The war was relatively easy to start effectively — killing the ayatollah right at the outset — but it hasn't gone as effectively since. Is it now becoming more complicated for the U.S. in Iran?

Clearly, it is complicated. In the sense that if your objectives are not very clearly defined, it is also difficult to define success. There have been successes in some areas: for example, they have managed to destroy a significant portion of missile stockpiles and likewise have been fairly successful in degrading Iran's navy. However, certain capabilities still remain, including their enriched uranium, which is enriched to around 60 percent. That all remains essentially in the same condition as it has been since the attack this summer.

Losses are now also mounting on the American side: 13 service members have been killed and they have lost extremely expensive radar systems, as well as air defense systems and various types of aircraft. Are the costs starting to rise and are Americans taking note of this?

Yes, Americans are paying very close attention. The total cost has also been discussed in the media. At the same time, the U.S. has long faced a problem where prices are very high and people's standard of living has not kept pace. Now that fuel prices have risen by around 25–30 percent, people are increasingly asking why $6 billion had to be spent on this war.

This war itself has not been "sold" to the American public particularly well compared with previous conflicts, where officials spent weeks beforehand explaining why the U.S. was going in and what it planned to do. This time, that effort has largely been absent. Three weeks ago, people essentially woke up to the sudden realization that the country was at war. The origins of the conflict have caused some confusion.

To some extent, a rise in fuel prices in the spring is normal. It happens every year: people travel more and there is spring break when college students head south for vacations. So fuel price increases in the U.S. each spring are typical, but this time the increase has been significantly larger.

On the one hand, people see rising prices at the gas station and don't like it. On the other, we also see people saying that national security is important and that it would be very beneficial for the world if Iran's regime were overthrown. Is that the current domestic political sentiment?

The classic strong Trump voter — those who support him no matter what, about 35–40 percent of society — remains firmly behind him. They are willing to go along with whatever he does and this war has not been objectionable to them either. If Trump says it is good, then for them it is good. There is also a sense of enthusiasm among them, pointing to how quickly the operation in Venezuela went — now let's move quickly again, achieve our objectives, Iran is bad and needs to be dealt with. They continue to support him.

However, you do not win elections based on that alone. In U.S. elections, roughly 40 percent always support one party and another 40 percent support the other, while the remaining 20 percent in the middle are the so-called swing voters whose support is contested. Among that group, Republicans have now lost considerable popularity, because these voters are thinking: yet another war, we do not want this, prices are rising and that is bad.

Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had their own issues that may have cost them votes, but rising prices were one of the main issues Trump promised to address and that helped bring him to power. At the start of Trump's term, gasoline prices in the U.S. did begin to fall, which in turn boosted his popularity.

Looking at the November midterm elections, how much could the current high oil and gasoline prices influence the outcome?

It depends on how the war develops. If it comes to an end, prices will likely start to decline, although, of course, they tend to fall more slowly than they rise. If the situation is more or less resolved by then, the impact may not be all that significant. However, if the war drags on for a long time and more U.S. soldiers are killed — there are 13 so far, but additional forces are being deployed — then the question becomes what the U.S. plans to do about Iran's nuclear program.

Among the options that have been discussed is whether to send in special operations forces or Marines to secure the enriched uranium. That would be a very complex operation. Donald Trump has hinted that Israel would go in first, with the U.S. possibly following later, but if a situation develops in which more people are killed, it could have a very long-term negative impact.

When this war began, no one joined the U.S. except Israel. At one point, the United Kingdom offered assistance, but Trump said he did not want it. Today, he has already asked for help and according to the latest news, he has again said he does not actually need it and that the U.S. can manage on its own. What explains this back-and-forth?

The problem with this war is that he did not inform allies in advance that something like this was coming, why he wanted to do it or what the objectives were. That makes it difficult for other countries to come along. The reason he said today that he does not want others is likely that everyone had already politely declined for various reasons. Since no one joined in, he is effectively trying to save face by saying he does not need anyone.

What he had hoped for was that countries would help escort large tankers through the Strait of Hormuz and ensure their security or contribute mine countermeasure capabilities. As I understand it, the British are considering contributing unmanned systems for mine-clearing operations.

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal said last week after a briefing on the war in Iran that the risk to American lives is a concern. To what extent are those lives counted in the U.S. and are they valued significantly more than lives in Iran?

I think lives are counted on both sides. Given the overall size of the U.S. population, the number of fatalities is not yet high enough to cause widespread concern. What tends to make it more concerning is when you know someone who is there — when there are personal losses or the risk of loss, that is when the counting of lives becomes more painful.

Clearly, fewer lives are counted in Iran, considering what happened earlier this year and how unrest was suppressed. I believe that in Iran, efforts are being made to target military sites. Unlike Russia in Ukraine, which has struck residential buildings indiscriminately, both Israel and the U.S. are trying to avoid that.

At the same time, right at the start of the war there was an incident in which a girls' school was hit by a Tomahawk missile, reportedly killing more than a hundred children. What kind of reaction has this received in American society? Is it likely that anyone will be held accountable?

There was a lot of coverage in the press at first — what happened and how, since not many countries possess Tomahawk missiles. Investigations, including those conducted by The New York Times, suggest that it was most likely a missile launched by the Americans. The probable cause was somewhat outdated intelligence, in which a girls' school had been incorrectly identified, located next to a building of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. The marked building was one that had once belonged to the Guard but had not been used by them for years.

In short, an old map was used for targeting. It has generally been treated as a human error — that is how the situation is currently being viewed.

So because of outdated information, 180 people died — and that's it?

Yes, to some extent that is how it goes. To be completely honest, things like this do happen in war. It is horrific, but there have been similar incidents before — for example, embassies of other countries have been bombed; during the Balkans conflict, the Chinese embassy was struck. In the course of war, it does happen that the wrong targets are hit. Acknowledging that, in my view, is the honest approach and one can only hope that such incidents do not happen again.

How much does it concern Americans that the Russians are helping the Iranians with targeting?

I would hope that this message also reaches the current U.S. administration, which has been relatively positively inclined toward Russia and, in negotiations over Ukraine, has often pressured Ukraine more than Russia. The fact that the Russians are effectively facilitating the killing of American soldiers should be a message that gives them a more realistic understanding of Russia. One would hope that this message reaches the right people.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!