Trump’s Post-Midterm Iran Plan Is a Loser | Episode 14

Mearsheimer’s Assessment

John Mearsheimer argues that the United States has no viable way to win the war with Iran and that Iran has gained the upper hand. In his account, the United States and Israel have failed to achieve their four original aims:

• Ending Iran’s uranium enrichment
• Eliminating Iran’s ballistic-missile capability
• Cutting Iran’s ties to Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis
• Bringing about regime change

Costs of the War

Mearsheimer says the war has left the United States facing serious costs. Iran effectively controls the Strait of Hormuz, U.S. bases in the region have been badly damaged, Gulf security relationships have weakened, and the international economy is under strain.

Iran’s Demands

Mearsheimer describes Iran’s demands as including:

• The release of frozen assets
• More than $300 billion in reparations
• Sanctions relief
• The withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Persian Gulf
• Settlements involving Israel’s conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen
• Iranian control of the Strait of Hormuz

He says Tehran has placed the nuclear issue further down its agenda and will not abandon uranium enrichment, making a nuclear agreement difficult.

U.S. Approaches So Far

Mearsheimer reviews several U.S. approaches:

• A 40-day bombing campaign
• Two limited rounds of retaliatory strikes
• A second naval blockade, paired with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s effort to isolate and economically strangle Iran

In his view, none has achieved U.S. objectives.

Four Possible Paths for President Trump

• A renewed three-day bombing campaign: Mearsheimer doubts this could succeed when the longer campaign failed. He warns that Iran would retaliate, risking further escalation and economic damage.
• Continuing the blockade and economic pressure: He says this approach has not worked and could provoke Iran to strike back. Even if it caused severe hardship, he expects Iran to resist.
• Diplomacy: He sees negotiations—potentially on terms resembling the June 17 memorandum of understanding—as the most sensible option, though he says the concessions would be politically difficult for Washington to accept.
• A nuclear strike on the Iranian facility he calls Pickaxe Mountain: Mearsheimer questions whether a B-2 bomber and a nuclear weapon could destroy the deeply buried site. He argues that even a successful strike would not force Iran to surrender and warns of retaliation, damage to U.S. standing, increased nuclear proliferation, and a greater likelihood that other states might use nuclear weapons.

Conclusion

Mearsheimer concludes that the United States is likely to have to return to diplomacy, despite Iran’s stronger position and tougher negotiating stance. He cautions that leaders acting out of desperation could nevertheless choose a disastrous escalation.

Presenter: John Mearsheimer