National Security Law Today · National Security Law Today

Assessing the War with Iran: Military Policy and Legal Perspectives

April 8, 2026·42 min·3 clips

A new US-Iran ceasefire just paused military operations, but what are the unclear terms and long-term objectives?

1. National Security Law Today presents a live panel discussion titled 'Assessing the War with Iran: Military Policy and Legal Perspectives,' recorded just prior to a two-week U.S.-Iran ceasefire announced in the episode's introduction. 2. The panel is moderated by Judge Jamie Baker, a professor at Syracuse University and former senior national security official; panelists are retired Vice Admiral Robert Murrett (former NGA director, now Syracuse professor) and Elisa Ewers (CFR senior fellow and former 25-year NSC/USUN/State Department official). 3. The episode's core question is whether the U.S. entered the war with Iran with clearly defined political objectives, a viable exit strategy, and a realistic assessment of what military force can and cannot accomplish. 4. The podcast was recorded after 'almost five weeks' of the conflict, which began on February 28th; a separate '12-day war' in June 2025 is mentioned as a precursor. 5. Murrett frames Operation Epic Fury under the command of Admiral Brad Cooper (USN CENTCOM commander), with 9,000 aim points already struck in the air campaign. 6. The scope of the conflict has expanded from Sri Lanka to the eastern Mediterranean, with Iran retaliating against U.S. facilities in Qatar, Bahrain, and also targeting Oman, the UAE, Turkey, Iraq, and other regional actors. 7. Murrett identifies three things the military cannot guarantee: complete regime change (the IRGC remains in command), eradication of Iran's nuclear capability including roughly 400 kg of approximately 60%-enriched uranium, and opening the Strait of Hormuz to commercial shipping. 8. On the Strait, Murrett explains the problem is not naval force but insurance markets: unmanned vehicles on, above, and below the water make it impossible to insure large tankers to pass safely, and even seizing adjacent islands would not solve the underlying risk calculus. 9. Ground force accumulation includes one or two Marine Amphibious Units and a brigade from the 82nd Airborne Division, which Murrett characterizes as specialized seizure units — roughly one-tenth the force used in the 2003 Iraq invasion. 10. Ewers analyzes a 19-minute presidential speech delivered the night before the panel, noting it catalogued military successes but provided no exit strategy, only a passing mention of diplomacy, and failed to calm markets — which fell during the speech while Iran conducted retaliatory strikes. 11. Ewers describes a divergence between U.S. and Israeli objectives: the U.S. has publicly declined to target Iranian oil infrastructure, while Israel views cutting Iran's oil revenue as part of a strategy to push the regime toward collapse. 12. Both panelists agree that resolving all three military-limit issues — nuclear capability, Hormuz, and regime — will ultimately require diplomatic agreements with whoever governs in Tehran. 13. Baker raises reports of Russian intelligence-sharing with Iran, specifically tied to the March 27th targeting of a U.S. AWACS E-3 aircraft, calling the pattern 'crystal clear.' 14. Ewers argues the Iran war has produced 'crude benefit' for both Russia (which received a sanctions lift as an apparent administration response) and China (which is studying U.S. multi-domain warfare for application to Taiwan or South China Sea scenarios). 15. NATO allies, Ewers notes, were not consulted before the war's launch and are 'disquieted' by U.S. treatment of Russia — particularly the sanctions relief — while the Ukraine war continues to undermine European security. 16. Murrett endorses expanding U.S. support for Ukraine, particularly on counter-UAV defenses, as a response to Russian support for Iran. 17. On who is governing Iran after the decapitation campaign, both panelists assess that identifiable regime figures — including the new Supreme Leader, the IRGC commander, and the speaker of parliament — remain in place and are communicating through intermediaries including Pakistan, Egypt, and China. 18. Baker's own advice to the president covers three points: run a professional NSC staff process without using Mar-a-Lago as a situation room; rebuild the case for NATO alliances; and restore American credibility by fully supporting Ukraine, which he calls 'unrealistic' but says would work in 'seven seconds.' 19. National security lawyers, policy professionals, academics, and engaged citizens following the Iran conflict will find the panel's combination of military and legal-policy expertise valuable. 20. Listeners looking for partisan political commentary, breaking news, or detailed legal analysis of specific statutes will find this episode more focused on strategic assessment than either of those formats.

As heard by us

A serious panel on war aims, legal authority, and what comes next.

The panel takes up a blunt question: what the war with Iran is supposed to accomplish, and what legal or military logic can still be made to support it. Recorded just before the ceasefire announcement, it feels immediate without pretending the ground has settled.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Want a clear-eyed map of the Iran conflict before the latest ceasefire and strategy questions settle?

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from National Security Law Today