How does the Israel-Iran conflict end?
Iran and Israel continue to trade fire this week after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered what he called a 'preemptive strike' to disable Iran's ability to produce a nuclear weapon. President Donald Trump has been generally supportive of Israel but has left the door open to negotiations over the nuclear issue. Meanwhile, there's ongoing speculation about whether the United States might get involved in the military campaign given questions about Israel's capability to strike Iran's most hardened targets. Trump fanned those flames on Tuesday by posting on social media that 'we' control the skies over Iran and demanding 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' from its leaders.
What do the players involved want from this conflict and how does it all end? I gathered Post columnists David Ignatius and Jason Willick to discuss.
— Max Boot, columnist
💬 💬 💬
Max Boot So, first question for David and Jason: Echoing Gen. David Petraeus during the invasion of Iraq, tell me how this (in this case, the Israel-Iran conflict) ends?
Jason Willick The ideal end would be a weakened Iran submitting to a new, stronger deal with the U.S. to stop the Israeli bombardment.
David Ignatius Like most wars, this will end either with a negotiated settlement or a capitulation by a defeated adversary. Trump still appears very much interested in negotiating a new nuclear deal that would fulfill his pledge that 'Iran will never have a nuclear weapon.' Israel seems much less confident than such a deal would achieve the desired result of no nukes — and it may want to push on toward victory. So, the question for Israel is: What does 'victory' look like? Increasingly, to me, it looks like a regime that isn't led by a 'supreme leader' and is changed fundamentally so that it won't behave the same way in the future.
David If I had to guess, this war will end with a settlement — because international pressure will demand it. That might be the worst of all possible outcomes, leaving a crippled regime that could behave as Saddam Hussein did in the 1990s — expressing its power by repressing its people more than ever.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Max Do you think Netanyahu is trying to achieve regime change?
Jason Netanyahu is definitely talking about regime change. Whether that's a way to pressure Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, or an actual objective, or both, is hard to say.
Jason A word about regime change: The collapse of the Soviet Union set the tone for what regime change could mean for an older generation. The war in Iraq set the tone for what it means for a younger generation. Younger people, it seems to me, are more skeptical about what it means in practice — cognizant that civil war might be the rule and stable democracy the exception when regimes collapse.
Jason Iran, of course, has several ethnic groups besides the Persian majority. It's reasonable to imagine 'regime change' leading to fracturing along new borders rather than simply a new government emerging to run the state as it exists. That's why I think the best outcome is a deal with the current regime from a position of strength.
Max How would it even happen if Netanyahu pursues it? I'm not familiar with examples from history of regime change triggered from the air.
David I wrote this week that you can't bomb your way into creating a better society. And I think that's the big danger for Israel. I've been to Iran twice over the past 20 years, and I became quite convinced that the regime is deeply unpopular and that the people would much prefer a freer and more secular government. Unfortunately, there's no sign whatsoever of a real movement for change — and, as your question implies, people usually respond to bombardment by getting angry at the attackers rather than their own rulers.
David One more thing: Iranians tell me that in their contacts with people back home, a constant refrain is that the authorities have spent more time policing hijabs than looking for secret Mossad shipments of drones. In other words, people think this regime is incompetent, in addition to being repressive.
Jason Right. That the regime is oppressive is the more powerful Western messaging and propaganda. But the raw incompetence might be more politically deadly.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Max Both of you talked about having the war end in some kind of settlement. What do you think such a settlement would need to say to satisfy Trump and Netanyahu?
Jason The more or less complete dismantlement of Iran's nuclear program. The questions are: (1) Would Iran agree to that even under extreme duress, and (2) how would you persuade the Israelis it would actually happen, such that they would stop their successful attacks and give Iran the chance to regroup?
David A real settlement would have verifiable terms that deliver what Netanyahu and Trump have demanded — that Iran cannot acquire a nuclear weapon. Given considerable evidence that Iran engaged in nuclear weapons building activities in the past, despite its promises, the level of inspection would have to be extraordinarily intrusive.
Max One sticking point is whether Iran will be allowed to retain any uranium enrichment capacity. Netanyahu insists the answer must be no; Khamenei insists the answer must be yes. Trump seemed to go back and forth but landed on no enrichment at all. Will the damage that Israel inflicts from the air be sufficient to coerce Iran into giving up all enrichment?
Jason It would be rational for Iran to agree to this — but then it would have been rational for it to agree to that and avoid this attack in the first place. Like Hamas, it might prefer a fight to the death even if it ends in defeat.
David I'd be a lot more willing to slide on modest enrichment capability for civilian uses if there was real assurance on weaponization. The problem with weaponization activity, I'm told by both Israelis and Americans, is that it can be dispersed in different labs, and the strands brought back together at the last minute. That makes the verification job difficult, for sure, but not impossible.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Max Do you think Iran has any more cards to play? Its ballistic missile attacks on Israel appear pretty ineffectual because of Israel's missile defenses and Israeli strikes to take out Iranian missiles before they can be fired. I'm struck by the fact that Iran is not moving to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. What do you think it is waiting for? Is this intended to deter the U.S. from entering the conflict militarily?
David I fear that Iran does have some unconventional capabilities that, in extremis, it could use. I wrote last week about Iran's back-channel links with al-Qaeda, and in particular with the group's leadership in Yemen. Al-Qaeda has never given up its interest in mass casualty attacks on the United States and Israel. That's something I hope counterterrorism experts have a close eye on. There are other ways Iran could raise the ante — involving cyberattacks and other means of disrupting Israeli life. I hope the Israelis are thinking carefully about these 'black swan' dangers.
Story continues below advertisement
Advertisement
Max Do you think Trump should or will join Israel in bombing Iran?
Jason It seems as though he's tempted. I think he's in his strongest position making such threats while he uses Israel for leverage. I think the U.S. should resist direct involvement. However: You have to imagine that pulling Israel back, at this point, would involve a U.S. promise to use its bombing capabilities should Iran prove intransigent again.
David My sense from talking this week to Trump administration officials is that the president really, really doesn't want to get involved in military action if he can avoid it. I'm told his basic philosophy for this conflict, and most others, is: 'make trade not war.'
Max Except, of course, he is massively disrupting trade with his tariffs!
David Consistency is not his strong suit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump's Tariffs Are Killing Affordable Cars in US: Study
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump's new tariffs on vehicles and auto parts have contributed to a slowdown in affordable car availability in the United States, according to a study by The findings suggested that the 25 percent auto tariffs imposed in April, alongside the 50 percent metals tariffs targeting the European Union (EU), Mexico, and Canada, have affected new and used car prices, impacting average Americans seeking budget vehicles. Why It Matters The rise in car prices and tightening supply of affordable models present challenges for millions of Americans facing high transportation and insurance costs. Industry analysts, dealership owners, and consumer advocates have warned that tariffs would make new and used vehicles less accessible, further straining surging auto repair bills and insurance premiums. The Trump administration imposed a sweeping 25 percent tariff on imported vehicles and car parts in April. The president also hiked the 25 percent levy on steel and aluminum up to 50 percent last month. However, an earlier executive order prevents tariff "stacking" on auto parts for two years, with firms assembling the vehicles in the U.S. allowed small reimbursements. What To Know reported that cars priced under $30,000—long a staple for cost-conscious buyers—had inventory growth of just 3.9 percent year-over-year during the first half of 2025. The vast majority, 92 percent, of sub-$30,000 models in the U.S. are imports meaning they are especially susceptible to Trump's tariffs. The new study also found imported models dominated the more affordable new car market, with only the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla being produced domestically for under $30,000—and some trims of those were still imported. Price increases for new cars have been relatively modest, at $97 on average, since the tariffs were announced. However, sharp rises were seen for certain models, especially those from the United Kingdom, which were over $10,000 more expensive, and the EU at about $2,500 more. Many experts believe that most of the auto sales this year have been of inventory that was imported before the duties, meaning their prices would be unaffected. Consultants at AlixPartners has projected that tariffs would ultimately add nearly $2,000 per vehicle and reduce total U.S. car sales by approximately 1 million over three years. Trump's tariffs on metals such as steel and aluminum continued to raise production costs for automakers, compounding pressure on entry-level vehicle affordability. While the average American spends approximately $45,000-$48,000 on a new car, according to J.D. Power and Anderson Economic Group, cars at the lower range are essential for millions of Americans who cannot afford higher purchase prices, or the many budget-focused consumers who prefer a more affordable deal. Hondas are seen at a dealership in Bedford, Ohio, on July 8. Hondas are seen at a dealership in Bedford, Ohio, on July 8. Sue Ogrocki/AP Who People Are Saying said in its July report: "The pace of sales and inventory movement will depend on the scope of tariffs, with automakers likely to adjust production to align with a smaller, more price-sensitive buyer pool." Mark Wakefield, global auto market lead for AlixPartners, told reporters in an online briefing last month, "These tariffs bring a big wall of cost..."Consumers [will be] taking the majority of the hit." President Trump said in April as he unveiled his 25 percent auto tariffs: "You're going to see prices go down." Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, told Inside EVs: "It does not appear like any of the policies will result in people paying less to buy and own vehicles in 2028 or 2029 than they do today." Jessica Caldwell, head of insights at auto-buying resource Edmunds, told Associated Press even repairs could become more expensive due to tariffs: "If you are bringing your car to get repaired, chances are, it's going to have a part that comes from another country. That price that you pay is likely going to be directly affected by the increase [from these tariffs]." What Happens Next? Analysts agreed that most of the early 2025 car sales involved vehicles imported before tariffs took effect, delaying the full impact on prices. However, as pre-tariff inventory dwindles in the second half of the year, both new and used car prices are expected to rise.
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump threatens to bomb Iran again if it builds new nuclear plants
Donald Trump has warned Iran that he will bomb the country again if it tries to resume its nuclear programme. The US president claimed it would take 'years' to bring the sites at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan back into service and promised to 'obliterate' any new nuclear sites Iran may try and build. In a post on his Truth Social site sent from his golf club near Washington, he claimed all three of Tehran's nuclear sites had been destroyed after the US dropped 14 30,000lb GBU-57 'bunker buster' bombs on them. 'It would take years to bring them back into service and, if Iran wanted to do so, they would be much better off starting anew, in three different locations, prior to those sites being obliterated, should they decide to do so,' he said before ending with his trademark signoff. 'Thank you for your attention to this matter!' Mr Trump has endured a difficult week, fending off criticism from his supporters about his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the embarrassing revelation that he allegedly sent a lewd message and drawing to the billionaire financier in 2003, before he was convicted of sex offences. On Thursday, the White House said the swelling in Mr Trump's legs was caused by chronic venous insufficiency, a condition in which veins have trouble moving blood back to the heart. On Saturday, he pivoted back to one of the major successes of his presidency so far: Operation Midnight Hammer, when B-2 bombers struck Iran's nuclear sites without Iran firing a shot in defence. Mr Trump claims the Iranian programme was 'totally obliterated'. But a recent assessment by US intelligence suggested that only the underground site at Fordow was completely destroyed. Two other sites, at Natanz and Isfahan, may not have been dealt a knockout blow, according to officials who briefed NBC News last week. Sean Parnell, a Pentagon spokesman, dismissed the report. He said: 'The credibility of the Fake News Media is similar to that of the current state of the Iranian nuclear facilities: destroyed, in the dirt, and will take years to recover.' There have also been questions about whether the lead-up to the strikes on June 21 allowed Iran enough time to move highly enriched uranium to secret locations. For example, 16 lorries were spotted lining up outside Fordow ahead of the attacks. A possible destination was Pickaxe mountain, Kūh-e Kolang Gaz Lā, which is 90 miles south of Fordow, and minutes away from Natanz in central Isfahan province. Rafael Grossi, the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said Iranian officials refused to answer questions about what was happening at the fortified, underground facility. He said: 'Since it is obvious it is in a place where numerous and important activities related to the programme are taking place, we're asking them, 'What is this for?' And they are telling us, 'It's none of your business.' Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Yahoo
44 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's threats to fire the Fed chair and raise tariffs will decimate the dollar
Understanding what motivates normal politicians to follow bad economic advice is difficult enough. Are they paying off some special interest, or do they really believe that two plus two equals three? With Donald Trump, the difficulty of interpreting the motivation for his policies sometimes goes to a whole different level. Does he understand that if he fires Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell, the Fed will lose anti-inflation credibility and the general level of interest rates will rise, not fall? Does he really believe that Team Trump can design regulation that makes the crypto sector grow to the moon – bitcoin hit $120,000 (£89,000) last week – without causing another financial crisis? Tariffs are another dubious idea, with countries being threatened if they do not agree to a 'deal' by 1 August. Any country that believes that by bending over it will secure lasting peace is kidding itself. Trump is having fun brandishing tariffs and, while he might pause, he is not going to stop. Besides, he and his acolytes see the tariff weapon as a way to exercise power the United States has always had but never exploited. Trump is not just looking to use tariffs as an economic tool. He sees them as a bludgeon that can be used to impose his will on almost any country on almost any issue. Over the long run, Trump's retreat from globalisation, combined with his tariff fetishism, are likely to lower US growth while raising interest rates and inflation. It might be a winning strategy for Trump personally by making him the centre of attention, but it is not a winning strategy for the US economy. And none of this, imposing tariffs, promoting crypto, or attacking the Fed, can be good for the US dollar, the world's reserve currency, which has already plummeted sharply in value this year. The centrality of the dollar, which is the lingua franca of global trade and finance, has long helped the Americans to enjoy substantially lower interest rates than they would otherwise be paying, perhaps 0.5% to 1% lower. This applies not only to government borrowing but to private mortgages, car loans and business loans. Trump sees tariffs as a bludgeon that can be used to impose his will on almostany country on almost any issue The savings amount to hundreds of billions of dollars a year, at a minimum. The dollar gives the US the ability to use financial sanctions in lieu of military intervention, and also gives the US a treasure trove of information on both friends and enemies alike. Dollar dominance was fraying at the edges even before Trump, especially with the Chinese yuan gradually decoupling its dollar peg, and Chinese authorities developing their own international settlement systems. Europe has also been looking to expand the footprint of the euro. Now, however, with attacks against the Fed, the tariff war, and general undermining of the rule of law, what was going to be a gradual decline in the dollar's influence will surely accelerate. The dollar is not going to disappear, but its position could become significantly less dominant over the next decade, with the Chinese yuan becoming more important in Asia, and the euro taking back some of the global influence it lost after the European debt crisis. The dollar's loss will also be crypto's gain, especially in the global underground economy, Trump's rejection of globalisation, and his embrace of chaotic policies, is mostly a lose-lose situation for the US economy that will result in more inflation volatility, higher interest rates, and a spate of financial crises, including in crypto, and possibly surrounding government debt. What will Trump conjure up to distract everyone if the economy turns sour? Kenneth Rogoff is Professor of Economics at Harvard University and author of Our Dollar, Your Problem: An Insider's View of Seven Turbulent Decades of Global Finance, and the Road Ahead Photograph by Eric Lee/Getty
