David Gibbs:The Iran Strikes Have Begun. A War Historian on Why Trump Couldn’t Leave,NO EXIT

Summary

Professor David Gibbs, a historian at the University of Arizona, argues that the Iran conflict is part of a broader, dangerous pattern of wars and escalating tensions, with a real risk of nuclear use. He says neither the United States nor Israel appears to have a credible strategy for winning, while political leaders may find it difficult to stop once the costs and losses have mounted.

Main Points

• Nuclear danger: Gibbs warns that a nuclear strike by Israel or the United States would break the post-1945 taboo, risk further nuclear proliferation, and threaten humanity. He considers the Ukraine conflict an even greater nuclear risk, arguing that European proposals for Russia amount to an unacceptable defeat and could threaten Russian security. These are his assessments, not predictions of an imminent nuclear attack.

• Why the conflict may continue: Gibbs says Trump’s best practical option would be to stop the war, but doing so could look like a major political defeat after substantial spending, disruption to energy supplies, and military losses. He describes the pressure to continue because of prior investment as the sunk-cost fallacy. He fears escalation could follow if Trump refuses to accept an unfavorable outcome.

• Presidential war-making: Gibbs rejects the idea that Trump is wholly exceptional in U.S. foreign policy. He argues that presidents since 1945 have repeatedly pursued wars and that the political ideal of a “great” president is often tied to military victory. He also raises concern that U.S. law gives the president enormous authority over nuclear use, particularly if advisers are selected for loyalty rather than competence.

• Iran’s likely response: Gibbs says Iran has shown significant preparation and has reason to distrust U.S. diplomacy, citing the collapse of the nuclear agreement and the use of negotiations before an earlier attack. He argues that Iran could retaliate against U.S. forces and regional allies. He also warns that attacks on Gulf desalination facilities could cause a severe humanitarian crisis.

• Host’s reports: Zulfiqar Ali says contacts in Iran and Pakistan told him Trump was highly likely to strike again, with the likelihood rising further depending on Israeli politics. He also relays claims about Iranian preparations, missiles, and plans for retaliation. These are the host’s reports from sources he describes as well-connected; they are not independently verified in the interview.

• Regional and global consequences: Gibbs argues that Gulf states may reconsider hosting U.S. bases, since those bases could expose them to retaliation rather than protect them. He predicts damage to U.S. credibility and questions why European governments are deepening ties with Washington while U.S. influence may be waning. He also criticizes European policies toward Russia and NATO expansion.

• A wider critique of U.S. policy: Gibbs describes U.S. and Israeli political establishments as broadly supportive of military action, despite differences in rhetoric. He criticizes the wars and interventions associated with successive administrations, arguing that they have often been reckless and may encourage countries to seek nuclear weapons for protection. He also contends that media, academia, and think tanks are closely connected to the military and intelligence establishment.

• Vietnam as a possible precedent: Gibbs sees a sharp public loss of support, as occurred during the Vietnam War, as a possible route out of the conflict. He says public pressure, declining trust in official accounts, and alternative media could eventually force leaders to withdraw. He notes that opposition to the Iran war was already substantial from the outset, while acknowledging that this outcome is a hope rather than a certainty.

Presenters and Contributors

• Zulfiqar Ali: Host
• Professor David Gibbs: University of Arizona historian