Why is the U.S. at war with Iran?

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Why is the U.S. at War with Iran?"

The NPR Politics Podcast
Published: March 5, 2026
Hosts: Tamara Keith, Greg Myhre, Mara Liasson
Key Guests/Voices: Donald Trump (clips), Secretary of State Marco Rubio (referenced)

---

Overview of the Episode

This episode of The NPR Politics Podcast centers on the pressing question: Why did the U.S. launch a war against Iran? The hosts break down the evolving justifications offered by the Trump administration, analyze both military and political objectives, and discuss the immediate impacts and future uncertainties of the conflict. Special focus is placed on the administration’s inconsistent public messaging, the lack of a well-defined political endgame, public and global reaction, and the potential consequences for the region and American politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Administration’s Shifting Rationale

• Multiple, sometimes conflicting, reasons for striking Iran were offered over several days by President Trump, starting with alleged nuclear ambitions, then moving to missile threats, the need to destroy Iran’s military capabilities, and now even regime change.
  • [00:48] Donald Trump: "Yet they continue starting it all over. We wiped it out. And they want to start all over again and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions."
  • [01:30] Donald Trump: “We are going to destroy their missiles… annihilate their navy… ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world.”
• The logic behind these shifting explanations is unclear, raising concerns among allies and analysts about U.S. strategy and intent.
  • [02:57] Mara Liasson: "There's been a sense among former administration officials, Europeans everywhere, that Donald Trump was kind of making this up as he went along."

2. Lack of Public & International Consensus-Building

• Unlike historical precedents (e.g., George H.W. Bush’s Gulf War coalition), the Trump administration acted swiftly without building public or international support.
  • [04:41] Greg Myhre: “Trump didn’t want to do any of that, and that's a big difference... The reason those other things are important is to have legitimacy, to have support.”
• The decision appears highly personal, reflecting a centralized, unchecked executive power.
  • [06:18] Mara Liasson: "Trump’s vision of the presidency is very personalist... all of the incredible resources that the United States used to have to advise a president... have really been diminished."

3. Intelligence and Evidence – Was There an Imminent Threat?

• No clear public or congressional evidence of an imminent Iranian threat was presented.
  • [07:54] Greg Myhre: "No, not that we're aware of. We have heard from senators... who said they heard nothing to that effect."
• The military buildup occurred over a month, not in response to a last-minute threat.

4. What About Iran's Missiles?

• Iran’s missiles can target U.S. interests in the region (e.g., Israel, U.S. bases), but not the U.S. mainland.
  • [08:27] Greg Myhre: "No, Iran does not have a weapon that could strike the United States itself. Its missiles don't go anywhere near that distance."

5. Israeli Coordination and Preemption

• Secretary of State Marco Rubio initially implied the U.S. acted to preempt Israeli attack, then later walked back the extent of U.S.-Israeli coordination.
• In reality, there was close, deliberate coordination between the U.S. and Israel.
  • [09:33] Greg Myhre: “They had coordinated this for weeks, if not months... sitting at the same table making these plans together.”

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• [01:30] Donald Trump: “We are going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated. We are going to annihilate their navy…”
• [02:57] Mara Liasson: “You can't get rid of Iran as a bad actor just... with bombs from the air.”
• [06:18] Mara Liasson: “Trump’s vision of the presidency is very personalist... It's just about one guy and he doesn't want to be checked.”
• [13:28] Greg Myhre: "She said, well, I can think of three [successful regime changes] in the past century... But you could point to a lot more failures. The successes much more rare than the failures."
• [14:52] Donald Trump: “Well, most of the people we had in mind are dead. So, you know, we had some in mind from that group that is dead. And now we have another group. They may be dead also, based on reports. So I guess you have a third wave coming in. Pretty soon we're not going to know anybody.”
• [15:49] Mara Liasson: “He likes to bomb and walk away.”
• [19:16] Mara Liasson: “What's so interesting about this is the definitions of Success militarily or politically differ because this is an asymmetrical conflict. If the regime just merely survives, they win.”

---

Segment Timeline & Detailed Breakdown

[00:21–02:43] Introduction & Trump’s Initial Explanations

• Host intros, topic framing, then extended Trump remarks justifying military action.
• Shifting rationales: nuclear weapons, missile threats, counterterrorism, ‘preemption.’

[02:43–05:49] Assessing the Administration’s Rationale

• Hosts debate the lack of coherent political objectives.
• Questioning whether military actions can achieve stated goals.
• Comparison to prior U.S. war messaging and coalition-building.

[05:49–07:54] Executive Process and Decision-Making

• Trump’s reliance on ‘gut feeling’ over formal intelligence.
• Centralization of power (e.g., Marco Rubio’s dual role, elimination of interagency process).

[07:54–09:33] Was There an Imminent Threat? & Role of Israel

• No evidence of imminent threat.
• The military buildup was methodical.
• U.S.-Israel attack was closely coordinated.

[12:15–14:14] Political Objectives: Regime Change?

• No consistent policy; at times advocates for regime change, at times for merely destabilizing Iran.
• Trump expressed intent to pick Iran’s next leader, but also hinted at leaving Iranian people in charge.

[14:14–16:49] The Historical Record of Regime Change

• Few U.S. successes; most regime change efforts end badly.
• Challenges specific to Iran’s political structure (“many more centers of power”).

[16:49–19:53] Military Objectives and Campaign Status

• U.S. and Israel divided operational fronts.
• Air campaign progressing; Iran’s air defenses nearly eliminated, enabling continuous bombing.
• Definition of victory complicated by the nature of conflict—regime survival can mean Iranian ‘success.’

[19:53–21:55] Risks, Casualties, and Unintended Consequences

• Accidental targeting (girls school), friendly fire, American casualties.
• Trump’s penchant for sudden disengagement, but the stakes of open-ended air war.

[22:06–24:20] Failed Diplomacy & Remaining Regional Danger

• Attempts at talks in Geneva faltered; U.S. demanded total capitulation, while Iran clung to its missile program as a core defense.
• Iran’s proxies (Hezbollah, Houthis) weakened but retain some striking capacity.

[24:20–25:43] Domestic Political Impact

• No ‘rally around the flag’ effect.
• Rising oil prices and U.S. casualties threaten domestic support.
  • [24:47] Mara Liasson: "Americans are against this. The big tripping point for voters is whether oil prices continue to go up and whether American service members continue to get killed..."

---

Flow of Conversation & Tone

The tone is factual, analytical, and at times incredulous, particularly regarding the lack of clear objectives or process. Mara Liasson and Greg Myhre inject history and context, explicitly drawing parallels—and contrasts—with earlier wars. There’s evident concern about the impulsive nature of decision-making and skepticism that any announced political goals are achievable.

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers a comprehensive, nuanced look at the U.S. war with Iran, highlighting:

• The ambiguity and volatility of the administration’s explanations for war.
• Structural changes in U.S. national security decision-making (centralization, diminished interagency process).
• Debatable evidence and intelligence behind the case for war.
• The historical difficulty—and risk—of regime change as a foreign policy tool.
• The complex practicalities of military action versus actual political outcomes for both the U.S. and Iran.
• Emerging domestic political liabilities and lack of popular support for the conflict.

---

For Further Listening

Tomorrow’s episode will cover President Trump’s decision to drop Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.

---

For listeners who missed this episode, this summary provides a thorough guide to the arguments, key moments, and stakes explored by NPR’s political team.

Transcript

[Sponsor/Advertisement Voice]

This message comes from Bombas. You need better socks and slippers and underwear because you should love what you wear every day. One purchased equals one donated. Go to bombus.com NPR and use code NPR for 20% off.

[Tamara Keith]

Hey there. It's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Greg Myhre]

I'm Greg Myy. I cover national security.

[Mara Liasson]

And I'm Mara Liasson, senior national political correspondent.

[Tamara Keith]

And today on the show, why did the US Strike Iran and what happens next? The Trump administration has given a series of explanations over the last several days as to why military action was necessary, starting with President Trump's State of the Union address.

[Donald Trump]

After Midnight Hammer, they were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program, and in particular, nuclear weapons. Yet they continue starting it all over. We wiped it out. And they want to start all over again and are at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions.

[Tamara Keith]

And a reminder that Midnight Hammer was the operation last summer that the president said completely and totally obliterated Iran's nuclear program. But then after the US Started this mission in Iran, the messaging shifted. Here is President Trump. On Saturday, Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, we

[Donald Trump]

are going to destroy their missiles and raise their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated. We are going to annihilate their navy. We are going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world. For almost 50 years, these wicked extremists have been attacking the United States while chanting the slogan death to America or death to Israel or both. They are the world's number one state sponsor of terror. We are the world's greatest and most powerful nation, so we can do something about what they do. These intolerable threats will not continue any longer. In addition, the regime's conventional ballistic missile program was growing rapidly and dramatically, and this posed a very clear, colossal threat to America and our forces stationed overseas. You see, we were having negotiations with these lunatics, and it was my opinion that they were going to attack first. They were going to attack. If we didn't do it, they were going to attack first. I felt strongly about that.

[Tamara Keith]

There are a lot of different reasons given there over the course of several days, and some of them almost seem to conflict with each other. So, Mara, what do you make of the administration's evolving messaging on this?

[Mara Liasson]

I think that the military goals that they expressed were pretty clear. When you say we want to destroy their missile system or we want to get rid of their navy, that we understand what that means. But the political goals have been shifting and going back and forth. Do they want regime change or not? If you want to stop Iran from sponsoring terror around the world, well, gee, that sounds like you're going to need to have a change in the government there, not just decapitate their missile program. So I think that. That there's been a sense among former administration officials, Europeans everywhere, that Donald Trump was kind of making this up as he went along. And that's a very destabilizing, concerning thing when the world's most powerful person, who leads the most powerful country, doesn't have a clear idea of what the political goal is. We know what the military goal is, but you can't get rid of Iran as a bad actor just for. With bombs from the air, I think

[Greg Myhre]

everybody always focuses on the military part of it and not on the political part, the military part with the bombs exploding. This dramatic footage that we see on tv and that often is where, you know, wars are won or lost. But then there's the political settlement that comes afterwards, and that's harder and it's less dramatic, and it involves negotiations. But that often determines in the longer term when whether a war went well or went badly for one country or both or for everybody involved.

[Tamara Keith]

Greg, one thing that has really stood out to me in the last week is just how little of a public case was made for this operation before it happened, how little of this rationale was explained to the American people. Instead, we've been getting it afterwards.

[Greg Myhre]

Yeah, well, it absolutely differs from what we've seen for decades now. And you just remember, I can remember all the way back to George H.W. bush making a big case, building an international coalition, going to the United Nations. So all of these steps dealing with the American people, Congress, the international community, a military coalition, and Trump didn't want to do any of that, and that's a big difference. Now, it certainly allowed him to act quickly and more freely and act when he wanted to act. But the reason those other things are important is to have legitimacy, to have support, and then when you sit down at the end of it, work out a political settlement, and to say to everybody, look, we all agreed we needed to do this, rather than just say we did this alone. And so I think that's when you get to the end of a conflict, that gives you much more legitimacy when you want to sit down and work out the final settlement with everybody, having had them be there at the beginning and having had input from the beginning. Even if the US Was leaving an Operation Mara.

[Tamara Keith]

There was a moment in yesterday's White House press briefing where Press Secretary Caroline Levitt talked about how this happened, how this came about. The president had a feeling, again, based on fact, that Iran was going to strike the United States was going to strike our assets in the region. And he made a determination to launch Operation Epic Fury based on all of those reasons. Mara, going to war, launching a war based on a feeling is different.

[Mara Liasson]

It's the essence of the Trump presidency. He also said, it was my opinion that they were about to attack us. He didn't say, my intelligence community told me this. I got information. Nope. It was his opinion. So Trump's vision of the presidency is very personalist. In other words, it's just about one guy and he doesn't want to be checked. He has hollowed out all of the incredible resources that the United States used to have to advise a president. The National Security Council. All sorts of parts of the government who would have helped him figure out a strategy are really been diminished. So this fits perfectly with Trump's idea of an unchecked, all powerful executive. You don't even need to have a coherent explanation because nobody's gonna stop you.

[Tamara Keith]

But when you talk about the hollowing, that is by design.

[Mara Liasson]

Absolutely.

[Tamara Keith]

They condensed something. They took the National Security Council and the Secretary of State, two big parts of the decision process.

[Mara Liasson]

There is no process.

[Tamara Keith]

And they put Marco Rubio in charge of both. And when I asked the White House, well, but what about the process? They said, well, we want this to be top down. Greg, I do want to unpack some of the reasons that the administration has articulated for this war and why it needed to be now and go through it one by one. Greg, was there any intelligence that Iran was going to attack US Interests first, that there was an imminent attack?

[Greg Myhre]

No, not that we're aware of. We have heard from senators and congressmen who've been in private intelligence briefings, and they said they heard nothing to that effect. Also, let's recall that the US Military buildup took place over a month. They were preparing for this for a long time, which again, goes against the notion that there was an imminent threat of attack from Iran.

[Tamara Keith]

And what about Iran's missile program? Did it pose a threat to the U.S. or U.S. interests? The president, in those first remarks, was talking about ballistic missiles and needing to take them out.

[Greg Myhre]

Yeah, I'd make a distinction here to US Interests in the region. Yes, We've seen Iran fire those missiles in the battle last summer. It can hit Israel, it can hit other countries. In the region. It could hit U.S. ships, it could hit U.S. embassies, U.S. military bases. So yes, in theory, they can and have fired on those US Bases. No, Iran does not have a weapon that could strike the United States itself. Its missiles don't go anywhere near that distance.

[Tamara Keith]

Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested earlier this week that the US Struck because it knew that Israel was going to hit Iran first.

[Sponsor/Advertisement Voice]

We knew that there was going to be an Israeli action. We knew that that would precipitate an attack against American forces. And we knew that if we didn't preemptively go after them before they launched those attacks, we would suffer higher casualties and perhaps even higher those killed. And then we would all be here answering questions about why we knew that and didn't act.

[Tamara Keith]

It's worth noting that Rubio walked that back somewhat the next day and said the US Wasn't following Israel's lead. But Greg, what do we know about Israel's plans?

[Greg Myhre]

Well, they're one and the same. They had coordinated this for weeks, if not months. And it was very carefully crafted. So it was not like Israel was going to attack and surprise the US These are very, very coordinated efforts from the very beginning. And so when he says that we knew Israel was going to attack, well, yes, he did, because they were sitting at the same table making these plans together. And this was not a case where either side caught the other by surprise.

[Tamara Keith]

Okay, it is time for a quick break. When we come back, unpacking where things stand now in the war.

[Sponsor/Advertisement Voice]

This message comes from Jerry. Many people are overpaying on car insurance. Why switching providers can be a pain. Jerry helps make the process painless. Jerry is the only app that compares rates from over 50 insurers in minutes and helps you switch fast with no spam calls or hidden fees. Drivers who save with Jerry could save over $1,300 a year. Before you renew your car insurance policy, download the Jerry app or head to Jerry AI NPR. This message comes from BetterHelp International. Women's Day is this March, time to celebrate all women, the leaders, the caregivers, the hype, friends, the how do you do it? All types. Women deserve to be reminded how much they matter and that therapy offers a space to care for themselves. BetterHelp makes it simple by matching you with a qualified therapist based on your needs and preferences. Visit betterhelp.com NPR for 10% off support

[Tamara Keith]

for this podcast and the following message come from Strawberry Me.

[Greg Myhre]

If you could go back and talk

[Tamara Keith]

to your younger self, would you tell yourself that you have a job that

[Mara Liasson]

truly makes you happy.

[Tamara Keith]

Many people are stuck in jobs they've

[Mara Liasson]

outgrown or never really wanted. A career coach from Strawberry Me can

[Tamara Keith]

help you move on to something you actually love.

[Mara Liasson]

Benefit from having a dedicated coach in your corner, and get 50% off your

[Tamara Keith]

first coaching session at Strawberry Me Me

[Sponsor/Advertisement Voice]

NPR this message comes from Kachava. That wellness goal you set at the start of the year, it's not too late to stick with it and make your future self proud, especially with The all in One Nutrition Shake from Cachava with 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, grains, adaptogens and more. No fillers, no nonsense, just the highest quality ingredients. Stick with your wellness goals. Go to kachava.com and use code NPR for 15% off. That's K-A C-H-A-V A.com code NPR

[Tamara Keith]

and we're back. And Mara, at the top of the pod, you talked about how there are two sets of objectives here for the war, military objectives and political objectives. And I'd like to talk about the political ones first. What is the goal here?

[Mara Liasson]

Beats me. You know, it's pretty confusing because he has said different things at different times. And in an interview with Axios, the president said that he is going to get to pick the new leader of Iran. That is regime change, pure and simple. It's the clearest definition of regime change that there could be. But at other times he has said, for instance, you know, to the Iranian people, when we're finished, take over your government, it'll be yours to take. This will probably be your only chance for generations. As if he was saying, well, we're going to bomb and walk away. It's up to you. And he was gonna leave it to them. So it's unclear what the political objectives are here. And you know, we're gonna have to wait to see if Trump clarifies. But right now it seems like regime change is the political objective. And of course, as Greg can explain, that opens up a whole can of worms. Cuz there is no historical example of doing regime change from the air just by bombing.

[Greg Myhre]

Good point. I had an interesting conversation yesterday with Cory Schockey from the American Enterprise Institute, and I can you give me examples? When was the last time there was a successful regime change engineered by the U.S. and she said, well, I can think of three in the past century, after World War II, when the U.S. defeated Germany and Japan, it went in there and helped those countries rebuild to prosperous democratic states with an occupation, with an occupation troops on the ground. And then Panama in 1989, the US went in, took out the leader there, Manuel Noriega, and helped rebuild Panama, which has done pretty well for itself since then. But you could point to a lot more failures, the successes much more rare than the failures.

[Tamara Keith]

Yeah, the list of failures is fairly long and painful for the United States.

[Greg Myhre]

Oh, absolutely, absolutely. And, you know, often the US had great plans. You could argue good intentions, others would argue not. But the US Put in time, put in money, it didn't work out, and for various reasons. And it's just, just, it's a very hard thing to do.

[Mara Liasson]

Well, Trump had some pretty choice words about the lack of planning for a succession.

[Tamara Keith]

I don't think that's exactly how he would describe what he said, but what he said was truly remarkable. This was in the Oval Office on Tuesday.

[Donald Trump]

Well, most of the people we had in mind are dead. So, you know, we had some in mind from that group that is. Is dead. And now we have another group. They may be dead also, based on reports. So I guess you have a third wave coming in. Pretty soon we're not going to know anybody.

[Mara Liasson]

I mean, he's talking about people that he had in mind to be the next government of Iran, but they kept on getting killed. He also talked about.

[Tamara Keith]

In the passive voice.

[Mara Liasson]

In the passive voice, yeah. But he also talked about the possibility that there could be somebody just as bad becoming the leader of Iran as if he had no agency at all.

[Tamara Keith]

Well, I think that if you look at the way President Trump has executed foreign policy in this second term, he's been fairly agnostic about what happens after the big military action and the shock and the awe and all of that he didn't have.

[Mara Liasson]

He likes to bomb and walk away.

[Tamara Keith]

That's a simpler way of saying what I was trying to say.

[Mara Liasson]

But what's so interesting is if you take him at his word when he said he wants regime change, well, he can't really walk away.

[Tamara Keith]

Right. This is different than what he has done in the past. It isn't just a couple of bombs. It isn't a, you know, oh, we'll send a side message and say, we'll keep you leader of Venezuela, second in

[Mara Liasson]

charge, change the lead singer. But the band plays on.

[Tamara Keith]

Right? This is different.

[Greg Myhre]

Oh, absolutely. In this Axios interview he gave, he said, in effect, they were looking for a kind of Delsey Rodriguez type figure. But again, he keeps making that analogy. If it was the same thing, it's much, much more complicated here. You just have many more centers of power in Iran. It's a much larger country with 90 million people and based on a real ideological principle of clerical rule. It's not just, oh, we could have this leader who's conservative or this leader who's liberal.

[Mara Liasson]

Yeah, it's theological as well as ideological.

[Greg Myhre]

Shiite Islam, rule by the clerics.

[Tamara Keith]

And the Supreme Leader was taken out on day one. And that leaves a vacuum which may

[Greg Myhre]

be filled by his son, who's also considered a hardliner, very much in the same mold.

[Mara Liasson]

And Trump has ruled him out.

[Greg Myhre]

Trump is also specifically saying he would not bring, I believe, peace and harmony to Iran was Trump's phrasing.

[Tamara Keith]

So there's still a lot of unanswered questions there, but I think we should move on to the military objectives. And those two have evolved and changed somewhat. Greg, what is happening there?

[Greg Myhre]

Yeah, I mean, the US And Israel, I think, have carried out a plan probably seemingly along the lines that they intended. I would say that in contrast to these confusing messages about why the war started or what its goals might be, the campaign itself seems to be going pretty well from a U. S. Israeli perspective. We've heard, for example, just in the past day or so from the Pentagon about the division of labor here. So the US has an aircraft carrier the water south of Iran and is focused really on that southern coast and has been firing long range attacks to try to defeat or weaken the Iranian forces along the coast. Israel has been going for western Iran because that's where Iran fires the missiles into Israel. So Israel is. That's a supreme concern of Israel. And Israel's also been bombing in Tehran and hitting the leadership targets and headquarters in Tehran. So that's the way they've kind of split up the regions in terms of where they're attacking. Now the big step that they say they're about to accomplish is completely defeat Iran's air defenses, which were pretty weak to begin with. But you don't want to send manned aircraft into Iran if you don't know exactly what you're going to encounter. They say those air defenses have almost completely been wiped out, which would allow the US and Israel to effectively fly manned aircraft over Iran 247 in uncontested skies without having to worry about being shot down. The supply of bombs that the US has is quite large when it comes to this. So that would allow just this constant bombing to take place in Iran. Always unpredictable things could happen. But it does seem like that's the trajectory we're on.

[Mara Liasson]

What's so interesting about this is the definitions of Success militarily or politically differ because this is an asymmetrical conflict. If the regime just merely survives, they win. I think that the criteria for success for the United States is much higher. They have to get rid of the regime. They have to show that whoever is leading Iran after this is more cooperative with the US or has agreed to certain requirements. But if the regime is still standing, I don't see how Trump can declare victory. Even though he is the best at declaring victory out of almost anything.

[Tamara Keith]

He declares victory all the time on all kinds of things. Whether he has actually won or not, he declares victory. War is not always predictable and things happen. Bad things happen. In this case, a girls school was hit that NPR reporting indicates was close to a military target. There was a friendly fire incident, taking down three US Fighter jets. That's the service members ejected and were recovered safely. Six U.S. service members were killed in Kuwait. President Trump has been very critical in the past of US Military involvement in the Middle east, in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Does he risk being responsible for the very thing he has criticized in the past?

[Greg Myhre]

So I think we're too early to make that kind of judgment. I think we're on day six here. Air campaign. The president will have the ability to call it off, pull the plug pretty much anytime he wants. That's why it's very different than putting in ground troops. And that's been a red line for Trump and continues to be. So I think, yes, he could end this when he wants. But we're going to hit a tricky point where even if you're having military success, what kind of political agreement are you going to get to end the war? And what if you reach the point where you feel you've done the damage you wanted to do militarily, but you can't get the political agreement you want? Do you keep bombing? Do you keep exercising that kind of pressure on Iran, hoping they will come around? Or do you just pull out and say whatever happens in Iran is Iran's problem, not ours? So for me, that's going to be that critical point when Trump may decide, I think we've accomplished what we wanted militarily. But will he get what he wants politically, or will he just still be willing to leave rather than drag it out?

[Tamara Keith]

Yeah, and I think we don't necessarily know the answer to that question.

[Greg Myhre]

Oh, absolutely not. And that's the whole point. You never do. And that's why it's so risky to start a war, is you don't know how it's going to end.

[Tamara Keith]

There Were talks happening in Geneva where the US And Iran were trying to find an off ramp. Why didn't that work?

[Greg Myhre]

They wanted things that were just very, very different. Iran was willing to perhaps make some concessions on its nuclear program, but it wasn't going to surrender. It wasn't going to give up its missile program. That's really the only way it can defend itself. Its navy was not great, but now most of it, or all of it has been sunk. It has an air force that literally dates back to before the Islamic Revolution, back when the US Was an ally of Iran. It's one real defense, especially against these airstrikes that it's facing. And its way to hit out at Israel or US Targets was with missiles. So Iran was just not going to make those kinds of concessions where the Trump administration was saying, you got to give up your missiles, your nuclear program, and Iran was just not willing to go that far. Now, you could argue, or some have argued that, that the Trump administration was making demands it knew Iran wouldn't or couldn't accept, and therefore this was how it would end up. But they were a little too far apart. You could have had an agreement similar to the one you had back in 2015 in the Obama administration, plus a few more things, but you weren't going to get this kind of sweeping deal that the Trump administration was asking for. But we should remember Iran still has proxies in the Middle east that could hit U.S. targets. They've been greatly weakened, whether it's Hezbollah in Leban or the Houthis in Yemen. The Houthis could start shooting missiles again at ships in the Red Sea and further disrupt the flow of oil. Individual acts could take place. So I would say yes, Iran still has the ability to act outside its borders, but not on a large, massive, ongoing scale. And we're seeing that capacity shrink by the day. For whatever reason, the Houthis have not resumed firing on ships in the Red Sea. Hezbollah has fired a little bit at Israel, but not in the same way that did in the past. So I think that reflects Iran's weakness that's been happening over the past couple years.

[Tamara Keith]

Mark, can I ask you about domestic politics? Because as we talked about earlier in the podcast, the president and the White House didn't really necessarily make a big sales pitch to the American people. Now the American people actually are feeling consequences. Gas prices rose very quickly. You've had these service members who were killed. How much can the American people stomach of this?

[Mara Liasson]

Well, that's a good question, and I would say not too much more. There was no rally around the flag effect at all, which is very unusual. Usually when presidents start a military action, at least for a couple of days or a week, people are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and they rally around the president. That didn't happen. There is net negative approval for this war, even though Republicans in Congress are still holding firm, they're not going to vote for a war powers resolution. So Americans are against this. And I think the big tripping point for voters is whether oil prices continue to go up and whether American service members continue to get killed. Those are usually the two things that make people care about foreign policy in an election year. If the president manages to find an off ramp and oil prices go back down, then I think it has less of on the midterms. But right now, the American people don't like this.

[Tamara Keith]

All right. We're going to leave it there for now. And please join us tomorrow when we will discuss President Trump's decision to ditch Homeland Security. Secretary Kristi Noem, I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

[Greg Myhre]

I'm Greg Myhre. I cover national security.

[Mara Liasson]

And I'm Mara Liasson, senior national political correspondent.

[Tamara Keith]

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.

[Sponsor/Advertisement Voice]

This message comes From NPR sponsor 1Password. Anyone else feel like 99% of your emails and texts are password reset codes trusted by millions of users and over 175,000 businesses? 1Password lets you skip the resets and sign in securely. With strong, unique passwords that auto fill across all your devices. You can safely share logins, store cards and files. And finally, stop using your pet's name as a password. Try it free for two weeks at 1Password.com NPR support for NPR and the following message come from Washington Wise. Decisions made in Washington can affect your portfolio every day. Washington Wise, from Charles Schwab is an original podcast that unpacks the stories making news in Washington. [e-mail] Washingtonwise this message comes from Greenlight. Parents say financial literacy is the hardest life skill to teach. Greenlight's debit card and money app for families makes it easy for kids to learn to earn, save and spend wisely. Start today risk [e-mail] NPR.