Dan Proft discussed the ongoing U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran with Simone Ledeen, senior fellow at the Strauss Center and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for Middle East policy.
Ledeen pushed back strongly against critics in the foreign policy establishment, including Wendy Sherman and David Brooks, who have labeled the operation a failure or “superpower suicide.” She argued that the joint military and economic pressure campaign—dubbed preemptive retaliatory deescalation—is progressing effectively and remains far from over. Sanctions, a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, and military strikes have placed the Iranian regime, particularly the IRGC, in a severely weakened position both militarily and economically.
The conversation highlighted Iran’s revolutionary ambitions and history of exporting instability through proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iraqi militias. Ledeen noted that the regime’s control of the Strait—through which roughly 20-25% of global energy passes—represents an economic threat equivalent to a “nuclear weapon,” which becomes exponentially more dangerous if Iran acquires nuclear capability. She dismissed Iranian offers to ease disruptions in exchange for pausing nuclear talks as unserious and unacceptable.
Current realities in Iran are dire: oil production is shutting down due to a lack of storage and export options under the blockade, leaving the regime unable to pay its security forces. This financial suffocation, combined with prior economic woes, raises prospects for internal instability and potential regime change over time, as loyalty among forces is tested. Ledeen observed that Gulf states are drawing closer to the U.S. and Israel, further isolating Tehran geopolitically, while China has stayed on the sidelines despite its dependence on the Strait—leaving Beijing in a position of weakness ahead of upcoming talks with President Trump.
Ledeen expressed confidence in the Trump administration’s strategy, praising its execution. She suggested continued economic pressure and naval operations, with resumed targeted strikes likely if Iran persists with untenable negotiating positions that ignore its nuclear program. While acknowledging the conflict’s complexity and the unrealistic expectations sometimes set around timelines, she maintained that objective measures show Iran in a far worse position than two months prior.
The interview underscored a clear divide between traditional internationalist views favoring appeasement and a more assertive approach aimed at preventing a nuclear Iran, securing international waterways, and weakening a destabilizing regime. Ledeen remains optimistic that sustained pressure will yield favorable results without the catastrophic outcomes predicted by critics.