How do you assess the current state of diplomacy between Iran and the United States?
Tehran is practically dictating terms to Washington, an extraordinary development given the U.S. domination of the shooting war. It confirms how, when it comes to enduring pain, a dictatorship can outlast a democracy.
How has the outcome of the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran reshaped the balance of power in the region?
Should the U.S.-Iranian deal be implemented – and there are serious reasons to doubt that it will – it leaves the Islamic Republic of Iran poorer but much stronger and with greater sources of income than before the war started. Again, assuming the deal holds, U.S. influence will undergo a severe diminishment, due both to Iranian power and backlash by American allies. Donald Trump's legacy will be that of overseeing the worst military outcome in American history.
How has the war affected the regional influence of the Turkey and China?
Four House Republicans broke with President Trump this week, joining Democrats to pass a resolution demanding an end to the war in Iran. It was a small number, but a meaningful one. And for Dr. Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum, it signals something larger.
Pipes joined guest host Sheila Gunn Reid on Thursday's edition of The Ezra Levant Show to walk through what the vote means for Trump, for the war, and for the broader Islamist movement watching from the sidelines.
"President Trump is losing his tight control over the House and Senate," Pipes said, noting that the vote reflects a growing sense among Americans that the war is not going well and that Congress needs a say in how it ends.
Under the War Powers Act, a president can engage in 60 days of hostilities without congressional approval — but not more. The House vote, Pipes argued, is the people's representatives drawing that line.
by Interviewer Tommaso Alessandro De Filippo • May 25, 2026 • Inoltre
Inoltre: The U.S.-Israeli attack Iran has led to a double blockade of the Straits of Hormuz. How do you see this test of endurance ending?
Daniel Pipes: I see it ending badly for the U.S.-Israeli side because the Islamic Republic of Iran can outlast the U.S. government. Several reasons explain this: (1) Dictatorships can impose hardships on their populations far more than can democracies. (2) This is an existential issue for Tehran, but not for Washington. (3) International pressure falls far more on Donald Trump than whoever is making decisions in Iran. If my analysis is correct, Trump will have to settle for an agreement very inferior to his initial aspiration of regime change and removal of fissionable materials.
Inoltre: Can U.S. objectives be achieved vis-à-vis Iran?
Il Riformista: Is Donald Trump willing to share with allies in the chain of command for operations and objectives as a price for them to join the war on the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Daniel Pipes: Trump sees his unpredictability as a tactical asset and to some extent it is (though he takes it to an extreme that ultimately harms American interests). I call this the "cowboy in the White House" phenomenon. Accordingly, no one can predict Trump, perhaps not even he himself. Turning to your question: Nothing in his mentality or his record suggests he sees allies, with the slight exception of Israel, as worthy of the power and privilege to influence his decisions.
IR: Might the damage suffered by neighbors of Iran from its attacks on them, from Pakistan to Türkiye and from Azerbaijan to Oman, push them to intervene in the conflict?
Each of the three central actors in the current conflict made a central mistake about its enemy. U.S. and Israeli leaders misunderstood key developments taking place in early January, while the Islamic Republic of Iran misjudged its neighbors.
These errors shaped the course of the war and will likely influence its outcome.
Going to war requires a government to have war goals, however murky and changeable. President Donald Trump wants a defanged Iran that cannot threaten U.S. interests. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants regime change. Iran's leaders want to remain in power and stay true to their foundational principles of anti-Americanism and anti-Zionism.
Il Riformista: Did Trump's decision to join Israel in attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran surprise you?
Daniel Pipes: Yes. Trump constantly surprises everyone, not just me. He despises intellectual frameworks, takes pride in making decisions on instinct, and always proclaims his actions an astounding success. No president has ever acted in this way, probably none other ever will again. In choosing him, conservatives opted for a wild ride. I sometimes imagine that we Americans live in medieval times, under a king who arbitrarily decides our fate.
IR: What are the main factors determining the war's result?
DP: Three topics, all concerning public responses – Iranian, American, and Arabian – are key to whether the war turns out as a victory or defeat for the Western allies.
Will the Iranian populace rise up to overthrow its oppressors? This ranks as the most crucial question of the entire conflict. From what we know, this was not dealt with in advance of the first attack on Feb. 28 but is a matter for "hope and prayer" for the U.S.-Israeli coalition.
War is unpredictable but one thing is certain about the U.S.-Israeli campaign against Iran: Donald Trump will declare victory.
He will do so even if the fighting leaves the Iranian regime in place, more embittered and aggressive than ever, even if it leaves many Iranians dead with nothing accomplished, even if it leaves Israel more vulnerable, even if it diminishes his party's electoral prospects, even if it delegitimates the future assertion of preemptive American force. He will do so because, by definition, he always wins.
But for those of us who are not Donald Trump, what lies ahead? Who will win – indeed, what does winning even mean?
For leaders of the 47-year-old Islamic Republic of Iran, mere survival amounts to victory. Once the U.S. president and the Israeli prime minister overtly called on Iranians to overthrow their tyrants, just withstanding an aerial assault and an insurrection by its own population allows the regime – even with Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i assassinated – plausibly to claim that outlasting all its enemies amounts to success. It also buys them future immunity from external attempts to impose regime change.
by Tommaso Alessandro De Filippo • February 25, 2026 • Linkiesta
Linkiesta: Do you see the very public differences between the U.S. and Israel governments vis-à-vis Iran as genuine, as deceptive, or as a mixture of the two?
Daniel Pipes: From the outside, I cannot assess what tricks these governments might play, but U.S.-Israeli differences are real. In brief, Donald Trump focuses on the nuclear issue while Benjamin Netanyahu worries about the Islamic Republic of Iran itself. The former seeks a deal; the latter seeks regime overthrow. This contrast mirrors many other issues where Trump seeks a limited modification (think Gaza, Ukraine, and Venezuela), while those with deep stakes seek fundamental change. Put differently, Trump's transactional outlook differs from anyone with a philosophical or ideological outlook.
Linkiesta: Moscow and Beijing have barely helped Tehran in its hour of need; might they be sacrificing Iran in exchange for U.S. concessions on Ukraine and Taiwan?
Do you have advice for European leaders? Daniel Pipes, founder of the Middle East Forum think tank, tells La Ragione, "Stay sober and serious, keep reminding Europeans and Americans of the principles that have shaped and sustained the Atlantic Alliance for eighty years."
A key figure of neoconservatism, he collaborated with the U.S. Department of State and then-President George W. Bush appointed him as member of the United States Institute of Peace. "Pick your battles wisely. Do not get provoked by Trump nor enter foolish arguments with him. Wait for this nasty, aberrant moment to reach its end in disrepute," he says referring to the current presidency.
Pipes hopes to reduce fears concerning Trump's actions that damage the American system and ties to historical allies. On the subject: "Donald Trump speaks with a carelessness perhaps unique among elected leaders, saying whatever comes to mind. Often, he does not follow through, leading to the much-bruited TACO meme ('Trump always chickens out')."
Il Tempo: How do you assess the current balance of power and strategic alignment in the Middle East?
Daniel Pipes: As has been the case since World War I, the region continues to go through rapid changes, probably the world's most rapid. Today, Türkiye and Israel have emerged as the dominant regional powers, with the United Arab Emirates strengthening impressively. In contrast, Iran has lost the most influence while former powers such as Egypt, Syria, and Iraq remain nearly inconsequential. Saudi Arabia should be important, given its population size, land area, and military spending, but ever remains more a potential power than an actual one.
Il Tempo: How does the rivalry between Türkiye and Israel shape the region's dynamics?
Continue Reading
