Episode Overview

Title: Ground Assault or Diplomacy?
Podcast: Call Me Back – with Dan Senor
Guests: Nadav Eyal (Senior Analyst, Yediot Aharonot) and Fred Kagan (Director, Critical Threats Project at AEI)
Date: March 30, 2026

Main Theme:
The episode explores Israel's and the United States' dual approach to the ongoing conflict with Iran: the interplay between intensifying military operations—possibly escalating toward a ground assault—and simultaneous diplomatic efforts to find an off-ramp. The conversation offers strategic, military, and political insights about where the conflict may go next, the significance of key tactical developments, and the mindset of the Iranian leadership.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Current Military Situation in Iran (03:20–07:24)

• Status of the Campaign:

  • [03:33] Fred Kagan explains that the US and Israel are mid-way through a multi-week air campaign targeting missile and drone infrastructure, air defense, and Iran’s broader defense industry.
  • Recent US/Israeli strikes have advanced eastward into central and eastern Iran; there's also been a focus on disabling Iran’s capacity to launch attacks through the Strait of Hormuz.

• Missile Attacks by Iran:

  • [04:53] Iranian missiles struck a US base in Saudi Arabia damaging key aircraft, but US operational capability is largely unaffected.

• Israel’s Approach:

  • [05:29] Nadav Eyal notes Israel’s shift from targeting regimes’ power bases to more strategically fundamental infrastructure (industry, research), prioritizing these before a possible sudden diplomatic breakthrough.

2. Regional Escalation & Proxy Actors (07:24–08:09)

• Houthi Activity:
  • [07:34] The Houthis have "joined the war," but have stopped short of closing the Red Sea, seen as Iran’s ploy to leverage negotiations with the US without full Houthi escalation.

3. Parallel Military and Diplomatic Tracks (08:09–11:24)

• Diplomacy in Wartime:

  • [08:41] Fred Kagan underscores that it’s normal to conduct military operations and diplomatic talks concurrently. He cites Korea and Vietnam as precedents for intense negotiations amid ongoing hostilities.
  • [09:20] Dismisses the media narrative that the simultaneous tracks are unusual or contradictory.

  "There's nothing irrational about having negotiations while you're fighting a war." — Fred Kagan [09:20]

• US and Iranian Negotiation Dynamics:

  • [10:51] Nadav Eyal says Iran’s leadership, dominated by the IRGC, genuinely believes it’s winning, not just posturing. This shapes their bargaining position and could pose risks for diplomatic engagement if they overestimate their leverage.

4. Iranian Leadership's Mindset & Information Blackout (11:24–14:29)

• Leadership Dynamics:

  • [11:24] IRGC is truly running Iran; other factions (like the President) have little power.
  • [11:24] Negotiation efforts underway in Islamabad are seen by some regional players as potentially rewarding Iran (fees for Hormuz passage).

• Perception vs Reality:

  • [14:38] Fred Kagan notes that IRGC’s radicalism clouds their grasp on reality, worsened by shutdowns of the Iranian Internet—limiting internal situational awareness.

  "Their perception of how they're doing is very heavily colored by their ideology." — Fred Kagan [14:38]

• Assessment of Achievements:

  • Iran feels holding the Strait of Hormuz is a strategic victory, though in reality, it hasn’t fully closed the strait.

5. The Prospect and Risks of Ground Operations (17:09–19:17)

• Possible Scenarios:

  • [17:15] Fred Kagan: Options range from limited raids targeting boats/minelayers to a full seizure of Kharg Island—an economically vital Iranian oil export hub.
  • Such actions could dramatically undercut Iran’s revenue and hold significant leverage.

• Israeli Perspective:

  • [19:25] Nadav Eyal: Israel would aid with intelligence but not likely participate in a US-led ground operation. He shares Israeli officials’ view that if a ground incursion happens, Iran may retaliate by targeting regional energy infrastructure (even threatening the UAE).
  • [21:00] Suggests a maritime blockade or targeted strikes on specific energy installations as alternatives to ground operations, as both sides see energy as a central leverage point.

  "If the U.S. takes Kharg Island...the Iranians are going to hit energy and oil installations across the region. There's going to be no limit to their response." — Nadav Eyal [19:25]

6. Debate: Blockade vs Seizure vs Destruction (23:23–24:16)

• Leverage Psychology:

  • [23:25] Fred Kagan cautions that physically destroying assets (like oil fields) removes leverage, while seizing them (like Kharg Island) permits bargaining.

  "Once you blow something up, you’ve generally lost the leverage that you might achieve by holding it at risk." — Fred Kagan [23:25]

• Complexities of Blockade:

  • [23:25] Blockade involves legal and diplomatic challenges—most tankers are not Iranian-flagged—so international repercussions must be considered.

7. Endgame Scenarios: US and Israeli Perspectives (24:16–28:41)

• US Endgame:

  • [24:26] Fred Kagan: Too early to speculate on regime change; optimal goal is ensuring Iran cannot credibly threaten the Strait of Hormuz in future.
  • Anything short of decisively breaking Iran's presumed ability to “turn off” the strait is a strategic failure.

  "If this war ends in a condition in which the Iranians feel like they have proven to themselves that they can disrupt traffic at will...that will be a very bad outcome for us." — Fred Kagan [24:26]

• Israel’s Dependent Role:

  • [26:22] Nadav Eyal: Netanyahu accepts that the US will ultimately dictate the endgame. Three options exist:
    1. Declare victory, open Hormuz, halt the campaign (not ideal for Israel).
    2. Make a broad, non-specific declaration (could be even worse).
    3. Continue military pressure for a detailed deal (the preferred path, seemingly underway).
  • Passover will likely be spent “in and out of bomb shelters”—underscoring the conflict’s continued intensity.

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [09:20] Fred Kagan: “There’s nothing irrational about having negotiations while you’re fighting a war.”
• [11:24] Nadav Eyal: “According to my sources, the Iranians aren’t bluffing. The Iranians think they’re winning the war. This is not posturing. This is really what they’re saying.”
• [14:38] Fred Kagan: “Their perception of how they’re doing is very heavily colored by their ideology. And I don’t think that you can really separate those two things.”
• [19:25] Nadav Eyal: “If the US takes Kharg Island...the Iranians are going to hit energy and oil installations across the region. There’s going to be no limit to their response.”
• [23:25] Fred Kagan: “Once you blow something up, you’ve generally lost the leverage that you might achieve by holding it at risk.”
• [24:26] Fred Kagan: “If this war ends in a condition in which the Iranians feel like they have proven to themselves that they can disrupt traffic at will...that will be a very bad outcome for us.”
• [26:22] Nadav Eyal: "His endgame is whatever the president decides, and he understands that...the decision would be made by the White House."

Timestamps for Important Segments

• 03:20 – Opening of core discussion; military status in Iran
• 05:11 – Iranian missile strike on US base in Saudi Arabia
• 07:34 – Houthi escalation and strategic implications
• 08:41 – Concurrent military escalation and diplomatic efforts
• 11:24 – Detailed analysis on Iranian leadership mindset
• 14:38 – How Iranian radicalism affects regime judgment
• 17:15 – How a potential US ground operation might unfold
• 19:25 – Israeli intelligence perspective on escalation risks
• 23:25 – Debate on destroying vs. holding energy assets for leverage
• 24:26 – US strategic endgames and regime change debate
• 26:22 – Netanyahu’s probable endgames and Israeli domestic impact

Conclusion

The episode offers a nuanced, often sobering discussion on the complexity of the current US-Israel-Iran standoff. Both military escalation and diplomatic engagement continue in tandem, each shaping—and being shaped by—the other. The Israeli perspective reflects both strategic urgency and dependence on the US; meanwhile, the Iranian leadership’s radical worldview and information disconnect risk miscalculation. With escalation and negotiation both in motion, the region’s near-term future remains tense, indeterminate, and fraught with the possibility for both breakthrough and disaster.