Latest news with #DamirMarusic

Washington Post

Will the U.S.-Iran conflict spin out of control?

Three columnists discuss whether Trump's stated plan of a one-off strike on Iran is realistic given their capacity to retaliate. You're reading the Prompt 2025 newsletter. Sign up to get it in your inbox. One day after President Donald Trump ordered attacks on Iranian targets to thwart their nuclear program, facts are still scarce about how effective the strikes have been. Even the Pentagon admitted in a Sunday morning briefing that a proper battlefield assessment was still forthcoming. Meanwhile, the White House is trying to sell the decision to the public as a one-time operation while also warning Iran not to retaliate. Can the U.S. keep it all from spiraling into a larger conflict? I spoke with my colleagues Jason Rezaian and Jason Willick about the potential for escalation. —Damir Marusic, assignment editor 💬 💬 💬 Damir Marusic Trump threatened severe retaliation should Iran itself retaliate for these strikes. How credible do you think those threats were? And what can Iran actually do from here on out? If you were Iran, would you think twice after Trump's threats, basically? Jason Willick On the one hand, Iran knows that Trump is prepared to use force. On the other hand, it also knows he wants to avoid getting drawn into a protracted conflict, and it knows U.S. munitions supplies for an air campaign aren't limitless. I expect it thinks it can get away with some kind of meaningful response. Jason Rezaian To me, the threats are very credible, as it looks like Benjamin Netanyahu is making decisions for the U.S. president on this in that he appears to have been able to force us into a war that Trump didn't want to get us involved in. Jason Rezaian The reality is that Iran doesn't have many meaningful options. Conventionally, they were much weaker than the U.S. and Israel to begin with. The threats they pose have always been asymmetrical and more real for their own population and their direct neighbors. They are looking more like a paper tiger than ever, and their defenses have been decimated. I think they would be smart to look for a diplomatic way out, but their professed ideological positions and their tenuous grip on power make that difficult. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Marusic Does the Iranian regime have to do something in response to stay in power? Can it not react and survive? Jason Rezaian It can not react and survive for now. But again, Bibi has shown his intelligence and military might is superior to Iran's. Add in the U.S., and Iran would be wise to play it cool. Not sure that's what they think in Tehran, though. Damir Marusic For what it's worth, I'm not that keen on the assertion that Netanyahu is making decisions for Trump. The United States is more sovereign than any other country in the world. This is Trump's policy, not Netanyahu's. He owns it. Jason Rezaian He does now. But he had to be pushed into it by a chorus of his own party's pressure and Israeli force. So, yes, they are full partners in this from here on out. Jason Willick Trump could easily have declined to use the bunker-busters. He seemed thrilled by Israel's success and wanted 'in' on the operation. My impression was not that he was forced in but that he actively wanted a piece of the action. Jason Rezaian I got that impression from his speech last night. I don't think he felt so good about it previously. Regardless, I'm still very unclear on how he plans to proceed now. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Marusic From the American perspective, what's our threshold for escalation with Iran? I presume if they launch rockets at our bases, we will hit their launchers. But what happens if their proxies hit? Do we hit Iran then? Jason Willick After the Soleimani strike in Trump's first term, Iran responded by hitting U.S. bases without killing any troops but injuring some (head trauma). Then the U.S. basically called it even. If something like that happened this time around, that would be a decent outcome. Jason Rezaian I agree that that would be the best possible outcome for now. But that also presupposes that Trump and Bibi share the view that this isn't about regime change. I don't think we can say that. Damir Marusic Well, that's a good question right there: Inn the Pentagon's briefing this morning, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ruled out regime change as a goal, presumably as a means of reassuring Iran that if they do nothing, no further attacks are forthcoming. But do such assurances matter? We're in a different logic now, the logic of tit-for-tat. Jason Rezaian I think those assurances matter only if there are direct discussions happening about what is possible. And to be frank, although I have never been a regime change supporter, decimating Iran's defenses and then letting them stay in power to terrorize their citizens, dissidents and opponents around the world would be a massive failure. Good options from here seem few. It's not like they are going to magically change their worldview because we told them they have to. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Marusic Does the intent of the Trump administration matter for what happens next? If there is a significant attack from Iran, what's to stop an escalatory spiral? Jason Willick Our escalation dominance and the regime's desire for survival. Look, in recent years and decades, Iran seemed to underestimate the U.S. and Israel. And the U.S. and Israel seemed to overestimate Iran's competence. Now a readjustment is happening. Jason Rezaian Yeah, I think that's right. I also think the intent matters a lot for Iran's Persian Gulf neighbors. Damir Marusic This assumes a lot of rational calculation on Iran's part. Jason Willick I've been struck by the lack of rational calculation by Hamas and Hezbollah vis a vis-à-vis Israel — we'll see whether that same sort of grandiosity extends to the regime. Jason Rezaian Their calculations were all pretty rational until their top leadership started getting taken out very quickly. Story continues below advertisement Advertisement Damir Marusic Does Trump have to go back for another set of strikes if it turns out these first ones were not definitively successful — if it looks like Fordow was damaged but not destroyed? Or does 'one and done' mean just that — we did our part, the rest is up to Israel? Jason Willick I don't think he goes back for another set of strikes except as part of retaliation for an Iranian attack on U.S. bases. The tougher question, to me, is how does Israel wrap this up. Let's say the combination of Israeli and American strikes were successful at essentially destroying Iran's nuclear program. That doesn't end the war. Israel may be ready to call it quits, but Iran will certainly keep firing at Israel. The U.S. gambit is basically: We helped Israel accomplish their most difficult military objective. Now carry on with the war as you were. Jason Rezaian Well, I think he's said 'one and done' and maybe shouldn't have until there were assessments of the success. All of this matters, including the messaging. Iranians — the people and the regime — are watching all of this trying to make sense of it. Are we at war with the regime or with Iran's nuclear program as Vice President J.D. Vance said? To ordinary Iranians, it's starting to look a lot more like, not just that the Islamic Republic is suffocating us, but Israel and the U.S. are bombing us to death. People there have to be asking, 'What's in it for us?' The U.S. hasn't even tried to offer justifications that would satisfy that particular audience, and it appears to me that we should start doing so pretty quickly. I guess my concern is that there is no plan to speak of.