Overview of The Powers That Be (March 24 episode)
Hosts Peter Hamby and Julia Yaffe examine whether the United States is "winning" the war in Iran. They question what "winning" would even mean, critique the administration's focus on tactical strikes over strategic goals, and discuss the political and diplomatic fallout—domestic likability of key figures (notably Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth), mixed allied support, and murky backchannel diplomacy.
Main takeaways
- There is no clear, stated end state from the U.S. administration; without explicit goals it’s hard to measure victory.
- The administration emphasizes tactical "lethality" (air and naval strikes) but hasn’t translated that into strategic success.
- Allies are reluctant to fully back the U.S.—partly because of Trump’s abrasive approach—so a broad coalition is unlikely.
- Iran’s asymmetric tactics (mines, small boats, missile strikes) have been effective: the Strait of Hormuz has been disrupted and regional energy/supply-chain risks have risen.
- Reports of secret talks (reported by Axios) between U.S. interlocutors and Iranian officials are unclear and contested; Iran denied direct talks.
- Pete Hegseth’s public posture (calling for fewer rules of engagement, boasting about “lethality”) contrasts with the lack of strategic gains and has made him unpopular.
Topics discussed
- The central question: Is the U.S. winning or losing the conflict in Iran?
- Difference between tactics (bombing, kinetic strikes) and strategy (political end state).
- Allied willingness to support the U.S. given Trump’s posture toward partners.
- Pete Hegseth’s rhetoric, background, and rising unfavorability.
- Rules of engagement debate—calls from some in the MAGA sphere to “untie” warfighters.
- Economic impacts: energy markets, oil access, and shortages in critical inputs like helium for microchips.
- Conflicting reports about potential backchannel negotiations and the administration’s public statements aimed at influencing markets.
Notable quotes & insights
- “This is what happens with bullies… People are afraid of bullies, but people don't want to help bullies.” — Julia Yaffe’s framing of why allies won’t fully back a bullying U.S. posture.
- Pete Hegseth (paraphrased): claims the U.S. has “gone after them with lethality instead of politically correct morality,” illustrating his emphasis on kinetic tactics over legal/ethical constraints.
- Peter Hamby highlights episodes where the president’s public comments appeared timed to affect markets (e.g., pausing attacks on energy infrastructure until after market close).
Why the hosts think the U.S. might be "losing"
- No clear objectives: The administration has shifted rationales and offered multiple, inconsistent goals—making failure harder to define but also making success unlikely.
- Asymmetric Iranian tactics blunt U.S. military advantages: small boats, mines, and missile salvos have disrupted maritime traffic and regional stability despite U.S. strikes.
- Strategic consequences outweigh tactical successes: even if Iran’s military assets are degraded in places, the broader political and economic leverage Iran has (regional strikes, energy chokepoints, nuclear posture) persists or has strengthened.
- Domestic political signaling (boasts about lethality) has not produced measurable strategic outcomes.
Politics, personalities, and perception
- Pete Hegseth: portrayed as performative, pro-lethality, and increasingly unpopular (unfavorable rating noted as rising). His posture exemplifies the administration’s tactical emphasis and rhetorical bravado.
- Donald Trump: accused of using public statements to influence markets and of inconsistent messaging about goals and diplomacy; this undermines credibility with allies.
- Allies: European and regional partners have been tentative—some vague commitments surfaced, but no clear coalition of the willing.
Backchannel diplomacy: what to watch
- Axios reported talks involving a U.S. contact (named in reporting) and Jared Kushner; Iran denied direct talks. The hosts suspect contradictory or exaggerated public claims—some assertions may be intended to calm markets rather than reflect real diplomatic progress.
- If talks exist, Iranian terms reportedly include guarantees against future attacks and retention/bolstering of their nuclear/missile capabilities—making compromise difficult.
Implications & what to monitor next
- Energy markets and supply chains: disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz and shortages (including helium) could affect oil prices and the semiconductor industry—watch prices and supply-chain signals.
- Allies’ commitments: track concrete military contributions (e.g., minesweepers) and public diplomatic coordination.
- Administration’s stated objectives: clarity on end state(s) and metrics for success would be critical signals.
- Pentagon funding and readiness: proposed budget increases and their feasibility will shape long-term capability.
- Escalation risk: continued strikes, Iranian retaliation, and regional spillover (e.g., attacks on Israel or Gulf states) remain acute risks.
- Credibility of reporting on talks: verify backchannel reports from multiple sources before assuming diplomatic progress.
Production notes
- Episode date: Tuesday, March 24.
- Hosts: Peter Hamby and Julia Yaffe.
- The show is The Powers That Be (Puck).