Podcast Episode Summary
Podcast: The Foreign Affairs Interview
Episode: America’s War of Choice on Iran
Date: March 5, 2026
Host: Foreign Affairs Magazine (Justin Vogt, guest hosting for Dan Kurtz-Phelan)
Guests: Nate Swanson, Richard Haass

Episode Overview

This episode explores the rapidly escalating U.S.–Iran conflict following a joint U.S.–Israeli strike that killed Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and targeted hundreds of sites across Iran—a pivotal event rocking both Iran and the broader Middle East. The conversation features two prominent guests: Nate Swanson, a former Iran policy advisor to both Trump and Biden and lead at the Atlantic Council’s Iran Strategy Project; and Richard Haass, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations and former State Department Director of Policy Planning.

Through two in-depth interviews, the episode examines Iran’s response, U.S. policymaking processes, the logic (and perils) of regime change, and the implications of America’s unprecedented military gamble.

Segment 1: Iran’s Response and U.S. Decision-making

Guest: Nate Swanson (Director, Iran Strategy Project, Atlantic Council)
Time: [03:02] – [21:43]

Key Themes & Discussion Points

1. Iran’s Calculated (“Existential”) Response ([04:15]–[07:27])

• Swanson predicted Iran’s willingness to escalate and a “bunker mentality” forming under existential threat.
• While Swanson expected Iran to focus on retaliating against Israel, Iran instead quickly targeted its Gulf neighbors—nations previously seeking de-escalation. This surprised both Swanson and U.S. observers.

  “They went straight to what I thought was the maximalist response... Gulf targets... which has made this kind of even worse than I thought it could go, right away."
  —Nate Swanson [05:01]

• Iran is “very comfortable engaging in a long war,” believing it can outlast American political will, especially during an election cycle.

  “Iran has decided that they will do this as long as they want. They’ve been in a constant state of suffering...this is a continuation of that.”
  —Nate Swanson [07:30]

2. The Human and Political Cost for the U.S. ([06:34]–[08:41])

• While the conflict has not yet resulted in catastrophic consequences, there are destabilizing effects: high gas prices, American casualties, attacks on U.S. diplomatic sites, and market turmoil.

3. How U.S. Iran Policy is Made (Especially under Trump) ([09:00]–[12:53])

• Trump’s decision-making process is described as unusually insular and top-down, relying on a small group of loyal advisors and outside influences (senators, media figures).

  “What is unique is the process is just different. You can see a scenario where maybe he’s not getting all the information he needs… The President likes to be lobbied and pitched on ideas.”
  —Nate Swanson [10:23]

• Swanson notes Trump’s confidence in rejecting advisers’ warnings, shaped by previous critics being “wrong” in his view.

  “This time had the opportunity to be different because he… might not have been getting all the information he needed or just maybe just disregarding it.”
  —Nate Swanson [11:57]

4. Why Iran Didn’t "Give Trump a Win" ([12:53]–[16:36])

• Iran fundamentally mistrusted the U.S. after Trump withdrew from the 2015 nuclear deal and they did not engage directly with him; Swanson considers this, in hindsight, a fatal miscalculation.
• The December 2025 Netanyahu-Trump meeting and subsequent green light for Israeli action made war seem inevitable to Iranian leadership.

5. Is There an Off-Ramp? ([16:36]–[19:47])

• Leadership chaos in Iran hinders negotiation; current incentives misalign, and it’s unclear whom the U.S. would even negotiate with.
• Swanson speculates that the best hope is an eventual Iranian reassessment once the dust settles—facing deep domestic challenges (inflation, infrastructure failures) and perhaps learning from catastrophe.

6. Comparing Venezuela and Iran Regime Change Models ([19:15]–[21:43])

• Swanson draws parallels to the U.S. “decapitation” model used in Venezuela but expresses skepticism that Iran’s system will similarly yield a compliant successor, especially with many viable candidates now dead.

  “For Iran, you just got to survive, and that’s going to be their priority for at least the foreseeable future.”
  —Nate Swanson [21:15]

Segment 2: The Historical Logic and Limits of Regime Change

Guest: Richard Haass (President Emeritus, Council on Foreign Relations)
Time: [23:16] – [65:38]

Key Themes & Discussion Points

1. Is This Really a War for Regime Change? ([25:02]–[29:52])

• Haass says the Trump administration’s “rhetoric of regime change is far outpacing the policy.”

  “From the get go...this administration was talking on behalf of the Iranian opposition...None of that was implemented.”
  —Richard Haass [25:49]

• Implementation disconnect: U.S. forces have killed regime leaders, yet Iran’s political/security institutions are resilient, unlike postwar Germany or Japan models.

2. The Question of “War Aims” ([29:42]–[32:45])

• There’s confusion even among experts as to the real aim—regime change, nuclear rollback, something else? Haass anticipates the administration will soon walk back from maximalist goals and declare victory after partial objectives (like nuclear and military setbacks).

  “We have set the stage for regime change...now Iranian opposition, it’s up to you. You, the people of Iran, must take a hold of your own destiny.”
  —Richard Haass [31:44]

3. Can the Venezuelan Model Work in Iran? ([32:45]–[36:45])

• Haass concedes a so-called “Venezuelan model”—a military strongman taking over—could potentially emerge, but Iranian ideology and anti-U.S. sentiment run far deeper than in Venezuela.

4. How Iran is Fighting Back ([36:45]–[39:14])

• Iran’s multi-front, sustained retaliation demonstrates its resilience and intention to prolong conflict, potentially outlasting U.S. resolve.

  “Iran, even though it’s the far weaker party, has surprising resilience...They also may be in a better position to sustain this kind of conflict.”
  —Richard Haass [37:45]

5. Who is Driving U.S. Policy? ([39:14]–[44:51])

• Trump’s administration is characterized by a lack of organized process; the National Security Council is weakened, with heavy reliance on a handful of loyalists/political advisers.

  “The President is his own de facto national security advisor and Secretary of State and everything. It’s a very top down administration...State Department is at its lowest ebb in my lifetime.”
  —Richard Haass [42:24]

• Political calculus (election-year blowback, gas prices, unpopularity of war) is shaping the White House’s next moves.

6. If Haass Were Advising the President Now ([45:29]–[48:32])

• Haass would urge a diplomatic exit: declare partial victory (nuclear/balletic missile setbacks) and negotiate an off-ramp with Iran, potentially including partial sanctions relief.

  “We have accomplished most of our war aims...the future of Iran’s domestic political orientation is something for the Iranian people to decide.”
  —Richard Haass [45:33]

7. Negotiation, JCPOA, and Possible Endstates ([48:32]–[53:51])

• A satisfactory deal would need to be “better” than the JCPOA to let Trump claim success; Haass criticizes lack of transparency in prior negotiations and hints a similar deal might have been achievable without war.
• Haass describes the “Venezuelan model” as an okay outcome (pragmatic leader with some concessions), but reminds listeners that true regime change is unlikely and difficult to engineer from the outside.

8. Historical Context—Powell Doctrine and Wars of Choice ([54:45]–[58:09])

• Contrasting Colin Powell’s doctrine (clear objectives, last resort force) with Trump’s “opportunistic” use of force, Haass warns of the dangers of “wars of choice” without broad domestic support.

  “If you are going to conduct [wars of choice], you've got to go to great lengths...because it's like being out there on a high wire without a net.”
  —Richard Haass [58:14]

• U.S. post-Venezuela hubris may have led to overconfidence in Iran.

9. Geopolitical Ripple Effects: China, Russia, and Beyond ([60:32]–[65:38])

• Haass posits that China and Russia welcome the U.S. being bogged down in the Middle East, consuming munitions, and facing domestic divisions.

  “A United States that's bogged down in the Middle East, divided at home, using up munitions...I would think all of these are being, shall we say, welcomed [by Moscow and Beijing].”
  —Richard Haass [61:08]

• He also laments the misalignment between rhetoric and actions: “Strategy is the relationship of means and ends, and they got it exactly wrong when it came to the means and ends of policy.”
  —Richard Haass [65:20]

Memorable Quotes & Notable Moments

• “The rhetoric of regime change is far outpacing the policy of regime change.”
  —Richard Haass [25:49]
• “Iran has decided that they will do this as long as they want. … They’ve been in a constant state of suffering in one form or another, basically for the entirety of the Islamic Republic.”
  —Nate Swanson [07:27]
• “You can see a scenario where maybe he’s not getting all the information he needs. And I think second… unique to the President himself is he likes to be lobbied and pitched on ideas.”
  —Nate Swanson [10:26]
• “If we do end up this way, if we end up with a situation where after this war ends, things kind of look like they did before inside Iran, then I would think that would be a smart policy, which is not regime change again in the ambitious sense of the word, but might be a little bit of regime evolution.”
  —Richard Haass [54:45]
• “Force wasn’t a last resort. The problem was, again, they misread the nature of Iranian political leadership. They thought decapitation was a real option when it wasn’t.”
  —Richard Haass [57:45]

Suggested Listening Timestamps

• Introduction/News Recap: [00:44] – [03:02]
• Nate Swanson Interview: [03:02] – [21:43]
• Richard Haass Interview: [23:16] – [65:38]

Conclusion

This episode offers a sobering look at the strategic, political, and moral complexities triggered by America’s strike on Iran. Both Swanson and Haass argue that U.S. war aims are ill-defined, the regime change model is risky and ill-suited to Iran’s resilience, and the ultimate outcome may be instability without fundamental transformation. The episode provides valuable firsthand insight into decision-making inside the U.S. government and places the present crisis in the context of America’s long history of regime change debates.

For further reading, find Nate Swanson’s recent Foreign Affairs article "Why Iran Will Escalate" and Richard Haass’s Substack commentary linked at foreignaffairs.com.