The following transcript was generated using automated transcription software for the accessibility and convenience of our audience. While we strive for accuracy, the automated process may introduce errors, omissions, or misinterpretations. This transcript is intended as a helpful companion to the original audio and should not be considered a verbatim record. For the most accurate representation, please refer to the audio recording.
Michael Dunne: I'm Michael Dunne. The war with Iran right now is like a high-pressure tennis match where the points at stake are not points at all. They are lives. It is a constant back and forth between the optimism of a cease-fire and the pessimism of continued fighting. Much of the American public is left wondering why we are at war and when it will end. Today on the show, you will hear from a political expert from the University of Oregon, who will try to explain the constantly evolving negotiations between the two nations, why the apparent strategy is unclear and possibly nonexistent, and why the decision to enter this war could be a huge blow to the president's party and his legacy. One thing is clear: a president who campaigned on no wars is suddenly embattled by one of his own choosing. Chandler James, assistant professor of political science at the University of Oregon. Professor James, great to talk to you again. How are things?
Chandler James: Michael, I'm so happy to be back on and discussing this important issue. Things are going well for me personally. Happy to be here.
Dunne: That's good. To start with this conflict in Iran: Is it unique in terms of what seems like an hourly back and forth between peace negotiations going well and, suddenly, missiles raining down upon Iran and other places in the Persian Gulf? Is this back and forth unique in a conflict like this?
James: I'm going to begin my answer with a quote from a famous military strategist, von Clausewitz, who said that war is politics by other means. What he meant is that states go to war to pursue political objectives they were unable to achieve diplomatically. We can think about war objectives and their resolution as a negotiation between warring parties to reach a satisfactory outcome. What war does is add violence to the equation. Through violence, participants hope to accomplish what they could not accomplish through peaceful negotiations. This is pertinent for the Iran conflict as well. You may remember the Obama-era Iran deal negotiated during his term. That was something President Trump criticized, claiming Obama gave away too much and didn't get enough in return. Trump famously pulled the U.S. out of that deal. The stakes in those negotiations are largely the same as the stakes in today's conflict among Iran, Israel and the United States: Iran's nuclear stockpile, Iran's funding of terrorist organizations across the Middle East, and promises that Iran will not pursue a nuclear weapon for the foreseeable future. These have been major sticking points between the relevant parties for a long time. Now those issues are back on the table, with the addition of control over the Strait of Hormuz. So we have another factor that needs to be negotiated. In this bargaining context, both sides want to bring as much leverage to bear as possible. The United States wants to use the threat of punishing retaliation if its demands are not met. The Iranian government wants to show it can be resilient against attacks and coercion from the United States and Israel. Many of the statements coming out of the Iranian regime reflect that posture. Trump, meanwhile, is threatening major retaliation. All of this is to say the parties are bargaining, using whatever leverage they have at their disposal to get the best possible deal.
Dunne: If the deal the Obama administration negotiated had been left in place, do you think we would not be in the situation we find ourselves in today?
James: That's really hard to know, because so much has changed since pulling out of that deal. Not only is that one variable, but consider all of the turmoil that occurred in the Middle East following the Hamas attack, the Israeli war against Hamas during the Biden administration, and Trump's decision to order the strike on Soleimani. All of those factors contributed to escalating tension between the three parties in this war. It's very difficult to hold everything else constant, look at the Obama deal in isolation, and know with any confidence how things would have turned out.
Dunne: Speaking of Israel: Are they a partner to the U.S., or are they an accelerant to this conflict? There have been reports, denied by the president, that Israel goaded him into war. How do you see Israel's role in this wider conflict?
James: Israel is a major ally to the United States. The U.S. government's response has generally been supportive, whether under Democratic or Republican administrations, and much of American military assistance goes to the Israeli government. It is not clear what led the president and Netanyahu to decide it was time to strike Iran. Perhaps they believed that, because of domestic protests and years of economic sanctions, Iran was at a weak point, with Hamas largely defeated and on the ropes. But it's not clear why they chose this moment or what the objectives were, because President Trump and members of his administration have offered a number of different rationales for the war. I don't know the answer to that question. What I can say is that the U.S. has long seen Israel as a very important strategic ally in the Middle East.
Dunne: Let's talk politics. Let's talk about the political calculation of President Trump's actions in Iran. He campaigned as a president who would not get the U.S. into wars like this. What do you think the cost might be, both among his base and among the wider voting public?
James: A very distinctive feature of Trump's political brand was his reputation as an America First, no-more-foreign-wars leader. He came to power sharply critical of U.S. policymakers' decisions to go into the Middle East, to go into Iraq, and to spend resources trying to nation-build. So it did come as a surprise to many of his long-term, hardcore supporters when the U.S. launched this major war against Iran. Former allies like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens and Marjorie Taylor Greene have criticized Trump for behaving more like the establishment than he made himself out to be, claiming he betrayed the MAGA movement. These are people with significant platforms, and they have been vociferous in their criticism of the decision to launch this war. We have also seen major economic uncertainty as a result of the war and the closing of the Strait of Hormuz. Gas prices, not only in the United States but around the world, have increased dramatically. Because of the importance of gas to the American economic model, that has implications for the cost of all sorts of goods. More than 13 American soldiers have died in this war. People have lost their lives in this war of choice. If the war continues to disrupt the American way of life, it could have major ramifications for the midterms: motivating Democrats to turn out, motivating people opposed to war to vote Democratic, and possibly diminishing enthusiasm among Trump supporters who liked him precisely because he presented himself as more of an isolationist, America First foreign policy president. But there is still a lot of time between now and November, and much could change. The war could escalate and create more havoc. It is also possible that the Trump administration negotiates an end to the war, and if done in a way that improves upon the Obama deal, he might count that as a victory. It is difficult to predict. One thing that is not so hard to predict is that the Iranians will be very tough negotiators. The Obama administration spent years negotiating a deal. Iranian negotiators were savvy, sophisticated and drove a hard bargain. I expect they will continue to do so now. Many of the people Trump is sending to lead the negotiations have less experience negotiating with Iran, so they will have their own learning curve. We will see what Vice President Vance and his delegation are able to accomplish at the bargaining table. Whatever the outcome, it will have major implications for American politics heading into the midterms.
Dunne: You've mentioned the Strait of Hormuz a couple of times. As I understand it, other than perhaps developing a nuclear weapon, Iran doesn't pose a direct military threat to us. They are quite weakened militarily. But the strait is their ace in the hole. I've heard commentators say it was somewhat baffling that the Trump administration apparently did not anticipate that Iran would turn around and close the Strait of Hormuz, a tremendous chokehold for oil and other vital resources in the global economy. In your opinion, was that simply an outright mistake in strategy?
James: As I've mentioned, the president has offered a number of objectives to justify the decision to go into Iran, and at this point I am unclear about what the strategy actually is. You are right to suggest that Iranian control over the Strait of Hormuz has really advantaged them. That control is now on the bargaining table. It was not on the table before the war, so it is an additional asset the Iranians can use as leverage, making a favorable deal more difficult for U.S. negotiators to achieve. I don't know exactly what the strategy was, or whether the Trump administration expected an easier conflict with more limited objectives. But the president has not been clear about what the goal is, and I think that is the primary consideration Americans should be asking about this war. Without a clear sense of what the goals are, we cannot determine what the right amount of resources to invest actually is.
Dunne: Professor, my last question for you: Is there something about Iran that most Americans don't know, but should?
James: I think it's important for Americans to see the humanity of the people of Iran. The president has threatened to wipe out their society and civilization. The leaders of Iran are, by the measure of how they govern, not good people. But the millions of everyday Iranians are a different matter. Many of them are opposed to the regime and seek freedom and a good life for their families. Many of them turned out on the streets not long ago to show their displeasure with the repressive government that currently governs their country. We should keep in mind that there is a difference between a people and their leaders, and that people do not always hold the same values and beliefs as those who govern them.
Dunne: Interesting. He's Chandler James, assistant professor of political science at the University of Oregon. Always great to talk to you, Professor. Thank you so much.
James: Thank you, Michael, for having me on.
Dunne: That's the show for today. All episodes of Oregon on the Record are available as a podcast at KLCC.org. Tomorrow on the show, the Oregon wolf population grew in 2025, and we talk to an expert to learn why the wolves of Oregon are slowly and cautiously making a comeback. I'm Michael Dunne, host of Oregon on the Record. Thanks for listening.
