Mark Dubowitz@mdubowitz
Niall is the most thoughtful and serious critic of the Iran war. He approaches it with history and wisdom and not TDS. So his critique deserves a response.
The biggest danger right now is confusing Iranian regime survival with Iranian strength. Niall’s analysis rests on that. Let me take his points in order.
1. Nobody serious expected regime change during military operations. The bet was severe nuclear and military degradation now, with political fracture later if Iranians return to the streets. Iran didn’t emerge stronger. It lost senior commanders, nuclear infrastructure, and major war-making capability. Measuring the war against a peacetime baseline is the wrong frame. The honest counterfactual is Iran at 90%+ enrichment within months, hardened sites, ICBMs, a tested weapon possibly within a year, and all the leverage that confers. Every cost we’re weighing has to be measured against that alternative. That was the JCPOA or do nothing trajectory.
2. The IRGC didn’t take over because of this war. It has run Iran for years. The war stripped away the clerical façade and removed many of its most experienced commanders. Niall implies this is worse because it removes clerical restraint, but a stripped-down, discredited IRGC with degraded capabilities and no nuclear path is objectively weaker than a clerical-IRGC hybrid with a bomb option. Naked brutality is also harder to legitimize than Shia-inspired theocracy. This is now a military dictatorship with less ability to inspire the faithful across the region. It accelerates internal fracture.
3. Military success was never about finding every missile or launcher. It was about degrading Iran’s ability to threaten breakout and regional war. Destroying half its missiles and launchers and driving missile production from roughly 100 a month to near zero is a major setback especially given projections that Iran would go from 3,000 pre-war to 11,000 ballistic missiles in 2.5 years. Trump overstates everything — “obliterated,” “destroyed,” “regime change” — but the material reality for the regime is very serious.
4. The Strait of Hormuz is leverage, but it chokes Iran’s own economy harder than ours. Economic pressure continues: $300B in direct damage, $435M per day in blockade costs mounting, triple-digit inflation, currency collapse, fuel shortages, steel and petrochemical production severely damaged. Better strategy: Ceasefire on one front; intensify pressure on the other. Trump still needs to be clear that reopening Hormuz will require CENTCOM to move through the various stages of force.
5. The “escalation vs. diplomacy” framing aren’t alternatives. Instead, they’re complementary. The blockade, sanctions enforcement, and implicit threat of renewed strikes are the escalation that runs in parallel with talks. Diplomacy only happened because force changed Tehran’s calculus, and diplomacy only succeeds if force remains on the table. Treating the choice as binary makes Trump look like he blinked. The reality is a pressure campaign with a negotiating track. Let’s reserve judgement to see who blinks.
6. The key now is no enrichment, the fatal flaw of the JCPOA, and real limits on missile reconstitution. A rolling ceasefire with a U.S. blockade and intense sanctions enforcement hurts Iran more than us. Their economy collapses before ours deteriorates. It’s a matter of political will, not capability. The real issue isn’t headlines or TruthSocial theatrics — it’s whether Iran keeps enriched uranium, missile production, and a path back to breakout.
7. Iran didn’t “survive regime change” because regime change hasn’t been tried. What exists now is a rare opening: maximum economic pressure, maximum regime fracture, maximum support for the Iranian people. Trump seems committed to the first two. The question is whether he joins Israel and Iranians on the third.
More below…
