The NPR Politics Podcast - What Trump says to expect of war in Iran

Episode Date: March 2, 2026

The United States is now at war with Iran. President Trump says to expect the conflict to last four to five weeks and more American casualties. We discuss what else the administration has signaled about the war and how it could affect domestic politics.This episode: voting correspondent Miles Parks, national security correspondent Greg Myre, and senior national political correspondent Mara Liasson.This podcast was produced by Casey Morell and Bria Suggs, and edited by Rachel Baye.Our executive producer is Muthoni Muturi.Listen to every episode of the NPR Politics Podcast sponsor-free, unlock access to bonus episodes with more from the NPR Politics team, and support public media when you sign up for The NPR Politics Podcast+ at plus.npr.org/politics.To manage podcast ad preferences, review the links below:See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for sponsorship and to manage your podcast sponsorship preferences.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy

Hey there, it's the NPR Politics Podcast. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Greg Myrie. I cover national security. And I'm Mara Liason, senior national political correspondent. And we are taping this podcast at 1.34 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, on Monday, March 2. Today on the show, the United States is at war with Iran. As the military action began early Saturday morning, President Trump released this video on his social media site, Truth Social. The United States military is undertaking a massive and ongoing operation to prevent this very wicked radical dictatorship from threatening America and our core national security interests. Greg, has the White House given any more information on the objectives of this military action? Yeah, Miles, I would break that into two parts. One part would be the military objectives.

and President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth both gave a little more clarity to that today when they said that the U.S. is seeking to destroy Iran's missile program, its Navy, and make sure it doesn't get nuclear weapons any time now or in the future. So from a military perspective, that's pretty clear and seems something that potentially can be achieved. Now, the bigger question, though, is what do you want to see politically? How do you want to to see this end up in Iran. And that's always the tricky part. You know, previous U.S. wars in the Middle East in Iraq and Afghanistan, tossing out the leaders, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein in Iraq, that went pretty quickly. Then came this long, complicated effort to

reach some sort of political settlement. So the political piece of it still remains to be seen. They're a little fuzzy about exactly what that should look like. Greg, unless Trump wants to leave most of the rulers in Iran the same, just like Venezuela, get rid of the lead singer, but the band keeps playing. Yeah, I mean, they did with the first strike on Saturday morning. It was the Israeli strike, actually. They killed the Supreme Leader in Iran and about 40 other senior figures. In fact, it turns out that the timing of the attack was sort of moved up and done during daylight hours because the U.S. had intelligence that all of these senior. Iranian figures were coming together, Saturday is the equivalent of Monday. It's the beginning of the work week in Iran. And once the U.S. found out that they'd all be meeting, presumably to deal with this crisis, that's when they moved up the beginning of the attacks. And Israel hit these leaders

while they were meeting and killed 40 or more of them. The president was asked by Jonathan Carl of ABC if he had people in mind who could be the next leaders of Iran. And he said, yes, Yes, I think he said he had three in particular in mind, but they were all killed in the bombing of the Supreme Leader. So it sounded like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, and there wasn't much of a clear strategy. If you wanted to keep these people alive to be the next rulers, why did you kill them? Well, planning in war is a very fickle beast. You know, rarely goes as planned. I do want to play a little bit more of the sound of President Trump's message on Saturday.

This part was directed to the Iranian people. To the great proud people of Iran, I say tonight that the hour of your freedom is at hand. Stay sheltered. Don't leave your home. It's very dangerous outside. Bombs will be dropping everywhere. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations. So you have Trump there calling on the people of Iran to take over their government. how much is regime change actually part of the objective here? Well, it seems to be based on that statement. It's hard to interpret that any other way.

The question is how do you do that? Iran is a large country, 90 million people. It's got a big military police force. The security forces there are battle hardened. We've seen them crack down brutally on the civilian population when there were mass protests in January. there's not really an armed opposition there. So how is this going to happen? It seems like that may be his wish, his desire, but the president also seems like he's not going to send ground troops in. This is going to be an air campaign by the U.S. and Israel. So it's really hard to see how that would happen. And just very quickly, I would point to Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Israel has bombed Gaza for two years, had troops in the territory. Gaza is a small place with just two million people. And after more than two, years, Hamas is still effectively in control of the Palestinian population there. So if Israel couldn't, in effect, bring regime change to Gaza, how are you going to do it in this much

larger country of Iran with a short military campaign and no troops on the ground? It's possible that Trump is setting up a situation where he doesn't take blame for whatever happens. He's basically saying it's up to the people of Iran to take back their government. I'm giving them an opportunity. He says it will be years to take and it will be your your only chance for generations. So maybe having either no objectives or confusing objectives is smart politics. No matter what happens, you can't be accused of failing to meet your objectives if you say that it's up to the Iranian people to change the regime. So, Greg, this morning, an unrelated ceremony. President Trump did talk a little bit about

the ongoing conflict with Iran. What more did we learn about what's going on or what we can expect in the future? Yeah, the president laid out some of the goals he's hoping to achieve, of going after the missile program and the Navy there. And he also gave us a sense of how long he thinks the war might last. We projected four to five weeks, but we have capability to go far longer than that. We'll do it. Whatever somebody said today, they said, oh, well, if the president wants to do it really quickly after that, he'll get bored. I don't get bored. And I would just caution, it's very risky to try to predict how long a war is going to last. Things always happen that you don't expect. So we'll have to see about that, but at least it tells you what he's

thinking about. He also added that the U.S. is ahead of its own timeline in the sense that a lot of Iran's leaders were killed. They didn't think that was going to happen right away. So there could be all of these variables that play into this to either shorten or lengthen a conflict. At least we have some idea about what the president's thinking. I mean, Mara, were you surprised at all on the messaging? I mean, over the last couple days, we, I mean, this is, today is the first time we're getting clear information about the actual military objectives like Greg mentioned. That's two days later after these strikes first started. What surprised me was a big mystery of the communication strategy. Donald Trump moves very fast to control the narrative on almost anything that happens.

And his vast empire of media affiliations and supporters also moves fast. So I was very surprised that the White House had nothing to say at all until today. They didn't know. try to control the narrative, which I don't have an answer for. I just think it's a big mystery. And it was a risk because in the vacuum came other voices about why are we doing this. We were literally hearing more from Iranian officials. The foreign minister of Iran, Abasaragchi, was on most of the cable channels over the weekend talking about the war. And yet you didn't see Trump or other senior officials in his administration speaking about the war, what the aims were, how it was going. You know, bits and pieces were dribbling out from the military and brief statements.

But, yeah, we were actually hearing more from Iran than we were hearing from the U.S. government. Well, and the other part of that, Mar, is how the American people are perceiving this, right? Because four U.S. service members are dead now. And Trump has said been explicit. There will be more. There will be more. You know, I think in the end, politically, all that matters to U.S. voters is what happens to oil prices and are more Americans dying overseas. Those are the things that will actually affect the midterms.

In terms of public opinion right now, one thing that's been interesting and missing is the rally around the flag effect, which usually happens. Presidents usually get a big burst of support right after a military effort like this one. That's really not happening. The public is pretty much split. But I do think it depends on how long it goes. Does it affect people's pocketbooks? And are they going to find out about American soldiers dying overseas? that's what really matters. But I think right now it's very possible that if Donald Trump does a kind of long version of his one and done military incursions that he favors, which is just bomb and then get out, leave the basic regime in place, nab one bad guy like in Venezuela. I think it might not have any effect on the midterms. We don't know yet.

I mean, Greg, on Friday, when we were talking about the possibility of the U.S. going to war with Iran, we talked at length about the possibility of it getting broader and conflicts spreading throughout the region. Are we seeing that play out at all in the days since the strikes started? Yeah, very much so. This is day three, and it's already happened. A lot of the Arab countries in the Gulf near Iran did not want to get involved. They said they did not want the U.S. using its airspace. they were trying to signal that we're not involved here. Well, Iran chose to hit, I believe it's up to seven countries in the region now. So those countries have had to get involved, if only to defend their own territory and shoot down incoming Iranian missiles and drones. But this, of course, creates other dynamics. For example, Kuwait, home to a significant U.S. military presence. The Kuwaiti shot down three American F-15 fighter jets by mistake. They presumably thought this was incoming Iranian fire. They shot down these three very expensive planes. The six U.S. crew members all ejected and have

survived. But it just shows you the complications there that the Gulf is being turned upside down. It's having a big impact already economically on their airports, on their economies, on the flow of oil through the Gulf. So yes, it's already playing out in the region. All right. We can take a quick break and more on all of this in just a moment. And we're back. And I want to listen to a little bit more of President Trump talking. This is from a video yesterday talking about the U.S. service members who have already been killed in this operation. As one nation, we grieve for the true American patriots who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our nation, even as we continue the righteous mission for which they,

gave their lives. We pray for the full recovery of the wounded and send our immense love and eternal gratitude to the families of the fallen. And sadly, there will likely be more. Before it ends, that's the way it is. Mara, you know, President Trump ran on this promise to get America out of foreign entanglements, but then you have him essentially saying there will be more people killed because that is the sort of price of these sort of foreign entanglements. How do you square those two things? President Trump is a big risk taker, and he is taking a humongous risk here. He promised the American people not only not to get involved in foreign wars. He said he'd bring prices down. If oil prices go up because of this war, that's going to be a problem for voters.

The same thing with more U.S. casualties. He says that's just the way it is. Well, generally people sour on foreign wars when U.S. servicemen are dying. overseas. Otherwise, it doesn't really cross their minds. So I think it's a big risk. He didn't try to convince the American people or lay out his case for why this war was necessary. He's just hoping he can succeed. It's possible he can walk away at any time, can call it a success, because once again, he's degraded Iran's capacity to commit terror acts or to develop a nuclear weapon. So this is Trump's modus operandi. He creates his own reality. He kind of you know, barrels through. And so far it's worked for him. I don't know when that string runs out.

Greg, I do feel like for people to accept a military operation of this volume and this size, they do have to sort of believe that there was some inherent risk to the United States. Has the president or anyone in the administration made that case effectively that Iran posed an immediate risk to the U.S.? Yeah, Trump has said that in particular with missiles. saying that Iran is working on long-range missiles that could hit the U.S. pretty soon. Right now, Iran's missiles can hit Israel or other countries in the Middle East. But there's just no evidence that they would be able to build missiles that could come all the way to the U.S. The Defense Intelligence Agency, which is part of the Pentagon, the Defense Intelligence Agency put out this report last year saying that Iran has begun to work on a space program and systems that could build intercontinental

ballistic missiles, but that they estimated it would take until 2035 before Iran could do something like that. So almost a decade away before they could. They don't have that now. And again, when it comes to the nuclear program, Trump said that it was obliterated last year. Now, that seemed to be a bit of an exaggeration, but it was substantially damaged. And there's been no evidence that the enrichment, which is the real centerpiece of the program has resumed. There may be some peripheral stuff that's going on right now. So Iran is still a dangerous country. It has missiles. It has been involved throughout the region and has targeted the U.S. and Israel in many places over the years. But to say it is an imminent threat to the U.S. in terms of a major weapon system with a missile or a nuclear weapon,

there just isn't really evidence right now to substantiate that. What kind of responses are we seeing in the first couple days now from the rest of the world? Yeah, I would say it's a bit mixed. A lot of the Arab Gulf states near Iran didn't want to get involved. They were very wary and they were saying things like the U.S. shouldn't use our airspace. We don't want to be part of this. But then Iran targeted them and has fired missiles and drones at them. So they've had to get involved if only to protect themselves. So that's one element that's changed very dramatically. And when it comes to say Europe, we've seen. countries like France, Germany, and Britain, they put out a joint statement saying they might be willing to assist in some capacity against the Iranian regime. They've been critical of Iran for the way it's acted. They talked about proportionate action. So they're kind of hedging a little bit, leaning toward the U.S., but not wanting to be full-fledged members of the operation so far. the EU is sort of talking about what their position will be on this. So we've seen sort of a mixed

reaction. And of course, there have been some countries like Russia and China, which have come out and been very critical of the U.S. operation. It's very much go it alone. The U.S. is doing this without any allies except for Israel. And he has made it very clear in the past. He doesn't think the U.S. needs allies, that allies are more of an encumbrance than a help. European leaders applauded the end of the Iranian regime, if that's what we're seeing, but they still didn't want to get involved in the military effort. I mean, where does this go from here, Maura? I do not want to lose sight of the bigger picture here.

We've seen the United States depose the leaders of two countries in the last two months. Is this going to continue? Are we going to see this kind of international intervention more in the rest of the year? Well, when you hear administration officials talk about how the president has reacted to these events, the answer probably is yes. They describe him as being on kind of a role. He really has felt good about his use of military force. He's now used force a number of times. This is the president who ran on no more foreign wars, and I think he's bombed seven countries. So I think we might see more of it. But also, we have to see how this plays out. I mean, he says it's going to take four or five more weeks. We don't know what kind of blowback there's going to be. We don't know what Iran is going to look like. And we also don't know what are the repercussions in the United States, repercussions that voters may or may not factor into their decision in the midterms. Greg, what do you think? What are you watching as this continues? Well, I think the political piece of this, how you end it politically is always the key question. The U.S. and Israel will be able to keep hitting targets indefinitely in Iran, but at what point do you say we've achieved what we want to achieve? We're ready to call this off. And you could see two things being true where the U.S. and Israel could inflict a lot of damage on Iran and its security forces, but, the basic elements of the Iranian government and regime stay in place and don't surrender, don't give up, are still in position and strong enough to prevent an internal uprising by Iranian civilians.

So you could get to some sort of standoff in the sense where the U.S. and Israel can't achieve much more in an air campaign. And the Iranian government, while very weakened, would still be in full control. I mean, when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth was talking about this, he really did rule out the idea of the United States being involved after a short amount of time. Let's listen. No stupid rules of engagement. No nation building quagmire. No democracy building exercise. No politically correct wars. It makes sense to say that, that this is not going to be another Iraq or Afghanistan, this 15-year conflict. But if Iran politically devolves into chaos, Mar, is that going to be? be on President Trump? Well, it might be, but if you're asking the political question, I don't think voters will care. Libya descended into chaos. Many countries descended into chaos after the U.S.

deposed a regime there. But if it doesn't affect American voters directly in terms of higher prices at the pump or people that they know having their sons and daughters die overseas, I don't think it's going to hurt Trump. It will be on him. It will be certainly, you could argue, his responsibility, but, you know, he can still walk away from that. Mar, I would just add to that. I think you're absolutely right in terms of politics and voting in the midterms. But I do think these things are related. And Libya being the perfect example where the U.S. didn't send troops on the ground. It bombed from the air, helped depose Omar Gaddafi, and then left the place. And it devolved into civil war. President Obama said that was his biggest mistake of his presidency at

one point. So it does have consequences by destabilizing the Middle East. And the war we're seeing here relates to other wars that we've seen over the past two years. You could draw a pretty direct line from the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza to fighting in Yemen. Oh, there's no doubt about that. So, so, you know, if Iran becomes a very unstable place and sinks into civil war, that could lead to further issues down the road, even if it doesn't have a direct impact on elections issue. We can leave it there for today. The political news changes rapidly, as you all know, but this podcast can help you make sense of it. Don't miss an episode.

Hit that follow button on wherever you listen to your podcasts. I'm Miles Parks. I cover voting. I'm Greg Myrie. I cover national security. And I'm Mara Liason, senior national political correspondent. And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics Podcast. Thank you.