Iran Maintains Upper Hand Over U.S. and Israel in Escalating and Costly War

Interview with former U.S. Marine Capt. Matthew Hoh, associate director of the Eisenhower Media Network, conducted by Scott Harris

Iranwar

Former U.S. Marine Capt. Matthew Hoh assesses the current state of the illegal U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, including allegations that the U.S. lacks a coherent strategy and made inadequate preparations for this conflict — as well as prospects that the Trump regime may soon deploy U.S. troops for a ground war inside Iran.

Hoh is a Iraq War combat veteran and Afghanistan State Department officer who resigned in protest over U.S. war policy in 2009.

SCOTT HARRIS: I’m very happy to welcome our first guest tonight. And that’s Matthew Hoh, associate director of the Eisenhower Immediate Network, a former U.S. Marine Corps captain. He’s an Iraq War combat veteran, Afghan State Department officer who resigned his post at the State Department in protest over U.S. war policy. Matthew, thank you so much for making time to come with us on our program this evening.
MATTHEW HOH:  Yeah. Hi, Scott. Thanks for having me back on.
SCOTT HARRIS: So just briefly, tell our listeners about the Eisenhower Media Network and the work you and your colleagues do there.
MATTHEW HOH: Oh, thanks, Scott. I appreciate that. We are a collection of former military officers, intelligence officers, diplomats, law enforcement officials who dissent from our nation’s militarized foreign policy. We want to see a diplomatic foreign policy. We understand the costs that come not just from war, but from these gargantuan defense budgets that take away from the American people. So we are a group of, I said, former military intelligence, diplomats, etc., who advocate for a diplomatic foreign policy and a dismantling of the American military industrial complex.
SCOTT HARRIS: Thanks for that, Matt. And we’ll make sure to give out the web address as we conclude tonight. But before we talk about some of the very consequential questions about the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran and what happens next, I’d like you to briefly speak on why you believe Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched this war—given that there was a clear lack of preparations, anticipating major issues like Iran shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, which has certainly upended the world’s supply of oil and the economy.
MATTHEW HOH:  Well, I think the proximate reason or the immediate reason for the launch on Feb. 28th was because they could kill the Iran Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah (Ali Hosseini) Khamenei. But that was the immediate reason. I think Israel and the United States have differing reasons, but essentially it comes back to the same desire for dominance in the region. Israel wants to dominate the Middle East. The United States wants to see Israel dominate the Middle East as it had throughout the Cold War. The idea of Israel serving as one of America’s sheriffs or as the Nixon administration called it, “cops on the beat in the Middle East” alongside, of course, the shah of Iran as the other cop on the beat in the Middle East to contain Arabism. I mean, so essentially, Scott, while Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump have reasons for this war, there is a larger reason for the war that exceeds both men.
And these are just the reality of the United States of empire. And that this is a war that has long been wanted by many in Washington, D.C. It predates concerns put forward since 1979 even. If you go back and look at say, the 1953 coup in Iran, so for decades, there has been a desire for control of the Middle East, of this region. But also, too as well, the understanding of the region as being crucial to the world order. And that’s why you see so many American commentators saying things that look like, “Well, this war,”—including people like Lindsey Graham—this war really isn’t about Iran, it’s really about China. And so when you see those types of statements, you hear that type of analysis or you hear those expressions, you can see how this is a larger imperial issue. And so for whatever motivating factors with Trump and Netanyahu or other figures, the reality is that this is an imperial war and the United States is carrying out a war as empires do, particularly when there’s a nation that’s standing up against them.

SCOTT HARRIS: Yes. And right now there are many military strategists who believe Iran has the upper hand in this war by effectively closing down the Strait of Hormuz, causing a spike in oil prices and disrupting supplies of energy worldwide while targeting U.S. allies across the Middle East, such as the oil-rich monarchies, making the U.S.-Israel war very costly for these nations who certainly are angry at Iran, but also angry at the United States and Israel for putting them in the crosshairs. What are your thoughts about this notion that Iran, despite overwhelming U.S. military superiority, has the upper hand in this conflict, at least so far?

MATTHEW HOH: I think so. And I think as time goes on, the war favors Iran. But we’ve seen that Iran prepared for this war. They resourced themselves. They had a strategic plan for the war based upon achieving their political objectives. And their political objectives for this war, their immediate political objectives are to establish or re-establish deterrence so that a war like this cannot happen in the future and that their sovereignty is protected.

And the way the Iranians calculate they can achieve that is by putting so much pressure causing so much stress, creating so much economic harm, not just in the region, but throughout the world. That that is the pressure that in the future would prevent the United States from carrying out a war like this again. Make this war so costly, not simply to the Americans and the Israelis, but to America’s allies throughout the region, as well as throughout the world—that in the coming years, the ability of the United States to do something like this, again, will be severely limited.

And essentially the way the Iranians have carried out the strategy to achieve that objective is, as you stated, by waging economic warfare; putting the world on the path to global recession; and quite possibly, if the worst outcomes as can be assessed in terms of the crippling of energy production in the Middle East occur—quite possibly a global depression. And likewise too, the other way they have carried out their strategy to achieve their objectives is by expanding the war throughout the region, so that this war is just not between three countries. It now involves, I think, 13 countries total—the number of countries have been hit by missiles and drones—

SCOTT HARRIS: Right.

MATTHEW HOH: So you see with the Iranians here, a very clear-eyed, rational, thought-out strategy to achieve, again—clear, understandable and attainable objectives. And then you contrast that to say the Americans in all this, where the goal simply is to assure American dominance. But how do you get to that? And you see really clearly a mismatch here that makes the assessment that the Iranians are, I hate using the term, “winning the war,” but that they certainly are in a position of strength in this war. The war over time favors them. And since—I would say—third or fourth day of the war, the Iranians have had the initiative.

SCOTT HARRIS: We’re speaking with Matthew Hoh this evening, associate director of the Eisenhower Media Network, a former Marine Corps captain, Iraq War combat veteran, an Afghan State Department officer who resigned in protest over U.S. war policy back in 2009.

Matthew, there are now some 50,000 U.S. troops in the Middle East with another 10,000 that, as of last week, were en route. The Trump White House has signaled they could be planning these troops to either try to reopen the Strait of Hormuz by occupying Kharg Island in the strait or recover a thousand pounds of uranium that could be buried under tons of rubble from the earlier U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. What’s your view of the likelihood that the U.S. will deploy ground troops in Iran and the cost of such a deployment?

MATTHEW HOH: Well, I think first, the unpopularity of it is very clear. I just saw, I think it was a Reuters poll that had about 7 percent of Americans supportive of a ground invasion of Iran. And as the person who was commenting on this poll said, that’s an even lower percentage of support than the U.S. Congress has. So if you’ve got something that has less support than the American Congress does these days, you know it’s incredibly unpopular.

And so to carry out such a thing will be very unwise and foolish. It’d be reckless, particularly as it seems as if the Iranians are expecting such a ground assault, some type of incursion, some type of occupation and very much hope that it will occur because it plays into their strategy.
Another aspect for the Iranians is in terms of making costs, costs measurable in the sense that they deter any future war—is this idea of imposing physical costs on the United States, bodily costs, casualties. And the Iranians have said this out loud before this war even started that they would expect or they would hope to kill at least 500 Americans. In their calculation that would be the number needed to make a war in the future by the U.S. politically impossible.
And so, I mean, the idea that such an assault will be playing into the Iranians’ hands or that you’d be doing what your enemy wants you to do, I mean, that’s something that I think most people understand why you shouldn’t carry such a thing out.
But I mean, in terms of what’s available in the region, the forces—50,000 American troops in the Middle East, almost all of them being what’s called combat service support—so logisticians, communication operators, radar technicians, pilots, truck drivers, things like that. Not actual war fighters. That 50,000 number is a fraction of the number that was in the region for the invasion of Iraq where I think more than 250,000 or close to 300,000 American service members were in the region in the lead up to the 2003 invasion.
So we just don’t see the forces available to carry out the type of large ground combat that I think many people have in mind. So then the other idea would be that these are small operations, raids and I think many people suspect that the idea would be that these would serve as photo ops, that essentially this allows the administration to try and gain some type of initiative here to try and get the headlines back in their favor. So the idea of putting American Marines or paratroopers or commandos someplace, have them raise the flag on some Iranian beach and some photos and videos are taken—and that’s used to demonstrate American success. That then of course could be the finale for this war. That might be the event that allows the administration to say, “Look, we’ve won and declare victory and go home.”
Of course, whether the Iranians would agree to that is a very big question.

But the other thing then too, there’s all kinds of speculation as to whether or not U.S. forces would try and seize oil facilities in attempt to get some type of leverage over Iran. The danger in that, of course, is now you’re taking even more oil off the world market. So Brent oil, which hit $112/barrel today, and the American benchmark West Texas intermediate hit, I think, 105 today. You’d be looking at then, say the American benchmark being at 120, 125 for oil and Brent being at 130. So I mean, the options really aren’t very good here for the Americans, but they have put themselves in a position where I think they feel they have to do something that will allow them to claim success to take the initiative in this, get the headlines back in their favor, as well as then of course, if they needed to provide for the finale or the event that allows them to declare victory.

SCOTT HARRIS: Yeah. I think, as you said, face-saving for what I think many have come to believe has been a disastrous war for all concerned, all the countries involved—face-saving might be the way that both sides have to figure out an exit strategy.

Matthew, I did want to ask you this. What’s been the response of NATO and other U.S. allies to the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran? I think Spain may be the only country that just very blatantly said, “This is a disaster. We want no part of it.” Some of the other NATO allies have hemmed and hawed and said, “Oh, you can use our military bases for some defensive actions.” I think Starmer in Great Britain is one of those.

But anyway, in terms of NATO and U.S. allies around the world who certainly do not favor this war, what’s the impact on the U.S. standing in the world with many believing this is severely eroding trust and respect for the United States all across the globe?

MATTHEW HOH: Well, I think it should be another lesson in putting much faith, putting much confidence, putting your own country’s well-being and future as a partner in the American empire. If the Europeans haven’t learned that in the last year, I’m not sure what it’s going to take for them to understand that, particularly with the Greenland episode and Donald Trump’s ambition to take Greenland and the fact that the Europeans actually started deploying military forces because they thought that such an act might occur.

And so in this case, Scott, what you’re seeing is you’re seeing the majority of NATO nations speaking out of both sides of their mouth, trying to not express enthusiasm or over or outright support for the invasion, couching it in language, as you said, the United Kingdom Prime Minister Kier Starmer saying that the United States can use its air bases for defensive missions. And those defensive missions are B1s and B52s going to fire missiles and drop bombs into residential areas of Iranian cities.
So I mean, there is a degree of deceit by the Europeans as well here in terms of what they’re actually supporting and what they’re kind of nodding and winking to or turning a blind eye to. And you’re correct. Spain is the only nation that has stood up to this. The only nation that has recognized the clear illegality of it. Spain’s announcement today regarding the closing its airspace to the U.S. for U.S. military operations made that clear, that Spain had an obligation not to allow these military operations, these military flights to travel through its airspace because this is an illegal war, because this is a violation of international law. And Spain has a duty to not take part as well as to not provide support.
And so I think as we’re dealing,. For me, Scott, this is an incredibly important war. I mean, of course, all wars are important, particularly for those who are involved. I mean, that goes to say, but I really do think that this war may be what historians will describe as a radically transformative war in the sense that this might be the war that is pointed to as the event that bridges the 20th century and the 21st century. Because I think what you’re seeing here is you’re seeing that the Americans—and by extension, those Europeans that are going along with the Americans because they don’t want to lose their position in the American empire, are trying to hold onto the 20th century. They’re trying to hold onto the American century, right? They’re trying to hold onto the American empire.
And what you see occurring with Iran—and I spoke before about their immediate political objectives, but they also have longer range of political objectives—is this understanding that that era is over, that we are now in the 21st century, that a multipolar world is not coming, a multipolar world is already here. And so I think there are those in Europe who understand it as well. They’re not in power, but they see their countries continuing to side with or go along with a dying empire.

And I mean, the dangers of that, of course, are certainly history of books are full of them. And so I think something that it’s interesting maybe to contrast then is to look at Mark Carney, the prime minister of Canada, the speech he made in the Davos World Summit a couple months ago where he spoke about the fiction of a rules-based international order and spoke about the chauvinism and the bias and the supremacy of the Western world and how it has treated the rest of the world, etc., etc. And his comments were lauded, but the Canadians were among the first to endorse this war in Iran.

But then you look at how Pedro Sanchez, the prime minister of Spain, is acting, how he’s carrying himself, how he’s leading his country. And Sanchez is doing, as Carney suggested, or as Carney spoke of at Davos a couple months ago. And so I think this idea of mid-sized countries like Spain, say, finding a new solution or a new way forward in this new emerging world order, I think will be something that comes out of this war as well.

SCOTT HARRIS: No, I think that’s a topic I’d like to talk more about in the future with you and others. And that is, the more independence—the European Union, a very powerful economic bloc as well as potentially a military bloc—they could have enormous positive influence on the world if they broke away from the belligerent U.S. foreign policy that we’ve seen run into disaster after disaster, certainly over the last 50 years. But I wanted to get to one final question with you, Matthew, and that is, are there any serious desirable exit strategies to this war? I know you outlined some of the face-saving things that Trump might want to do in terms of photo ops and U.S. flags on Kharg Island or whatever, but do you see anything maybe on the Iranian side or the U.S. side that might get us to conclude this war sooner?

MATTHEW HOH: No, unfortunately I don’t. I think with warfare, so often the cycle that it enters, the consequences that are created, the conditions that you now have to deal with are things that are unintended or not predicted or may have been predicted if you dedicate your homework, such as say, you now see pronouncements throughout Washington, D.C. and American major corporate media, that the objective of the United States is now to reopen the Strait of Hormuz. And the Strait of Hormuz was open before the war began.
And so you’ve got a war policy here by the United States that is having to create new objectives based upon the consequences of its actions. I mean, so unfortunately, I don’t see a mindset in Washington, D.C. that acknowledges the deepening quicksand that they are in. On the other hand, Scott, I will say that Donald Trump is incredibly fickle. He is willing to change his mind, and he’s not George W. Bush in that way. And so that there is a possibility of Donald Trump declaring victory and going home and just saying, “We’ve met all objectives.”

And that’s, I think too, a genius in not having any clear objectives is no one can hold you to anything, right?

So when we saw that today, Marco Rubio gave a long interview with Al Jazeera and he laid out his new four points and they are somewhat the same, but different than other times that they’ve issued what their objectives are. But one of the things I noticed today when the secretary of state spoke about what the objectives are, he didn’t bring up Iran’s nuclear program. And when he talked about Iran’s missile and drone program, he said that he didn’t say, “Destroy the program, he said ‘diminish.'” So I think there might be some indications that the administration wants to get out of this sooner rather than later, that they understand that this war lasting into the summer would be a political catastrophe for them.

But the reality is, Scott, is that as we spoke to before about the Iranian objectives, will the Iranians just accept a U.S. exit from the war or will they continue the war until they have achieved some type of determinative outcome?

That’s certainly what they have said is that this war will have a determinative outcome. And we’ve seen the Iranians over the last several years, in 2024 be willing to go through two rounds of conflict with Israel. In 2025, the 12-day War, of course, with Israel-United States, the patience that the Iranians displayed and the understanding of sticking to a plan and having some type of clear objectives.

And so I’m worried that if Donald Trump, even right now, say he’s typing up a Truth Social message or whatever it’s called, saying, “We’ve won, it’s over, we’re going home.” Will the Iranians accept that or will the Iranians continue the war until they reach some type of outcome where they feel that their objectives have been met?

SCOTT HARRIS: Right. Yeah. All that’s very important analysis of the key questions. And as you brought up earlier, Donald Trump is the arsonist and then Russia, as the firemen put out the fire he started, as you said. And we see that over and over and over again. Matthew, thank you so much for spending time with us tonight and leave our listeners with the website for the Eisenhower Media Network. And also you have a Substack page people should check out.

MATTHEW HOH: I do. I do. And you can just Google Eisenhower Media Network that’ll take you right to it. And then my Substack is, it’s Matthew Hoh Substack, Matthew Hoh, also Matthew P. Hoh, excuse me, “P” as in “Patrick” on Twitter. Yeah, you can find me there. I write daily commentaries on the war and on other issues regarding foreign affairs and military affairs.

SCOTT HARRIS: Well, much appreciation for your spending time talking about this horrible conflict and where it might go next. Thanks so much, Matthew. We’ll stay in touch, please.
MATTHEW HOH:  All right. Thanks, Scott.

SCOTT HARRIS: Take care. Goodnight.

MATTHEW HOH: Bye.

SCOTT HARRIS: That’s Matthew Hoh, associate director of the Eisenhower Media Network and a former Marine captain, Iraq War combat veteran and Afghan State Department officer who resigned in protest over U.S. war policy back in 2009. 

Subscribe to our Weekly Summary