The New Yorker Radio Hour

Episode: "What Could Go Wrong, or Right, in a War with Iran"

Airdate: February 27, 2026
Host: David Remnick
Guests: Cora Engelbrecht (Reporter), anonymous Iranian activists and hospital worker, Karim Sajadpour (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace)

Brief Overview

This episode examines the volatile situation in Iran following mass protests and a violent crackdown by the regime, which reportedly killed tens of thousands of citizens. David Remnick and reporter Cora Engelbrecht provide on-the-ground perspectives from Iranian citizens contending with the regime’s brutality, the ambiguous hope for foreign intervention, and the complicated dilemmas this poses. The latter half features an in-depth analysis with Iran specialist Karim Sajadpour, focusing on potential U.S. strategies, historical analogies, risks of military intervention, and the complex web of power inside Iran.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Iran's Regime Crackdown & Iranians’ Dilemmas

• Context: Recent protests have led the Iranian regime to kill as many as 30,000 people. The U.S. has threatened intervention, and deployed military forces to the Gulf, raising questions about possible war.
• On the Ground:
  • Hospital worker describes treating the dead and wounded, witnessing regime agents’ cruelty at close range ([01:35]-[03:26]).
    • "They were laughing, so essentially mortal enemies. And they were treating the patients like animals. ... Realizing that we are already these people's mortal enemies helped us realize that we are at war to a degree, to a good degree. And fearing a foreign invasion in these circumstances is just kind of laughable, if you ask me." – Hospital worker ([02:21])
  • Young activist (Tehran): Formerly opposed to foreign intervention, now nearly desperate for U.S. action, out of hopelessness.
    • "We are waiting for your Godot and we want [you] to attack us, because we can't ... fight back with the government. ... It's like we have two ways. One, the regime kills us. Two, the foreign country kills us. You know, how upsetting that." – Activist ([04:25])
  • Veteran activist: Has protested since the Green Movement. Feels the situation has become a bleak binary: war, or endless repression ([06:00]-[08:46]).
    • "This whole dualism, that either the Islamic Republic stays or there is a war, and there is no third way. This is a dangerous mindset. I don't want to choose one of them. I choose neither of them, to be honest. ... I wish there was a war and we were over with it, but I am quite sure about myself that I do not want that." – Activist ([07:17])

2. The Desperation and Changing Attitudes of Iranians

• There has been a stark shift in attitudes, with even anti-regime Iranians reluctantly, sometimes bitterly, hoping for foreign (U.S.) military action.
• Many interviewees express profound hopelessness and the feeling of living with no capacity to control their fate, recalling the devastation of previous wars (e.g., the recent "12-day war" with the U.S. and Israel).

3. The Return of Royalist Sentiment

• Reporter notes skepticism among protesters about the exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, yet his name is chanted even in regime strongholds—reflecting both nostalgia and desperation ([24:50]-[26:44]).
• Sajadpour: Predicts Pahlavi could possibly win an election but warns that nostalgia for the monarchy is filtered through a lack of living memory and the trauma of current circumstances ([26:44]-[29:25]).

4. U.S. Policy and Historical Context

• Remnick recalls the 1953 coup, discussing how previous regime change efforts (Iraq, Libya, Syria) ended in disaster, raising concerns about Iran ([10:29]-[14:58]).
  • "We invaded Iraq fully and it was a disaster. We invaded Libya partly and it was a disaster. And we kept out of Syria and it was a monumental disaster. And now with Iran, the humanitarian question of the killing of thousands of demonstrators is without question. The question is what to do about it." – David Remnick ([14:16])

5. Analysis by Karim Sajadpour

• Trump Doctrine Ambiguity: Trump set multiple "red lines" threatening intervention if the regime killed protesters. The regime ignored these, killing thousands, testing U.S. credibility ([12:23]-[14:16]; [14:58]).
• Limits of U.S. Power: Cites recent Middle East history to argue the U.S. can neither dictate outcomes nor reliably nation-build after intervention.
  • "We don't have the ability to dictate our preferred outcome in Iran. We don't have the ability to dictate who comes to power the day after a military attack." – Sajadpour ([14:58])
• Pro-American Iranian Sentiments: Despite the regime’s anti-Americanism, the populace is more pro-American and secular than generally understood, wishing for a government that puts country before ideology ([16:04]).
  • "[Iran] should be a G20 nation ... Could be South Korea, it behaves like North Korea. ... This radicalism, this anti-imperialism, anti-Americanism has just led the country into a ditch." – Sajadpour ([16:04])
• Risks of Decapitation Strikes: Warns that targeting the Supreme Leader could radicalize regime hardliners, stalling evolutionary reform and risking violent backlash ([19:11]-[22:07]).
  • "Martyring an 86-year-old I think is fraught with some risk." – Sajadpour ([19:11])
• Revolutionary Guard’s Power: The IRGC is deeply entrenched, with 150,000+ armed members and vast economic interests; even if leaders fall, they remain a formidable force ([22:07]).
  • "What are you going to do with 150,000 plus Revolutionary Guardsmen ... 1% of society can make life hell for 99% of society if they're willing to go out and conduct suicide bombings and things like that." – Sajadpour ([22:07])
• Nature of Protest: The regime tries to control every aspect of life, making grievances widespread. Latest protests were triggered by economic collapse, spreading with chants even in conservative cities ([24:50]).
  • "It tries to micromanage every aspect of people's lives. ... The trigger was economic ... and then very quickly, within a couple days, they quickly went to death to the Islamic Republic, and they spread throughout the country." – Sajadpour ([24:50])

6. Caution Against False Historical Parallels

• Sajadpour and Remnick discuss how the seemingly “easy” Venezuela transition may mislead policymakers about Iran’s far more complex reality ([32:54]-[33:46]).
  • "The seeming success and facility of that Venezuela model has maybe distorted our understanding of how challenging this operation in Iran might be." – Sajadpour ([32:54])

7. What Should the U.S. Do?

• Sajadpour argues for a limited operation targeting the regime’s malign capabilities (missile, repression apparatus)—not a full-scale invasion or leadership decapitation ([30:52]-[32:54]).
  • "I think an operation which can degrade the Islamic Republic's malign capabilities, whether it's missile capacity, its repressive capacity, and it serves to not further unite the regime's security forces, but divide the regime's security forces. If that operation is tenable, I think that's an operation which I would be prepared to [support]." – Sajadpour ([31:48])

Most Notable Quotes & Moments

• Hospital worker: "Seeing that, realizing that we are already these people's mortal enemies helped us realize that we are at war to a degree, to a good degree. And fearing a foreign invasion in these circumstances is just kind of laughable, if you ask me." ([02:21])
• Activist 1: "It's like we have two ways. One, the regime kills us. Two, the foreign country kills us. You know, how upsetting that." ([04:25])
• Activist 2: "This whole dualism ... either the Islamic Republic stays or there is a war, and there is no third way. ... That's kind of suicidal, you know, people who are very senselessly waiting for that beautiful moment of the skies being bombarded and the earth catching fire ..." ([07:17])
• Sajadpour: "[Iran] is the most secular society, I would argue, in the Middle east and the least anti American, the most pro American ... There's a basic recognition that this nation ... is punching way below its weight. Could be South Korea, it behaves like North Korea." ([16:04])
• Sajadpour: "Martyring an 86-year-old I think is fraught with some risk." ([19:56])
• Sajadpour: "What I learned from observing the Iraq war is that 1% of society can make life hell for 99% of society if they're willing to go out and conduct suicide bombings and, and things like that, if they feel like they're not going to have any role in the country's tomorrow." ([22:07])
• Sajadpour: "The seeming success and facility of that Venezuela model has maybe distorted our understanding of how challenging this operation in Iran might be." ([32:54])

Notable Timestamps

• [01:17]-[03:26]: Firsthand accounts from hospital worker; regime violence and the collapse of basic empathy.
• [04:16]-[05:28]: Activist’s defeatism and changing attitude toward foreign intervention.
• [06:00]-[08:46]: Veteran activist discusses the “no third way” dynamic and emotional toll of waiting for catastrophe.
• [12:23]-[14:16]: Karim Sajadpour discusses ambiguity of U.S. intent and red line credibility.
• [16:04]-[18:29]: Pro-American sentiments of Iranian society.
• [19:11]-[22:07]: Risks of removing the Supreme Leader and the entrenched power of the Revolutionary Guard.
• [24:50]-[26:44]: Discussion of changing nature of the protests.
• [26:44]-[29:25]: On nostalgia for the Shah’s era and role of Reza Pahlavi.
• [30:52]-[32:54]: Sajadpour’s policy recommendations—limited strikes, not regime decapitation.
• [32:54]-[33:46]: Cautions over using Venezuela as a model.

Conclusion

This episode provides both harrowing firsthand testimony of Iranians under siege and a deeply nuanced discussion of what U.S. policy might achieve—or disastrously misjudge. The dilemma for both Iranians and Americans is the absence of a clear, positive path: replacing the current regime may risk chaos, violence, or entrench the same actors under new guises. And yet, not acting may deliver only more repression. As Sajadpour and Remnick conclude, history and current dynamics alike warn against both paralysis and easy answers.