Hello, everyone. Today at WPR, we’re covering what it will take for the U.S. to avoid another forever war in Iran, and how Trump got to the point of launching the conflict. | But first, with the war set to enter its third week, we’re picking out a few highlights from our ongoing coverage. |  | A plume of smoke rises after a strike in Tehran, Iran, March 1, 2026. (AP photo by Vahid Salemi) |
| Following the initial U.S.-Israeli airstrikes against Iran on Feb. 28 that killed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and launched the conflict, we noted in this space that U.S. officials had made meaningful progress in diplomatic talks with Iran over limits to its nuclear program. Unfortunately, the U.S. negotiating team, led by President Donald Trump’s long-time friend Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, “were hampered by a lack of knowledge and historical context around diplomacy with Iran.” | A few days later, we highlighted the growing divergence in war aims between the U.S. and Israel. To be sure, the Trump administration’s stated objectives for the war have been all over the place, but Trump himself has made his preference clear that he would like to see a different government take power in Tehran. Israel’s goal, on the other hand, is clear: Rather than regime change, it seeks “the complete destruction of Iran’s capacity to function as a state and serve the basic needs of its 93 million inhabitants,” we wrote. | In his column last week, WPR’s Paul Poast pointed out the limitations of air power as a means of toppling the Islamic Republic. The history of aerial bombardment campaigns that weren’t accompanied by a meaningful troop presence on the ground shows that such efforts tend to either foment a chaotic civil war, or else simply harden the public’s resolve in opposition to the external aggressor. As Poast put it, “In short, rather than simply being ineffective, air power alone can actually be counterproductive, a lesson the Trump administration now seems destined to learn the hard way.” | The war has also raised thorny questions about whether it’s consistent with U.S. and international law, and whether its (il)legality even matters. WPR columnist Charli Carpenter tackled those questions head-on, writing that nearly all international legal experts in the U.S. have unequivocally condemned the war as a violation of the U.N. Charter and, by extension, of U.S. domestic law, given the Constitution states that treaties to which the U.S. is a party are the “supreme law of the land.” She also addresses questions around the legality of how the war is being conducted, concluding that “these legal standards matter now more than ever if countries in the international system wish to restrain the outbreak and escalation of wars.” | As the war continues, its second-order effects have been felt throughout the world, mainly due to the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has attacked unapproved vessels transiting through the critical maritime chokepoint and has vowed to continue doing so. That has caused the largest disruption to global oil supply in history, with cascading consequences for global consumers. | To take one example, the Persian Gulf is home to some of the world’s most plentiful and easily accessible deposits of natural gas, which is a crucial ingredient for making synthetic fertilizer. In fact, as we noted in yesterday’s Daily Review, roughly one-third of the world’s fertilizer supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz, but because it is now blocked, the prices of urea and other nitrogen fertilizers—without which global crop yields at current levels would be impossible—have skyrocketed. Farmers around the world are feeling the pinch as a result, just as spring planting season gets underway in much of the Northern Hemisphere. | Finally, historian Neda Bolourchi took an in-depth look this week at the tattered state of Iranian society following decades of oppression. The country’s Assembly of Experts have appointed the late Ali Khamenei’s son, Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, to succeed his father as the country’s new supreme leader. “Long known as a behind-the-scenes operator in the Islamic Republic’s security networks, Mojtaba represents less a generational shift than the elevation of a figure deeply shaped by the regime’s coercive institutions,” Bolourchi wrote. “With a new supreme leader installed amid war with the U.S. and Israel, the Islamic Republic now must confront the consequences of a broken compact with Iranian society—largely due to its own policies.” |
|
| | Over the course of his three campaigns for the White House, President Donald Trump repeatedly ran as a self-proclaimed “candidate of peace” committed to ending wars and staying out of new ones. In one 2016 presidential debate, he called the U.S. invasion of Iraq “a big, fat mistake” and added, “We should have never been in Iraq.” Trump is now on the verge of breaking all these campaign promises and plunging the United States into an endless war in Iran. It’s not too late to avoid such a scenario, Will Walldorf writes. | | | As the Iran war nears the end of its second week and continues to expand into a regional conflagration, a key question remains: How did we get here? This seems particularly relevant given the shifting rationales for the war given by President Donald Trump and his administration, ranging from the maximal aim of regime change in Tehran to the limited aim of degrading Iran’s capacity to build and launch missiles. | Though statements by Trump and members of his administration are relevant, they are just one lens through which to view the war’s origins. In his column this week, Paul Poast applies the international relations scholar Kenneth Waltz’s “levels of analysis” framework to reach a more nuanced understanding of what caused the conflict. | | | Cuba: President Miguel Diaz-Canel has confirmed that Cuban officials are in talks with the Trump administration to seek relief from the U.S.-imposed oil blockade that has left the island without fuel for three months and triggered blackouts and public protests. “Whenever we have been in tense situations in relations with the United States, efforts have been made to find channels for dialogue,” Diaz-Canel told a group of reporters in Havana, according to The Guardian. | In a prescient Feb. 2 column in WPR, James Bosworth noted that economic pressure by the United States against Cuba is hardly new, but it may be more effective this time. That’s not only because the U.S. operation against Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela eliminated a key source of oil for the island nation, but also because the Trump administration would likely be willing to work with the existing Cuban regime to achieve some of its aims. While both Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio have made statements indicating they would like to see regime change in Cuba, the administration, as in Venezuela, has shown it will prioritize gaining influence over promoting democracy. | “The Trump Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine is indifferent to whether democracy prevails in the Western Hemisphere,” Bosworth wrote. “Rather, the administration simply wants countries to accept U.S. influence and reject that of other powers, particularly China. That’s a much different view of the purpose of U.S. pressure against Cuba than what we’ve seen since the 1960s.” | | Ukraine, Russia: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy criticized the Trump administration’s decision to lift sanctions on Russian oil for 30 days, saying it is “not the right decision” and would provide Russia with about $10 billion that it can use to prosecute its war against Ukraine. U.S.-mediated talks to end the Russia-Ukraine war on hold due to the Iran war. The Trump administration made the decision to temporarily lift sanctions yesterday to increase supply as prices rise. European Council President Antonio Costa also criticized the decision, saying it will negatively impact European security. | | Enjoying the full, unabridged edition of the Daily Review? Subscribe now to get it every weekday. | | Poland: The pro-European prime minister and far-right president of Poland are at loggerheads over a European Union program to help fund defense spending in member states. The EU’s Security Action for Europe program provides favorable financing for defense- and security-related spending. President Karol Nawrocki vetoed a bill that would have allowed Poland to borrow $50 billion from the EU, saying it would create an unsustainable debt burden for future generations and is an infringement on Poland’s sovereignty. PM Donald Tusk’s government authorized ministers to sign the loan agreements and move ahead despite the veto. | Afghanistan, Pakistan: “Afghanistan’s Taliban government accused Pakistan on Friday of targeting homes in overnight airstrikes on Kabul and other areas of the country, saying at least six civilians were killed and more than a dozen others were injured,” the Associated Press reports. Pakistan said the airstrikes targeted militants and their support infrastructure. The long-simmering conflict boiled over into open war last month when Pakistan conducted airstrikes against urban areas deep inside Afghanistan rather than limiting strikes to border areas, as had previously been the case. “The Pakistani government is demanding that the Taliban rein in the activities of the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, or TTP, a separate militant group that operates from bases in Afghanistan and has dramatically stepped up its attacks in the Pakistani border provinces in recent years,” Elliot Waldman wrote in the WPR Daily Review Feb. 27. | | | More from WPR | | Read all of our latest coverage here. |
|
Comments
Post a Comment
Welcome to my geopolitics blog site. This is a Hawaii Island news site focusing on geopolitical news, analysis, information, and commentary. I will cite a variety of sources, ranging from all sides of the political spectrum.