Podcast Summary: Call Me Back - "America’s War Objectives, and Israel’s"

Host: Dan Senor
Guests: Nadav Eyal (ARC Media contributor, Yediot Aharonot), Amit Segal (Channel 12, Yisrael Hayom)
Date: March 16, 2026
Episode Theme:
Exploring the current Iran-Israel war, examining U.S. and Israeli objectives, and analyzing the regional impact amidst military conflict and global energy turmoil.

Main Theme Overview

The episode dives into the dilemmas and strategic objectives facing Israeli and American policymakers in the ongoing war with Iran. The discussion centers on the divergence and overlap of Washington and Jerusalem’s goals, the pivotal role of energy markets (especially the Strait of Hormuz), and the broader consequences for the Middle East and world economy. The conversation explores whether military success translates into enduring strategic advantage and how both countries define "victory."

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. War Update and Regional Context

[09:13]

• Iran's strategy shifts: While Hamas previously exploited Western sensitivity to civilian casualties and Israeli anxieties about hostages, Iran is now targeting American sensitivity to oil and energy prices.
• Iran’s closure of the Strait of Hormuz has become central: Only Iranian and Russian tankers pass, others are blocked, disrupting global oil flows.
• Despite U.S.-led military success degrading Iranian missile capabilities, energy bottlenecks create political and strategic dilemmas for the U.S.

Nadav Eyal:

“20% of the oil in the world flows through Hormuz right now. It's not only that the Strait is closed. It's just open only for Iranian or Russian oil tankers that are approved by Tehran.” [09:32]

2. The Energy Front: Oil, Markets, and U.S. Political Stakes

[13:04–17:41]

• Energy markets highly sensitive; U.S. market messaging influences oil prices.
• Nadav skeptical of a master plan: The U.S. may not have fully anticipated oil shock ramifications, though some (Amit) suspect strategic forethought and even a “trap” set for Iran by President Trump.
• U.S. strikes on Kharg Island are deliberately focused on military targets, avoiding crippling damage to oil infrastructure to prevent further oil price spikes.

Nadav Eyal:

“The meaning of 20% [of oil flow through Hormuz] is like the peak of COVID if it lasts... but now there is no less demand, but there's less supply. And that's the problem.” [14:05]

Amit Segal:

"Iran now aims at the sensitivity of the American society to the energy prices because they know that President Trump got elected first and foremost on the basis of skyrocketing inflation.” [18:57]

3. U.S. vs. Israeli Objectives: Regime Change vs. Containment

[25:16–28:07]

• U.S. Goals: Degrade Iranian ballistic/nuclear/choke-point capabilities; containment and deterrence, not necessarily regime change or uranium removal.
• Israeli Goals: More ambitious—with the preferred endgame being regime change in Tehran. Israelis see toppling the Iranian regime as the only way to achieve lasting security, expecting recurring conflict otherwise.

Nadav Eyal:

"None of these [U.S.] goals is a regime change in Iran... it's about being realistic as to these expectations." [26:33]

Amit Segal:

"Israel is fully invested in toppling this regime. That's the main mission." [28:07]

4. The Strait of Hormuz—A Test of Deterrence and Regional Security

[21:29–23:18]

• U.S. failure to open the strait or force Iranian capitulation could set a dangerous precedent—the region may see Iran as undefeated and embolden similar tactics.
• If Iran's neighbors believe closing the strait is a viable threat, regional deterrence is eroded.

Nadav Eyal:

"If the US doesn't forcefully open the Strait of Hormuz or Iran isn't vanquished to the point that it needs to open... all of Iran's neighbors know from now on that they can do that. I cannot explain how meaningful this is." [21:29]

5. Domestic Support and Political Fallout in Israel

[33:06–34:45]

• Israeli public currently backs the war, but past patterns suggest support wanes without "decisive victory."
• Netanyahu’s standing may improve if perceived as the right leader for security, especially with visible U.S. (Trump) collaboration.

Amit Segal:

"So I think people now are afraid that this operation or this war is not going to end with a decisive victory if it happens before the elections. I think Netanyahu's standing improves dramatically because he's the one that warned against Iran." [34:05]

6. The Nuclear File: The 440kg Question

[35:35–36:22]

• Removing Iran's enriched uranium stockpile still considered a must, but the path is unclear—either by agreement (seen as unlikely) or military seizure.
• War conditions, ironically, make certain operations technically easier.

Amit Segal:

"This enriched uranium must leave Iran, be it in an agreement which no one can actually see coming as we speak, or in a military operation." [35:39]

7. How Will Success Be Judged? Israel and the U.S.

[39:59–42:14]

• If war ends with Iran’s regime weakened but not toppled, and no uranium removal, is it a success?
• For Israel, it may be “another brick in the wall” (Amit), part of a longer decline of Iranian influence rather than a definitive victory.
• Nadav stresses the value of translating military gains into lasting diplomatic or regional advantage, referencing Kissinger/Nixon’s Cold War diplomacy.

Amit Segal:

"At the end of the day, what we are seeing now is the decline of the Iranian terror empire and I would say the rise of Israel's raw military force. That's what history would remember from 2025, 2026." [41:05]

Nadav Eyal:

"Israel is very good at hard power... But then it takes a Henry Kissinger or it takes a Richard Nixon or it takes a Donald Trump to get a hostage deal out of this and to get an Abraham Accord." [41:49]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Iran now aims at the sensitivity of the American society to the energy prices... that's what they got.” —Amit Segal [01:30, 18:57]
• “If the US doesn't forcefully open the Strait of Hormuz... all of Iran's neighbors know from now on that they can do that. I cannot explain how meaningful this is.” —Nadav Eyal [21:29]
• “Israel is fully invested in toppling this regime. That's the main mission.” —Amit Segal [28:07]
• “It's not President Trump that wants Netanyahu some days to stop. I think it goes exactly the other way around... For Israelis, the oil prices are like the weather forecast. We have nothing to do about it. We are not an empire.” —Amit Segal [23:19]
• “At the end of the day, what we are seeing now is the decline of the Iranian terror empire and the rise of Israel's raw military force.” —Amit Segal [41:05]
• “It's too early to tell, even when this specific struggle ends.” —Nadav Eyal [42:14]

Timestamps of Important Segments

• 01:30 – Iran’s war strategy and aims (Amit Segal)
• 09:13 – War update and transformation into an energy conflict (Nadav Eyal)
• 13:04 – Deep dive on the energy dimension and oil market impact
• 18:57 – Iran’s asymmetrical tactics; targeting U.S. energy sensitivity (Amit Segal)
• 21:29 – Dilemmas posed by the Strait of Hormuz for deterrence (Nadav Eyal)
• 25:16 – Defining U.S. war objectives (Nadav Eyal)
• 28:07 – Defining Israeli war objectives—regime change (Amit Segal)
• 33:06 – Israeli public and political dynamics during war
• 35:35 – Nuclear issue: the 440kg of enriched uranium (Amit Segal)
• 39:59 – “Would Israel see the war as a success?” discussion
• 41:05 – Historical significance of the conflict (Amit Segal)
• 41:49 – Hard power vs. strategic gains; lessons from history (Nadav Eyal)
• 42:14 – "Too early to tell" — the French Revolution analogy

Tone and Language

The conversation is informed, direct, and often somber, interwoven with occasional dry humor—especially regarding the personal impact of war on Israeli daily life. The analysts approach topics with nuance, accepting ambiguity and emphasizing the complexity of defining "victory" in today’s regional context.

Summary Takeaway

The U.S. and Israel share immediate military aims against Iran but diverge on long-term strategic endgames—containment versus regime change. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz and sensitivity of global oil markets put intense pressure on Washington and threaten to shift the war’s outcome from battlefield gains to enduring regional power dynamics. Despite broad military successes, the ultimate judgment of the war's success—especially from the Israeli perspective—will depend on whether these achievements translate into profound and lasting strategic advantage, a question that, as the guests note, remains “too early to tell.”