A Debate Over the War in Iran

**SPEAKER_1** (0:01)
The Wired newsroom is known for award-winning reporting on how technology shapes our world. On Wired's Uncanny Valley, we take that curiosity even further. Each week, journalists from Wired break down the biggest stories in tech while speaking directly with the people building, challenging, and reshaping the future. Is the AI boom sustainable? How do you protect your privacy in an age of constant surveillance? Uncanny Valley tackles the questions driving today's tech debates and lighting up your group chats. Listen to new episodes every Thursday, wherever you get your podcasts.

**Dan Ephron** (0:33)
Hi, I'm Dan Ephron, Foreign Policy's Executive Editor. This is FP Live.
You're used to hearing Ravi's voice at the top of the show. He's away this week, but there's so much going on in the world. We didn't want to leave you without an episode. So we're focusing again on the war in Iran, but our format is going to be a little different. This week, we're featuring a debate about the war. Was the Trump administration justified in attacking Iran? And will the war advance US interests in the region or set them back? Joining me are two terrific guests with opposing views on the war. Matthew Kroenig is an FP columnist. He's also Senior Director of the Scowcroft Center at the Atlantic Council. He once advised Senator Marco Rubio, who of course is now Secretary of State. And he also served in the first Trump administration in the Defense Department. If you read his columns in FP, you know that Matt has been arguing for military strikes on Iran for a long time. We'll put some links in the show notes. And Trita Parsi is the Executive Vice President at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft. He also co-founded and formerly ran the National Iranian American Council. Trita has called the war unnecessary and unjustified. Let's dive in. Matthew and Trita, welcome to FP Live.

**Matthew Kroenig** (2:00)
Thank you. Thanks for having us.

**Dan Ephron** (2:02)
So before we get into specific points, I want to get a sense of where each of you stands. There's been a lot of criticism about the war, including on our pages, on FP's pages. There's also a strategic case to make for it. So let me start with you, Matthew. Why is the war in Iran justified?

**Matthew Kroenig** (2:19)
Yes, well, I looked up justified and definition is, was this done for good or legitimate reason? And I think it was done for a good reason. Iran has posed one of the greatest threats to regional US and global security for many decades. It's the world's leading state sponsor of terror, according to the State Department, has the largest ballistic missile program in the Middle East that it's used to attack its neighbors. It's had a illegal nuclear program that President Obama called the defining national security challenge of our time. So, it threatens global security. Also, the Islamic Republic threatens its own people. It hangs homosexuals, it beats women to death for not wearing the headscarf properly. It just massacred thousands of its own citizens. So, removing the Islamic Republic from the chessboard or significantly weakening it for years or a decade, I think, stands to greatly improve regional and global security and the lives of ordinary Iranians.

**Dan Ephron** (3:12)
Okay, Trita, let's go to you. You've called the war an unnecessary war. You've also said not a single death can be justified. Give us the case against the war.

**Trita Parsi** (3:22)
I think it is utterly clear that this war is unjustified. I really don't see much of a debate on that specific point. The United States should only go to war when it is faced with an imminent threat and when all other options have been exhausted. In this specific case, that is not the situation at all. In fact, no evidence has been put forward by the administration. If you take a look at what Donald Trump himself has been saying, he has been saying that the renowned military strategist Jared Kushner and Steve Whitcoff have said that they believe that Iran would attack the United States. He did not say that the US intelligence services had determined that an attack was imminent. If you listen to Marco Rubio, it gets even worse. He says that the Israelis were about to attack Iran and as a result, the fear was the Iranians would retaliate against the United States. If that is the case, it means that the Israelis were taking action that endangered the United States. And America as a result should have told the Israelis not to do anything that puts American servicemen and women in harm's way instead of allowing the Israelis to decide when America goes to war. The justifications and motivations for this war have been all over the place by the administration. In fact, they cannot stick to a story because they don't have a story.