan, F-35s etc. to pre-war bases.
70% chance of ground op, not Trump's preference but trap: unwilling to be president seeing Iran detonate nuclear weapon. Bombing infrastructure (bridges, roads, power plants) to "stone age" precursors more ground ops, intensifies 92 million Iranians' push for nukes (deterrence + payback), with 1,000 lb 60% enriched, 10,000 lb 5-20% enriched uranium.
Ground troops for: secure uranium, defend Strait of Hormuz. Timeline months; track via force movements, not rhetoric.
Iran won't suicide-bomb Tel Aviv/NYC (invites retaliation). Strategic: build 5-15 weapons, detonate tests on own soil (1st: bluff; 2nd: credibility like Hiroshima-Nagasaki). Deters US, as with North Korea (multiple nukes + Seoul artillery deterred Trump 2016 bombing talk).
Bombing doesn't solve uranium (underground, dispersed) or Strait issues. Only deal with Israel containment works, but enemy knows no Plan B weakens position. 3.5% uranium unstoppable short of ground forces (not small op). Trump 2018 JCPOA rip-up enabled buildup; neither Trump1, Biden, Trump2 stopped it.
Trump stuck with bad options; ripping Obama deal (esp. Foroux?) big mistake. Losing international/Republican power incentivizes belligerence as lame duck.
This will mean he will lose power domestically as well and we'll never go to zero but it will be a slow decline. This is where the real future is here. This is why this is not simply a steady state now. This is why I won't make a prediction of what's going to happen in September. We are not at a steady state. It is an unstable balance here between three and four.
What do you think happens with Europe? Europe aren't on either side of your scale here. You've got Iran, Russia, and China on one end of the scale. You've got the US on the other. Europe and NATO, what happens?
NATO is for all practical purposes dead. We're just writing its obituary. It's a body in the morgue already. Most people don't think that NATO is a political alliance. NATO is much more than that. If there's an Article 5, what that means is there's a military operation with an American general at the top. With Article 5, the American general tells the other countries' militaries, including their nuclear weapons, what to do. If you're Britain and you have nuclear weapons, or even if besides the nuclear weapons, if you're Germany, you don't have them, are you going to follow General Kane's orders on anything at this point? I don't think so.
Article 5 is the part of the NATO treaty which says if there's a NATO operation like in Afghanistan, it's an American general who orders all the other countries' militaries what to do. It's a hierarchy. It's not a collection where the countries get together and have big cooperative decisions. The Americans run the plan. They organize the military operation. They run the plan and assign the other countries roles the way they would the army, the navy, and the air force inside of the Pentagon.
What you just saw with Iran is such a horrible catastrophic failure within just weeks. The idea that any Europeans are going to follow the orders of an American general—I don't even think this is going to be just under Donald Trump. I think for years, this is just laughable.
Trump was quite angry and scathing with his words about NATO. He said, "It's a paper tiger" and referred to them as cowards. NATO were meeting with Trump today in Washington DC. NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said, "When it came time to provide the logistical and other support the United States needed in Iran, some allies were a bit slow, to say the least. In fairness, they were a bit surprised. To maintain the element of surprise for the initial strikes, President Trump opted not to inform us ahead of time. But what I see when I look across Europe today is allies providing a massive amount of support nearly without exception. Allies are doing everything the United States is asking. They have heard and are responding to President Trump's request."
The German chancellor has made a comment saying that they do not want to split NATO. They don't want American troops to leave the European continent because that provides some deterrent to Russia. NATO always had an anchor. The anchor in NATO was America's protection of European security. When President Trump creates a problem, a catastrophe for the world and says he won't send American forces into the Strait of Hormuz, but he wants the Europeans to send their forces into the Strait of Hormuz, this is the opposite of protection. He's making NATO countries or European countries vulnerable and they're reacting to that by saying we won't do it.
According to diplomats, NATO secretary briefed member capitals today that Trump is demanding concrete commitments within the next few days from NATO to help secure the Strait of Hormuz, which would only make sense if you were doing phase three, the ground operation. You cannot secure the Strait of Hormuz only with air power. If we could we already would. You can't secure it only with naval power. If you could we already would. We have a much bigger navy, much bigger air forces than any of those countries individually or even combined. The only reason you would really want those forces from NATO is because you're planning on a bigger ground operation.
Europeans are not likely to do it. Why would they? If they're ever going to do it, they would want Trump out of office. The number one thing that I don't think is going to happen here is anybody's going to bail out Trump. It's political suicide for a lot of the European leaders. It's political suicide for the Democrats to bail out Trump in our country. It's going to start to become political suicide for even Republicans to bail out Trump. That's what you're going to start to see in the fall. It's going to be political suicide for the Japanese, for the Indians. Trump caused the problem. He's going to become LBJ if he doesn't take a deal soon. That was 40 days ago and he still hasn't taken the deal. Not really. He's becoming LBJ. Nobody's going to want to be associated with him.
Here in the UK, we have Keir Starmer as the prime minister. Since he's come out and started saying that he won't support Trump's war, he won't send troops to the Middle East, that's driven up his favorability amongst certain people. It's political suicide for European leaders to send troops there because they will lose the next election in their country.
A year ago with the tariffs I started to do a study of tracking how European support for America was starting to go into the tank and that was with tariffs. Now what Trump has done is he's driven up the price of oil. He's hurting their economies in a serious way and as that actual damage occurs—it's still in the pipeline, it hasn't hit as strong as it likely will in the next month—you are likely going to see that the publics in Europe are going to become anti-American. It's not just going to be can't support Trump anymore. We're getting some payback on Americans. Next time I come to London, I'm not going to be surprised that the price of that visa is doubling or tripling.
The high level point of view is we're about to start thinking seriously about the election and what we need to do is not just choose back and forth between Republican and Democrat. Britain is a case study of what can happen if you bounce back and forth. We need to start to really support strong stable policies that will empower the middle. The problem is we're moving back and forth from ideas here that one year we really don't like what Biden's doing and now we have the radical wing on the other side and we certainly don't like that. If we keep going back and forth between two extreme alternatives, we'll just get different versions of bad outcomes. It's a cycle that's making it no solution.
The solution is the public needs to hear that every election, every choice, we have an opportunity to focus on the more centrist candidates. This is something we really can make decisions about. If we don't do that, we're going to get back and forth bouncing around. A third party here, these ideas are really very meaningful. This really comes down to talking to the public. One of the big reasons I'm going to the podcast world is we've got to get beyond advising White Houses. We've got to actually talk to real people. The podcast network is an opportunity to do that. It doesn't force people to vote Democrat or Republican. We can't just keep thinking now we're really mad at Donald Trump and we're going to get the independents and now they're going to vote with the Democrats if all we do is end up getting another extreme on the other side because what you're going to do is keep pissing off the middle and they're going to keep bouncing back and forth. Round after round, we've been doing that for years in the United States. It keeps getting worse.
What I'm suggesting the solution is: Vote for the centrist candidate all the way through. Yes. It's a very simple thing, but it's not going to happen unless we talk about this because it does mean that sometimes the centrist candidate is the person on the other side. If we're not willing to do that, then we're really condemning ourselves to this cycle. It's a version of the escalation trap gone domestic. It's called the legitimacy shock cycle and I'll be talking more about this in September. The trap with violence and politics isn't just international and you end up with traps domestically as well.
I'd like to close with a few thoughts for the people in Iran. Ever since I've put myself mentally in a situation where there was a world leader saying they were going to annihilate my civilization and there were bombs going off. If there was bombs going off around the studio and a threat that someone was going to annihilate civilization, it's quite unthinkable how I would be functioning. It shines a light on the mental health and psychology of the 92 million people in Iran right now and how they must be feeling.
There's a bond that is occurring between the middle 60% of the American public and the 92 million in Iran. They don't like the radicalism on either side. Our politics has been locked up by the extremes. I suspect the 92 million in Iran are feeling almost exactly the same thing. Their choices now are being locked into extremes. That bond is valuable to vocalize it because this is what it means to empower the people and this is what it means to be a democracy. We talk about where the future really should go. We're even imagining the possibility of a $40 trillion in debt country getting rocked by Iran and Russia who have their own reasons for wanting to hurt us. We hurt Russia in the '90s with our ideas of shock therapy, and we made out like bandits. We have some real growing bonds at the social level.
Professor Robert P, thank you so much. This is such an evolving situation, so we might end up talking again when things play out. One can only hope for peace for everybody.
Every day. That's my number one thing.
This situation, as bad as it is, notice that it's actually worse than it was a month ago. It's worse. The reason it's worse is we didn't head it off enough 40 days ago. If President Trump had taken some of the deals we were talking about then we wouldn't be anywhere near where we are today. Military containment of Israel—people are saying oh my god could never happen. Think about the things that could never happen that are happening right now. This is the better pathway now. If we don't take this pathway now, in a month or two, it will be worse.
Keep The Diary Of A CEO in your library
Save the videos and channels worth coming back to, and find them again in one place.
