Following the United States’ recent series of military strikes against Iran Feb. 28, the University’s Miller Center hosted a pop-up event on Zoom Wednesday, in which a panel of experts discussed the recent conflict between the two countries and its lasting impacts on U.S. foreign policy.
The Miller Center is a non-partisan institution at the University that seeks to discuss the American presidency and engage with scholars to help “solve major problems.” The special panel featured Eric Edelman, former United States ambassador to Turkey and Finland, Phil Potter, head of the University’s National Security Center and Batten professor, Mara Rudman, former member of the National Security Council and former associate in the Middle East Peace process and Geoffrey Pyatt, former assistant Secretary of State for energy resources. William Antholis, director and CEO of the Miller Center, moderated the event.
The strikes in Iran, which were carried out by the U.S. and Israel, targeted key Iranian missile infrastructure and military bases and resulted in the death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Iran has since responded with strikes of its own against U.S. military bases and consulates in seven Middle Eastern nations. In light of these recent air strikes, the Miller Center announced the special discussion Monday.
Panelists discussed President Donald Trump’s motives for the strikes and the likelihood that the strikes will help his administration succeed in its long-term objectives. Panelists highlighted that the motivations were likely both strategic and political — Edelman explained that from a military standpoint, the strike was meant to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, its ballistic missiles and its navy. However, Edelman also said he believes the Trump administration’s political motives behind the attack were less coherent. He argued that Trump was attempting to facilitate a change in Iranian leadership and have more cordial relations with Khamenei’s eventual successor — similar to Acting Venezuelan President Delci Rodriguez.
“I think the problem is I don’t believe there is [an] Iranian Delci Rodriguez,” Edelman said. “How [the strikes could advance] stability and security in the region is still, I think … unclear.”
Rudman echoed Edelman’s sentiments about the dueling implications behind the strikes, saying she believed the “strategic purpose” of the attacks were clear, but that Trump may have lacked justification for targeting a nation which posed no imminent threat to the U.S. without Congressional approval. Rudman also expressed concern with Trump’s “astonishing lack of effort” in making his case for conflict with Iran to Congress and the public.
Edelman noted that by engaging in conflict in Iran, Trump does so with less public support than that of his recent predecessors — including former U.S. President Barack Obama and former U.S. President George W. Bush — who undertook similar operations in the Middle East. According to a recent CNN poll, 59 percent of Americans disagree with Trump’s decision to carry out the strikes and only 12 percent would support sending U.S. ground troops into Iran.
Panelists also considered Trump’s use of decapitation — the killing or apprehension of a state leader as a means of weakening their regime — as a military strategy. Rudman emphasized the unprecedented nature of the approach and expressed the belief that it is too extreme.
“I think [decapitation is] crossing a red-line for the United States and … how we’ve been meant to handle the dealing with leaders of other countries,” Rudman said. “We have not, since the [1970s], carried out targeted killings of existing heads of state, no matter how much we dislike them.”
Potter explained that in his analysis of decapitation campaigns, the practice usually has unforeseen consequences — including that the regimes which were decapitated become more fragmented and violent.
Edelman agreed with his colleagues on the panel and cited the work of author Stephen Hosmer, who wrote in his 2001 book “Operations Against Enemy Leaders” that “direct attacks, coups and rebellions” against other states are usually met with only “limited success” and often “counterproductive results.”
“Decapitating an adversary is a very attractive strategy,” Edelman said. “But it almost never leads … in a linear way, to the outcome that the perpetrators hope to accomplish.”
Panelists also distinguished between what they called the undeniable short-term success of the operations and their uncertainty of the Trump administration's long-term strategy. Potter indicated that he was impressed with Trump’s ability to weaken the Iranian regime in his recent series of military campaigns in the country that have only resulted in “a handful of casualties.”
“I think what happens in a lot of these conversations is we sort of conflate ideas that we have about the policy prescriptions and the legality with, you know, sort of an idea about military effectiveness,” Potter said. “From a purely military standpoint, I think we kind of have to grapple with the notion that this is working … it is likely to continue working [in that regard].”
Potter explained, however, that he was concerned by the fact that although Iran’s ability to “inflict hurt on others around them” could be diminished, the current regime could remain in place. Edelman said that he had heard reports in the previous 24-hour period that Khamenei’s son, Montana Khamenei, is now the leading choice to succeed his father, which would diminish Trump’s ability to forge a more productive relationship with the regime if Montana Khamenei has a similar approach to leading the country as his father.
Panelists were then asked by Antholis what they will be watching in the next few days and weeks in the aftermath of the strikes. Rudman said she believes Iran will remain a threat even if its nuclear capabilities are destroyed. She also anticipated that the unpredictability of the Trump administration will not be well-received among members of the public, who expect the President to protect them.
“I think … the most fundamental responsibility of any U.S. president … is to keep the American people safe and secure,” Rudman said. “Because of the number of different spiraling actions out of this … by this President and this administration … it is very hard for me to see how [that] fundamental responsibility … is ultimately being executed, and I will be watching … as that awareness sets in, if that awareness sets in.”
In speaking with The Cavalier Daily after the event, Antholis said he believes the event was informative and appreciated having experts in energy, the Middle-East and other foreign policy issues together for a discussion. He said one thing that stood out to him was how similar many of their views were despite the complexity of the issue.
“Going into it, I didn't know how much they would agree or disagree,” Antholis said. “I found them to be, for the most part, in agreement with one another. And that taught me … that career national security professionals [can] both see some successes in [a] military operation, but have a number of real concerns about where this is going moving forward.”
Read More
Board of Visitors charges Audit Committee with presidential search process review
By Grace Little | 14 hours agoThe full Board of Visitors met Thursday afternoon for the first time since the appointment of Rector Carlos Brown, Vice Rector Victoria Harker and eight other new Board members by Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D).
Health System Board hears from Nursing School dean, discusses faculty shortages
By Luca Bailey | 14 hours agoThe Health System Board is a subcommittee of the Board of Visitors that oversees the operations of the University Medical Center, the School of Medicine and the School of Nursing.
Buildings and Grounds Committee approves Wise master plan, Fontaine data center
By Cecilia Mould | 15 hours agoThe Buildings and Grounds Committee oversees maintenance and construction of University buildings and is responsible for matters related to the University’s land use.
