The ongoing conflict with Iran could have lasting consequences for U.S. national security and the broader Middle East, including the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran, according to Jed Babbin, a former United States Deputy Under Secretary of Defense and contributor to The Washington Times and The American Spectator.
Babbin joined Chicago’s Morning Answer Tuesday with Jeanne Ives and Jim Iuorio, who were filling in for Dan Proft, to discuss the status of the war with Iran, the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz and growing tensions involving Turkey, Israel, Russia and NATO.
The conversation began with President Donald Trump’s comments about renaming the Strait of Hormuz, with Babbin arguing that the name is ultimately irrelevant compared with who controls access through the strategically important waterway.
Babbin said the Strait of Hormuz remains effectively closed to normal commercial traffic, despite some ships being escorted through, and that U.S. forces continue to conduct mine-clearing operations. He questioned whether Iran could ultimately impose tolls or other restrictions on shipping if the current situation continues.
Babbin argued that the United States cannot accept a situation in which Iran exercises effective control over the strait, which is a critical route for global oil shipments. He also expressed concern about an arrangement involving Oman that he said excludes the U.S. Navy from the strait.
The former Defense Department official acknowledged that the United States could force its way through the area if necessary but warned that maintaining a prolonged military operation would create significant demands on U.S. forces. He pointed to the strain placed on sailors and the limited supply of missiles and defensive weapons as potential constraints.
The discussion turned to the broader war with Iran and whether the conflict could be brought to a conclusion after the fighting failed to produce the quick result some expected.
Babbin argued that the only fundamental change that could alter Iran’s strategic posture would be the removal of its current regime, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the country’s senior leadership. He said he does not believe the United States currently has either the political will or the support from allies necessary to pursue regime change.
He also questioned whether the United States had missed an opportunity earlier in the conflict to press its advantage more aggressively.
One of Babbin’s central concerns is Iran’s nuclear program. He argued that Iran had already accumulated substantial quantities of uranium enriched to 60 percent and that moving from that level to weapons-grade enrichment would require substantially less effort than beginning the enrichment process from scratch.
Babbin predicted that Iran will eventually possess nuclear weapons and expressed concern that such weapons could ultimately be used. He argued that the failure to eliminate Iran’s nuclear capabilities could become the most consequential outcome of the conflict.
The hosts questioned whether the United States should have entered the conflict in the first place if it did not intend to pursue regime change. Babbin said he believed the United States could have destroyed the Iranian regime earlier but did not press its advantage sufficiently.
The discussion also focused on the Strait of Hormuz’s importance to global energy markets. Babbin noted that Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Kuwait are pursuing or considering pipeline infrastructure that could allow oil to bypass the strait.
If those alternative routes expand, Babbin said, the importance of the Strait of Hormuz could diminish over time. He suggested that additional pipeline capacity could eventually ease pressure on global oil markets and reduce Iran’s leverage over energy shipments.
China was another factor in the discussion. Babbin said China is likely to continue purchasing Iranian oil regardless of U.S. actions, potentially limiting the effectiveness of American efforts to isolate Iran economically.
The interview then shifted to Turkey and its increasingly complicated relationship with Israel. Babbin described the situation as a quiet conflict between Turkey and Israel, with Syria serving as a primary arena for competing interests.
He warned that a direct confrontation between Turkey and Israel could create a much larger regional crisis and potentially complicate U.S. obligations under the NATO treaty. Turkey’s relationship with Hamas and its policies toward Israel, Babbin argued, have raised questions about the reliability of the country as a U.S. ally.
Babbin called Turkey the least reliable of America’s NATO allies and questioned how a NATO member could openly support Hamas while remaining part of the alliance.
The discussion prompted broader questions about the future of NATO itself. Babbin said the alliance remains potentially valuable but argued that its current structure needs significant changes. He questioned whether NATO continues to serve American interests effectively and suggested that Turkey’s role presents one of the alliance’s most serious problems.
The conversation also touched on the war in Ukraine and the possibility of a wider confrontation between Russia and NATO. Babbin said he believes Russia is increasingly frustrated by its inability to achieve its objectives in Ukraine and may be looking for opportunities to escalate.
He cited reports of suspicious drone activity in Europe as an example of what he views as increasing Russian aggression toward NATO countries. Babbin warned that the situation could become a larger security threat if Russia expands its efforts beyond Ukraine.
He also raised the possibility of additional foreign forces becoming involved in the Ukraine conflict, including North Korean troops, and said the ultimate direction of the war remains difficult to predict.
Throughout the interview, Babbin argued that the conflicts involving Iran, Israel, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine cannot be viewed entirely in isolation. Strategic competition over energy, military alliances and regional influence could connect seemingly separate conflicts and create risks for the United States and its allies.
Despite the bleak assessment, the discussion did identify one potential change in the global energy landscape. If Middle Eastern countries succeed in expanding pipeline routes that bypass the Strait of Hormuz, Babbin said Iran’s ability to use the waterway as leverage could decline.
For Babbin, however, the most serious unresolved issue remains Iran’s nuclear ambitions. He argued that the United States may have missed an opportunity to eliminate the threat and that the consequences could eventually extend far beyond the current conflict.
As the war continues, Babbin said the United States faces difficult choices over how much military force it is willing to commit, how long it can sustain operations, and whether it has the political will to pursue objectives that could fundamentally alter the Iranian regime.