Podcast Summary: For Heaven’s Sake

Episode: The War in Iran: The End?
Date: March 25, 2026
Hosts: Donniel Hartman (A) and Yossi Klein Halevi (B), Shalom Hartman Institute

Overview

This episode focuses on the rapidly evolving situation surrounding the war with Iran—specifically rumors of imminent negotiations that could bring the current conflict to a close. Against a backdrop of personal and collective uncertainty, Donniel Hartman and Yossi Klein Halevi examine the implications for Israeli society, the nature of Israeli-American alliance, and the psychological and moral challenges in “ending” a war whose existential threat remains unresolved.

Major Discussion Points & Insights

1. Living Alongside Evil: The Israeli and American Divide

• Intimacy of Threat: Israelis live with the ongoing reality of existential danger on their borders, making the notion of evil extremely personal and ever-present.
  • “Evil isn’t there. It’s here. It’s so intimate. It’s on our borders. We live with evil.” (B, 00:10)
• Mindset Differences: This proximity makes war, and decisions about ending it, feel different for Israelis than for Americans, for whom the threat is distant.
  • “That explains a crucial difference in the mindset of Israelis and Americans in this war. Americans are not existentially threatened immediately. We are.” (B, 00:27)

2. New Realities Against Ongoing Conflict

• Life Goes On: The juxtaposition of a wedding at the Institute against ongoing sirens and conflict highlights Israelis’ attempts to create normalcy amid chaos.
  • “Right upstairs, someone else’s world is changing. There’s a wedding going on upstairs.” (A, 01:54)
  • “Our wedding halls are grossly underequipped for this crazy reality.” (A, 03:10)
• Personal Touch: The hosts share a “mazel tov” for Ruth Kra’s wedding, pointing to resilience and celebration sustaining society amid crisis. (A, 03:54)

3. Israeli-American Relationship: Peak and Uncertainty

• Unprecedented Alliance: Recent weeks have marked a high in US-Israeli cooperation, including joint military actions against Iran.
  • “This moment, these last few weeks has been the high point in the history of the American Israeli relationship.” (B, 05:41)
• Inevitable Divergence: Acknowledgement that American goals (stability, containment) and Israeli goals (regime change, total safety) are ultimately misaligned, making the current unity temporary.
  • “Our goal at this point is regime change. Nothing less than that will be considered by the Israeli public after three weeks of running back and forth to shelters.” (B, 06:37)

4. The Pattern of American Intervention in Israeli Wars

• Historic Precedents: The US has historically “stopped” Israel at the brink of victory, leading both to resentment and sometimes positive, unintended outcomes (like Egypt-Israel peace).
  • Notable: “America has intervened in every one of Israel’s wars and stopped us just at the moment when we were either on the verge of victory... or when we wanted a little more time.” (B, 07:08)

5. Israeli Ambivalence: End the War or Not?

• Weighing Progress and Fatigue: While longing for a decisive victory, both hosts express exhaustion and the pragmatic need to see what has been achieved and whether further fighting is sustainable, emotionally or practically.
  • “Can we sustain two or three months of running to shelters... Can the world economy sustain another month of this war?” (B, 09:39)
  • “Part of me wonders whether right now, for a whole plethora of reasons, we know how to end our wars... Maybe it’s time.” (A, 18:05)

6. Nature of the Iranian Threat and “Victory”

• Regime Change vs. Deterrence: Realism sets in regarding the prospects of overthrowing the Iranian regime; any agreement may focus on containment (e.g., removing enriched uranium) rather than transformation.
  • “Regime change is not something that looks like it’s going to be imminent. It’s going to take longer.” (A, 15:34)
  • “Could we live with... If we get the enriched uranium or it gets buried to such a degree this time it gets completely obliterated somehow... I could live with that.” (A, 19:16)
• Iran as a Destabilizing Force: Concern about Iran’s global and regional threat remains, especially as a “wounded animal” post-strikes (B, 20:43).

7. The Limits of Military Solutions

• Political vs. Military Responses: Recognition that military power alone cannot eliminate the threat, echoing the recent experience in Gaza, where lack of a political plan led to military gains evaporating.
  • “Because we didn’t have any political processes to accompany our military processes, we lost. So... it’s not going to change.” (A, 28:55)
• Israeli Resilience Has Limits: Promises of “total victory” raise expectations and risk disappointing the public, eroding collective endurance.
  • “Israeli resilience is not inexhaustible. People are resilient when they feel there’s a purpose to being strong, to toughing it out.” (B, 24:22)

8. Blame Game and Political Fallout

• Who Gets Blamed if the War Ends Without Regime Change?
  • The US could blame Netanyahu; Netanyahu could deflect onto Israeli agencies (e.g., Mossad); ultimately, the Iranian people could be scapegoated for not rising up.
    • “He gave me faulty intelligence. He made certain promises, assumptions. He misled me.” (B, 32:30)
    • “I worry it could be the Iranian people, the victims… We can start hearing disappointment. We handed them a golden opportunity, and they miss their historic moment.” (B, 35:11)

9. The Emotional Connection to Iranians

• Shared Vulnerability: The hosts reflect on emotional expressions of solidarity between Israeli and Iranian dissidents, drawing on ancient historical links (e.g., King Cyrus).
  • “We have an alliance with the Iranian people. And I feel this so deeply.” (B, 37:36)
• A Broader Moral Obligation: Hartman underscores the importance of Jews standing with Iranians, regardless of strategic interests.
  • “If the negotiations bring about a solution to our strategic needs, but not to theirs...” (A, 39:20)
  • “Jews around the world will seek out Iranian expat organizations, will stand with the Iranians at their demonstrations, the way they stood with us since October 7th.” (B, 39:45)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On the psychological cost:
  “I need a siren or two to get me back... I’ll get back.” (A, 13:59)
• On the reality of Israeli dependence:
  “There’s something about our independence and dependence, independence as a country and dependence on America for our existence, that America knows it and we march by their tune.” (A, 16:39)
• On limits of military means:
  “It’s not that war is something that we desire. It’s the opposite. It’s so alien because we pay the price... It is such a horrific reality.” (A, 26:25)
• On failed expectations:
  “Netanyahu made a major mistake when he promised nizakhon mukhlat—total victory—first in Gaza, then in Iran.” (B, 24:38)
• On shared historic memory:
  “The first frame is King Cyrus, who is the king who allowed the Jews to return ... magnanimously greeting an old Jew... The second scene is an Israeli soldier extending his arm to a beaten down Iranian.” (B, 37:15)
• Messianic closing:
  “Your messianism, Yossi, is a messianism which looks for resolutions. My messianism is that the good will prevail... both of our messianic aspirations might be challenged.” (A, 40:04)

Key Timestamps

• 00:10 – "Evil isn't there. It's here. It's so intimate." (B)
• 03:54 – Mazel tov for Ruth Kra's wedding; resilience and life cycle amid war.
• 05:41 – US-Israel “seamless” military alliance and the feelings it elicits.
• 07:08–09:39 – Analysis of historic US interventions in Israeli wars.
• 13:47 – Adaptation to “new normal” after brief time in the US.
• 15:34 – Realism about regime change not being immediately achievable.
• 19:16–21:43 – Debating what level of Iranian capability elimination would be “enough.”
• 24:22–24:38 – Israeli resilience, purpose, and disappointment.
• 28:55 – Limits of military action in achieving political change (Gaza comparison).
• 32:18–35:13 – Blame game scenarios if the war ends without achieving objectives.
• 37:36–39:45 – Expressions of Israeli-Iranian solidarity and moral obligations.

Conclusion

Hartman and Halevi’s conversation captures the complex emotional and strategic calculus for Israelis facing either the end or continuation of the war with Iran. The episode explores the paradox of dependence and independence, the unique emotional reality of Israelis, the limits of military power, and the inextricable connection between strategy and morality. Their candid, at times ambivalent, exchange offers both a window into the Israeli psyche and a call for deeper human solidarity—with the ultimate question still unresolved: What does “victory” really mean, and at what cost?