Iran: The Latest — ‘Strategically appalling’: Britain’s Greatest Military Expert on Trump’s Iran War

Date: March 12, 2026
Hosts: Roland Oliphant, Venetia Rainey
Guest: Sir Lawrence Freedman, Emeritus Professor of War Studies, King’s College London

Overview

In this episode, The Telegraph’s podcast team explores the deepening conflict between the US, Israel, and Iran, focusing on strategic missteps, military developments, and geopolitical fallout as the war enters its 13th day. Hosts Roland Oliphant and Venetia Rainey are joined by Sir Lawrence Freedman, widely regarded as Britain’s preeminent strategic thinker, to analyze the rationale, progress, and potential consequences of the US-led campaign against Iran under President Trump. The conversation ranges from oil disruptions and operational blunders to the limits of aerial power, the future of transatlantic alliances, and how politicians repeatedly fall into strategic errors.

Key Updates and Context (02:54–05:41)

• Mini-Recap of Ongoing War

  • Multiple cargo ships attacked by Iranian explosive drone boats in the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Oil prices spiking above $100/barrel, despite the International Energy Agency releasing 400 million barrels from reserves— the largest emergency release in its history.
  • The Iran conflict is causing the largest supply disruption in global oil market history.

• US Strike on Iranian Primary School (03:42)

  • Preliminary US report confirms responsibility for the deadly mistaken strike in Minab, killing at least 150 civilians, mostly children.
  • Root cause: outdated data in target coordinates provided by the Defense Intelligence Agency.

Interview: Sir Lawrence Freedman on Strategy and War in Iran

1. Strategic Sense of the US-Iran War (06:29–07:45)

• Freedman’s View:
  • “I think it's very poor strategy.” (06:29)
  • Operation launched “without proper preparation, without thinking through the risks.”
  • Even if Americans stop now, Iranians could continue economic and maritime disruptions.

2. Freedman’s Five Tests for Intervention (07:45–10:41)

Venetia Rainey reviews Freedman’s own intervention criteria (drawn from Tony Blair’s 1999 Chicago speech):

1. Are we sure of our case?
2. Have diplomatic means been exhausted?
3. Is there a plausible military option?
4. Are we ready for the long haul?
5. Would the intervention serve the national interest?

Freedman’s Analysis:

• The US rationale “doesn’t stand up.” Diplomacy wasn’t exhausted; negotiations were ongoing.
• Military options ignored Iranian counter-capacities.
• No planning for the long haul: “I don’t think it meets the tests.” (09:09)
• National interest argument is “the most flexible of all.” For Trump, unclear how regime change or asset strikes serve US interests with oil over $100 and the regime intact.

3. Who’s Winning? Iran’s Position (10:41–12:59)

• Iran has survived, imposed huge economic costs, and exposed US/economic vulnerabilities.
• “They’re certainly not losing ... They’ve lost a lot of assets and they’ve lost a lot of their leadership. But … you can keep on decapitating and they've got reserves.” (11:15)
• Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC) now runs the country, more effective during wartime than peace.

4. Is Iran’s Regime Doomed? (12:59–14:31)

• Freedman: The regime is unsustainable long-term due to economic collapse and repression, but the war may have temporarily bolstered internal resilience and stoked nationalism.
• “Over the longer term ... the regime is more isolated in the region. The other Gulf states are pretty furious.” (13:36)
• Civilian casualties (notably the Minab school strike) may further isolate the regime internationally and domestically.

5. Tactics vs. Strategy: A War of Many Fronts (14:31–16:53)

• The US and Israel’s battlefield dominance is clear, but strategic objectives (regime change, economic/security stability) remain unfulfilled.
  • “There’s a number of different wars going on at once... The point about strategy is to relate what you can do militarily to political objectives. It's not just about what you can destroy, it's also about what you can achieve.” (15:09)

6. Defining Strategy vs. Tactics (16:53–18:24)

• “Tactics is how you implement what you're trying to do… If you can't relate the tactics to your larger strategy, then ... you're not actually achieving what you need to achieve.” (17:06)
• US forces are tactically successful in destroying assets, but lack an effective strategy for reopening the Strait of Hormuz or protecting maritime shipping.

7. Historical Parallels: Gulf Security Operations (18:24–20:51)

• In the 1980s, the US and UK successfully escorted reflagged tankers with mine countermeasures— now outdated as the threat has shifted to drones and missile attacks (16 tankers hit since the war began).
  • “This is serious stuff. So it's not just a question of insurance premiums. I mean, it's a safety question.” (20:08)

[AD BREAK] Skipped, resumes at 22:30

Political Accountability and Comparison to Iraq (22:30–27:39)

8. Lessons (Not) Learned from Iraq (22:43–25:20)

• The US has failed to apply “the long haul” lesson from the Iraq war.
• “The obvious one is don’t do it again, or at least think through what you’re going to do.” (23:01)
• No intent to send ground troops, but regime change in a country of 90m is a “fantasy.”
• Overconfidence seen in believing the regime would collapse after first strikes.

9. Strategic Fanaticism and the Russia Analogy (25:20–27:39)

• “Fanaticism consists in redoubling your efforts when you’ve forgotten your aim.”
• Putin in Ukraine as an example: when initial plans fail, leaders double down instead of recalibrating.
• Trump risks a similar trap if he escalates merely to avoid defeat, rather than pursue an attainable aim.
• Freedman: “I don’t think we’re talking about nuclear weapons, but you’re talking about potentially seizing Iranian facilities … got to improve defensive measures quite quickly.” (27:41)

Broader Geopolitical Implications

10. Russia as a Beneficiary (28:38–30:09)

• Surging oil prices and relaxed sanctions benefit Russia (and China, India as buyers), but it's not decisive.
• “The Russians actually are in a mess in Ukraine … but it does help the Russians.” (28:51)
• The longer the Gulf crisis drags on, the greater the risk of Western disunity.

11. Can Trump Pivot? (30:09–31:01)

• “I think Trump would quite like to stop ... His problem is that he could declare a ceasefire tomorrow when the Iranians might carry on. That’s where it becomes difficult.” (30:27)

12. Britain, the ‘Special Relationship,’ and Starmer’s Calculus (31:01–34:05)

• PM Keir Starmer “would have been in a lot more trouble politically if he’d got in with the Americans.”
• Starmer has prioritized alignment over Ukraine, but distanced the UK from US regime-change ambitions in Iran.
• “You know, we would have then faced the consequences as we did in 2003...Starmer was right, that it’s not clear you can achieve regime change from the air.” (31:51)
• Historic precedents (Suez, Vietnam, Bosnia)— Anglo-American rifts have happened before without fatal consequences for the alliance.

13. Future of NATO and Western Security (34:05–37:42)

• Europe is moving toward greater self-reliance in security; the US is less central than before, although “five eyes and intelligence… is all just going on as normal.” (34:52)
• “The net result of that is the United States is less important in European security. Not unimportant, but just less important.” (37:42)

14. NATO’s Longevity Under Strain (37:42–39:09)

• “I think NATO can keep going. It becomes very different...but I suspect it’ll still be there.” (37:50)
• Trump's potential retreat would not easily unwind the alliance due to legal and practical complexities.
• Anticipation of a shifting dynamic if Democrats regain control post-midterms.

Why Do Politicians Keep Making Strategic Errors? (39:09–41:15)

• Lawrence Freedman reflects on the recurring blind spots of policymakers:
  • “If only they listened.”
  • Governments juggle multiple priorities; experts are ‘irresponsible, unaccountable,’ while leaders must balance competing pressures.
  • “A very common mistake is ... to be overconfident of success, and then surprised when, to use the cliché, the enemy has a vote and they decide it goes a different way.” (41:09)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Strategically, this has been pretty appalling. I mean, it’s been an operation launched without proper preparation, without thinking through the risks.”
  — Lawrence Freedman, (01:42, reaffirmed at 06:29)

• “You can keep on decapitating and they've got reserves. So neither Hamas or Hezbollah have ceased to function ... And that's the case of the clerical regime ... in Iran.”
  — Lawrence Freedman, (11:15)

• “Tactics is how you implement what you're trying to do… If you can't relate the tactics to your larger strategy ... you're not actually achieving what you need to achieve.”
  — Lawrence Freedman, (17:06)

• “The point about strategy is to relate what you can do militarily to political objectives. It's not just about what you can destroy, it's also about what you can achieve. And there's no lasting achievements in place at the moment.”
  — Lawrence Freedman, (16:34)

• “The big strategic issue for Europe is still Russia. And really seriously, the Europeans ought to be able to cope with Russia not wholly on their own, but ... largely using European assets.”
  — Lawrence Freedman, (35:52)

• On government:

  “I'm irresponsible, unaccountable. I can say what I like ... If you're in government, you’ve got different responsibilities... I find it irresponsible … this is an American irresponsibility ... because they didn’t think through what could happen, what could go wrong.”
  — Lawrence Freedman, (39:44)

Timestamps for Important Segments

• [02:54] — War & oil market updates
• [03:42] — US school strike confirmation
• [05:41] — Introducing Sir Lawrence Freedman
• [06:29] — Strategic critique of US action
• [07:45] — Five Tests for Military Intervention
• [10:41] — Analysis: Who’s winning?
• [12:59] — Iran regime’s long-term outlook
• [16:53] — Strategy vs. tactics explained
• [18:24] — Lessons from 1980s naval operations
• [22:43] — Iraq war parallels
• [25:20] — Strategic fanaticism and Putin analogy
• [28:38] — Russia as beneficiary of crisis
• [31:01] — UK strategy and the special relationship
• [34:05] — NATO’s future and European security
• [39:09] — Why politicians repeat mistakes

Closing Notes

This episode offers a bracing, pessimistic account of the US-led war with Iran as a strategic blunder unlikely to deliver on its main objectives, while triggering unpredictable ripple effects for the global economy, Western alliances, and regional stability. Sir Lawrence Freedman’s erudition and experience provide a much-needed lens through which to dissect not only the current conflict, but also the recurring, all-too-human follies at the heart of high-level decision-making.

Further information and supporting articles are linked in the show notes.