The Iran War Just Reached a Dangerous Turning Point & Ukraine’s Leadership Crisis

**Mike Baker** (0:00)
Hey, Mike Baker here. Now every dictator eventually faces the same problem, how you maintain your grip on power. Well, in this week's subscriber exclusive episode of the PDB Dictator Files, we explore the secret police organizations that have protected authoritarian regimes for centuries. And we'll also look at why convincing people that they're being watched is often more powerful than actually watching them. You can listen by going to pdbpremium.com. We'll have more on that later. Now on to the PDB.
It's Wednesday, the 22nd of July. Welcome to the President's Daily Brief. I'm Mike Baker, your eyes and ears on the world stage. And yes, in my continuing game of Where's Waldo, I am still on the road. All right, let's get briefed. First up, after 11 consecutive nights of US airstrikes, American intelligence agencies are warning that air power alone may not be enough to force Iran to change course. And for that, we award America's intelligence agencies today's PDB Statement of the Obvious Award. I'll have the details.
Later in the show, protests continue in Ukraine, following the dismissal of Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov as new details reveal a deepening rift over just how the war against Russia should be fought.
Somewhere off in the distance, Vladimir Putin sits, chuckling and stroking his hairless cat.
Plus, after two years of war, Washington and its allies are quietly considering bold new plans to disarm Hezbollah. But as you might suspect, every option comes with major risks. And in today's Back of the Brief, what's old is new again. And Nicaragua's Daniel Ortega, remember him? Well, he declares the country will never hold another election. Cementing his grip on power, of course, and shutting out the political opposition, at least the opposition that he hasn't already arrested. But first, today's PDB spotlight. After 11 consecutive nights of US airstrikes against Iran, American intelligence agencies have apparently reached a sobering conclusion. Air power alone is unlikely to force the Iranian regime to change course. According to a new report from the Washington Post, the CIA and other US intelligence agencies have assessed that Iran's leadership is unlikely to soften its negotiating position or make meaningful concessions simply because of the expanding American bombing campaign. Instead, analysts believe Washington and Tehran may be settling into a prolonged period of escalation, a conflict marked by recurring air strikes, missile attacks, diplomatic feelers and temporary pauses, but with neither side fundamentally changing its objectives. Now, the news here isn't that the bombing isn't working. The news is that the US may be approaching the limits of what air power alone can accomplish against Iran. The intelligence is not arguing that the strikes aren't hurting Iran. It's arguing that hurting Iran and changing Iran's strategic calculus are two very different things.
Over the past 11 nights, American forces have systematically dismantled key pieces of Iran's military infrastructure. Air defense networks have been degraded. Missile launch sites have been struck. Drone facilities, coastal radar stations, naval assets, logistics hubs and critical bridges supporting Iran's military operations have all been hit. The US has demonstrated that it can operate over Iran with relative freedom while imposing real costs on the regime. But military success doesn't automatically translate into political success. History is full of examples where a nation won the tactical fight but struggled to achieve its strategic objectives. Air campaigns can destroy equipment, disrupt logistics and eliminate military capabilities. What they often struggle to do is convince a determined political leadership to abandon what it sees as vital national interests. And that appears to be exactly what US intelligence agencies believe is happening in Iran. According to current and former officials familiar with the assessment, analysts believe that the regime's overriding priority remains survival. And that has always been the Islamic Republic's primary objective. The leadership in Tehran has repeatedly demonstrated that it's willing to absorb extraordinary economic hardship, well, in part because they don't care about their people, military losses, international isolation, and domestic unrest, well, because they're willing to slaughter them by the thousands, if doing so preserves the regime itself. None of this should be a surprise to anyone. From the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s to decades of sanctions and international pressure, the leadership has consistently shown a higher tolerance for pain than many outside observers expected. Now, from an operational perspective, the strikes have reduced Iran's ability to threaten shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. They have degraded missile and drone capabilities, and they forced Iran to divert resources toward rebuilding damaged infrastructure instead of expanding offensive military operations. And of course, every destroyed radar site or missile battery makes future operations easier for US and Israeli forces.
And those are meaningful accomplishments. The problem is that Washington's ultimate objective isn't simply to destroy military hardware. The objective is to change Iranian behavior. And according to this intelligence assessment, there's little evidence that 11 nights of sustained bombing have fundamentally altered Tehran's political calculations. That leaves the White House facing a familiar strategic dilemma. If additional airstrikes are unlikely to force Iran to negotiate on American terms, what comes next? One option is simply to continue the current campaign, accepting that this could be a long war of attrition in which the US steadily degrades Iran's military while containing its ability to threaten international shipping through the strait. Another possibility is increasing economic pressure. Previous CIA assessments concluded that while Iran could withstand a naval blockade for several months, prolonged restrictions would eventually place severe strain on the country's economy, which is already under severe strain. That suggests Washington may increasingly view economic isolation, not additional bombing, as the greater source of leverage.