Overview of Rachman Review
This episode of the Rachman Review (Financial Times)—host Gideon Rachman—focuses on the Iran war: whether it is heading toward an end or escalation. Guest Philip Gordon (Brookings; former Obama Middle East policy official and National Security Advisor to VP Harris) assesses recent U.S. and Israeli military actions, Trump’s changing rhetoric about “mission accomplished,” and the wider geopolitical fallout (Strait of Hormuz, Gulf states, NATO, Israel, China/Taiwan, and domestic U.S. politics).
Key takeaways
- Trump has oscillated between threats of massive escalation and sudden declarations that the war is nearly over; his current posture appears to be pivoting toward declaring victory and ending the campaign.
- Philip Gordon acknowledges meaningful military setbacks imposed on Iran (damage to conventional forces, missile production sites, and senior commanders), but stresses the core objectives are unfinished—most notably, Iranian highly enriched uranium remains and the regime is intact.
- The closure of the Strait of Hormuz is the biggest near-term unresolved problem: Iran can disrupt global oil flows using cheap drones (and previously mines) without fully blocking its own exports.
- Gulf states (UAE, Saudi Arabia) are alarmed: they initially wanted containment, but after being directly attacked they now demand Iran pay a price and reject any outcome that increases Iranian control over the strait.
- NATO and European cooperation are strained by Trump’s threats and past confrontations with allies; Trump uses threats to pressure partners into supporting U.S. aims despite limited appetite in Europe to be dragged into an unconsulted conflict.
- Israel benefited from U.S. action but is unlikely to continue a campaign without U.S. backing; if Trump withdraws, Israel may be discontent but likely will not split with the U.S.
- China watches closely: short-term risk of Chinese action on Taiwan rises only slightly; longer-term, the episode reinforces Beijing’s narrative that the U.S. can be distracted or unreliable.
Military outcomes vs unfinished objectives
- Achievements noted: significant setbacks to Iran’s conventional forces, strikes on missile production, strikes on nuclear-related sites, and losses among Iranian commanders (as reported/discussed).
- Unfinished or unclear goals:
- Highly enriched uranium stocks remain.
- Iran’s regime leadership remains in place.
- The strategic problem of control/disruption of the Strait of Hormuz persists.
- Gordon argues the U.S. has not clearly defined coherent, achievable missions—policy aims have shifted between regime change, nuclear rollback, missile suppression and retaliation.
Strait of Hormuz: central strategic problem
- Closure of the strait has global oil-price effects regardless of whether the U.S. imports directly from the route.
- Iran’s use of low-cost drones (and earlier mining fears) makes the strait difficult to keep open militarily: even a few drones getting through deter commercial shipping.
- Gulf states cannot solve the problem alone; a maritime coalition faces real operational difficulties and would still exist under the limitation that Iran can threaten crossings with cheap systems.
Gulf states’ position
- Initially preferred containment and normalization; did not want renewed conflict.
- After attacks on Gulf civilian and economic targets, their stance hardened: they want Iran to pay a price and reject any outcome that increases Iranian leverage over oil routes.
- Gulf regimes have limited military capacity to reopen the strait on their own and rely on U.S./allied support—creating tension given Trump’s rhetoric.
NATO, Europe and allied diplomacy
- Trump has publicly berated NATO and threatened withdrawal—largely a bargaining tool to coerce allies into stepping up.
- European leaders are wary: recent unilateral U.S. actions and trade moves have reduced trust, making them reluctant to risk troops for an American-initiated conflict they were not consulted about.
- Congressional safeguards mean a U.S. withdrawal from NATO is unlikely; nevertheless, Trump’s threats are politically destabilizing for alliance politics.
Israel’s position
- Israel played a leading role in pushing for strikes; Netanyahu achieved much of what he sought (setbacks to Iran’s conventional and nuclear capabilities).
- If the U.S. decides to end the conflict, Israel is unlikely to continue a major campaign alone—Netanyahu’s government has deep ties to Trump and would be constrained without U.S. support.
- Remaining Israeli concerns include the nuclear issue (highly enriched uranium) and long-term regime threats.
China, Taiwan and the wider strategic backdrop
- Short-term: slight increase in risk that China could test U.S. resolve on Taiwan because U.S. assets are focused on the Middle East, but invasion capability and costs remain prohibitive.
- Long-term: China benefits politically from portraying the U.S. as distracted and unreliable, which aligns with its strategy to erode Taiwan’s confidence in U.S. backing.
Political implications for Trump and U.S. politics
- The war and higher fuel/energy prices are politically harmful to Trump, who campaigned on avoiding foreign wars and on economic competence.
- Trump’s base remains resilient, so the political damage is uncertain—Gordon is cautious about predicting an end to Trumpism but notes the conflict likely hurt Trump’s standing and explains the pivot toward declaring victory for markets and optics.
- Markets and timing (e.g., a planned summit with Xi) are a key driver of Trump’s decision-making.
Notable quotes (highlights)
- Trump (reported): “We’re finishing the job…maybe two weeks…” — used to signal a quick end and claim victory.
- Philip Gordon: “A version of mission accomplished” — describing Trump’s inclination to claim success even where objectives are incomplete.
- Gordon on the strait: Iran found a way to block others’ exports while maintaining its own—“the worst of all worlds.”
- Gordon on policy mistakes: the administration miscalculated deterrence and response options—“kind of malpractice.”
What to watch next
- Whether Trump’s national address confirms a formal end/ceasefire and the terms he announces.
- Iran’s response: whether it continues attacks on regional targets and keeps the Strait of Hormuz closed.
- Gulf states’ further actions: willingness to join or support a maritime coalition and coordination with the U.S.
- NATO and European political reactions to any U.S. push for allied participation.
- Israel’s posture if the U.S. signals withdrawal of active engagement.
- Oil prices and markets—continued volatility will shape political incentives.
- The outcome and tone of the rescheduled U.S.–China summit (May)—and any concrete diplomatic role China may play in mediating terms.
Open questions and risks
- Can the U.S. and allies militarily secure the Strait of Hormuz given cheap drone and asymmetric threat vectors?
- If the U.S. declares the war over without resolving nuclear material and control of shipping, will Iran accept a de facto victory and cease attacks?
- Will long-term geopolitical consequences (allied trust, China’s narrative on U.S. reliability, Gulf security architecture) outlast any short-term declaration of victory?
Sources: Rachman Review interview (Gideon Rachman) with Philip Gordon; context and claims discussed in the episode.