The Long History of the US War on Iran w/ Spencer Ackerman

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: Paris Marks and Spencer Ackerman trace the U.S.-Israel war on Iran from the 1953 Mossadegh coup through 9/11, Iraq, sanctions, the Iran deal, and Gaza, arguing that today’s conflict is a long-planned escalation driven by miscalculation. They emphasize Iran’s asymmetric response—cheap drones, missiles, and economic pressure on oil, shipping, and data infrastructure—as a strategy that has shifted the war’s costs globally.

Main Topics: Historical roots of U.S.-Iran hostility (Priority: 5/5): Ackerman frames the current war as the product of decades of intervention, beginning with the 1953 coup, the Shah, the 1979 revolution, and the hostage crisis, which created mutually reinforcing narratives of enmity. Why the U.S. did not attack Iran during the war on terror (Priority: 5/5): He explains that Iraq and Afghanistan already stretched U.S. capacity, while Iran’s geography, population, coastline, and regional depth made invasion far harder than Iraq. Sanctions, the Iran deal, and nuclear deterrence (Priority: 5/5): The discussion covers how sanctions weaponized inflation and pushed Iran toward self-reliance, while the JCPOA temporarily blocked nuclear breakout before Trump’s withdrawal restored hostility. Axis of resistance and regional proxy warfare (Priority: 4/5): Ackerman describes Iran’s network in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, and Gaza as a strategic response to U.S. pressure, and notes how Israel and Gulf states saw this as a growing threat. Iran’s asymmetric military innovation (Priority: 5/5): The conversation highlights Iran’s use of low-cost drones, missiles, and decentralized command structures to overwhelm expensive U.S./Israeli interceptors and sustain deterrence. Economic warfare and infrastructure targeting (Priority: 5/5): Iran’s strikes on oil facilities, ports, desalination plants, and data centers are presented as a deliberate effort to raise global costs and threaten the Gulf’s economic model. Limits of U.S. and Israeli strategy (Priority: 5/5): Ackerman argues Trump and Netanyahu misread Iran’s resilience, overestimated the impact of decapitation strikes, and lost control of escalation, especially after the Strait of Hormuz became central.

Key Arguments: The current war is not a sudden event but the culmination of a long U.S.-Iran conflict shaped by coups, sanctions, proxy wars, and failed deterrence. The U.S. avoided attacking Iran during the war on terror because Iraq was already a catastrophic overextension and Iran is far more difficult to invade and occupy. Sanctions functioned as indiscriminate economic warfare, driving inflation and isolation but also forcing Iran toward greater self-sufficiency. The JCPOA was a technically effective nonproliferation deal, but it was politically undermined by Israel, Gulf states, and Trump’s withdrawal. Iran’s regional strategy through the axis of resistance was a response to U.S. pressure and helped it project power to the Mediterranean. Iran’s drones and missiles are strategically effective because they are cheap to produce and force adversaries to spend vastly more on interception. The war’s center of gravity is now economic: oil, shipping, fertilizer, desalination, and compute infrastructure are all being targeted or threatened. Trump and Netanyahu miscalculated by assuming Iran was weak enough to coerce into submission; instead, Iran has imposed costs and retained initiative. The Strait of Hormuz is the key strategic lever, and Iran’s ability to threaten it gives it leverage over global markets and diplomacy. The Gulf states are unlikely to expel the U.S. military, but they may demand stronger security guarantees after being exposed to Iranian retaliation.

Data Points: Brent crude price: $115 to $119 per barrel - Referenced as the market level after the war intensified and before further escalation Potential oil price: $150 per barrel - Projected if the war continued for another month U.S. troop deaths in Iraq: about 4,500 - Total U.S. fatalities in Iraq cited during discussion of the war Deaths caused by EFPs: about 800 to 1,000 - Estimated U.S. troop deaths attributed to explosively formed penetrators supplied by Iran-linked forces Share of U.S. troop deaths: about 20% - Approximate proportion of Iraq war deaths caused by EFPs Iranian population: 90 million - Used to illustrate why invading Iran would be far harder than invading Iraq Iraq population: 24 to 25 million - Used as comparison for the scale difference between Iraq and Iran Iranian drone cost: $4,000 to $7,000 (or $20,000 to $30,000 by standard estimates) - Estimated cost of the Shahid-136 drone used to overwhelm expensive interceptors Patriot PAC-3 interceptor cost: $3.7 million - Example of the cost asymmetry in missile defense Arrow-3 interceptor cost: $3 million - Example of the cost asymmetry in missile defense SM-2 interceptor cost: $2.1 million - Example of the cost asymmetry in missile defense Oil transit through Strait of Hormuz: about 20% of world oil - Used to explain why closing the strait would be globally disruptive Fertilizer transit through Strait of Hormuz: about one-third - Shows the broader commodity impact beyond oil Iranian missile/drone attack scale: about 2,000 drones and ballistic missiles - Referenced in the 2025 exchange with Israel U.S. base attacked in 2025: one major volley at Al-Udeid in Qatar - Described as the first formal U.S.-Iran exchange of fire Saudi Aramco attack year: 2019 - Cited as a turning point that pushed Saudi Arabia toward rapprochement with Iran Iranian sanctions period: 15 to 16 years - Used to explain Iran’s adaptation and reduced dependence on foreign capital Gaza war reference: 2023 onward - Used as the backdrop for Iran’s regional response and U.S. support for Israel Potential oil price impact: $150 per barrel within a month - Forecast tied to continued disruption of the Strait of Hormuz

Pivotal Quotes: "This is an unjustifiable war of aggression." — Spencer Ackerman: His framing of the U.S.-Israel attack on Iran as illegal and historically rooted "Trump has lost control of the war. Bibi has lost control of the war." — Spencer Ackerman: His assessment that the conflict has escaped the intended political and military control of its initiators "This is Iranian strategy." — Spencer Ackerman: His conclusion that Iran’s strikes on shipping, oil, and infrastructure are deliberate economic warfare

Implications: The episode suggests the war is likely to raise global energy and shipping costs, deepen regional instability, and expose the limits of U.S.-Israeli military dominance. It also shows how cheap asymmetric weapons can outmatch expensive defense systems.