Questions about the Trump administration’s military campaign against Iran, the role of China in propping up Tehran, and the durability of Iran’s proxy network dominated a wide-ranging discussion on Chicago’s Morning Answer as host Dan Proft spoke with David Daoud, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
The segment came amid continued debate in Washington over the timing and justification of U.S. strikes, with Proft highlighting criticism from Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Warner argued the president had initiated what he called a “war of choice” without an imminent threat to the United States, while also conceding that eliminating senior Iranian leaders could be beneficial for regional security. Proft dismissed Warner’s critique as internally inconsistent and noted the administration has publicly framed the operation as an extended campaign rather than a single, decisive event.
From there, the conversation shifted toward a broader geopolitical explanation for the timing of the strikes, with Proft pointing to reports suggesting Beijing had been moving to bolster Iran’s missile and military capabilities. He referenced claims that Iran was nearing a deal for Chinese-made anti-ship cruise missiles and that Chinese suppliers had shipped large quantities of missile-related chemicals to Iran, potentially aiding the reconstruction of capabilities damaged during earlier regional fighting. Proft also cited reports of Chinese nationals departing Iran in large numbers as tensions intensified, suggesting concerns about the regime’s stability and the potential for backlash inside Iran.
Daoud said there is at least “merit” to viewing Iran through the lens of U.S.-China competition, describing the relationship as one rooted in strategic utility rather than ideological alignment. He argued that while Iran and its partners benefit from weakening U.S. influence, China is primarily self-interested and may be unwilling to deepen confrontation with the United States if Iran’s position is deteriorating and no longer serves Beijing’s purposes. In that scenario, Daoud suggested, China may avoid “going down with a sinking ship,” especially if continued support becomes more costly or less effective.
Proft then asked Daoud to separate two questions the president and others have raised repeatedly: whether the strikes are morally justified and whether they can realistically lead to regime change.
Daoud answered those as distinct issues. On justification, he argued the Iranian regime has been a long-running destabilizing force across the Middle East, citing Tehran’s role in cultivating armed proxy groups in multiple countries and fueling repeated regional conflicts. He pointed to Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad as examples of Iran-backed forces that, in his view, have contributed to cycles of war and undermined any prospects for durable Israeli-Palestinian peace. He also referenced Iran’s support for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad during the civil war, contending that Tehran’s intervention helped sustain a conflict that killed large numbers of Syrians.
On the question of regime change, Daoud cautioned that history suggests air campaigns alone rarely topple governments. He said the more plausible path, if political change is to occur, depends on the Iranian people acting in the opening created by sustained military pressure. Daoud noted recent and ongoing protest movements in Iran and said the scale of public anger indicates many Iranians are willing to confront the regime despite significant risks.
The conversation also focused on the future of Iran’s regional proxy network, including Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, and how much damage Tehran’s weakening could inflict on those organizations. Daoud argued that one of Iran’s strategic successes has been building proxy groups capable of operating with significant autonomy, including weapons production and fundraising, meaning they may persist even if Tehran’s resources decline. He described Hezbollah in particular as tied to Iran by ideology as much as material support, suggesting that even a dramatic disruption to Iranian funding would not automatically sever loyalty or end the group’s ability to function.
At the same time, Daoud expressed surprise at what he described as underwhelming proxy responses, particularly Hezbollah’s actions, which he said appeared limited despite the high stakes. He questioned why a group would widen a conflict in a way that risks triggering a major Israeli response while doing so with minimal force, calling the posture difficult to explain if the proxy believes Iran can still survive and rebuild. In his view, the behavior did not fit a clear strategy, either for escalation or restraint.
Finally, the discussion returned to the prospects for broader regional stabilization, including rebuilding Gaza and the possibility of renewed diplomatic initiatives. Daoud argued that as long as Tehran remains capable of reconstituting its “axis” of aligned groups, Iran would likely continue working to undermine any durable settlement, particularly any outcome that reduces the religious and regional leverage Iran derives from ongoing conflict. He suggested that Tehran’s interests have historically aligned with prolonging instability rather than allowing normalization agreements or peace frameworks to take hold.
While both Proft and Daoud acknowledged it is too early to predict the end state of the current campaign, the interview underscored the administration’s central claim that the outcome will hinge not only on military operations, but also on whether Iran’s internal political pressures intensify and whether Tehran’s external partners, especially China, decide the regime is still worth the cost of support.