Overview of "Why Iran thinks it’s winning the war" (ABC News Daily)
This episode features Sam Hawley interviewing Jonathan Panikoff (director of the Scowcroft Middle East Security Initiative, Atlantic Council) about the escalating confrontation between the US and Iran: Donald Trump's ultimatum over reopening the Strait of Hormuz, claims of negotiations, Iran’s demonstrated leverage (including long‑range missile launches), and why Iran believes it can dictate terms to end the fighting.
Key takeaways
- Iran has demonstrated significant strategic leverage despite suffering military losses; control (or the ability to disrupt) the Strait of Hormuz is central to that leverage.
- US threats to hit Iranian power/desalination infrastructure risk major regional escalation; such targets are politically and humanitarianly sensitive because Gulf states depend on desalination for drinking water.
- Reports of negotiation are mixed: the US says talks are underway, Iran denies it; mediation by third parties (Turkey, Pakistan) is reported but unlikely to produce a quick settlement.
- Iran retains important capabilities — longer‑range ballistic missiles (demonstrated by a launch toward Diego Garcia, ~4,000 km), thousands of drones, cyber and proxy tools — so it is not "obliterated."
- Trump’s temporary easing of Iranian (and Russian) oil sanctions to calm markets is a notable, unusual step and may have limited effect on prices.
- Iran will only consider ending the war on its terms: strong guarantees against future strikes, possible concessions on nuclear matters, financial compensation and other political guarantees — demands the US may refuse.
Topics discussed
- Trump’s 48‑hour ultimatum (extended by five days): rationale, credibility and whether it buys time or signals panic.
- Risks from attacking civilian infrastructure, particularly desalination plants and regional energy assets.
- Status and credibility of reported talks: possible mediators (Turkey, Pakistan) and potential representatives.
- Iran’s military condition: diminished naval and missile capabilities, but not eliminated — asymmetric tools remain potent.
- The Diego Garcia missile launch as a signal of extended strike range and deterrent messaging to third countries.
- Pressure on Israeli missile‑defense systems from Iranian strikes and the limits of interception capacity.
- Economic tools and levers: sanctions, oil market effects, and the US decision to temporarily lift some sanctions.
Notable insights & quotes
- Panikoff: Iran “has demonstrated to the world that it really can hold hostage… the Strait of Hormuz” — framing leverage beyond pure military strength.
- On strikes against civilian infrastructure: hitting desalination plants would “bring this type of conflict to a whole new level.”
- On US claims of destroying Iran’s military: Panikoff — “significantly diminished… but certainly not obliterated.”
- Diego Garcia launch: served as a message that Iran can reach much further than many expected — a deterrent to deeper foreign involvement.
Implications and risks
- Markets: continued volatility in oil prices; the US’ sanction moves may only partially calm markets.
- Humanitarian: attacks on desalination or power infrastructure could create severe civilian crises in Gulf states.
- Regional escalation: seizure or disruption of shipping lanes, island or strait operations, and broader strikes could provoke more intense military responses.
- Political: the war could strengthen hardliners inside Iran and harden negotiating positions — making a durable settlement harder.
- Strategic: even a weakened conventional Iranian military retains asymmetric and proxy options that can project regional instability for years.
What to watch next
- Whether mediators (Turkey, Pakistan or others) confirm and host talks, and who represents each side.
- The five‑day deadline outcome: does the US escalate, extend, or de‑escalate further?
- Any targeting or credible threats against desalination, water, or major civilian energy infrastructure.
- Further Iranian demonstrations of missile/drones range or strikes on third‑party bases or shipping.
- Market responses and any permanent policy shift on sanctions or oil imports by the US and allies.
- Domestic political shifts inside Iran (hardliner vs. moderate balance) following wartime dynamics.
Bottom line
Panikoff’s assessment: Iran believes it is in a stronger bargaining position than many anticipated because it can threaten key maritime chokepoints and still field asymmetric tools and longer‑range strike options. The conflict has already diminished Iranian conventional capabilities, but not eliminated Iran’s ability to inflict regional damage or extract political concessions — meaning any settlement will likely need to meet high Iranian demands or risk further escalation.