The Lawfare Podcast · The Lawfare Institute

Rational Security: The “Attacking Iran” Special Edition

March 5, 2026·1 hr 21 min·5 clips

Ben Wittes reveals how Trump learned that his 'blow it up' instincts were right, overriding cautious military advice.

This special edition of Rational Security brings together Lawfare Editor-in-Chief Benjamin Wittes, Foreign Policy Editor Dan Byman, and Public Service Fellow Ari Tabatabai to analyze the Trump administration's military campaign against Iran. The episode is structured around three topics: what drove Trump's decision, the regional dynamics, and Iran's uncertain future. Ari Tabatabai traces the trajectory from the first Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign and the Soleimani strike through Operation Midnight Hammer in the summer, which targeted nuclear facilities, to the current full-scale operation that killed Ayatollah Khamenei. He argues the second administration took the first term's Iran policy to its logical conclusion, emboldened by the perceived operational success and low political cost of recent military actions in Venezuela, the Caribbean, and against Iran itself. Dan Byman notes a critical difference in scale: previous operations were essentially one-day actions, while this campaign could last weeks or longer with talk of further escalation. He observes that the stated justifications, from ending Iran's nuclear program to supporting democratic protesters, cover a laundry list of concerns, most of which were already in a better position than they had been years earlier. He suspects professional military advice has been cautious, citing reporting that General Caine warned about insufficient air defense munitions, but that Trump has learned to disregard such caution. Benjamin Wittes offers three factors driving Trump's decision. First, using military force is fun for the president, who has learned that generals overestimate risk and that pointing at problems and saying blow it up tends to work. Second, Israel envy: Netanyahu's string of tactically brilliant, strategically ambiguous operations showed that you can keep escalating and getting away with it in the short term. Third, the institutional restraints are gone, the Mattis-type figures who would hide documents from the president's desk or push back on impulsive decisions are no longer in government. On the regional dimension, the panel discusses how Gulf states have hedged publicly while privately encouraging forceful action against Iran. Ari notes that the growing military integration between Gulf states and Israel, including shared air defense capabilities and intelligence, both improved regional security and made this moment possible. Ben provides a detailed analysis of Netanyahu's strategic logic: systematically degrading Iran's proxy networks including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, then destroying air defenses and nuclear facilities with US help, before targeting Iran's leadership. He frames this as consistent with what Netanyahu has publicly advocated for 20 years. Scott Anderson addresses the legal dimension, noting the administration's domestic authority argument essentially claims the president can undertake any military action as long as projected American casualties stay below the threshold of major conflicts like Vietnam or the Iraq War. He argues this reading allows hugely consequential global actions based solely on the technical capability to project force without proportionate risk to US troops, which conflicts with the original purpose of the Declare War Clause. The panel discusses the risk of a failed state emerging in Iran, the possibility that Trump could declare victory and withdraw due to his undefined war objectives, and the concern that Iranian retaliatory strikes on Gulf neighbors who did not provoke the conflict could widen the war if those states eventually stop showing restraint.

As heard by us

A steady regional analysis of Iran, Gulf caution, and growing integration, with clear attention to the forces shaping each.

It frames Iran as a regional problem rather than a single headline, and that choice gives the conversation useful shape. The strongest stretch is the way it sits between private Gulf unease, public caution, and a wider regional pull toward closer ties, with the role of U.S.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

You want the regional logic behind how Gulf states talk about Iran, not just the public line.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The Lawfare Podcast