Dr. Laurence Weinbaum opened the webinar noting that recent developments in the war with Iran have left many of us confounded. Iran has proven a tougher adversary than anticipated Tactical successes have yet to translate into decisive strategic gains, and. though its military capabilities have been degraded, the regime remains intact—retaining its enriched uranium and wielding a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz. The endgame remains unclear, as do the implications for Israel, whose interests do not always align with Washington’s and whose reputation has been further tarnished. Our analysis is made more complicated by the blurred line between rhetoric and reality—captured in a comedian’s quip mimicking the president: “You don’t know if I’m making it up or quoting him directly.” As the maxim often attributed to Machiavelli suggests, wars are judged not by how they begin or unfold, but by how they end—a question that remains unresolved.
The celebrated military strategist Edward Luttwak, an author and longtime advisor to the U.S. government, criticized the West—particularly the Americas—for their lack of expertise on Iran. In his view, this gap has enabled Iran to withstand U.S. and Israeli attacks and to threaten global supply chains in the Persian Gulf. He further argues that a central weakness of both the U.S. and Israel lies in America’s status as a “post-heroic” society: its government faces intense domestic pressure over even negligible casualties. As a result, Washington is unwilling to risk deploying troops on the ground, constraining its tactics and narrowing its path to victory. Real losses could risk the continuity of the present administration. Luttwak predicts that Israel, which does not suffer from fear of casualties, will emerge as one of the war’s winners, having demonstrated both military capability and decisiveness. By contrast, Iran’s regime remains fragile and beset by multiple challenges. Beyond the damage inflicted by the war, severe water shortages are likely to intensify internal pressure. Nevertheless, he sees little chance of the regime in Tehran being toppled by its terrorized population.
Bulgarian scholar and diplomat Dr. Dimitar Mihaylov, an expert on Islam and the Middle East, offered a view into Iran and its environs. While the war has significantly weakened Iran’s military and economic capacities, the regime has proven resilient, remains intact, and has even been radicalized. Mihaylov argues that it increasingly resembles a military junta, with its religious dimension receding. As the state struggles to provide basic goods, repression is intensifying. Regionally, the recent rapprochement between Iran and Arab states has unraveled, leaving heightened distrust between Iran and its neighbors. In its place, a more fluid Middle East is emerging—marked by unstable alliances and flexible, threat-driven alignments. Iran will remain influential and capable of disruption, but its power is diminished compared to the pre-war period. Nevertheless, Mihaylov, like Luttwak, judges a popular uprising against the regime unlikely.
China hand Carice Witte provided an overview of how China influences the war on Iran and how the war, in turn, affects China. She explained that China does not seek to exert direct influence, but rather to shape the environment according to its preferences and interests. Before the war, Beijing supplied Teheran with dual-use goods and non-lethal communications equipment, but did not provide missiles. Since the war began, China has found itself in the uncomfortable position of having key partners—Iran and the energy-exporting Arab states—on opposing sides of the conflict, making it difficult to openly align with Iran. What Beijing has gained from the war is insight into American military performance and, more importantly, into the performance of a force that Washington. has trained and equipped for decades. It has also provided an opportunity to observe how Western missile defense systems and other weapon systems operate.
Economically, the war has slowed China’s growth and increased inflationary pressure. Witte also argued that China is likely to increase investment in green energy and other alternative energy sources to reduce its dependence on the Middle East.
In his closing remarks, Dr. Michael Rimmel, head of the Konrad-Adenauer-Foundation in Israel, reminded the audience of a quote by former German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer: “If you make mistakes in foreign policy, they have lasting consequences.” And indeed, we know, as Michael Rimmel stated, that the current war will have lasting consequences, we just don’t know yet how far reaching they will be.
