The Daily Signal - Victor Davis Hanson: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Iran War Outcomes

Episode Date: March 10, 2026

Critics have hounded the Trump administration for supposedly not clearly stating to the American public their most favorable outcome in the ongoing conflict with Iran. With the midterms less than eight months away, the pressure is on this administration to get the job done.  And it can happen in one of three ways, argues Victor Davis Hanson on today’s edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In a Few Words:” The Optimal Choice: What’s left of the Iranian military and Revolutionary Guard will capitulate, opening the doors for a Western-supplied transitory government made up of exiles to lead the nation until elections can be held. The Impalpable Solution: The “Venezuela solution,” i.e., appoint a lower-tier, secular, dissident member of the former regime, like a general. The Worst Choice: Allow the mullahs to “stew in their own juices.” Bomb their nuclear and military capabilities off the face of the earth and then leave. 👉 The Daily Signal cannot continue to tell stories, like this one, without the support of our viewers: http://dailysignal.com/donate  👉Don’t miss out on Victor’s latest short videos by subscribing to The Daily Signal today. You’ll be notified every time a new piece of content drops: ⁠https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1 ⁠  Also on Spotify: https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL9753340027   👉Want more VDH? Watch Victor’s weekly, hour-long podcast, “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words,” now! Subscribe to his YouTube channel, and enable notifications:  https://www.youtube.com/@victordavishanson7273?sub_confirmation=1 👉More exclusive content is available on Victor’s website: https://victorhanson.com Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

When we went to World War II, we really didn't know what the ultimate aim was. Was the purpose in World War II to just fight them to standstill? Was it to destroy the Nazi government? Was it to reclaim all of Western Europe and then make sure that they were democratic governments? That happens in war. A lot of things are articulated as you go on. There's been a lot of criticism of the Trump administration over what will be the endgame in Iran. Some are impalible.

One is impalible. One is favorable. Hello, this is Victor Davis-Hansson for the Daily Signal. There's been a lot of criticism of the Trump administration over what will be the endgame in Iran, and I'll get that in a second, but they've also said, what is your agenda? And they've criticized Trump, for example, citing that he wants to demilitarize Iran so it doesn't have ballistic missiles and the drones and the capability to attack its neighbors, or that it wanted to ensure that it did not have a nuclear weapon, which the Iranians themselves bragged that they have the ability to make 11 right now,

should they wish, or had we not bombed. There's also an agenda, his critics say, well, he wants to overthrow the government or at least help the protesters. Well, he wants to do all three. They're not mutually incompatible. When we went to World War II, we really didn't know what the ultimate aim was. Joseph Stalin was a nominal ally, and he was shocked when Roosevelt and Churchill kind of on the fly in 1940 at the Casablanca conference said, actually, our aim is on conditional surrender. Nobody thought it was at the time. Was the purpose in World War II to just fight them to a standstill? That's what Russia originally thought.

Was it to destroy the Nazi government? Was it to reclaim all of Western Europe and then make sure that they were democratic governments? Is that what we said? We didn't say we were going to do that in the Eastern Europe. We thought we were. But there were a lot of aims in World War II, both in the Pacific and the European theory. That happens in war. A lot of things are articulated as you go on.

As far as the outcome, I think there's three possible outcomes. And there is sort of a deadline that is self-imposed. were only eight months from the November midterms. And it will be adjudicated on the economy. And Trump is not talking about the economy because he has his hands full with Venezuela and the Iran war. People have talked about Cuba. At some point very quickly, he's going to have to pivot and start talking about the economy and the good things that he will argue that he has done.

And he has to get the tensions lowered so that oil tankers and commerce, can go freely out of the Straits of Hormuz, then gas prices will go back. Kind of ironic for Democrats that gas prices have rise when they were 30 or 40 cents lower than the average under Joe Biden. So they have risen temporarily due to speculation because, after all, we're the largest oil producer in the world and self-sufficient in oil. It's speculation about what might happen next that's raising oil prices. So there is a pressure on this administration to get the job done. And there's going to be three possible outcomes. And we haven't articulated which it is.

Some are impalible. One is impalible. One is favorable. The first is that we put so much pressure on the Iranian Theocracy. That would be defined by destroying its infrastructure, its meetings, its leadership, its military, its weaponry. The Revolutionary Guards are scattered and attracted. And at some point, there is going to be either a call for him to say, no more, no mass.

We're losing our entire country's military infrastructure. We have no Air Force now. We have no Navy now. We have very few missiles. We give up. We can't take it anymore. Okay. And that would be followed then by a popular uprising.

And that would mean the demonstrators then the theological, the, the, would say, we can't do it anymore. People who had demonstrated 30-something thousand had been killed and lasted. They would pour back out on the streets. There would be an interim coalition government. Dissidents in Europe or the Shah's son. Some people would come over and they would have explicit instructions to form a coalition transitory government leading the way to a consensual government with elections supervised by outside powers, the EU, NATO, who knows. And eventually within a few months there would be an elected government with the warning that they will not allow the theocrats to come back and participate, just as the Germany didn't allow the Nazis to participate in the government. And they would be under strict instructions that they can't get a bomb and they have to dismantle their missiles if there's any left for a particular period of time or whether inspected.

That would be the optimum choice. In other words, regime change, demilitarization, constitutional government, Iran goes from being the problem in the entire Middle East and its efforts to make a Shia revolution and overthrow, the Gulf States, destroy Israel, et cetera. No, and now it is a force for good and a force multiplier of the Abrams Accord, et cetera. The second possible solution, I would call it the Venezuelan solution, with the caveat. We don't know how Venezuela is going to work. But in this scenario, we get somebody who is a dissident or had ties with a former government but is secular, such as a military general. One of the lower generals, one or two-star, they haven't been formidable figures in the top hierarchy of the theocracy.

And they come and say the malocracy is dead. And most of the generals are dead. And I represent dissident generals don't want to stop. this war and we promise you that we will agree to the negotiation demands before the war to stop the ballistic missiles, stop the huge subsidies to the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas. We will stop all nuclear proliferation. We'll allow you to come in and we will exercise power with the proviso. If the people want us to have a transition, we're willing to talk about that. That's not so good because you're not getting the dissidents and the people.

people immediately in the process, but on the other hand, you have somebody who has power in the government, and supposedly we'd be backed by what's left of the army, to get rid of theocracy and could serve as a useful kind of Venezuelan partial transition, as we saw earlier in the year. And finally, the worst scenario, but it might happen, I would call it stewing in their own juice. At some point, a month, six weeks, we've done about all we can. the words, we've destroyed the military ability in every aspect of Iran to hurt its neighbors, at least for the foreseeable future. We may even have found their nuclear material. We've wiped out their leadership, but there's still people fighting, and we don't want to go there in the ground.

And so we just say, well, see you, wouldn't want to be you. We've done what we can. It'll take anybody who takes power five to ten years. We hope that you people who were so brave, to go out in the street. Well, now, after we've stopped bombing, you can, it's in your hands. We're not going to tell you to have a consensual government. We're not going to try to keep wiping out your enemies. We're done. We did this for a month or six weeks, and it's up to you now.

Take the reins and create your own type of government, according to your own wishes. With a caveat, if you let the Melococacy come back, we will be back. But for now on, we're not going to put ground through. We're done. And that would be the third. Obviously, the best thing in the world would be to have the Ayatoll is completely out of the picture, completely impotent. The army disbanded, or at least not in service to the theocracy, a transitional figure coming in who would agree to a constitutional government with elections and dissidents would flock back. And that would be a wonderful thing to see a consensual government around.

The second best would be a Venezuelan solution, a strong man. keeps order but does not allow nuclear proliferation or aggression against its neighbors for the time being. The third was we've done enough. We've defang the tiger and we don't really know what's going to happen. But from time to time, we'll check in. But in the meantime, we hope you dissonance, we hope you can do something, but it's not our job, not our responsibility. With that, I'll leave you.

This is Victor Davis-Hanson for the Daily Seag. Thank you for tuning in to the Daily Signal. Please like, share, and subscribe to be notified for more content like this. You can also check out my own website at victorhansen.com and subscribe for exclusive features in addition.