The President's Daily Brief – Situation Report

Episode Title: PDB Situation Report | January 31st, 2026: American Firepower Gathers at Iran’s Doorstep & The Cost of Putin’s War
Date: January 31, 2026
Host: Mike Baker, Former CIA Operations Officer
Guests: Richard Goldberg (FDD), Seth Jones (CSIS)

Episode Overview

In this episode, Mike Baker delivers critical updates on two escalating global crises.
First, he examines the significant U.S. military buildup near Iran—exploring what Washington’s deployment means for the Iranian regime, regional allies, and possible U.S. intentions, with insight from Richard Goldberg, senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Second, the episode discusses the devastating human and strategic costs of Russia’s war on Ukraine, drawing on a new CSIS study. Baker is joined by Seth Jones, one of the study’s authors, to unpack the scale of military losses and the war’s limited territorial gains.

Section 1: U.S. Military Buildup at Iran’s Doorstep

[00:12 - 14:49, 14:49 - 29:28]

Key Discussion Points & Insights

• U.S. Force Deployment

  • A major increase in American naval and air power near Iran: the number of guided missile destroyers surged from three to seven (with the Lincoln carrier strike group newly arrived), alongside additional fighter squadrons and missile defenses ([01:56]).
  • The buildup gives President Trump a suite of military options as pressure mounts on the Iranian regime.
  • Message: Washington is prepared to act if Iran’s leadership—the mullahs and IRGC—refuse concessions ([00:58]).

• Presidential Rhetoric and Intervention

  • Recent U.S. statements supporting Iranian protesters (“help is on its way”) raised hopes but may have been premature or miscalculated ([02:53]).
  • “Was that just off the cuff? ... That’s a very hopeful statement to give to protesters losing their lives...” – Mike Baker ([02:53])

• Regime Stability and Protest Dynamics

  • Widespread unrest in Iran, with reports of economic crises (bank collapses, free-falling currency, power/water shortages) catalyzing protests.
  • U.S. intelligence struggled to validate the scale of violence quickly. By the time confirmation came, “people had already been mowed down in the streets by the tens of thousands” ([03:33]).

• The Limits of U.S. Influence

  • Goldberg stresses that, unlike past uprisings, the Iranian protesters lack arms and organization; there is no viable insurgency—external support is essential if regime change is a real goal ([07:02], [07:21]).
  • “Nobody should have been doubting how brutal the Iranian regime was going to be in shutting this series of protests down. ... Seems like a fairly naive way of looking at it.” – Mike Baker ([06:10])

• Potential U.S. Military Strategy

  • Focused not on regime change, but on crippling Iran’s external threat capabilities:
    • Nuclear extortion capability, already curtailed, but solid fuel missile and drone programs remain active ([09:32]).
    • The IRGC Navy (“a bunch of fast boats, swarm type boats”) and command/control centers are also potential targets ([09:32]).
  • Reducing these capabilities would diminish Iran’s deterrent power and embolden protestors in the long run.

• Regional Allies’ Perspectives

  • Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc.) are publicly cautious, not wanting to attract Iranian retaliation, but also have mixed feelings about potential regime change due to regional stability concerns ([18:53]).
  • “They want Iran weak, but not gone. ... At least I know what the dictatorship and military in Egypt are going to do. ... I can depend on that for my strategy...” – Richard Goldberg ([18:53])

• China’s Strategic Interests

  • China supports Iran as part of its Belt and Road Initiative and for strategic oil security (half of China’s imported oil transits the Strait of Hormuz) ([22:14]).
  • China may be providing missile technology and contemplating advanced arms transfers—it is in their interest to prevent U.S. dominance of regional maritime chokepoints ([22:14], [24:57]).

Notable Quotes

• “That’s a lot of firepower if you’re just coming to say hello to the supreme leader.”
  – Richard Goldberg, [01:56]
• “People had already been mowed down in the streets by the tens of thousands.”
  – Richard Goldberg, [03:33]
• “I find it hard to imagine that, without something…a military strike ... those sort of things would then ... give the protesters the courage to come out in even larger numbers...”
  – Mike Baker, [08:30]
• “They want Iran weak but not gone. ... I know this enemy, as long as he has less capability to hurt me, I’m okay.”
  – Richard Goldberg, [18:53]
• “If the United States Navy can control 50% of [China’s] oil import at any moment ... that’s very bad for the CCP.”
  – Richard Goldberg, [22:14]

Section 2: The Human Cost of Russia’s War in Ukraine

[29:56 - 53:19]

Key Discussion Points & Insights

• New Casualty Findings

  • Nearly four years in, combined Russian and Ukrainian military casualties are nearing 2 million, with levels reminiscent of WWI/WWII ([29:56]).
  • “Those are more casualties and frankly deaths than any major power has lost in any war since World War II.”
    – Seth Jones, [31:11]
  • Russian losses:
    • ~1.2 million total casualties (wounded + dead).
    • Estimated 325,000 deaths ([31:11]).
  • Ukrainian losses:
    • 500,000–600,000 total casualties.
    • 100,000–140,000 deaths ([47:24]).

• Minimal Territorial Gains

  • Despite massive losses, little ground has changed hands. Russian advances average 15–70 meters/day—slower than the Battle of the Somme ([31:11]).
  • “It’s World War I all over again, with enormous sacrifices producing only marginal gains...”
    – Mike Baker, [29:56]

• Russian Military Performance

  • The Russian army is performing worse than in past conflicts (Chechnya, Afghanistan, even WWII), hampered by poor combined arms coordination, corruption, logistics failures, and high reliance on expendable forces (criminal conscripts, non-Muscovite populations, North Korean troops) ([38:20]).
  • “I’m not surprised there were going to be high numbers. But ... when we looked at 1.2 million in a roughly four year period, I think that surprised me.”
    – Seth Jones, [33:52]

• War of Attrition and Technology

  • Ukraine’s defensive posture, use of trenches and minefields, and integration of new tech (notably drones) contribute to stalemate and attrition ([37:00]).
  • Russians show little doctrinal or tactical evolution: their “average rates of advance have just not changed dramatically” ([40:20]).

• Data Collection and Credibility

  • CSIS estimates reviewed by U.S., British, European analysts; all agree the numbers are in the likely range ([43:30]).

• Manpower Imbalance and Ukrainian Challenges

  • Despite inflicting higher proportional losses (2.5 Russians for every Ukrainian), Ukraine faces a “numbers challenge” due to population differences and conscription limits—potential mobilization dilemmas ahead ([47:24]).
  • “I think the Ukrainians have some very difficult choices ... probably going to have to rethink the conscription age because they need bodies.”
    – Seth Jones, [47:24]

• Putin’s Likely Calculus

  • Russia’s leadership views many losses as acceptable, especially among less politically vital populations; as long as western support for Ukraine is uncertain, he’s likely to continue the current strategy ([50:07]).
  • “Putin considers most of the people that are dying or being wounded as expendable.”
    – Seth Jones, [50:07]

Notable Quotes

• “If you start ... Operation Barbarossa in 1942 ... 1,394 days later, the Red Army ... are in Berlin. ... the Russians today ... are barely in Pokrovsk, 500 kilometers from Kyiv. ... The Red Army was much more proficient ... it shows you how far the Russian military has come down.”
  – Seth Jones, [35:34]
• “I think as far as 2026 is going, [Putin] looks at this data and says… if the West remains weak, I think we can stomach it for at least another year.”
  – Seth Jones, [51:55]
• “Look, it’s a kind of a frustrating and sad thought, certainly for the Ukrainian people.”
  – Mike Baker, [52:40]

Important Timestamps

• [00:12] Introduction and episode overview
• [01:40] Richard Goldberg joins; U.S.-Iran context begins
• [03:33] Discussion of Iran regime’s violent suppression of protests and Western response
• [09:32] U.S. military options for hitting Iranian capabilities
• [15:04] Iranian military strength
• [18:53] Regional powers’ (Saudi, UAE) perspectives
• [22:14] China’s role in and motivations for propping up Iran
• [29:56] Introduction to CSIS study and Seth Jones
• [31:11] Russian and Ukrainian casualty details
• [35:34] Comparison of current Russian campaign with WWII
• [37:00] Factors contributing to high losses and static frontlines
• [47:24] Ukrainian casualty, conscription, and manpower issues
• [50:07] Putin's potential reaction and strategic calculations

Memorable Moments

• The analogy between U.S. force projection in Iran and prior American operations (ex: intervention in Venezuela/Maduro).
• Goldberg’s clear skepticism regarding the feasibility of unarmed protest alone to produce regime change in Iran.
• Stark comparison of Russian territorial progress in Ukraine versus Soviet advances in WWII.
• The somber realization that, a century after WWI, major land powers are again engaged in slow, grinding attritional warfare with staggering human costs.

Conclusion

This episode stands out for its granular, expert-driven breakdown of two urgent foreign policy challenges. The in-depth conversations with Richard Goldberg and Seth Jones connect current headlines with historical context and regional dynamics, providing listeners with actionable insights and sobering assessments about the future of America’s adversaries—and allies—on the global stage.