Photo-Illustration: Intelligencer; Photo: Getty Images
The Iran War, which has followed a start-stop rhythm since the U.S. and Israel launched attacks in February, is once again on pause. In part because of American shortfalls in munitions like missile interceptors, President Trump has decided to give diplomacy another shot, and cease American attacks that weren’t doing much to reopen the Strait of Hormuz anyway. Iran has in turn ceased attacking U.S. assets in the region, though it continues to target regional adversaries and insists that it will only speak to the U.S. through intermediaries like Oman (contrary to Trump’s account that it is desperate for talks). Both sides are likely on a hair trigger, so one provocation — or perhaps even misunderstanding — could mean a resumption of hostilities, as happened in the wake of an ill-defined June 17th ceasefire. Meanwhile, a Houthi blockade against Saudi Arabia is causing more economic complications and muddling the prospect of enduring peace anytime soon, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is in Washington this week, will no doubt try to persuade Trump to keep up the fight.
To get a read on what this all means for Trump’s war of choice, I spoke with Danny Citrinowicz, a senior researcher in the Iran and Shi’ite Axis Program at Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. Previously, Citrinowicz served as the head of various Israel Defense Intelligence units over 25 years, including the Iran branch in the Research and Analysis Division.
Many people thought escalation of this conflict was inevitable just a few days ago. Then Trump tapped the brakes over the weekend, and so did Iran. Why do you think that happened?
Leave the interceptors aside, and that this is an operation under constraint. There are a lot of people surrounding the president who are not in favor of expansion of the war. And I think even more than that, there is an understanding that continuation of the same pattern will not help to change anything in terms of who is controlling the straits. So Trump is pushed to decide whether he wants to go back to negotiations.
Despite everything that’s happening, escalation still is on the table. Trump has two options: he can escalate and maybe something will happen, or he can go back to negotiations, but knowing that at the end of the day, he has to accept the Iranian condition that they will always control the straits. I don’t think he has decided yet, because you have pressure coming from Qatar and Oman saying that maybe they can find something good. But Iran won’t capitulate. They won’t offer him something that he can use to say “We are winning.” They’ll offer him only a return back to their own interpretation of the MOU (Memorandum of Understanding). He said on Monday to Barak Ravid that escalation is still on the table if he doesn’t get what he wants. He won’t get what he wants. He can bomb everything in Iran, but Iran is resilient.
He’s also, I think, constrained by what’s happening in Yemen. The Houthis are going to be relentless and not going to stop attacking the Saudis. I’m not sure that the US is interested in that, after what happened in March 2025 when they found out that this is an enemy you cannot break.
If you had to guess, do you think negotiations have any more chance of success than they did last time around?
I think so, in terms of — look, when Trump’s saying, “The Iranians are calling us begging for negotiation,” it’s actually the U.S. calling Iran begging for negotiation. It’s vice versa. The Iranians won’t beg for anything. It’s all about the willingness of him to reach an agreement. And he’s a very unpredictable guy, so it’s very hard to understand what he wants to achieve. We also have to remember that Bibi’s coming, trying to push him again to war. “Donald, they’re building the capacity. They’re thinking about a nuclear bomb, blah, blah, blah.” I think it would be harder to persuade him now, but who knows? Netanyahu has the ability to influence him. So we’ll have to wait and see what happens there.
How bad do you think it could get if it does keep escalating? What would that look like?
Escalation would look like more extensive strikes by the U.S. on Iran, including Tehran, Isfahan, and Yazd and the big cities, not only focusing on the southern part of Iran. They would also target bridges and power plants and energy facilities, and everything connected to those.
From the Iranian standpoint, we would see massive attacks on infrastructure all over the Gulf. The Houthis would be involved and the militias in Iraq targeting the Gulf States. The Hormuz Strait and Bab-el-Mandeb would be completely shot, and the price of oil would be dramatically higher. There is also the possibility of Iran cutting off all the cable lines that go under the Strait of Hormuz — I believe they are planning for that as well. And of course they’d continue attacking sites in the Gulf — stock exchange, banks, communication centers. From a business standpoint, the Gulf States would find it very hard to recover.
And the sad truth is that nothing will change. Iran won’t beg for negotiations despite what Trump’s saying. Iran won’t show any sort of compromise despite what Trump’s saying. Everybody will pay the cost of the escalation, but the war won’t end.
You also wrote that there’s no way Iran is going to capitulate with these kinds of tactics. The only way they would is in response to something much bigger than what we’re already seeing, some kind of ground invasion.
Even more than that. Even if the U.S. takes Kharg Island, it won’t matter. They will attack back. The regime is not invincible, but in order to make a real change, you’d need the patience, the time, the resources to cope with a government that doesn’t care about sacrificing its own people to survive. It would take months and months, and you’d have to have troops on the ground. You would have to use — I don’t say endless ammunition, but you would have to use a lot of your ammunition. And, of course, you’d have to bear in mind that you couldn’t export oil from the Gulf to the east for many months because the straits will be closed. If you are ready to accept this price and the risks and the casualties, the Iranians would definitely be in a very hard situation.
But sending B1s and B2s won’t change anything. I saw last week that they counted 900 pounds of bombs being dropped by the B1s. Who cares? Who thinks you can win your way with the amount of ammunition you’re dropping on Iran? What, we’re turning back to the McNamara doctrine from the Vietnam War? The number of sorties and the bombs — it doesn’t work like that.
When you’re turning back to that, it’s obvious something is very bad in your planning — if there is planning. The U.S. has massive, massive capabilities, it goes without saying. But at the end of the day, you have to direct them to strategically target something. They’re punishing the Iranians, they’re undermining the control of the strait, but nothing will change. And I’m asking myself, who’s the guy in the White House telling the president that? He’s posting all these inaccurate tweets about the Iranians begging to negotiate. We all know it’s a lie. They will never beg for negotiation.
I think Trump is just pissed off at them for, in his opinion, ripping up the preliminary deal.
I agree with you. But being pissed off is not a policy! I’m asking myself, does the U.S. want to do all this just to prevent Iran from having a tollbooth in the Strait of Hormuz? Come on, this is really something that’s so against U.S. interests that you have to fight it this way? And I saw in the New York Times there was a report that Mojtaba Khamanei is ready to consider a nuclear bomb, unlike his father. No shit, Sherlock. We knew that when you killed Ali Khamenei, the guy that prevented them from moving to a nuclear bomb.
I know who Trump is; I understand what he’s doing. But what does Iran actually want now? What’s the best-case scenario for them?
Despite some people saying, “They want to fight, they want an endless war to strengthen Mojtaba,” or whatever — they’re not interested in endless wars. There are two best-case scenarios for them. One is returning back to their translation of the MOU, meaning that they will control the strait, that all ships will coordinate with them, and that they will get their money. The second option is that the U.S. will give up. That in the end, Trump will say, “Listen, I’ve had enough and I’m going to stop it. Good luck to the Gulf States and others to cope with this. It’s not my problem.”
Iran cannot trust Trump, not in war and not in negotiation. I’m wondering what the Saudis think right now about the agreement they signed. This is why they have to control the straits regardless of what will happen. So for them, there is a price that they will have to pay and they understand it. They want to have an agreement that will build their economy, whatever. But what Trump has offered them is just choosing capitulation. And that is something they won’t accept, not in a million years.
They’re really feeling that this time, unlike last time, the price the international economy will pay will be significantly higher because Trump has no ability to ease the markets by saying “Next week, we’ll have an agreement” or something like that, because it’s not realistic. And now we have Bab-el-Mandeb blockaded together with Hormuz. So I think the Iranians are hoping that this pressure will eventually force Trump to stop.
His administration would say it’s the Iranians can’t be trusted. And to be fair, that’s been the opinion of many American administrations. It’s not all Trump’s fault that we are where we are, I think.
No, it’s definitely not all Trump’s fault. The Iranians are an untrustworthy regime, period. We all know that from the beginning. But at the end of the day, if they’re promising something, you have to build mechanisms to make sure that these promises will work. And the problem is that immediately Trump decided to attack them. They won’t accept that, and they truly believe that they have the upper hand. They understand that the U.S. can strike them and cause them a lot of damage. But strategically, the U.S. cannot continue that forever. The regime’s resilience is something they have huge pride in.
Israel hasn’t really gotten involved in these latest attacks, though you said they probably would if things ramp up again. But have the latest developments basically been a worst-case scenario for them? They didn’t achieve their goals, and now Trump is really pissed off at Netanyahu, they’re kind of being sidelined, and everything is a muddle.
The war ended with a very problematic situation in Israel. A majority of people in polls say we failed. The war was a failure. And I think a lot of people inside the Israeli security apparatus know that. But Netanyahu still has an ability to turn back to the war before elections. There are a lot of suspicions in Israel that he will use this for his own political needs.
Let’s assume that Israel can go back. What can it do that it didn’t do in the previous wars? They could attack energy facilities in Iran — nuclear will be very problematic because we still need the US for that — and maybe transform Iran into a failed state. But Israel will suffer. Israel will pay a price for it because the Houthis will launch attacks, and Hezbollah in Lebanon — it goes without saying, they’ve done that in the past. But maybe Netanyahu thinks it will help him. There are a lot of rumors in Israel, and people are writing that Netanyahu is trying to get the Iranians to attack us so we can have a justification to attack Iran.
Amazing. Netanyahu would probably be in a better position if this hadn’t happened at all, right?
People are saying to me, “Netanyahu had to go to war. It was a dream come true.” But they had a half-baked plan. They didn’t understand the strategic price they were going to pay for it. So definitely it was a mistake. And now they are, within the mistake, trying to undo that mistake, but it’s going to be very hard against this adversary to do so.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Sign Up for the Intelligencer Newsletter
Daily news about the politics, business, and technology shaping our world.
Vox Media, LLC Terms and Privacy Notice