MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
Let's go now to someone who has been thinking about where this war could go from here. That is Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. During his prior stint as the Post's foreign editor, he supervised the newspaper's Pulitzer Prize-winning coverage of Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, and he was kind enough to join us in the studio. David, thanks so much for coming in.
DAVID IGNATIUS: Thank you, Michel.
MARTIN: So let me ask you how you think the president's message of winning matches reality. Tactically speaking, what has the war in Iran accomplished?
IGNATIUS: So the president hasn't yet given us a clear definition of what winning means. Winning could mean flattening what's left of Iran, but that's not an outcome that's going to lead to stability. Winning could mean declaring victory and getting some way to pull out. That would leave a very angry regime. I've called it the Islamic Republic 2.0 that's as hard-line as the regime that preceded it, and that's not a very good outcome either. So the president's got some tough choices. This war began as a war of choice. He didn't have to go to war. He made the decision that it was in U.S. interests. He hopes that it will be a war that ends by choice, by his own choice, either military force or some kind of diplomacy. But we just haven't seen a clear pathway yet.
I think the big issue right now for him is figuring out a way to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. As the oil price keeps going up, the effects for the global economy are getting more and more serious. President over the weekend was almost pleading with his allies, Britain, even China, come to our assistance. Help us reopen the Strait of Hormuz. So far, he's not gotten a strong, positive response to that, and I think the simple reason is the president was so harsh in his comments about allies, about tariffs, about Greenland, that now when he needs them, they're reluctant to come help.
MARTIN: So let's say, for the sake of argument, that there have been military victories. We can grant the president that. But I think your larger point here is that military victories don't necessarily translate into political victories. So say a bit more about what you mean about Islamic Republic 2.0. What are you seeing now that leads you to that conclusion that that is a possible outcome?
IGNATIUS: From everybody I talked to, and my own limited experience with Iran - I've been there twice - I think it's fair to say that the old theocracy, run by Ali Khamenei, was really running out of gas. He was old. He was infirm. Before the war began, there was a lot of discussion about who would replace him. Would it be a committee? Would it be a different group of people? And his death, in a sense, allowed a rebirth of the regime with his son, kind of a nonentity as a cleric, but very hard line, very associated with the IRGC, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, coming in as the leader. And it's just a regime that takes the hardest, most unyielding parts of what was there before and makes them a centerpiece. They're under attack. You can never tell down the road will somebody more pragmatic emerge and find a way to have a dialogue with the United States? We all hope so. We all hope that this war will have an ending that's more positive for everybody, the Iranian people, the United States. But right now, it's hard to see that pathway.
MARTIN: You noted that the president is having difficulty sort of organizing an international coalition to reopen the Strait of Hormuz when there are obviously serious economic consequences, you know, for the world, if not immediately for the United States. I mean, people are still seeing it here, but other parts of the world more so. But what about domestically? I mean, you're saying - in a recent Fox radio interview, President Trump said he will know the war is over when he feels it, quote, "in my bones." As Franco pointed out, the president said he launched the war because he had a feeling that Iran might attack first. I am wondering how persuasive this is to a public that has to bear the consequences in terms of casualties, which we're already seeing, and in terms of pressure on prices.
IGNATIUS: So going to war and ending war shouldn't be something that you feel in your gut or in your bones. These are consequential decisions involving the country, the world, lives of young people. And I think that's one of the things that, as I talked to people in the military national security community over this last weekend, what was troubling people the most was that the president just doesn't have clearly defined objectives and pathways. The military likes planning. It likes to know where it's going. So, you know, hopefully - again, we would all like to see a better outcome here - he'll find some clarity. He'll be able to work with allies, with others and stabilize a situation that today is really quite unstable and worrisome.
MARTIN: In the past week, there was an attack on a Michigan synagogue by a man who Israel says is the brother of a Hezbollah commander who was killed along with his young children. A man who killed an ROTC trainer at Old Dominion University was a former member of the Virginia National Guard who previously served prison time for attempting to aid the terrorist group ISIS. Now, when situations like this occur, there's always this debate. Is this a mental health issue? Is this political? Is this part of a larger sort of conspiracy, etc.? So that's always that debate. But having said that, does it concern you that there are knock-on effects that don't seem to have any clear through line or any plan for really addressing?
IGNATIUS: So we don't know about the specific Michigan attack that you described in detail, but I'll say, in general, terrorism is the shoe that hasn't yet dropped. Iran's capabilities as a terrorist adversary are formidable. It has a global network. It's thought in detail about its target list. It has unusually good cyberattack skills. It's already made a cyberattack on a big American health care company. So it's - the one thing that we can be sure of is that Iran has a lot of weapons in its arsenal. And that's the danger. If this is a long war, if it doesn't end soon, it could enter a phase that will be different and genuinely dangerous for Americans wherever we are. So I'm sure the president's thinking about that, as advisers are. The reasons to find a pathway out couldn't be more clear.
MARTIN: Before we let you go - we only have about a minute left - is that the president has been successful in jawboning the allies into following his lead on other issues. Do you see any sign that he will be similarly successful here? I mean, to this point, Australia, Germany, Greece and Japan have already indicated they are not going to help the U.S. keep the Strait of Hormuz open.
IGNATIUS: So...
MARTIN: Do you see any prospect that are other allies who will, in fact, agree at some point?
IGNATIUS: It's in every major economy's interest to reopen the strait and to prevent even more severe spike in the price of oil. The problem that the president's facing is that you can diss your allies about tariffs or threaten to invade Greenland for only so long, and at a certain point, they just get fed up. And so when you need them and you come knocking on their door to ask for help, they may not cooperate.
MARTIN: That is Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. David, thank you so much.
IGNATIUS: Thank you, Michel.
(SOUNDBITE OF FUUBUTUSHI'S "BOLTED ORANGE") Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
