Overview of The Rest is Politics US — Episode: "169. Trump Has Lost Control of Iran - And He Knows It"
This episode (hosts Katty Kay and Anthony) reviews rapid developments in the Israel–Iran confrontation, assesses U.S. options and risks (including likely escalation), examines Donald Trump’s handling and psychology, and connects the international crisis to domestic politics — notably the Save America (SAVE) Act to tighten voting rules. The hosts argue the situation is drifting toward a quagmire, has split U.S. and Israeli objectives, is already impacting energy markets, and may reshape U.S.–Israel public support and the 2024 midterm landscape.
Recent timeline and headline events
- The hosts describe this as roughly "day 20" of the crisis after Israel struck Iranian energy infrastructure (reported target: the South Pars gas field shared with Qatar), reportedly killed Iranian intelligence figures, and launched intense strikes in Iran and Lebanon.
- Iran retaliated with missile strikes across the Gulf targeting oil and gas facilities in Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE.
- Former President Trump posted on Truth Social:
- Insisted he didn’t know about Israeli attacks (hosts and reporting suggest U.S. commanders/CENTCOM almost certainly knew).
- Demanded both Israel and Iran pledge not to strike energy infrastructure.
- Threatened extreme retaliation — reportedly saying the U.S. would “massively blow up” the South Pars gas field if strikes continued.
- Rapid movements of U.S. forces: a ~2,200 Marine Expeditionary Force is reported moving toward the region (from the Japan area), raising the prospect of ground deployments near the Strait of Hormuz.
Actors, aims and the divergence between the U.S. and Israel
- U.S. objective (per hosts): avoid closure of the Strait of Hormuz, reopen diplomacy/negotiations to secure shipping and energy flows — but publicly admitting a desire to negotiate would be politically sensitive for Trump.
- Israeli objectives (per hosts): degrade Iranian military capabilities and leadership; Prime Minister Netanyahu reportedly benefits politically from prolonged conflict (it diverts attention from domestic investigations tied to October 7 and potential corruption probes).
- Result: an increasing, public divergence between U.S. and Israeli strategies and political aims.
Military options and risks
- Potential U.S. actions discussed:
- Coastal/straits control operations.
- High-value raids (targeting IRGC leadership or nuclear-related sites) — compared to “Zero Dark Thirty”-style strikes.
- Stationing ground troops to secure the eastern side of the Strait of Hormuz to ensure shipping lanes remain open.
- Risks highlighted:
- Commitment trap: deploying troops could cement escalation and draw U.S. forces deeper into conflict.
- Ground operations would be dangerous, politically costly, and could trigger sustained Iranian response.
-
50% chance (hosts’ assessment) of U.S. ground troops within two weeks absent a diplomatic solution.
- Practical difficulties in striking nuclear- or energy-related sites without major complications.
Economic and energy implications
- Energy markets are reacting: oil prices were cited near ~$116/barrel (as referenced in the episode).
- Damage to major oil and LNG facilities (including shared offshore fields like South Pars) can cause multi-week disruptions:
- Estimated 3–10 weeks to restore full production after major strikes, due to the fragile infrastructure and limited immediate storage.
- The Gulf energy infrastructure has acted as a diplomatic bridge (Iran–Gulf states cooperation); strikes threaten to sever that lifeline, prompting regional diplomatic fallout (e.g., evacuations of diplomatic/military personnel cited).
Trump’s behavior, psychology, and political constraints
- Hosts describe a pattern:
- Trump often instructs surrogates, then denies involvement if needed.
- He projects supreme confidence (“I know better”), refuses to admit mistakes, and wants to avoid appearing weak.
- That psychology incentivizes escalation rather than de-escalation.
- Domestic political considerations limit options:
- Trump wants a performance (the SAVE Act push and tough rhetoric) that reassures his base.
- He dislikes appearances of failure, which raises the risk he will accept escalatory military steps to avoid looking weak.
- His approval/disapproval and internal Republican divisions (some senators opposed or skeptical) constrain legislative and diplomatic maneuvering.
Domestic politics: the Save America (SAVE) Act and voting debate
- SAVE Act summary (as discussed):
- Federal-level citizenship and photo ID requirements for voting; framed by proponents as anti-fraud measures.
- Critics call it federal overreach and voter suppression (disproportionately harms low-income voters and people of color).
- Key data/points raised:
- Polling shows public support for voter ID, but millions lack a government-issued photo ID (hosts cite ~2.6 million without such IDs).
- Actual noncitizen voting/fraud estimated by hosts/guest at extremely low rates (~0.0007%).
- The bill passed the House but is unlikely to pass the Senate (John Thune and others say numbers aren’t there).
- Trump’s push is partly performative — to energize his base, claim later that lack of such laws caused losses, and shape the midterm narrative.
- Federalizing elections would assign greater control to DOJ — raising concerns about politicization if DOJ is aligned with the president.
U.S.–Israel relations and public opinion shift
- Public sympathy in the U.S. is changing:
- Hosts cite an NBC poll: roughly 40% sympathize more with Israel vs. 39% with Palestinians — a marked shift from earlier years (2013 had 45% pro-Israel, 13% pro-Palestinian).
- 50% of independents and 60% of Democrats reportedly view Israel negatively in current polls.
- Political consequence: pro-Israel lobbying (AIPAC) is spending heavily to influence primaries; younger generations and Democrats may reshape U.S. policy and support over time.
Key takeaways
- The confrontation has already escalated beyond the initial strikes; the situation risks turning into a prolonged quagmire with no clear “victory” for Trump.
- Israel and the U.S. appear to be pursuing different endgames; Netanyahu may prefer a longer conflict for domestic political cover, while the U.S. (quietly) prefers de-escalation and negotiation to keep commerce flowing.
- Trump’s personality and political imperatives (appear strong, avoid weakness) increase the risk of further escalation and possible ground deployment.
- Energy markets are materially affected and recovery of damaged infrastructure will take weeks — immediate economic effects are already being felt.
- Domestic politics are intertwined: Trump is using election‑law reform (SAVE Act) as both policy and political theater; a federal overhaul of elections faces steep opposition and serious civil-rights concerns.
What to watch next (recommended)
- Movements/announcements concerning U.S. troop deployments in the Gulf and precise mission definitions (coastal control vs. raids vs. occupation).
- Diplomatic signals: talks out of Oman or other backchannels; any Iranian willingness to return to negotiations.
- Energy market indicators (oil & LNG prices, production reports from Iran and Gulf neighbors) over the next 3–10 weeks.
- Senate activity on the SAVE Act, state-level voting ID changes, and litigation or administrative changes tied to voter access.
- U.S. public-opinion polling on Israel/Palestine and how that influences Congressional behavior and donor spending ahead of primaries.
Notable quotes and lines
- “We are drifting into quagmire territory.”
- Trump (reported): threatened to “massively blow up the entirety of the South Pars gas field” if strikes continue.
- Characterization of Trump’s decision-making: “He lies... he thinks ‘I know better’... he refuses to admit mistakes.”
- Host’s assessment of likely escalation: “More than 50% we’re going to have troops on the ground in the next two weeks, unless there’s some type of diplomatic solution.”
Final succinct judgment
The episode argues the crisis is escalating, U.S. control is strained, the administration faces a costly strategic and political bind, and the fallout will be felt across energy markets, U.S.–Israel relations, and domestic politics — particularly in how Trump uses election-legislation theater to shore up his position ahead of the midterms.